03-Oct-85  0354	OTA  	SPACE Digest V6 #0 
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 0

Today's Topics:
			 potential space product
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Monday, 30 Sep 1985 23:33:06-PDT
From: john%taveis.DEC@decwrl.ARPA
To: space@mc
Subject: potential space product


    I recently came across an old idea which might be a good candidate for
microgravity manufacture.  It's the Luneberg Lens, invented in the early
sixties by a Professor Luneberg of Berkeley.  He described it in a textbook
on mathematical optics, and it's also described (where I first read about it)
in "The Optics of Non-Imaging Concentrators" by Welford and Winston.  

    For a long time people have been trying to achieve a perfect optical
system, one free from any kind of aberration.  By using more lens and mirrors
and more complicated shapes, they've been able to do better and better, but
some kind of distortion is always there.  It seems, in fact, that a perfect
system cannot be achieved with a finite number of elements, although this has
not been proven.  However, James Clerk Maxwell (the
EE student's bane) came up with a solution in the 1850's, called the Fisheye
Lens.  Unfortunately, it needed a medium with a continuously variable index
of refraction (n), and both the object and image had to be immersed in the 
medium.

    Luneberg expanded on Maxwell's work.  He found a scheme where a perfect
image could be produced of an object at infinity, with both the image and
object in air (i.e. n=1).  His lens is a sphere with an index of refraction
that varies with the distance from the center of the sphere (r) as

n(r) = (2 - r^2 / a^2) ^1/2   r < 1
     = 1                      r > 1

where 'a' is a constant.  

   The varying index was thought to make the lens impractical.  However,
n can be changed by doping glass with various impurities, and in fact this
is done regularly in fiber optics.   How, though, can this be done for a
sphere instead of a fiber?

   By building it in weightlessness.  The sphere would float in the middle of a
vacuum chamber.  Glass would be deposited on it one layer at a time, with each
layer having the appropriate index.  The glass vapor would flow into the
chamber continuously, and its doping would vary continuously. The
weightlessness would give perfect spherical symmetry. Glass deposition is a
standard feature of semiconductor processes; equipment for it is readily
available.  Building up a sphere of any size, however, might take some time. 

   A perfect optical system, though!  That could be something big.  If anyone
out there is involved in either optics or space industry they might want to
check it out.

John Redford
DEC-Hudson

Fri 27-Sep-1985 20:35 

Sat 28-Sep-1985 10:35 

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

End of SPACE Digest V6 #0
*******************

03-Oct-85  0354	OTA  	SPACE Digest V6 #1 
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 1

Today's Topics:
			 DynaSoar flame: apology
				 Re: ASAT
				 Re: ASAT
			  Re: Weightless Ob/Gyn
				 Re: ASAT
			     Launch schedules
			     Flag on the moon
			      Re: ASAT test
			  Re: Weightless Ob/Gyn
				ASAT Test
			      Re: ASAT test
			 potential space product
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 28 Sep 85 22:20:27 GMT
From: allegra!princeton!astrovax!escher!doug@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU  (Douglas J Freyburger)
Organization: NASA/JPL, Pasadena, CA
Subject: DynaSoar flame: apology
Precedence: junk
Sender: usenet@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU
Errors-To: usenet@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU
To: space-network-source@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU

Last week I posted some legends and rumors about the
DynaSoar project (an early space shuttle planned in the
60s), and I terminated it with a paragraph about cancelling
the DynaSoar in favor of the single-shot rockets.  I was
rightly flamed on that.  I worded it very badly.
There was a trade-off decision to be made between the
single-shot rockets that could get us to the moon by 1969,
and the reuseable DynaSoar that could get us a space
station then, but probably not to the moon.  I agree with
the decision to go with the skyrockets, but I lament the
need to cut out the DynaSoar project.  In an ideal world,
funding would have been available for both.  We got our
spaceplane in the end anyways, so it worked out well.
-- 
Doug Freyburger		DOUG@JPL-VLSI, DOUG@JPL-ROBOTICS,
JPL M/S 23 		...escher!doug, escher!teleop!doug
Pasadena, CA 91109	doug@aerospace, etc.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are far too
ridiculous to be associated with my employer.
Some names used above are trademarks of some companies.
Net site JPL-ROBOTICS has its net link down lately.  No
mail gets though.

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

From: dual!lll-crg!seismo!cmcl2!lanl!crs@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU
Date: 27 Sep 85 14:16:22 GMT
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Subject: Re: ASAT
Precedence: junk
Sender: usenet@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU
Errors-To: usenet@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU
To: space-network-source@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU

> In article <1764@hao.UUCP> pete@hao.UUCP (Pete Reppert) writes:
> >Guess what? The "defunct military satellite" shot down
> >by ASAT as a test was really a functioning scientific
> >satellite called SOLWIND or something like that ( at least
> >that`s how the rumor goes ). Tsk tsk. 
> >-- 
> > Pete Reppert
> 
> No rumor.  Fact, actually.  From the Washington Post, as published in
> the (well, it's what I've got) San Francisco Chronicle, Fri, 20 Sept.,
> .
> .
> .
> 	Yesterday, an Air Force spokesman said the Pentagon was not
> 	ready to provide complete answeres to queries about Solwind's
> 	functions and choice as a target.  He said the satellite was
> 	originally intended to operate for three years at most after
		   ^^^^^^^^ ^^ ^^^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^ ####
> 	launching in 1979.
Seems that this is carrying *planned* obsolescence to the extreme!
-- 
All opinions are mine alone...
Charlie Sorsby
...!{cmcl2,ihnp4,...}!lanl!crs
crs@lanl.arpa

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

Date: 29 Sep 85 00:22:29 GMT
From: cbosgd!ukma!sean@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU  (Sean Casey)
Organization: The White Tower @ The Univ. of KY
Subject: Re: ASAT
Precedence: junk
Sender: usenet@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU
Errors-To: usenet@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU
To: space-network-source@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU

In article <595@petrus.UUCP> karn@petrus.UUCP (Phil R. Karn) writes:
>I'd like to suggest to the Pentagon that for their next ASAT test (I'm sure
>that they won't consider just one test to be sufficient) they use Ronald
>Reagan as their target. Clearly, HE has outlived HIS usefulness, and HE
>will likely "die of old age" pretty soon anyway. Further, his brain is
>already somewhere in outer space, so they'll save the launching costs
>(but they may have some trouble finding something that small and far away
>on radar).
>
>He's also so good at evading questions at press conferences that it should
>be an excellent test of the ASAT weapon's maneuvering capabilities.
Thank you for that intelligent discussion of Reagan's attributes.  Why don't
you send the Pentagon a letter discussing your plan that will no doubt be
of tremendous value to our strategic initiative.  It's good to see people
on the net present discussions based on careful thought and scientific
method.  Keep up the good work.
-- 
-  Sean Casey                           UUCP:   sean@ukma.UUCP   or
-  Department of Mathematics                    {cbosgd,anlams,hasmed}!ukma!sean
-  University of Kentucky               ARPA:   ukma!sean@ANL-MCS.ARPA

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

Date: 27 Sep 85 13:08:52 GMT
From: dual!lll-crg!seismo!rochester!nemo@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU  (Wolfe)
Organization: U. of Rochester, CS Dept.
Subject: Re: Weightless Ob/Gyn
Precedence: junk
Sender: usenet@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU
Errors-To: usenet@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU
To: space-network-source@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU

> ... weightless birth and menstuation work just fine -- 
> cetaceans have been doing it for millions of years.
1 - they are not in a weightless environment
2 - they are also in a solution, so whatever liquids released become
	part of that solution (in air, this would be comperable to a
	gas, which I presume they put up with and have mechanics to
	cope with)
3 - they also do lots of other stuff right where they are that would 
	be socially, hygenically and mechanically unacceptible in a
	space vehicle
4 - do they really have monthly (+/-) menstruation cycles, or is it more
	like once a year if they aren't pregnant and then they are likely
	to get knocked up?
-- 
Internet:	nemo@rochester.arpa
UUCP:		{decvax, allegra, seismo, cmcl2}!rochester!nemo
Phone:		[USA] (716) 275-5766 school 232-4690 home
USMail:		104 Tremont Circle; Rochester, NY  14608
School:		Department of Computer Science; University of Rochester;
		Rochester, NY  14627

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

Date: 29 Sep 85 19:59:57 GMT
From: hplabs!hao!hull@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU  (Howard Hull)
Organization: High Altitude Obs./NCAR, Boulder CO
Subject: Re: ASAT
Precedence: junk
Sender: usenet@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU
Errors-To: usenet@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU
To: space-network-source@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU

> > In article <1764@hao.UUCP> pete@hao.UUCP (Pete Reppert) writes:
> > >Guess what? The "defunct military satellite" shot down
> > >by ASAT as a test was really a functioning scientific
> > >satellite called SOLWIND or something like that ( at least
> > >that`s how the rumor goes ). Tsk tsk. 
> > >-- 
> > > Pete Reppert
> > 
> > No rumor.  Fact, actually.  From the Washington Post, as published in
> > the (well, it's what I've got) San Francisco Chronicle, Fri, 20 Sept.,
> > .
> > .
> > .
> > 	Yesterday, an Air Force spokesman said the Pentagon was not
> > 	ready to provide complete answeres to queries about Solwind's
> > 	functions and choice as a target.  He said the satellite was
> > 	originally intended to operate for three years at most after
> 		   ^^^^^^^^ ^^ ^^^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^ ####
> > 	launching in 1979.
> 
> Seems that this is carrying *planned* obsolescence to the extreme!
> -- 
> Charlie Sorsby
No no no! Youse guys don' git it.  Youse wan' da Congres' t' be responsible,
don' ya?  Well, dey is.  Dey alocates a certin amoun' a money fer da program,
an' dat translates inta a certin 'mount of time ta git an' figger oud da data.
Aftr dat, youse guys eidher gotten yer money's wurth or ya didn'.  Dey don'
wan' spend no mo, so dey go boom boom!  Kill two birds 'w one smart rock, eh?
							Gras	Bartholomew.
Aaactuallly, there were numerous gross errors in the Wash Post article.
Whereas it is likely that our director here, Dr. R.M. Macqueen, did speak many
or all of the *words* retained in quotes in the article, the sentences bear
no resemblance to anything he said.  All ye be forewarned; telephone interviews
with the rapacious press are extremely hazardous.  You can ask that they send
you copy for review before they publish, but be assured, they will not comply.
A few for instances:
	"MacQueen, whose organization designed Solar Max
				      ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^
HAO did not design Solar Max.  HAO designed the solar coronagraph instrument
that is one of (I think, seven) the instruments on board the spacecraft.  HAO
did not build *any* part of the spacecraft.  The coronagraph was built by the
Ball Aero-Space Division (here in Boulder).  The SMM core was designed by NASA
and is maintained, operationally speaking, by the Modular Mission Spacecraft
group at the Goddard Space Flight Center, Beltsville, MD.  And when I say
maintained, I mean MAINTAINED!  (The craft was repaired by the Space Shuttle
crew (STS 41C) over a year ago in April).
	                                                 and runs it for
	the Air Force,
Wrong again.  The SOLWIND satellite was Air Force Property, as are the many
many teeny weeny little pieces of it now running around in LEO along with
whatever junk the Ruskies made testing *their* ASAT system (anyone want
to speculate on how big the biggest remaining chunks might be, and how long
it will take for it all to come down?).  The NRL experiment was a "piggyback"
instrument on board the satellite.  Under the circumstances, the NRL folks
can be assumed to be "muzzled" for reasons relating to the National Defense.
	said the "continuous observations" of the
	Solwind satellite, stretching from a period of maximum solar
	activity in 1980 through minial activity recently, were "very
	valuable".
True.  The observations can be considered to be part of a general data set
which will allow cross calibration of other instruments.  Data sets that span
a long period of time while taken with a consistent data handling algorithm
do not suffer badly from temporal aliasing.
In spite of the indignation suffered, MacQueen's interview does accomplish one
worthy purpose.  Everyone in the world who ever doubted it now knows the USA
can cream a satellite in orbit as opposed to a cooperative balloon [launched?]
target system with problems in its telemetry packages.
Now for a little humor.  Since we here at NCAR are being eyed as a qualified
candidate for budget hacks to do something about the National Deficit, we are
told that we should be more innovative and try to align our activities with
current National Priorities.  It has been suggested by one our members that
we change the design of some of our upcoming instruments for NASA platforms
(i.e. Spartan 201) to have a dual function.  They will, as usual, gather data
concerning solar atmospheric physics; they will, in addition, have special
systems added including decoy, evasive maneuvering, backscatter countermeasure,
and solar wind focusing apparatus to "perturb" the test ASATs in an appropriate
fashion.  :-)
								     Howard Hull
[If yet unproven concepts are outlawed in the range of discussion...
                   ...Then only the deranged will discuss yet unproven concepts]
        {ucbvax!hplabs | allegra!nbires | harpo!seismo } !hao!hull

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

Date: 30 Sep 85 22:49:51 GMT
From: ihnp4!iwu1a!micro@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU  (Hauck)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Subject: Launch schedules
Precedence: junk
Sender: usenet@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU
Errors-To: usenet@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU
To: space-network-source@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU

Does some one have a schedule of any satelites launches in January?
Or if a shuttle is scheduled to go up then?  My husband and I are
planning a trip to Flordia in January and my husband would love to
see either one, just a space launch.
Thanks in advance,
Mary Hauck

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

Date: Wed, 2 Oct 85 02:50:09 PDT
From: usenet@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU (USENET News Administration)

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

Date: 2 Oct 85 14:12:26 GMT
From: decwrl!fisher@dvinci.DEC@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU  (Burns Fisher, MRO3-1/E13, DTN 231-4108.)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Subject: Flag on the moon
Precedence: junk
Sender: usenet@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU
Errors-To: usenet@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU
To: space-network-source@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU

>(approximate)
>Buzz had better go up and straighten up the flag...it can't be on the ground
I believe that protocol says that flags which have touched the ground must
be burned.  Let's try that one on the moon!
Burns
	UUCP:	... {decvax|allegra|ucbvax}!decwrl!rhea!dvinci!fisher
	ARPA:	fisher%dvinci.dec@decwrl.ARPA

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

Date: 1 Oct 85 18:22:52 GMT
From: cbosgd!ukma!sean@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU  (Sean Casey)
Organization: The White Tower @ The Univ. of KY
Subject: Re: ASAT test
Precedence: junk
Sender: usenet@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU
Errors-To: usenet@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU
To: space-network-source@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU

I am completely for the ASAT tests.  Anything that can shoot down nuclear
missiles before they can kill millions of people is OK by me.  Even if they
only stop 10%, that's more people that will live.
I am surprised that so many people see the ASAT program as evil.  We are
talking about a defensive weapon here.  Why don't you anti-ASAT people
go campaign against machine guns.  They have killed more people than an
ASAT ever will.
Sean
-- 
-  Sean Casey                           UUCP:   sean@ukma.UUCP   or
-  Department of Mathematics                    {cbosgd,anlams,hasmed}!ukma!sean
-  University of Kentucky               ARPA:   ukma!sean@ANL-MCS.ARPA

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

From: decvax!cca!inmet!janw@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU
Date: 30 Sep 85 17:32:00 GMT
Subject: Re: Weightless Ob/Gyn
Precedence: junk
Sender: usenet@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU
Errors-To: usenet@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU
To: space-network-source@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU

I thought only apes and people menstruate ?

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

Date: 2 Oct 85 14:10:52 GMT
From: decwrl!fisher@dvinci.DEC@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU  (Burns Fisher, MRO3-1/E13, DTN 231-4108.)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Subject: ASAT Test
Precedence: junk
Sender: usenet@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU
Errors-To: usenet@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU
To: space-network-source@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU

>(Approximate)
>The Soviets DO have an ASAT...
>Why not complain about THEIR space junk
Since when do two wrongs make a right?  Since we depend far more heavily on
military satellites than they do, how will our having an ASAT offset the fact
that they have one?
Burns
	UUCP:	... {decvax|allegra|ucbvax}!decwrl!rhea!dvinci!fisher
	ARPA:	fisher%dvinci.dec@decwrl.ARPA

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

Date: 2 Oct 85 16:47:41 GMT
From: bellcore!petrus!karn@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU  (Phil R. Karn)
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Inc
Subject: Re: ASAT test
Precedence: junk
Sender: usenet@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU
Errors-To: usenet@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU
To: space-network-source@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU

> I am completely for the ASAT tests.  Anything that can shoot down nuclear
> missiles before they can kill millions of people is OK by me.  Even if they
> only stop 10%, that's more people that will live.
You are making a common mistake, that of confusing anti-satellite weapons
("ASATs") with the Strategic Defense Initiative ("SDI" or "Star Wars"), a
so-called "research program" to develop ways to shoot down nuclear missiles.
While some elements of the technology are the same, the first task is far
easier than the second.
> I am surprised that so many people see the ASAT program as evil.  We are
> talking about a defensive weapon here.  Why don't you anti-ASAT people
> go campaign against machine guns.  They have killed more people than an
> ASAT ever will.
Until now, military satellites have been one of the VERY few technological
innovations that have contributed to (instead of undermining) stability.
They are the "eyes and ears" of each country's military staff. By providing
the means to see what the other side is up to, satellites decrease the
chances of being taken completely by surprise. By relaying communications to
their nuclear forces, they improve the credibility of the "deterrent".
Threatening these satellites can only aggravate an already dangerous
situation. How would you respond if an important "spy" satellite suddenly
stopped transmitting? Assume a technical failure? Assume the worst, namely
that an attack is imminent? Blinding somebody who has a shotgun aimed at you
is not a wise move, nor is stocking up on acid in preparation for such a
move.
The other reason why the ASAT test is such a bad decision is because neither
side currently has the ability to attack satellites much above a few
thousand kilometers. Our most important early-warning and communications
satellites are generally in geostationary orbits, and were safe as long as
the Soviet moratorium held. Now that Reagan has broken the moratorium, I
fully expect a free-for-all to ensue in which ASATs capable of destroying
satellites even in GEO to be developed.  The result could be a disaster.
Again, I'd like to strongly recommend the article on Antisatellite Weapons
in the June 1984 issue of Scientific American. These points and many others
are discussed in excellent detail.
Phil

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

From: ucdavis!lll-crg!mordor!@s1-a.arpa,
        @mit-mc.arpa:john%taveis.DEC@decwrl.ARPA@ucb-vax.BERKELEY
Date: 1 Oct 85 06:36:30 GMT
Organization: S-1 Project, LLNL
Subject: potential space product
Precedence: junk
Sender: usenet@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU
Errors-To: usenet@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU
To: space-network-source@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU

From: john%taveis.DEC@decwrl.arpa
    I recently came across an old idea which might be a good candidate for
microgravity manufacture.  It's the Luneberg Lens, invented in the early
sixties by a Professor Luneberg of Berkeley.  He described it in a textbook
on mathematical optics, and it's also described (where I first read about it)
in "The Optics of Non-Imaging Concentrators" by Welford and Winston.  
    For a long time people have been trying to achieve a perfect optical
system, one free from any kind of aberration.  By using more lens and mirrors
and more complicated shapes, they've been able to do better and better, but
some kind of distortion is always there.  It seems, in fact, that a perfect
system cannot be achieved with a finite number of elements, although this has
not been proven.  However, James Clerk Maxwell (the
EE student's bane) came up with a solution in the 1850's, called the Fisheye
Lens.  Unfortunately, it needed a medium with a continuously variable index
of refraction (n), and both the object and image had to be immersed in the 
medium.
    Luneberg expanded on Maxwell's work.  He found a scheme where a perfect
image could be produced of an object at infinity, with both the image and
object in air (i.e. n=1).  His lens is a sphere with an index of refraction
that varies with the distance from the center of the sphere (r) as
n(r) = (2 - r^2 / a^2) ^1/2   r < 1
     = 1                      r > 1
where 'a' is a constant.  
   The varying index was thought to make the lens impractical.  However,
n can be changed by doping glass with various impurities, and in fact this
is done regularly in fiber optics.   How, though, can this be done for a
sphere instead of a fiber?
   By building it in weightlessness.  The sphere would float in the middle of a
vacuum chamber.  Glass would be deposited on it one layer at a time, with each
layer having the appropriate index.  The glass vapor would flow into the
chamber continuously, and its doping would vary continuously. The
weightlessness would give perfect spherical symmetry. Glass deposition is a
standard feature of semiconductor processes; equipment for it is readily
available.  Building up a sphere of any size, however, might take some time. 
   A perfect optical system, though!  That could be something big.  If anyone
out there is involved in either optics or space industry they might want to
check it out.
John Redford
DEC-Hudson
Fri 27-Sep-1985 20:35 
Sat 28-Sep-1985 10:35 

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

End of SPACE Digest V6 #1
*******************

04-Oct-85  0348	OTA  	SPACE Digest V6 #2 
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 2

Today's Topics:
			      Re: ASAT test
		   Re: Debris from Upcomming ASAT Test
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 1 Oct 85 01:15:20 GMT
From: dual!ames!al@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU  (Al Globus)
Organization: NASA-Ames Research Center, Mtn. View, CA
Subject: Re: ASAT test
Precedence: junk
Sender: usenet@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU
Errors-To: usenet@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU
To: space-network-source@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU

> I read on the AP wire yesterday that the SOLWIND (P78-1) satellite, target of
> last week's ASAT test, was transmitting useful scientific information right
> up to the time of impact.
> 
Not only that, accoring to Aviation Leak and Space Technology, some of
the mission scientists were pretty upset about destroying the satellite.
Furthermore, the same issue said that DOD plans to scrap the ASAT program
after a few tests to save money.

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

Date: 1 Oct 85 01:24:11 GMT
From: dual!ames!al@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU  (Al Globus)
Organization: NASA-Ames Research Center, Mtn. View, CA
Subject: Re: Debris from Upcomming ASAT Test
Precedence: junk
Sender: usenet@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU
Errors-To: usenet@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU
To: space-network-source@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU

> 
> Once again we hear from the spaceniks who bemoan our ASAT tests.
> They cry, "Oh, look at the Soviets, they have offered to stop
> all testing if only we would do the same."  Well, of course they
> have made this offer, and so would we if we were in their shoes.
> What everyone seems to conveniently ignore is the fact that the
> Soviets already HAVE a working ASAT.  
Our ASAT will not stop theirs.  Flying lots of spy satellites will
effectively nullify its effect though.
> Where were all
> these voices of denunciation when the USSR had their tests?  Once
> our tests are complete, then we can talk test ban - but not before.
The net did not exist at that time and I was more concerned with Rock
and Roll than spacecraft.  However, Soviet ASAT tests are responsible
for a large portion of current space debre and I'm not happy about
that at all.
> 
> As far as the debris issue is concerned, why not condemn the Soviets
> for their use of nuclear power plants in their spacecraft.  Talk about
> hot debris.
Consider them condemed.
If it makes you happy, I recently wrote Gorbachev (he's not on the net)
and complained about a few things in true net fashion.

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

End of SPACE Digest V6 #2
*******************

05-Oct-85  0348	OTA  	SPACE Digest V6 #3 
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 3

Today's Topics:
		       Re: potential space product
		   Re: target of September's ASAT test
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!teddy!rdp@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU
Date: 3 Oct 85 19:58:32 GMT
Organization: GenRad, Inc., Concord, Mass.
Subject: Re: potential space product
Precedence: junk
Sender: usenet@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU
Errors-To: usenet@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU
To: space-network-source@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU

In article <3725@mordor.UUCP> @S1-A.ARPA,@MIT-MC.ARPA:john%taveis.DEC@decwrl.ARPA writes:
>
>    Luneberg expanded on Maxwell's work.  He found a scheme where a perfect
>image could be produced of an object at infinity, with both the image and
>object in air (i.e. n=1).  His lens is a sphere with an index of refraction
>that varies with the distance from the center of the sphere (r) as
>
>n(r) = (2 - r^2 / a^2) ^1/2   r < 1
>     = 1                      r > 1
>
>where 'a' is a constant.  
>
>   The varying index was thought to make the lens impractical.  However,
>n can be changed by doping glass with various impurities, and in fact this
>is done regularly in fiber optics.   How, though, can this be done for a
>sphere instead of a fiber?
>
>   By building it in weightlessness.  The sphere would float in the middle of a
>vacuum chamber.  Glass would be deposited on it one layer at a time, with each
>layer having the appropriate index.  The glass vapor would flow into the
>chamber continuously, and its doping would vary continuously. The
>weightlessness would give perfect spherical symmetry. Glass deposition is a
>standard feature of semiconductor processes; equipment for it is readily
>available.  Building up a sphere of any size, however, might take some time. 
>
Several optical manufacturers have been doing research along these lines,
with names like Canon and Nikon coming to mind. In fact, variable refractive
index lenses have been done for some time, under normal, gravity-laden
conditions. The technique involves taking a lens blank and "cooking" it
in a silver-salt (silver halide) soup for some time. Appropriate ions
diffuse into the glass from the surfaces at a rate determined by, among
other things, concentration, glass characteristics, temperature, surface
area, and so forth. The technique has been suffiently perfected to make it
commercially (albeit expensively) feasable, although I am not specifically
aware of actual products that utilize this technique.
I myself developed a simple technique for lower the diffraction of so-called
"difraction limited" optics, thus raising the resolving power, but I will not
digress because a) this is probably the wrong news group, b) It might be
something really neat, and patentable (but I don't think so), and c) I don't
feel like it right now :-).
Dick Pierce

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

Date: 5 Oct 85 02:13:35 GMT
From: ucsfcgl!arnold@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU  (Ken Arnold%CGL)
Organization: UCSF Computer Graphics Lab
Subject: Re: target of September's ASAT test
Precedence: junk
Sender: usenet@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU
Errors-To: usenet@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU
To: space-network-source@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU

In article <121@bambi.UUCP> mike@bambi.UUCP (Michael Caplinger) writes:
>In all fairness, the target of the September ASAT test, P78-1, was
>an Air Force-launched, DARPA-funded satellite with a number of
>armed forces experiments on board, and I would have to say that
>the government had a perfect right to shoot it down, if you
>believe that the government owns the things it funds.  Any argument
>against the choice of target would have to hinge on whether it
>was in the public interest to destroy this particular satellite.
Well, I've worked for DARPA-funded projects myself, and I think that,
had some military people walked in one day and blown up my VAX, I think
I would have complained.  I also think I would have gotten a good deal
of sympathy.  After all, they funded the thing, but I was using it, it
was being useful to me in my research, and they could surely have used
something else for target practice.
What they own and what they have an ethical right to destroy are two
different things.  I believe they have no ethical right to use an
operating, useful scientific experiment as a test target.  That they
own it is probable, but that that means they can destroy it on a whim
is not at all obvious.  Ownership of property does not give you the
right to use it as a detriment to society.
Is it in the public interest to destroy a working scientific experiment
providing data about solar activity, or is it not?  Do I really have to
answer something that obvious?  Of course it isn't.  Was it necessary?
No it wasn't.  Leaving aside arguments about whether ASAT is in the
public interest in the first place, if it was worth the money to put it
up, it certainly was worth the nearly nothing it cost to keep it up.

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

End of SPACE Digest V6 #3
*******************

06-Oct-85  0353	OTA  	SPACE Digest V6 #4 
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 4

Today's Topics:
			      Re: ASAT test
		 Re: Re: Debris from Upcomming ASAT Test
			      Re: ASAT test
		 Re: Re: Debris from Upcomming ASAT Test
			 Space Flight Anniversary
		 Re: Re: Debris from Upcomming ASAT Test
		   Re: target of September's ASAT test
			      Re: ASAT Test
			      Re: ASAT test
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 4 Oct 85 21:32:22 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!seismo!caip!topaz!josh@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU  (J Storrs Hall)
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Subject: Re: ASAT test
Precedence: junk
Sender: usenet@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU
Errors-To: usenet@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU
To: space-network-source@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU

I decry the politicization of this list.
--JoSH

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

Date: 4 Oct 85 14:47:05 GMT
From: pur-ee!ecn-pc!wdm@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU  (William D Michael)
Organization: Electrical Engineering Department , Purdue University
Subject: Re: Re: Debris from Upcomming ASAT Test
Precedence: junk
Sender: usenet@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU
Errors-To: usenet@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU
To: space-network-source@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU

In article <634@osu-eddie.UUCP> julian@osu-eddie.UUCP (Julian Gomez) writes:
>
> > > ...
> > > As far as the debris issue is concerned, why not condemn the Soviets
> > > for their use of nuclear power plants in their spacecraft.  Talk about
> > > hot debris.
>Another case of OK for us, not OK for them? The USA uses nuclear power
>plants. Take a look at the Voyager and Pioneer spacecraft.  But those
>are deep space vehicles! you say?  Until they get into deep space they
>can still fall.  That's even more of a problem in these days of shuttle
>launch rather than booster launch.
    Do you really not see the difference between a spacecraft that is intended
    for permanent earth orbit and one that simply needs to be spun up to reach 
    escape velocity?  Of course it is true that while one of the deep-space
    probes is in orbit it could fail.  A booster can also fail on the ground
    endangering thousands, it is all a question of risk.  Putting hot space-
    craft in permanent (or not so permanent, if you ask the Canadians) orbit
    is a huge risk compared to the American policy of just using that kind
    of power in deep-space probes.

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

Date: 4 Oct 85 16:03:18 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!harvard!gcc-bill!john@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU  (John Allred)
Organization: General Computer Company, Cambridge Ma (Home of the HyperDrive)
Subject: Re: ASAT test
Precedence: junk
Sender: usenet@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU
Errors-To: usenet@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU
To: space-network-source@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU

In article <2258@ukma.UUCP> sean@ukma.UUCP (Sean Casey) writes:
>
>I am completely for the ASAT tests.  Anything that can shoot down nuclear
>missiles before they can kill millions of people is OK by me.  Even if they
>only stop 10%, that's more people that will live.
>
>I am surprised that so many people see the ASAT program as evil.  We are
>talking about a defensive weapon here.  Why don't you anti-ASAT people
>go campaign against machine guns.  They have killed more people than an
>ASAT ever will.
>
>-  Sean Casey                           UUCP:   sean@ukma.UUCP   or
>-  Department of Mathematics                    {cbosgd,anlams,hasmed}!ukma!sean
>-  University of Kentucky               ARPA:   ukma!sean@ANL-MCS.ARPA
Sorry, Sean, but you're confusing ASAT with SDI.  ASAT only kills satellites,
and not ballistic missiles.
As for your comment about stopping 10% of the warheads:  well, if those war-
heads were going toward our Minuteman silos, yes, SDI enhances the silo's
survivability.  On the other hand, if those warheads are going toward a city, 
it is not clear if significantly more people will survive.  In general, one
warhead leaking through SDI to hit a city is unacceptable, in my judgement.
-- 
John Allred
General Computer Company 
uucp: seismo!harvard!gcc-bill!john

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

Date: 3 Oct 85 17:53:48 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!harvard!bbnccv!bbncca!linus!utzoo!henry@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU  (Henry Spencer)
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Subject: Re: Re: Debris from Upcomming ASAT Test
Precedence: junk
Sender: usenet@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU
Errors-To: usenet@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU
To: space-network-source@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU

> [...supposed dangers of launch accidents with nuclear-powered satellites...]
> ...  That's even more of a problem in these days of shuttle
> launch rather than booster launch.
How so?  The shuttle is expected to land safely after most kinds of launch
failures, which is a major improvement on going into the ocean in pieces.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

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

Date: 4 Oct 85 20:03:41 GMT
From: ihnp4!riccb!rjnoe@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU  (Roger J. Noe)
Organization: Rockwell International - Downers Grove, IL
Subject: Space Flight Anniversary
Precedence: junk
Sender: usenet@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU
Errors-To: usenet@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU
To: space-network-source@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU

For those of you who have been too busy arguing ASATs, I thought you might
like to be reminded that today (Oct. 4, 1985) is the twenty-eighth anniversary
of the launching of the first orbiting artificial satellite, Sputnik I.  This
really helps put into perspective the rapid advance of technology in space
exploration.  Many (most??) of the people reading this newsgroup weren't even
born then, myself included.  It's funny, there are a pretty good number of
relevant anniversaries in the month of October.  The first of this month was
the 27th anniversary of the inauguration of NASA (out of the old NACA),
yesterday was the 43rd anniversary of the first (successful) A-4 launch,
tomorrow will be 103 years after Robert Goddard's birth, and the 14th will
mark 38 years since the first human being flew faster than the speed of sound.
Somewhat more recently, the 22nd will be ten years since the first photos from
the surface of Venus were received.  It's really quite amazing, isn't it?
--
Roger Noe			ihnp4!riccb!rjnoe

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

Date: 3 Oct 85 17:46:40 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!harvard!bbnccv!bbncca!linus!utzoo!henry@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU  (Henry Spencer)
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Subject: Re: Re: Debris from Upcomming ASAT Test
Precedence: junk
Sender: usenet@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU
Errors-To: usenet@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU
To: space-network-source@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU

> ... The USA uses nuclear power
> plants. Take a look at the Voyager and Pioneer spacecraft.  But those
> are deep space vehicles! you say?  Until they get into deep space they
> can still fall.  That's even more of a problem in these days of shuttle
> launch rather than booster launch.
We're talking about two very different kinds of nuclear power source here.
The Soviet radar satellites use nuclear reactors, and rely on being boosted
into high orbit to avoid destructive re-entry and radioactive debris.  The
US probes use the heat from encapsulated radioactive isotopes.  The capsules
of isotope are designed to survive re-entry without breaking up; several of
them have re-entered without grave effects.  The two technologies have very
different characteristics and have to be dealt with separately.
Note that even the Soviet reactors have no serious launch-safety problem,
because the reactor doesn't fire up until it reaches orbit.  The materials
that are in the reactor to start with are not seriously dangerous; the nasty
stuff is the result of lengthy reactor operation.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

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

Date: 4 Oct 85 23:11:27 GMT
From: cbosgd!osu-eddie!julian@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU  (Julian Gomez)
Organization: Ohio State Univ., CIS Dept., Cols, Oh.
Subject: Re: target of September's ASAT test
Precedence: junk
Sender: usenet@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU
Errors-To: usenet@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU
To: space-network-source@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU

> In all fairness, the target of the September ASAT test, P78-1, was
> an Air Force-launched, DARPA-funded satellite with a number of
> armed forces experiments on board, and I would have to say that
> the government had a perfect right to shoot it down, if you
> believe that the government owns the things it funds.  Any argument
> against the choice of target would have to hinge on whether it
> was in the public interest to destroy this particular satellite.
>... 
They own the Denver Mint and the Federal Building here in Columbus,
so they can shoot those down if they feel like it?  Come to think of
it, that might be in the public interest {:-)
-- 
"If Chaos himself sat umpire, what better could he do?"
	Julian "a tribble took it" Gomez
	Computer Graphics Research Group, The Ohio State University
	{ucbvax,decvax}!cbosg!osu-eddie!julian

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

Date: 5 Oct 85 13:15:01 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!harvard!gcc-bill!john@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU  (John Allred)
Organization: General Computer Company, Cambridge Ma (Home of the HyperDrive)
Subject: Re: ASAT Test
Precedence: junk
Sender: usenet@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU
Errors-To: usenet@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU
To: space-network-source@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU

In article <649@decwrl.UUCP> fisher@dvinci.DEC (Burns Fisher, MRO3-1/E13, DTN 231-4108.) writes:
>
>Since when do two wrongs make a right?  Since we depend far more heavily on
>military satellites than they do, how will our having an ASAT offset the fact
>that they have one?
>
>Burns
>
Is it acceptable for the Soviets to have the capability to kill our birds, 
while we do not?  I don't think so.
The so-called "ban on space weapon testing" the Soviets put in place is a 
crock:  they've had years to test their own weapon.  If they could stifle 
development of our ASAT, they win big.
-- 
John Allred
General Computer Company 
uucp: seismo!harvard!gcc-bill!john

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

Date: 5 Oct 85 13:06:33 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!harvard!gcc-bill!john@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU  (John Allred)
Organization: General Computer Company, Cambridge Ma (Home of the HyperDrive)
Subject: Re: ASAT test
Precedence: junk
Sender: usenet@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU
Errors-To: usenet@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU
To: space-network-source@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU

In article <1296@poseidon.UUCP> brent@poseidon.UUCP (Brent P. Callaghan) writes:
>
>A 50% reduction in nuclear arsenals is a far more attractive
>alternative to wasting a trillion dollars on Star Wars.
>What's more, it is verifyable.  How will we ever be sure of
>Made in New Zealand -->		Brent Callaghan
>				AT&T Information Systems, Lincroft, NJ
>				{ihnp4|mtuxo|pegasus}!poseidon!brent
>				(201) 576-3475
I don't think it is verifiable.  I can name two things that defy counting: our
cruise missiles, and their reloadable silos (while you can count the holes, you
*don't* know how many missiles are associated with each one.)
-- 
John Allred
General Computer Company 
uucp: seismo!harvard!gcc-bill!john

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

End of SPACE Digest V6 #4
*******************

07-Oct-85  0351	OTA  	SPACE Digest V6 #5 
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 5

Today's Topics:
			 Re: US flags on the Moon
			       Exploration
		       Re: potential space product
		 Re: Re: Debris from Upcomming ASAT Test
		 Re: Re: ASAT Debris (and wiping out GEO)
			      Re: ASAT test
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 1 Oct 85 18:50:00 GMT
From: sdcsvax!bmcg!bobn@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU  (Bob Nebert)
Organization: Burroughs Corp. ASG, San Diego, CA.
Subject: Re: US flags on the Moon
Precedence: junk
Sender: usenet@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU
Errors-To: usenet@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU
To: space-network-source@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU

> 
> >Well, Buzz had better get back up there and put that flag right.
> >After all, you're not supposed to let the flag touch the ground.
> 
> Does the Pentagon consider anything besides terra firma as being "ground"?
> :-}
The firma the betta                            

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

Date:  6 Oct 1985 10:10-EDT 
From: Hans.Moravec@ROVER.RI.CMU.EDU
To: space@s1-a
Subject: Exploration


a295  2017  05 Oct 85
BC-APN--Exploring Universe, adv20-2 Takes,1206
$adv 20
AGENCIES AND RADIO OUT
For release Sun., Oct. 20
>From AP Newsfeatures
APN PRINT SUBSCRIBERS HAVE BEEN MAILED ONE PHOTO
    
    EDITOR'S NOTE - The United States led the way in space exploration
for two decades before Washington started cutting back NASA's funds
in the late 1970s. The nation seemed ready to relinquish its
leadership in space to the Soviet Union and two emerging space
powers, Japan and the 10-nation European Space Agency. But then
President Reagan discovered space, and became a fan.
    
By HOWARD BENEDICT
AP Aerospace Writer
    CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) - An international armada of unmanned
spaceships is streaking toward a rendezvous with Halley's comet over
seven days next March. Two are Soviet, two are Japanese, one is
European.
    None is American.
    The United States, the world's leading space-faring nation, will be
on the sidelines for the most examined, most studied and most
photographed celestial event in history as the celebrated comet makes
an appearance near the sun, something it does only once every 76
years.
    True, the United States will view the comet from afar with
instruments aboard two space shuttle missions, on Earth-orbiting
satellites, and on a seven-year-old spacecraft that is orbiting
Venus. And American scientists are directing an International Halley
Watch, which will help coordinate the flights and findings of the
five spacecraft. But it's not the same as having a ringside seat.
    America is not going to Halley's comet because the Carter
administration cut funds for such a project in 1979 and the Reagan
administration did the same two years later.
    That was a period of sinking budgets for the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration. And most of the funds NASA got went into
shoring up the lagging space shuttle program.
    Science was the loser. And after two decades in which the United
States led the way in probing the planets, the stars and distant
galaxies, this nation seemed ready to relinquish that leadership to
the Soviets and two emerging space powers, Japan and the 10-nation
European Space Agency.
    But then President Reagan discovered space, and became a fan. NASA's
budgets improved, boosting space science, and in 1984 the president
directed the agency to develop a permanent manned space station
within a decade. Among its functions, the station will serve as an
orbiting science laboratory.
    Reagan said the station would enable the United States to maintain
its space leadership. But the Soviets also are developing a permanent
manned station, and should have it in orbit several years before the
American facility. And they are pursuing an aggressive space program,
even though their technology trails that of the Americans.
    Soviet planetary exploration has been limited by technology to the
close-in planets Venus and Mars, while U.S. spacecraft have probed
Venus, Mars, Mercury, Jupiter and Saturn. Voyager 2, which
reconnoitered Jupiter in 1979 and Saturn in 1981, will rendezvous
with Uranus next January and with Neptune in 1989, leaving faraway
Pluto as the only uncharted planet.
    The American advantage is the use of miniature components,
high-powered upper-stage rockets, and nuclear generators to power the
probes.
    Steered by tiny gas jets, these robot spacecraft with names like
Mariner, Pioneer, Viking, Voyager, Venera and Mars have traveled to
exotic landscapes stranger than any myth or legend. At their
destinations, some skimmed close, snapping pictures and gathering a
few days of data before soaring toward another planet or into
interstellar space. Some orbited their targets to examine them at
length, and some descended to the surface to study mysteries there.
    Humans as a result have caught their first close views of the great
storm systems and rings of Jupiter; the active volcanoes on its
salt-covered moon, Io; the parched and cratered wasteland of Mercury;
ancient river bottoms, raging winds and a volcano almost 80,000 feet
high on Mars; sulfuric acid clouds, lightning, an active volcano and
hellish temperatures on Venus; the thousand rings and tantalizing
moons of Saturn, and several stars that may be centers of solar
systems like our own.
    From these flights, scientists are assembling a vast mosaic about
the solar system and its intricate workings. A basic goal is to learn
more about planet Earth, fitting it into the cosmic puzzle that is
the origin, the evolution and the structure of the universe.
    Roald Sagdeyev, director of the Soviet Institute of Space Research,
says the American and Soviet roles in planetary exploration, although
not coordinated, are clearly defined by the relative technology of
the two nations.
    With much better electronic miniaturization and long-lived
spacecraft, he says, the United States is more suited to probe the
distant planets, while the Soviets concentrate on those closer in.
    ''This approach is quite complimentary because both sides share
their data,'' he said.
    Sagdeyev noted the Soviets postponed Mars exploration after
America's 1976 Viking landers ''made an important contribution to
Martian science.'' He added that ''everybody now must stop and think
about what the next approach should be.''
    The United States has not launched a planetary explorer since 1978.
In that period, the Soviets have dispatched eight, all to Venus.
    Sagdeyev said the Americans, with their expertise, are playing the
role of coordinators of International Halley Watch.
    ''There should be such an international division of duties,'' he
said. ''If everybody would be rushing toward Halley's comet, there
would be a traffic jam.''
    Sagdeyev says comets are debris left over from the creation of the
solar system some 4.6 billion years ago and contain primordial matter
in pristine form. ''They preserve the matter in its original state,''
he says. ''It could tell us much about the birth and history of the
solar system.''
    One of the two Soviet spacecraft will be the first to fly near
Halley's comet. But it won't be the first to probe a comet. Some
innovative thinking by a group of NASA scientists produced that first
for the United States.
    The scientists mounted a bargain basement mission to the comet
Giacobini-Zinner, using a satellite that had been in space since
1978, studying solar particles while orbiting the sun about half a
million miles ahead of the Earth. They guided the International
Sun-Earth Explorer, called ISEE, close to the moon, allowing lunar
gravity to deflect the craft onto a path that took it 44 million
miles out to Giacobini-Zinner.
    ICEE, renamed ICE, for Interplanetary Comet Explorer, but pronounced
the same, passed through the comet's tail, 4,500 miles behind the
nucleus, on Sept. 11. Scientists will spend months studying the
information radioed from the probe. Among early observations: The
tail was about 15,000 miles wide, three times greater than expected,
and charged particles of water and carbon monoxide were detected,
confirming what most scientists have suspected, that comets are
basically large chunks of ice and dust.
    ICE survived the dash through the comet's tail and is on a path that
will take it within 18 million miles of Halley's comet in March. But
that's a far cry from the near approaches of the Soviet, Japanese and
European craft. The European Giotto will come the closest, about 300
miles.
    In discussing the American space science program, Sagdeyev expressed
envy over a very sophisticated Hubble Space Telescope that is to be
launched next year to peer deep into the universe.
    ''We are very jealous of this type of project I must confess,'' he
said. ''It is a very giant step forward.''
    The telescope's 9-foot-diameter mirror, orbiting above Earth's
obscuring atmosphere, will be able to see objects 50 times fainter
and resolve objects 10 times smaller than any optical telescope has
been able to do so far.
    It is one of three major science spacecraft NASA plans to launch
from space shuttles next year. The most exciting month will be May
when shuttles Challenger and Atlantis will be poised on adjacent
launch pads at Cape Canaveral, to be launched six days apart, on
dates determined by celestial mechanics.
    Challenger is to lift off May 15 with Ulysses, a joint U.S.-European
craft intended to be the first to go into solar orbit around the
poles of the sun. Atlantis is to blast off May 21 with Galileo, which
is to intercept the asteroid 29 Amphitrite in December 1986 and then
fly on to orbit Jupiter in 1988, dropping an instrumented probe into
that planet's atmosphere.
    Other major NASA missions planned in the next few years are a Cosmic
Background Explorer to search for the ''Big Bang'' origin of the
universe, to be launched in 1987; a Venus Radar Mapper to provide a
geological history of Venus, in 1988; a Gamma Ray Observatory to
study stars and galaxies, also in 1988; a Mars Observer to determine
the surface composition of Mars, in 1990; a Comet Rendezvous and
Asteroid Flyby Satellite, with targets to be selected, in 1991, and a
Titan Probe and Radar Mapper to chart the atmospheric chemistry and
surface of the largest of Saturn's moons, in 1993.
    The Soviets have announced they also are planning several deep space
shots, including a 1988 flight of two laser-equipped Mars spacecraft
to land on two Martian moons, Phobos and Demos, and vaporize surface
material for analysis; a 1989 moon orbiter to geochemically map the
entire lunar surface, and the 1991 launch of two craft, one which is
to intercept an asteroid and the other to drop a landing probe on
Venus and then continue on to another asteroid.
    Manned spaceships are playing an increasing role in space science
studies. On the space shuttle, this has been most evident with the
three flights so far of the European-built Spacelab, carried in the
cargo bay. On its most recent mission, in July, five scientists in
the seven-person crew conducted extensive studies of the sun, stars
and Earth's atmosphere.
    Many more Spacelab flights are planned with foreign astronauts
aboard, including a late October journey which will have two West
Germans and a Dutchman in the crew. NASA plans other non-Spacelab
science missions on the shuttle, including two directed at Halley's
comet. In late January, astronauts will deploy the Spartan satellite,
with two ultraviolet telescopes to study the comet's chemical
composition. In March, four astronomers aboard another shuttle flight
will observe the comet with Astro-1, a package of three ultraviolet
telescopes and two cameras.
    Cosmonauts orbiting for long periods aboard a series of small Salyut
space stations have conducted science work, although most of their
tasks are believed directed toward military objectives, materials
processing experiments and learning how the human body functions in
long-term weightlessness. One crew remained in orbit for 237 days.
    When the Soviets and Americans orbit their permanent space stations,
each will have laboratory modules for astronomy and other science
projects.
    The American goal is to have its station in place by 1992, the 500th
anniversary of Columbus' discovery of the New World.
    U.S. observers believe the Soviets are close to launching the
central core of their permanent station, but are awaiting readiness
of a huge rocket in a class with the Saturn 5 which boosted American
astronauts to the moon. The Russian rocket has been on a launch pad
for several months undergoing tests and it's thought to be having
technical problems.
    The American station initially will have six to eight persons on
board, while the Soviets have indicated their first complement will
be about 12.
    Space planners of both nations have talked about using a station as
a steppingstone to establish a lunar science base and to mount a
manned expedition to Mars.
    Lately, there has been increased discussion about the United States
and the Soviet Union joining in establishing a lunar station or in
going to Mars. President Reagan has suggested as a starter that
astronauts and cosmonauts participate in a joint space rescue
demonstration. The topic may be discussed at the president's November
summit meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail S. Gorbachev.
    In 1975, there was a linkup in space between three astronauts and
two cosmonauts.
    Sagdeyev said he was disappointed there was no follow-up to that
flight.
    ''I would like to see joint enterprises in space - not necessarily
joint manned flights,'' he said.
    Planetary Society president Carl Sagan says a joint superpower
flight to Mars ''could have a powerful function in raising hope on
Earth and providing an aperture to a benign future.''
    Thomas O. Paine, a former NASA administrator who heads a
presidential National Commission on Space, had this to say about the
proposed venture:
    ''When you look at Mars, you cannot help but realize that Mars is
not going to be settled as a national enterprise. Indeed, that would
be grossly unfair to mankind as a whole.
    ''Everybody will want to participate and I think it is up to us to
provide the leadership...But I think we must make available
participation in this great adventure to all men, everywhere.
    ''And certainly, in banding together of all mankind to bring life
throughout the inner solar system, this cannot help but bring to our
home planet many benefits, not only in technology but also...in
trying to develop here a more peaceful, more cooperative, more
forward-looking and more humane planet Earth.''
    END ADV
 
 
AP-NY-10-05-85 2348EDT
***************

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

Date: 4 Oct 85 19:37:01 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU  (Henry Spencer)
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Subject: Re: potential space product
Precedence: junk
Sender: usenet@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU
Errors-To: usenet@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU
To: space-network-source@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU

> [How can one make a lens with continuously-varying index of refraction?...]
> By building it in weightlessness.  The sphere would float in the middle of a
> vacuum chamber.  Glass would be deposited on it one layer at a time, with each
> layer having the appropriate index.  The glass vapor would flow into the
> chamber continuously, and its doping would vary continuously. The
> weightlessness would give perfect spherical symmetry...
One very serious problem that I can see is crystallization, also known to
the glass community as "devitrification".  Glass is an amorphous solid,
essentially an extremely viscous liquid.  But most glass-forming materials
will form crystals as well.  Laying it down from vapor strikes me as a
good way to get a mass of polycrystalline junk rather than smooth glass.
My understanding is that the semiconductor people do *not* lay down glass
from vapor; they oxidize the silicon surface to produce it.
Possibly devitrification can be suppressed by careful control of conditions.
This is the sort of detail that is highly proprietary, so it's hard to say
much without being an insider.  But the problem is serious, perhaps fatal.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

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

Date: 4 Oct 85 19:49:55 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU  (Henry Spencer)
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Subject: Re: Re: Debris from Upcomming ASAT Test
Precedence: junk
Sender: usenet@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU
Errors-To: usenet@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU
To: space-network-source@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU

> The US has flown plenty of plutonium-239-fueled thermisotope generators...
Fussy but important point:  the isotope generators use plutonium 238, not
239.  238 is much harder to make, but is a fairly pure alpha emitter with a
relatively short half-life (years), which is exactly what is needed for
isotope power.  239, the fissionable isotope, has too long a half-life and
too mixed a radiation output to be useful for this.
> ...to date we have actually flown only one nuclear reactor
> in orbit. I believe this was on a Transit navigational satellite in the
> middle 60's.
It was SNAP-10A in the mid-60s, which was explicitly a reactor test with
no other mission.  For obvious reasons, it's in a fairly high orbit.
Some of the Transit satellites used isotope capsules, since solar cells
are too vulnerable to attack for the military's liking.
> 1. "Unburnt" plutonium or uranium is only weakly radioactive, and its alpha
> emissions are easily shielded (the Apollo astronauts handled the plutonium
> sources for ALSEP with their gloved hands). However, a reactor that has been
> running for a while becomes extremely hot because of accumulated fission
> products.
Uranium or plutonium-239 can be handled with bare hands, if you aren't
worried about toxicity.  If you check, I believe you'll find that the
Apollo crews used tongs for handling the plutonium-238 capsules, because
they are *thermally* very hot -- sort of obvious given that they are used
in thermal generators.
> ... shooting one of these [Soviet ocean-surveillance satellites] down
> with our ASAT would guarantee that its radioactive remains re-enter the
> atmosphere within a pretty short time...
A good point.  One wonders why this has not been brought up before.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

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

Date: 5 Oct 85 21:11:13 GMT
From: cbosgd!osu-eddie!julian@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU  (Julian Gomez)
Organization: Ohio State Univ., CIS Dept., Cols, Oh.
Subject: Re: Re: ASAT Debris (and wiping out GEO)
Precedence: junk
Sender: usenet@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU
Errors-To: usenet@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU
To: space-network-source@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU

 > Say what?  How is launching from the shuttle more of a problem than from
 > a booster?  
Because it's a two-step process, i.e. more things to go wrong.
Yes, the Soviets use orbiting nuclear reactors much more than we do;
Phil Karn <620@petrus.UUCP> says the USA has in fact flown only one
nuclear reactor.  He also mentions the plutonium that Apollo 13 left in
the Pacific Ocean.  However, something I was not aware of was how
poorly the Soviet nuclear satellites are designed; see his posting for
more.
Henry Spencer <6015@utzoo.UUCP> says that the US uses encapsulated
radioactive isotopes which can survive re-entry.  That just shows that
the USA is careful about its designs.  My original point was that we
can't condemn the USSR offhand for doing something that we also are
doing.  But we are doing it more responsibly.
"Fail Safe"  "Dr Strangelove ..."  "Level 7"  etc.
-- 
"If Chaos himself sat umpire, what better could he do?"
	Julian "a tribble took it" Gomez
	Computer Graphics Research Group, The Ohio State University
	{ucbvax,decvax}!cbosg!osu-eddie!julian

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

Date: 5 Oct 85 22:34:57 GMT
From: hplabs!nsc!cadtec!csi!epicen!jbuck@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU  (Joe Buck)
Organization: Entropic Processing, Inc., Cupertino, CA
Subject: Re: ASAT test
Precedence: junk
Sender: usenet@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU
Errors-To: usenet@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU
To: space-network-source@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU

In article <2258@ukma.UUCP> sean@ukma.UUCP (Sean Casey) writes:
>
>I am completely for the ASAT tests.  Anything that can shoot down nuclear
>missiles before they can kill millions of people is OK by me.  Even if they
>only stop 10%, that's more people that will live.
Sean, you're confusing ASAT with SDI. They have very little to do with each
other. ASAT is a method of killing satellites; the weapons the Soviets and
the Americans have tested are useless against missiles. Trying to perfect
the ability to destroy enemy satellites is very bad (both when we do it and
when the Russians do it), because:
1) if several important spy satellites malfunction at about the same time,
   we (or the Russians) might assume that the other side has destroyed them
   in preparation for a nuclear attack (why else would you destroy enemy
   reconnaissance satellites?), and shoot "first";
2) testing ASAT creates large amounts of hazardous debris; a few more tests
   may make low earth orbit unusable for satellites and unsafe for manned
   missions (in practice, the orbits of the debris may decay rapidly, getting
   rid of most of the junk, but what about when we, or they, start going
   after satellites in higher orbits (like geosynchronous)?
I don't think SDI will work either, but that's a completely different debate.
One can think of ASAT as a means of destroying the enemy's defenses in space;
ASAT itself is NOT defensive at all.
It is in the strong interest of both sides to immediately agree to stop all
ASAT testing. Such a treaty is easily verifiable. If we don't do it, and
both sides accelerate testing, space will not be safe for large structures
or for manned missions.
My opinions only,
-- 
Joe Buck				|  Entropic Processing, Inc.
UUCP: {ucbvax,ihnp4}!dual!epicen!jbuck  |  10011 N. Foothill Blvd.
ARPA: dual!epicen!jbuck@BERKELEY.ARPA   |  Cupertino, CA 95014

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

End of SPACE Digest V6 #5
*******************

08-Oct-85  0353	OTA  	SPACE Digest V6 #6 
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 6

Today's Topics:
			    Re: Re: ASAT test
		  Soviet Salyut 7 space station expanded
			     A Bit of History
		    House Hearing on the Space Station
		    Possible spectacular meteor shower
		  Re: Re: ASAT test (actually about SDI)
			   Re: Flag on the moon
			      Re: ASAT test
		 Re: Re: Debris from Upcomming ASAT Test
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 4 Oct 85 22:44:36 GMT
From: ihnp4!stolaf!umn-cs!circadia!dave@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU  (David Messer)
Organization: Quest Research Inc., Burnsville, MN
Subject: Re: Re: ASAT test
Precedence: junk
Sender: usenet@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU
Errors-To: usenet@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU
To: space-network-source@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU

> I am completely for the ASAT tests.  Anything that can shoot down nuclear
> missiles before they can kill millions of people is OK by me.  ...
> -- 
> 
> -  Sean Casey                           UUCP:   sean@ukma.UUCP   or
> -  Department of Mathematics                    {cbosgd,anlams,hasmed}!ukma!sean
> -  University of Kentucky               ARPA:   ukma!sean@ANL-MCS.ARPA
Huh?  What does the ASAT have to do with nuclear missiles?  Doesn't
'ASAT' stand for "Anti-SATilite"?  Currently, there are no ORBITAL
nuclear missles (that we are being told about).
-- 
Dave Messer   ...ihnp4!stolaf!umn-cs!circadia!dave

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

Date: Mon, 7 Oct 85 11:53:38 edt
From: glenn@ll-vlsi (Glenn Chapman)
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Subject: Soviet Salyut 7 space station expanded

The Soviet Union just announced yesterday (Oct 5) that a new Star module
was docked to the Salyut 7 space station on Oct 3.  The Star series are
very large (50 cubic meter volume) additions to the space station which
increase it's working area and electrical power by at least 50%.  The
Russians said that this module brought up 5 tonnes of cargo to the 3 man
crew that is currently aboard the Salyut.  This is the first Star module
that has been launched in about 2 years.  In the past the Soviets have
described these as fully equipped laboratories which can be docked to the
station. They can either stay with the Salyut or leave and act as free flying
unites (either manned or unmanned).  Aviation Week has also suggested possible
military applications.  The previous Star module (docked to Salyut 7 in
late 1983) contained a capsule which returned 500 Kg of material to earth.
After that the module was detached and destroyed.

This suggests several things.  First it confirms that the Salyut 7 has been
repaired.  Secondly comming after the partial crew replacement of the
Soyuz T-14/13 mission (Sept 26) it really suggests that this is going to be a
very long duration mission on the space station.  Finally the reactivation of
the Star modules indicates again that Salyut 7 will not be replaced in the
near future by Salyut 8.

This puts the Russians space station at about half the mass of the finished
version of the NASA station.  Now if we can get the money to build NASA's.

                                         Glenn Chapman

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

Date: 7 Oct 85 12:38:47 EDT
From: Hank.Walker@CMU-CS-UNH
Subject: A Bit of History
To: BBoard.Maintainer@CMU-CS-A

Here is a non-political (for Josh) injection of facts into the ASAT debate.

1) A long time ago (1960s), the US carried out ASAT tests similar to what
the Russians have.  We gave it up.

2) The US had a secret Nike Zeus base on Johnston Atoll.  The Nike Zeus was
originally designed as a nuclear-tipped ABM, but in this case was installed
for ASAT use.  The base was dismantled in the 70s (1975?).

3) The Homing Overlay experiments at Kwajelein Atoll (1 of 3 successful)
provides a basic ASAT capability, as well as an exo-atmospheric ABM
capability for which it is intended.  The homing vehicle is launched from
a ICBM-sized booster (a Minuteman booster?).

Statements such as "We're far behind the Russians in ASAT research" or "We
can't let them have a monopoly on ASATs" are false given the above facts.

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

From: <crash!usiiden!markf@nosc.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 85 08:11:55 PDT
To: crash!noscvax!space@mit-mc
Subject: House Hearing on the Space Station


 Testimony of Charles A. Barth Prof., Dept. of Astrophysical, Planetary
and Atmospheric Sciences -> Space Science and the Space Station. * The U.
of Co. has played a pioneering role in the development of space science and
technology during the past thirty five years. In the early 1950's when
rockets first became available or space science experiments, the U.of Co.
developed instrumentation to measure the ultraviolet radiation emanating
from the sun. With the first successful flight over the New Mexico desert
in 1952, the scientific field of high resolution solar spectroscopy was
born. In the years following, ultraviolet spectroscopy has become one of
the major scientific tools of space exploration. Ultraviolet spectrometers
are used to study the sun, the earth, the other planets, and the stars. The
pioneering rocket experiments of the U. of Co. scientists and engineers in
the 1950's led to the creation of a major aerospace company, the Ball
Aerospace Division. These examples show how ideas that originate in
universities can lead to significant development in the National Space
Program. In the past, we have had fruitful collaboration between the
university, the aerospace industry, and the NASA. As we move into the Space
Station era, it is important to maintain the active participation of the
university as NASA takes on projects that are becoming larger and larger.
For the universities to participate in the space program, there must be
university size projects for them to participate in. * I would like to give
an example of a university size space experiment that is ideally suited for
the coming space station era. Comet Halley is on its way into the inner
solar system. In January and February of 1986, it will pass within the
orbit of the earth and make its closest approach to the sun. As it
approaches the sun, the ices on the surface of the comet nucleus will heat
up and evaporate into space. A huge coma will form made up of the atoms and
molecules of the icy nucleus and the dust that is trapped beneath the ices.
Comet Halley returns to the inner solar system every seventy six years. The
last time that it passed near the sun was 1910 when it was widely visible
in the night sky and was extensively photographed using telescopes from
ground based observatories. The 1986 passage of Comet Halley is its first
visit to the inner solar system since the beginning of the space age. The
powerful techniques of space exploration and ultraviolet spectroscopy are
now available to measure the composition of Comet Halley. * The origin of
comets is a fundamental scientific question. Are comets samples of the
original material that formed the solar system four and a half billion
years ago? Or are comets samples of interstellar space that are entering
the solar system at the present time? * To meet the challenge of exploring
Comet Halley from space, the European Space Agency has launched a
spacecraft called Giotto to fly close to Comet Halley in March 1986 and
take t.v. pictures of the dust in the coma. The Soviet Union has two
spacecraft on their way to Comet Halley. These are the giant Venera
interplanetary spacecraft that earlier this year dropped scientific
instruments into the atmosphere of Venus. The Japanese are sending a
spacecraft to measure the huge hydrogen coma that will form around Comet
Halley. * The U. of Co. in collaboration with the Goddard Space Flight
Center is preparing an experiment to measure the composition of Comet
Halley during the last week in January 1986 when the comet is nearing its
closest approach to the sun. This experiment is being conducted as part of
a NASA program called SPARTAN. The Spartan experiment will be carried into
orbit aboard the Space Shuttle. It is currently scheduled for launch on
January 22, 1986 on STS 51-L. On the third day of the flight, the
astronaut crew will place the Spartan experiment overboard using the remote
manipulator arm. The Spartan experiment including the instruments,
batteries, and tape recorder is about the size of a table. After being
released from the shuttle, the ultraviolet spectrometers on the Spartan
will be pointed at Comet Halley and will measure the composition of the
coma at the time when the comet is making its closest approach to the sun.
After two days, the space shuttle will return the Spartan and pick up the
experiment with the remote manipulator arm and bring the instruments and
the data back to earth. In the days following the landing, we plan to
quickly develop the pictures and analyze the scientific data. * I believe
the Spartan program is an excellent example of how universities can
participate in space experiments during the era of the space station. The
ideas for the scientific experiment would be conceived by the university
scientists. The instruments for the experiments would be built and
calibrated in the university laboratories. The experiment package would be
carried into orbit by the space shuttle and placed on board the space
station. On the space station, the performance of the instruments would be
checked and then the experiment package would be placed overboard to
co-orbit with the space station. Depending on the experiment, the
instruments may be pointed at the earth to study land processes or at the
upper atmosphere to study variations in ozone. Or the instruments may be
pointed away from the earth to study the sun, the planets or the stars.
These co-orbiting experiments would be controlled from the space station.
Imagine the excitement when the time arrives for university faculty and
students to travel to the space station to operate their own experiments. I
believe that there is a place for university size experiments during the
era of the space station. I suggest that the Spartan experiments of today
may serve as an example of how to plan those experiments. * The job of the
universities is to educate students and to create knowledge. We at the
universities recognize that the youth of today are enthusiastic about the
exploration of space. We believe that NASA should continue to encourage
university participation in the space program. To do this, it is the small
budget items in NASA's budget that need to be increased. The Research and
Analysis budgets of all the scientific disciplines need augmentation to
maintain vigor in the university research groups. Small projects such as
the Spartan program need augmentation so that a larger numbe of
universities may participate in this program. The Data Analysis programs
need augmentation as we continue to convert the data gathered in space into
knowledge. I recommend that NASA continue to have university research
groups play a vital role in space exploration. **
** I was recently envited to the House hearing on the proposed 
space station. This is the first of several transcripts which I
will try to send out to the net.... markf

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

Date:  8 OCT 1985 0023 EDT
From: BRUC@MIT-MC.ARPA   (Robert E. Bruccoleri)
Subject: Possible spectacular meteor shower
To: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS@MIT-MC.ARPA

According to this month's Astronomy magazine, it is non-negligibly
possible that there will be a copious Draconid meteor shower this
year. Comet Giacobini-Zinner, the parent comet of this shower
passed in front of the earth less than a month ago. The expected
peak in on Wednesday, Oct. 9, although they suggest checking Tuesday
night as well.

Bob Bruccoleri

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

Date: 5 Oct 85 12:03:32 GMT
From: ihnp4!stolaf!umn-cs!circadia!dave@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU  (David Messer)
Organization: Quest Research Inc., Burnsville, MN
Subject: Re: Re: ASAT test (actually about SDI)
Precedence: junk
Sender: usenet@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU
Errors-To: usenet@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU
To: space-network-source@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU

> A 50% reduction in nuclear arsenals is a far more attractive
> alternative to wasting a trillion dollars on Star Wars.
> What's more, it is verifyable.  How will we ever be sure of
> the "knock down" ratio of the completed SDI ?  Can we honestly
> believe that it will be 90% and can the U.S. maintain the system
> at that level for any length of time?
> -- 
> 				
> Made in New Zealand -->		Brent Callaghan
> 				AT&T Information Systems, Lincroft, NJ
> 				{ihnp4|mtuxo|pegasus}!poseidon!brent
> 				(201) 576-3475
Hmmm.  Lets see, currently the USSR has an "overkill" ratio on the
order of 10 to one, so if we got a 50% reduction, they can only
wipe us out 5 times.  On the other hand, they can never know how
effective SDI is unless they launch an attack; that might be a
mistake if SDI turns out to be 99.99% effective.  I don't think
I would risk it if I were them.  So, suppose the US wants to
preemptively attack the USSR and SDI turns out to be only 70%
effective; both sides get it.  You know, if we can't tell how good
SDI really is, either side would be pretty foolish to test it.
It seems to me that a trillion dollars (wildly pessimistic) would
not be too high a price for makeing ICBMs unusable for a first strike.
-- 
Dave Messer   ...ihnp4!stolaf!umn-cs!circadia!dave

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

Date: 7 Oct 85 00:14:41 GMT
From: ihnp4!ihopa!riccb!rjnoe@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU  (Roger J. Noe)
Organization: Rockwell International - Downers Grove, IL
Subject: Re: Flag on the moon
Precedence: junk
Sender: usenet@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU
Errors-To: usenet@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU
To: space-network-source@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU

> I believe that protocol says that flags which have touched the ground must
> be burned.  Let's try that one on the moon!
> 
> Burns
No, only that if they are soiled or damaged beyond cleaning or repair then
they SHOULD be disposed of in a dignified manner.  There is no Federal law
regarding care/disposal of U.S. flags, which is why protesters are not vio-
lating the law simply by burning U.S. flags.
--
Roger Noe			ihnp4!riccb!rjnoe

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

Date: 7 Oct 85 16:20:46 GMT
From: bellcore!petrus!karn@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU  (Phil R. Karn)
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Inc
Subject: Re: ASAT test
Precedence: junk
Sender: usenet@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU
Errors-To: usenet@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU
To: space-network-source@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU

> 
> I decry the politicization of this list.
> 
> --JoSH
I decry the weaponization of space.
Since the superpowers have seen fit to escalate the arms race to space,
I don't see how a space discussion group can avoid talking about space
weapons and their implications.
Phil

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

Date: 7 Oct 85 16:08:50 GMT
From: bellcore!petrus!karn@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU  (Phil R. Karn)
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Inc
Subject: Re: Re: Debris from Upcomming ASAT Test
Precedence: junk
Sender: usenet@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU
Errors-To: usenet@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU
To: space-network-source@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU

> Fussy but important point:  the isotope generators use plutonium 238, not
> 239.  238 is much harder to make, but is a fairly pure alpha emitter with a
> relatively short half-life (years), which is exactly what is needed for
> isotope power.  239, the fissionable isotope, has too long a half-life and
> too mixed a radiation output to be useful for this.
You are correct, I should have checked my references first. Pu-238 has a
half life of 86 years, while Pu-239 has a half life of 24,400 years.  Both
decay by spontaneous fission or alpha emission, so Pu-238 will therefore put
out a lot more heat per unit mass than Pu-239. However, I believe that all
reasonably stable isotopes of plutonium are fissionable, and this is why the
nonproliferation people are so concerned about it -- you can't "denature"
it with a non-fissionable isotope like you can with U-235 and U-238.
> Uranium or plutonium-239 can be handled with bare hands, if you aren't
> worried about toxicity.  If you check, I believe you'll find that the
> Apollo crews used tongs for handling the plutonium-238 capsules, because
> they are *thermally* very hot -- sort of obvious given that they are used
> in thermal generators.
There's a comment in my reference (History of Manned Space Flight) that
Pete Conrad had considerable trouble getting the plutonium source out
of its container on Apollo 12. It took him 10 minutes to free it, during
which time his gloves protected his hands.
> > ... shooting one of these [Soviet ocean-surveillance satellites] down
> > with our ASAT would guarantee that its radioactive remains re-enter the
> > atmosphere within a pretty short time...
> 
> A good point.  One wonders why this has not been brought up before.
Probably because shooting down a Soviet satellite would be an act of war,
and we'd have more serious consequences to worry about.
Phil

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

End of SPACE Digest V6 #6
*******************

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,,
Summary-line:   Thu, 10 Oct 85 03:00:38 pdt  Ted Anderson <ota>  SPACE Digest V6 #7
Received: by s1-b.ARPA id AA22999; Thu, 10 Oct 85 03:00:38 pdt
	id AA22999; Thu, 10 Oct 85 03:00:38 pdt
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 85 03:00:38 pdt
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8510101000.AA22999@s1-b.ARPA>
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #7
Apparently-To: space-digest
Status: RO

*** EOOH ***
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 85 03:00:38 pdt
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #7
Apparently-To: space-digest

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 6 : Issue 7

Today's Topics:
			      ASAT test
		       ASAT and property rights
			   SPACE Digest 243
		    Errors 1202 and 1201 on Eagle
			   More SDI flamage
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 9 Oct 85  18:02 EDT (Wed)
From: _Bob <Carter@RUTGERS>
To: bellcore!petrus!karn@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU (Phil R. Karn)
Cc: Space@MC, Josh@RUTGERS
Subject: ASAT test
In-Reply-To: Msg of 7 Oct 1985  12:20-EDT from bellcore!petrus!karn at ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU (Phil R. Karn)


    From: bellcore!petrus!karn at ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU (Phil R. Karn)

    I decry the weaponization of space.
    Since the superpowers have seen fit to escalate the arms race to space,
    I don't see how a space discussion group can avoid talking about space
    weapons and their implications.

There is a real difference between a general-information list and a
political one (on which people tend either to preach to the converted
or to exchange invective with their enemies).  I think it's legitimate
to keep them separate.

Flamery in pursuit of the Star-Wars and ASAT issues seems to have
killed ARMS-D, and it would be shame to see that happen to SPACE
as well.  I'm with JoSH.


_B

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

Date:  Wed, 9 Oct 85 10:34 CDT
From: Slocum@HI-MULTICS.ARPA
Subject:  ASAT and property rights
To: space@MIT-MC.ARPA

> Ownership of property does not give you the right to use it as a
detriment to society.

This statement is not necessarily true.  For example :
    - Toxic Waste Dumps
    - Using farmland in such a way that massive erosion occurs.
    - porno shops
    - this list is endless.

My real point is that there are very few stipulations placed on private
property usage.

   Brett Slocum
    (Slocum@HI-MULTICS.ARPA)
    (after a long absence caused by network problems)

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

Date: Wednesday, 25 Sep 1985 14:19-EDT
From: rrd@mitre-bedford.ARPA
To: OTA@S1-A.ARPA
Cc: rrd@mitre-bedford.ARPA, SPACE@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: SPACE Digest 243



------- Forwarded Message

Date: Friday, 23 Aug 1985 06:48-EDT
From: OTA@S1-A.ARPA
Subject: SPACE Digest V5 #243    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 5 : Issue 243

Today's Topics:
		       Halley's comet info request
----------------------------------------------------------------------

To: space-enthusiasts@mit-mc.arpa
Subject: Halley's comet info request
Date: 22 Aug 85 12:22:34 EST (Thu)
From: Andrew V Royappa <avr@Purdue.EDU>

	Hi .. I would like some info about Halley's comet,
specifically about how to get to the southern hemisphere to
watch it. I'm interested in:

	1. the best locations to watch from
	2. how to get there and back as cheaply as possible
	   (tours etc.).

				Thank you,

					Andrew Royappa
					avr@purdue.arpa
			{ihnp4, ucbvax, decvax, pur-ee}!purdue!avr

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

End of SPACE Digest V5 #243
*******************



------- End of Forwarded Message
Ted,
Tried to send this once,but goofed on the address.
One more time, Bob at MITRE-Bedford

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

Date:  9 Oct 1985 0938-PDT (Wednesday)
From: Craig E. Ward <cew@isi-hobgoblin.arpa>
To: Space@mit-mc.ARPA
Subject: Errors 1202 and 1201 on Eagle


I am looking for information on why the landing computer failed on
the Apollo 11 LEM.  All that I have come up with so far is a vague
reference in Collins' book Carrying the Fire to the error codes
1202 and 1201 which translate to some sort of overflow condition.

Please send replies and references directly to me.

		Thanks,

		Craig

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

Date: Tue, 8 Oct 85 09:54:04 edt
From: David M. Siegel <dms@mit-hermes>
Subject: More SDI flamage
To: circadia.uucp@harvard
Cc: space@mc

   Date: 5 Oct 85 12:03:32 GMT
   From: ihnp4!stolaf!umn-cs!circadia!dave@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU  (David Messer)
   Organization: Quest Research Inc., Burnsville, MN

   Hmmm.  Lets see, currently the USSR has an "overkill" ratio on the
   order of 10 to one, so if we got a 50% reduction, they can only
   wipe us out 5 times.  On the other hand, they can never know how
   effective SDI is unless they launch an attack; that might be a
   mistake if SDI turns out to be 99.99% effective.  

SDI could *NEVER* be 99.99% effective against all nuclear warheads.
How can I be so sure? Easy, just carry a bomb into NYC and Washington
DC and let them rip. More easily, cruise missles and other nuclear
weapons that don't have to enter into space to make it to the US can
easily avoid SDI. The moral of the story is that if SDI really does
stop space based nuclear weapons, the type of weapons the Soviet Union
developes will just change. Then, we will have to spend another
trillion dollars to develope another technology to counter that new
threat. And the story will go on...

The only solution is to *NEGOTIATE* with the Soviets. My biggest fear
with star wars is that is makes people think we can solve the nuclear
arms threat without even talking with them. Just put up a network of
space lasers and all our worries are over, the story goes. In fact, it
will just create a whole new set of problems for the world.

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

End of SPACE Digest V6 #7
*******************


1,,
Summary-line:   Wed, 16 Oct 85 03:01:33 pdt  Ted Anderson <ota>  SPACE Digest V6 #8
Received: by s1-b.ARPA id AA16140; Wed, 16 Oct 85 03:01:33 pdt
	id AA16140; Wed, 16 Oct 85 03:01:33 pdt
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 85 03:01:33 pdt
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8510161001.AA16140@s1-b.ARPA>
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #8
Apparently-To: space-digest

*** EOOH ***
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 85 03:01:33 pdt
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #8
Apparently-To: space-digest

SPACE Digest                                        Volume 6 : Issue 8

Today's Topics:
			    Administrivia
		   rats in space - research results
			 Re: property rights
	     National Commission on Space holding Forums
		 Re: rats in space - research results
		     HALLEY'S COMET-- ANCESTORS--
		   Re: HALLEY'S COMET-- ANCESTORS--
			 National Space Forum
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Oct 85 13:01:46 pdt
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: space-incoming
Subject: Administrivia

As some of you have doubtless noticed there have been a fair number of
problems with this digest lately.  This is due to a major move from
the old system I was using for managing the digest to a Vax Unix
system.  I have rewritten the digest assembly software to run in
gnu_emacs, and have figured out enough about the Unix mailer and the
AT program to get it to put out a digest to most of the recipients.
This has generated several problems that I know of.  One is that I
accidently sent out an empty digest numbered V6#7.  I also misnumbered
the next digest (which included the message that should have been in
Digest V6 #7) at V6 #10.  Over this last weekend this system was
erroneously rejecting messages to SPACE-Enthusiasts so if you got an
error message back during this last weekend please resend the message.
I think all these problems have been fixed.

In the finest old tradition I'm going to edit history by renumbering
Digest #10 to be #7, and make this Digest #8.  Hopefully we can retain
sequentiality in the future.  Also since I have moved the Digest to
this host please feel free to send digest submissions to space@S1-B
(or Space-Enthusiasts) and requests and complaints to
Space-Request@S1-B.

Over the past few years I have received several requests for my
digestifying software.  Due to the archaic nature of the system I was
using I was unable to help these people.  Now that I have moved to a
fairly standard system I am in a better position to help these people.
If anyone is interested in this stuff feel free to drop me a line.

Many thanks to everyone who has helped with this transition.

	-Ted Anderson (The Moderator)

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

Date: 14 Oct 85  2132 PDT
From: Ron Goldman <ARG@SU-AI.ARPA>
Subject: rats in space - research results  
To: space@MIT-MC.ARPA

a228  1314  14 Oct 85
AM-Shuttle Rats, Bjt,0630
Space Rats Suffered Dramatic Reductions in Growth Hormones
By MAUD S. BEELMAN
Associated Press Writer
    STATE COLLEGE, Pa. (AP) - The 24 rats who rode into space on the
shuttle Challenger last April suffered dramatic reductions in the
release of growth hormone, a finding that could signal a serious
problem for astronauts, a researcher said Monday.
    Wesley Hymer, a biochemist at Pennsylvania State University, was one
of 20 researchers nationwide who analyzed tissue samples from the
rats. His interest was what effect, if any, weightlessness had on the
ability of special cells in their pituitary glands to produce growth
hormones, which govern development and maintenance of muscle and bone
tissue.
    Hymer's findings were the second indication of a potential space
flight hazard. Another National Aeronautics and Space Administration
researcher reported last month that the same rats lost bone and
muscle strength.
    Richard Grindeland, a researcher at the Ames Research Center in
California, said that when the rats returned to Earth ''they were
limp, like dishrags,'' and that dissection revealed ''very dramatic
changes'' in bone and muscle strength.
    Before beginning any long-term space flights, NASA needs to know if
humans suffer the same kind of changes.
    Researchers need more test results before linking growth hormone
reduction to muscle and bone atrophy, Hymer said. But ''I think
there's probably a good chance that there's a relationship.''
    Until scientists are certain that the lack of hormone release is
causing the muscle and bone atrophy, ''we can't, for example, suggest
extra doses of growth hormone as a possible way to prevent the
problem.''
    After a battery of tests that included implanting normal rats with
growth hormone cells from the space rats, Hymer noted up to a 50
percent reduction in release of the hormone.
    ''Something is radically changed in those pituitary glands as a
result of the space flight,'' Hymer said.
    ''The cells from the flight-exposed animals were not able to release
as much growth hormone as the corresponding controls (rats on the
ground) - they worked about half as well,'' said Hymer, who will
discuss his findings Friday along with other researchers on the NASA
project at the Commission on Gravitational Physiology in Niagara
Falls, N.Y.
    ''I think the surprising thing was these changes occurred so
quickly,'' Hymer said. ''They happened in seven days in flight.''
    Another unexpected finding, Hymer noted, was that although the space
rat cells only released half as much growth hormone as the cells of
control rats, they still contained two to three times more unreleased
hormone than did the cells of the control rats.
    ''We don't really know what's happening,'' he said.
    ''There could be more inhibitory chemicals coming from the brain
down to the pituitary and shutting off the release of hormone so that
the cells contain more hormone,'' Hymer said. Or there could be a
lack of stimulatory chemicals, which would also inhibit release of
the hormone.
    But Hymer said he leans toward the possibility that the minute
gravity of near-Earth orbit is directly affecting the cells,
referring to a 1983 study of cultures of isolated growth hormone
cells that were taken into space.
    ''Those cells didn't release as much growth hormone in the test
tube. There you don't have any stimulatory or inhibitory molecules''
that could be causing the change, he said.
    Hymer said researchers don't know yet if astronauts suffer the same
kind of changes.
    ''I can tell you that there are data that show that the blood levels
of growth hormone in the astronauts from Skylab were ... reduced by a
significant amount,'' Hymer said.
    Hymer plans to send growth hormone cells, some of which will contain
the inhibitory and stimulatory chemicals, on a shuttle flight next
September for further tests. He said he also would like to see
similar experiments on primates.
    
AP-NY-10-14-85 1616EDT
***************

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

Date: 13 Oct 85 03:10:52 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!shell!graffiti!peter@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU  (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: property rights
Sender: usenet@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU
To: space-network-source@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU

> > Ownership of property does not give you the right to use it as a
> > detriment to society.
> 
> This statement is not necessarily true.  For example :
> ...
>     - porno shops
Prove that "porno shops" are a detriment to society. Be concise and to the
point. Demonstrate that there is another acceptable marketplace for erotica.
Science fiction conventions don't count.

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

Date: 15 OCT 1985 0344 EDT
From: BRUC@MIT-MC.ARPA   (Robert E. Bruccoleri)
Subject: National Commission on Space holding Forums
To: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS@MIT-MC.ARPA

I received a note from the National Commission on Space a few days ago.
The text is as follows:

	The Presidentially appointed National commission on Space
announced today the eighth of a series of Public Forums on future
civilian space goals. The Forum will be held Monday October 28 at
Faneuil Hall in Boston from 9:00 am to 5:00 pm.

	The purpose of the Forum is to solicit opinions from industry,
academia and the general public concerning long-range goals for United
States civilian space activity to the year 2035. A wide diversity of
views is sought concerning the need for, pace, and timing of manned and
unmanned exploration and exploitation of space. Commission Forums
prestly are scheduled in seven other U.S. cities into early next year.

	For those individuals wishing to testify, each should file a
written statement summarizing the proposed testimony, including name,
mailing address, telephone number and (if appropriate) group
represented, no later than Monday October 21, to the following address:

                    National Commission On Space
                    Attn:Public Forums/Boston
                    490 L'Enfant Plaza East S.W. - Suite 3212
                    Washington, D.C.  20024

	Witnesses will be requested to limit their oral presentations
before the Commission to approximately 10 minutes. A longer written
statement may be submitted and will be made part of the Commission's
open files.

	Legislated by Congress to study existing and proposed space
activities, the National Commission on Space will prepare a final report
detailing its findings for presentation to the President and Congress in
March 1986. The objective of the commission is to formulate an
aggressive space agenda to carry America into the 21st century.

	In fulfilling its duties to achieve a general consensus
regarding America's future in space, the Commission is actively seeking
public input by way of these Forums, as well as soliciting written
testimony from a broad cross section of the American public.

	Contacts:
	Linda Billings
	Leonard David
	Steve Hartman
	202/453-8685


The Commission will be taking testimony in the following cities

October 28	Boston, MA
October 30	Cleveland, OH
November 1	Iowa City, IA
November 4	Washington, DC
November 12	Seattle, WA
November 13	San Francisco, CA
November 15	Ann Arbor, MI
January 17	Honolulu, HI

I'm planning to testify here in Boston urging that our primary goal be
the establishment of space colonies. This is definitely an important
opportunity for the space community to be heard.

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

Date: 15 Oct 85 07:35:00 GMT
From: ucbarpa!fair@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU  (Erik E. &)
Subject: Re: rats in space - research results
Sender: usenet@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU
To: space-network-source@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU

Since there is (as I understand things) an agreement between the US and
Soviet space research communities to share data, don't we have access
to the physiological data collected on the various cosmonaut crews that
have been in orbit for 200+ days at a time? I would expect that this
data, along with that collected by the three Skylab crews would give a
quite comprehensive picture of what happens to man in space over the
medium to long term (of course, we may not *understand* the picture;
I'm just suggesting a lot of useful data is already there).
	Erik E. Fair	ucbvax!fair	fair@ucbarpa.BERKELEY.EDU

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

Date: 7 Oct 85 19:44:44 GMT
From: sdcsvax!bmcg!bobn@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU  (Bob Nebert)
Subject: HALLEY'S COMET-- ANCESTORS--
Sender: usenet@ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU
To: space-network-source@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU

In todays San Diego Union (Oct. 17) is a picture of Ryan and Shasta Halley.
Big deal?. Their ancestor discovered the famous comet and now their great-
grandfather 'plans to sign over the famed comet to the children---just as
his father did to him in 1910.'
What the hell does that mean?

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

Date: 14 Oct 85 21:32:14 GMT
From: ihnp4!fortune!lowry@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU  (John Lowry)
Subject: Re: HALLEY'S COMET-- ANCESTORS--
Sender: usenet@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU
To: space-network-source@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU

In article <1923@bmcg.UUCP> bobn@bmcg.UUCP (Bob Nebert) writes:
>In todays San Diego Union (Oct. 17) is a picture of Ryan and Shasta Halley.
>Big deal?. Their ancestor discovered the famous comet and now their great-
>grandfather 'plans to sign over the famed comet to the children---just as
>his father did to him in 1910.'
>
>What the hell does that mean?
Nothing.

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

Date: Tue, 15 Oct 85  9:29:05 EDT
From: Dick Koolish <koolish@bbncd2.ARPA>
Subject: National Space Forum
To: space@mit-mc.arpa

NATIONAL SPACE FORUM IN BOSTON, MONDAY, OCTOBER 28
--------------------------------------------------

The Presidentially appointed National Commission on Space will
hold the eighth of a series of Public Forums on future civilian
space goals.  The Forum will be held Monday, October 28, at
Faneuil Hall in Boston from 9:00 am to 5:00 pm. 

The Forum is designed to solicit opinions from industry,
academia, and the general public concerning long-range goals for
the United States civilian space activity to the year 2035.  A
wide diversity of views is sought concerning the need for, pace,
and timing of manned and unmanned explortaion and exploitation of
space. 

Individuals wishing to testify should file a written statement
summarizing the proposed testimony, including name, mailing
address, telephone number, and (if appropriate) group
represented, no later than Monday, October 21 to the following
address: 

    National Commission on Space
    Attn: Public Forums/Boston
    490 L'Enfant Plaza East, SW
    Washington, DC 20024

Witnesses will be requested to limit their oral presentations
before the Commission to approximately 10 minutes.  A longer
written statement may be submitted and will be made part of the
Commissions open files.

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

End of SPACE Digest V6 #8
*******************


1,,
Summary-line:   Thu, 17 Oct 85 03:00:43 pdt  Ted Anderson <ota>  SPACE Digest V6 #9
Received: by s1-b.ARPA id AA21240; Thu, 17 Oct 85 03:00:43 pdt
	id AA21240; Thu, 17 Oct 85 03:00:43 pdt
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 85 03:00:43 pdt
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8510171000.AA21240@s1-b.ARPA>
To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #9

*** EOOH ***
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 85 03:00:43 pdt
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #9

SPACE Digest                                        Volume 6 : Issue 9

Today's Topics:
			space telescope orbit
		  Re: Errors 1202 and 1201 on Eagle
		 Re: Debris from Upcomming ASAT Test
	       Object Programming and the Space Station
		       NEW RADIATION DATA BANK
			 Halley \"sign-over\"
			 Re: A Bit of History
			 Re: A Bit of History
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed 16 Oct 85 11:38-EDT
From: Henry Minsky <HQM%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Subject: space telescope orbit
To: space@S1-B.ARPA


I am confused as to how NASA is going to win with the
space telescope's orbit:

If they orbit it at the same height as the shuttle, won't it drag the
atmosphere and burn up like skylab in a few years?

And if they boost it to a higher orbit, how can anyone get to it to make
repairs when it breaks?

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

Date:  Wed, 16 Oct 85 11:27 EDT
From: Chris Jones <CLJones@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA>
Subject:  Re: Errors 1202 and 1201 on Eagle
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA

I recall that these were data overflow errors, and were caused by a
radar of some sort mistakenly being left on.  Apparently the program did
OK, discarding the data it couldn't process quickly enough.  I don't
recall if the crew took any action other than "ignore it--press on".  It
turned out that Eagle landed around 4 miles farther downrange than
intended--I also don't know if this error had anything to do with that.
In the end, Armstrong took manual control when he saw the automatic
pilot was heading Eagle for a field strewn with large rocks.  There were
anxious moments on the ground when they saw Eagle's forward speed
increase to around 60 mph to cross the boulder field.  On the tapes you
can hear the ground reminding Eagle that they have only 60, then 30
seconds of fuel left.  When Eagle finally touched down, there was under
20 seconds of fuel left before they would have had to punch out and use
the ascent engine to get out of there.

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

Date: 16 Oct 85 01:33:23 GMT
From: dual!ames!al@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU  (Al Globus)
Subject: Re: Debris from Upcomming ASAT Test
Sender: usenet@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU
To: space-network-source@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU

> > 
> > As far as the debris issue is concerned, why not condemn the Soviets
> > for their use of nuclear power plants in their spacecraft.  Talk about
> > hot debris.
> 
One of the two primary sources of space debris is fragments left over
from Soviet ASAT tests.  The other is US boosters that used to explode.
Note that the recent ASAT test destroyed a satellite in a 320 nautical
mile polar orbit - almost exactly the altitude of our future space station
and above most shuttle orbits.  That means that the shuttle will be
dodging our ASAT's debris.
Also note that both the shuttle and salyut have been struck by debris, 
although it is not known if the debris was man made or natural.

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

Date: 16 Oct 85 01:51:26 GMT
From: dual!ames!al@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU  (Al Globus)
Subject: Object Programming and the Space Station
Sender: usenet@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU
To: space-network-source@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU

I'm giving a presentation on object programming for the space station
project in early November.  If you have any ideas or insights you'd
like to share, please mail them to me.

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

To: space@angband
Subject: NEW RADIATION DATA BANK
Date:    Mon, 14 Oct 85 14:00:19 PDT
From: spacerad@JPL-VLSI.ARPA


 
There is a new open data bank on the air.  
 
It contains radiation effects data for total dose and single event upset (SEU)
tests conducted for NASA and DOD.
 
It is easy to operate.  
 
Phone   818-354-5125
 
Name    RADATA
 
Password  READ
 
Prot:     8 BIT
          1 BIT STOP
          NO PARITY
 
          AUTOMATIC 300 OR 1200 BAUD
 
 
Please feedback any comments or problems.  The data bank is newly on the
air and we would like to get all the bugs out...if there are any.
 
 
Questions or info contact:
 
Mike Gauthier
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
818-354-2126
GAUTHIER@JPL-VLSI.ARPA

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

Date: 16 Oct 85 13:26:26 GMT
From: decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-dvinci!fisher@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU  (Burns Fisher, MRO3-1/E13, DTN 231-4108.)
Subject: Halley \"sign-over\"
Sender: usenet@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU
To: space-network-source@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU

<>
>In todays San Diego Union (Oct. 17) is a picture of Ryan and Shasta Halley.
>Big deal?. Their ancestor discovered the famous comet and now their great-
>grandfather 'plans to sign over the famed comet to the children---just as
>his father did to him in 1910.'
> 
>What the hell does that mean?
I saw something about this several months ago.  Of course it is nothing legal.
It is simply a family tradition.  At each apparition of the comet, the
oldest member of the family turns over "care" of the comet to the youngest
member.  If all goes well, that youngest member will be around at the next
apparition as the oldest member to sign it over again.  I think it is a really
neat custom!  Can't you imagine at some future apparation, the oldest member
of the family breaking with tradition and signing it over to a moderate-age
family member who will go out and "service" the comet in person?
Burns
	UUCP:	... {decvax|allegra|ucbvax}!decwrl!rhea!dvinci!fisher
	ARPA:	fisher%dvinci.dec@decwrl.ARPA

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

Date: 15 Oct 85 20:22:27 GMT
From: pur-ee!ecn-pc!mdm@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU  ( Mike D McEvoy)
Subject: Re: A Bit of History
Sender: usenet@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU
To: space-network-source@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU

One of the key (and most ignored by the ANTI-ASAT groups)
reasons for building ASAT systems is to protect the carrier
battle group.  Our beloved comrades have several (many) observation
platforms that are dedicated to observing these battle groups.
According to several DOD reports, an operational carrier based
ASAT system improves the survivability of the battle group by a factor
of 2 to 10 by reducing the effective targeting accuracy of the russian
delivery system (If you can't see them, you can't hit them (as easily)).
Since the US uses the carrier battle group as one of the primary
means of protecting our interests, how can such a system (carrier based
ASAT systems) be viewed as destabilizing if it maintains the status quo??
It would seem to me that war would escalate very quickly if we lost this
mainly conventional military force early in a major conflict.
Please lower flames when responding....

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

Date: 16 Oct 85 16:49:26 GMT
From: bellcore!petrus!karn@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU  (Phil R. Karn)
Subject: Re: A Bit of History
Sender: usenet@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU
To: space-network-source@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU

> Since the US uses the carrier battle group as one of the primary
> means of protecting our interests, how can such a system (carrier based
> ASAT systems) be viewed as destabilizing if it maintains the status quo??
> It would seem to me that war would escalate very quickly if we lost this
> mainly conventional military force early in a major conflict.
The answer to this is that an aircraft carrier isn't of much use if the
geostationary satellites it uses for communication have been wiped out
by a high-altitude ASAT. The Soviets do not currently possess such a weapon,
and a ban on further testing of ASATs on both sides would prevent them from
developing such a capability.
The major function of the Soviet ocean reconnaissance satellites are radar
observation and electronic intelligence gathering. According to Admiral Noel
Gaylor, a member of the UCS panel on ASAT weapons, the means exist to
protect ships from these satellites: spoofing the relatively weak radars,
operating in electronic silence, and above all, relying on NAVSTAR for
navigation and on tight line-of-sight beams to geostationary satellites for
communications.
I strongly suggest you read the UCS book "The Fallacy of Star Wars",
ISBN 0-394-72894-7, before you decide this issue. This book has sections
on both SDI and ASATs.
Phil

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

End of SPACE Digest V6 #9
*******************


1,,
Summary-line:   Fri, 18 Oct 85 03:00:36 pdt  Ted Anderson <ota>  SPACE Digest V6 #10
Received: by s1-b.ARPA id AA25596; Fri, 18 Oct 85 03:00:36 pdt
	id AA25596; Fri, 18 Oct 85 03:00:36 pdt
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 85 03:00:36 pdt
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8510181000.AA25596@s1-b.ARPA>
To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #10

*** EOOH ***
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 85 03:00:36 pdt
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #10

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 6 : Issue 10

Today's Topics:
			  Voyager at Uranus
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 16 Oct 85 19:04:07 GMT
From: bellcore!petrus!magic!nvc!sabre!zeta!epsilon!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxa!bambi!mike@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU  (Michael Caplinger)
Subject: Voyager at Uranus
Sender: usenet@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU
To: space-network-source@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU

Does anybody know if the Planetary Society is going to let members get
anywhere near JPL during the Voyager Uranus encounter?  Is there
any way for regular civilians to get in otherwise?  (Unfortunately, my Caltech
ID is a few years out of date.)
If I can figure out how to sneak in, when is closest approach?
	- Mike

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

End of SPACE Digest V6 #10
*******************


1,,
Summary-line:   Sat, 19 Oct 85 03:00:39 pdt  Ted Anderson <ota>  SPACE Digest V6 #11
Received: by s1-b.ARPA id AA29732; Sat, 19 Oct 85 03:00:39 pdt
	id AA29732; Sat, 19 Oct 85 03:00:39 pdt
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 85 03:00:39 pdt
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8510191000.AA29732@s1-b.ARPA>
To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #11

*** EOOH ***
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 85 03:00:39 pdt
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #11

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 6 : Issue 11

Today's Topics:
			Re: Voyager at Uranus
		    politicization of space digest
			  a little whimsy...
				L5Net
		      Re: space telescope orbit
		     Dates of 1986 space events.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 18 Oct 85 12:08:17 pdt
From: jon@cit-vax.ARPA (Jonathan P. Leech)
To: space@s1-b.ARPA
Subject: Re: Voyager at Uranus

    Actually, having a Caltech ID would do you little good. During
Saturn encounter, I found JPL was relatively tightly sealed (except to
the press). Even if you could get in, the most interesting areas
(Mission Operations and the press conferences in Von Karman
Auditorium) are much more difficult, being filled with press types.

    However, during those encounters there were monitors placed all
around Tech receiving real-time feed from JPL as the pictures came
in. I suspect they'll do it again. There's no problem with access to
Tech (only in wanting to stay...)

    Quoting from the document

    `Voyager Bulletin / Mission Status Report # 68, April 10, 1985':

    " ... Voyager 2 will make its closest approach to Uranus on
	January 24, 1986, passing within 110,000 kilometers (68,000
	miles) of the planet's center."

    " Extended observations of Uranus will begin on November 4, 1985
	and continue through Februrary 25, 1986. Future issues of the
	Voyager Bulletin will focus on preparations for the encounter,
	including the health of the spacecraft, science objectives for
	the encounter, and capabilities for sending and receiving data
	over large distances."

    " Uranus, its rings, and satellite orbits present a bull's-eye
	target to Voyager 2; the planet is tilted on its rotational
	axis and the illuminated pole presently points almost directly
	to the sun. This unique orientation means that significant
	events of the Uranus encounter, such as satellite encounters
	and ring plane crossing, will be compressed into about 5-1/2
	hours, as compared to 35 hours for the approach to Jupiter's
	Galilean satellites and 13 days for the satellites out to
	Phoebe's orbit at Saturn."

    Current issues of this publication can probably be obtained by
	writing:

	    Public Information Office
	    F. E. Bristow, Manager
	    Mail Code 180-200
	    Jet Propulsion Laboratory
	    Pasadena, Ca. 91109
	    (818)-354-4321

    Note that this address came from the Institute directory so I
	make no guarantees of its reliability.

    -- Jon Leech (jon@cit-vax.arpa)
    __@/

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

Date: Fri 18 Oct 85 18:43:00-PDT
From: Lynn Gazis <SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA>
Subject: politicization of space digest
To: space@S1-B.ARPA

This is getting ridiculous.  Discussion of property rights and the
merits of porno shops does not belong on a digest for information
about space.  Please move this discussion elsewhere.

Lynn Gazis
-------

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

Date: 18 Oct 85 13:09:04 EDT
From: Dale.Amon@CMU-RI-FAS
Subject: a little whimsy...
To: BBoard.Maintainer@CMU-CS-A

Imagine a special zero G toilet built in an airlock. An unsuspecting
{taxcollector|bureaucrat|lawyer} is directed to this compartment after
mentioning a need to eject from an opposite end what they have been ejecting
at you from a facial orifice for the last hour. The unsuspecting one enters
and seats himself against the far wall. The flush lever opens the outer door
and unceremoniously ejects the vermin with their best part forward,
thus improving the future genetic stock of the human race...

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

Date: 18 Oct 85 14:12:09 EDT
From: Dale.Amon@CMU-RI-FAS
Subject: L5Net
To: BBoard.Maintainer@CMU-CS-A

The Pittsburgh chapter of L5 has for some time been working on networking
for those interested in space.

We now have connections to both UUCP and FIDONET, and have a private subnet
within FIDONET. We will have a FIDO-UUCP gateway working sometime before
Christmas. We are discussing setting up a name server program so that
transfer of mail will take into account the addresses we have collected for
our L5Net Directory of users on the academic networks. This is a much longer
term project.

Since most ARPA sites also have access to UUCP, I suspect the majority of
you will have direct access to our network. We also intend to port the uucp
side of space digest onto our net.

L5Net is a network of privately owned machines. It is currently limited to
IBM clones, but a C rewrite of FIDONET is in progress and when available
will allow porting to other machines.

Any L5 members out there who would like to set up a local L5Net node, please
contact us. The minimal requirement is an IBM PC and that you leave your
machine attached to the phone line over night. A better arrangement is to
have a dedicated phone line so you can have a local user population.

If you want more information, or are interested in setting up your own node
and having electronic mail delivered to the privacy of your own home (or
company, or university office), please contact garbee@cmu-cs-g.

There are currently two nodes running (Pgh and LA), a third coming up (Pgh)
and 3 or 4 looking into it (mostly Ohio). We have hopes of bringing SSI
Princeton into the net. We will also be working with AMSAT packet satellite
group on routing some mail packets via the new satellite, giving us free
communications to anywhere in the world. (FCC recently cleared them for
noncommercial third party digital traffic where both sending and rcving
stations are licensed). We have discussed this with both Dr. Champas of
AMSAT and with the local CMU Radio Club (the ones who transmitted the slow
scan TV to the space shuttle). AMSAT is also going to be distributing space
and science related lectures via satellite, some of which may be supplied by
L5. The local group is discussing re-transmission of NASA SELECT over an
amateur low power TV channel.

I might also add that both FIDONET and UUCP are already world wide, so we
have hopes of getting better communications with our overseas compatriots in
L5. If there are any overseas L5 members listening, PLEASE CONTACT US!!!!

Our uucp node is rensys, and there are several L5 members available there.
It is currently only accessible via pitt, but may soon be on the host list
of several other machines.


On UUCP:
	pitt!rensys!bdale	(Bdale Garbee)
	pitt!rensys!jim		(Jim McHale)
	pitt!rensys!emb		(Ed Bosco)

On FIDONET: (L5Net Gateway)
	Phone:		412-687-3984
	Notes:		300-1200b autobaud dialup. Hit a couple of CR's then
			answer questionaire. Private, controlled access mail
			system.


We are also still keeping up an L5Net Directory of L5'ers on the academic
networks. Anyone who wants a copy, just send mail to garbee@cmu-cs-g.

Join us (or AMSAT) and get in on the fun!!!!!

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

Date: 17 Oct 85 21:28:22 GMT
From: ihnp4!alberta!andrew@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU  (Andrew Folkins)
Subject: Re: space telescope orbit
Sender: usenet@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU
To: space-network-source@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU

In article <8510161537.AA16848@s1-b.ARPA> HQM%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA (Henry Minsky) writes:
>
>I am confused as to how NASA is going to win with the
>space telescope's orbit:
>
>If they orbit it at the same height as the shuttle, won't it drag the
>atmosphere and burn up like skylab in a few years?
>
>And if they boost it to a higher orbit, how can anyone get to it to make
>repairs when it breaks?
My guess is a fairly high low earth orbit, somewhere around 300 nautical
miles (Anyone out there know the maximum operational altitude of the shuttle?).
As the ST will be visited fairly often, there will be ample opportunities
to haul it up a few more miles.  I don't think they'll let it get down
to the 150-180 miles that Skylab was at.
-- 
Andrew Folkins        ...ihnp4!alberta!andrew    
 
"Any statements to the effect that this parrot is still a going concern
 are hereby considered inoperative!"

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

Date: 18 Oct 85 20:38:38 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!caip!topaz!bentley!dxa@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU  (DR Anolick)
Subject: Dates of 1986 space events.
Sender: usenet@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU
To: space-network-source@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU

I know my mailbox will overflow, but here goes anyway.  Please
MAIL me the responses, do not post!
I am in need of the exact date of the following 1986 space events:
Date of the closest approach to Halley of the spacecraft from
Japan, ESA, and two from the USSR.  (I also need the names of
these spacecraft.)
Date of Halley's closest approach to the sun.
Date of Halley's brightest magnitude from the U.S.
Date of Voyager's closest approach to Uranus.
I know that most of the above occurs around March, but I need 
exact dates if possible.  
Thanks in Advance.
-- 
	Droyan				David Roy Anolick
ihnp4!bentley!{droyan|dxa}		^     ^^^ ^^
"For the lightning"

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

End of SPACE Digest V6 #11
*******************


1,,
Summary-line:   Mon, 21 Oct 85 03:00:38 pdt  Ted Anderson <ota>  SPACE Digest V6 #12
Received: by s1-b.ARPA id AA06137; Mon, 21 Oct 85 03:00:38 pdt
	id AA06137; Mon, 21 Oct 85 03:00:38 pdt
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 85 03:00:38 pdt
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8510211000.AA06137@s1-b.ARPA>
To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #12

*** EOOH ***
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 85 03:00:38 pdt
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #12

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 6 : Issue 12

Today's Topics:
		      Re: space telescope orbit
		  Re: Errors 1202 and 1201 on Eagle
		      Re: space telescope orbit
			Finite Space Resources
		       Re: SPACE Digest V6 #11
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 17 Oct 85 19:26:06 GMT
From: tektronix!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!eder@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU  (Dani Eder)
Subject: Re: space telescope orbit
Sender: usenet@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU
To: space-network-source@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU

> 
> I am confused as to how NASA is going to win with the
> space telescope's orbit:
> 
> If they orbit it at the same height as the shuttle, won't it drag the
> atmosphere and burn up like skylab in a few years?
> 
> And if they boost it to a higher orbit, how can anyone get to it to make
> repairs when it breaks?
     The Shuttle normally flies to 160 Nautical miles.  At that altitude
the payload capability is about 65,000 pounds.  In order to reach higher
altitudes, the Orbiter must carry more propellant, and hence less payload.
The Hubble Space Telescope is currently scheduled to be deployed at 320
Nautical miles (on 8 August 1986, flight 61-J).  The Orbiter Atlantis
is capable of carrying about 40,000 pounds to that height.  The Space
Telescope, including carrying cradle in the Orbiter cargo bay, weighs
27,700 pounds.
     As for drag, at 160 miles, drag lowers your orbit about 0.5 miles
per day.  At 320 miles, it is about 100 times less.  Over the 3 years
until the next scheduled Shuttle visit, the Telescope should fall about
5 miles.  The Telescope may be brought down at that time not because
the equipment has broken down, but because the incredibly thin layer
of aluminum on the mirror surface may evaporate off.  If not, they will
replace instruments, make any needed repairs, and drag it back up
five miles.  Then they will leave it in orbit for another three years.
Dani Eder/Boeing Aerospace/ssc-vax!eder

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

Date: 17 Oct 85 16:54:08 GMT
From: bellcore!petrus!karn@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU  (Phil R. Karn)
Subject: Re: Errors 1202 and 1201 on Eagle
Sender: usenet@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU
To: space-network-source@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU

> It
> turned out that Eagle landed around 4 miles farther downrange than
> intended--I also don't know if this error had anything to do with that.
This error was due to an incomplete model of the moons very complex
gravitational field. The moon has a very irregular shape, and unless it
is modeled exactly in the programs that simulate an orbit, errors will
accumulate. When Eagle was given its final "state vector" (position and
velocity) before powered descent initiation, it was actually 6800 meters
further downrange and 1400 meters further south. Therefore, the entire
descent was shifted downrange and Eagle landed 7km downrange from the
original target spot.
The desire to demonstrate a pinpoint landing capability was the reason
the next flight, Apollo 12, was landed next to Surveyor III.
Phil

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

Date: 20 Oct 85 16:00:14 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!rochester!ray@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU  (Ray Frank)
Subject: Re: space telescope orbit
Sender: usenet@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU
To: space-incoming@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU

> In article <8510161537.AA16848@s1-b.ARPA> HQM%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA (Henry Minsky) writes:
> >
> >I am confused as to how NASA is going to win with the
> >space telescope's orbit:
> >
> >If they orbit it at the same height as the shuttle, won't it drag the
> >atmosphere and burn up like skylab in a few years?
> >
> >And if they boost it to a higher orbit, how can anyone get to it to make
> >repairs when it breaks?
> 
> My guess is a fairly high low earth orbit, somewhere around 300 nautical
> miles (Anyone out there know the maximum operational altitude of the shuttle?).
> As the ST will be visited fairly often, there will be ample opportunities
> to haul it up a few more miles.  I don't think they'll let it get down
> to the 150-180 miles that Skylab was at.
> 
> -- 
I believe the space telescope is designed to last about 13 years.  How high
would it have to be to stay aloft that long?

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

From: decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-silver!turano@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU
Date: 18 Oct 85 12:01:07 GMT
Subject: Finite Space Resources
Sender: usenet@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU
To: space-network-source@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU

-*-
	I need information on scarce space resources. These are resources
	which may be allocated or allocable under one or more of the various
	space treaties. Two that come to mind immediately are the orbital
	slots in the geosynchronous orbit and the Lagrangian points. Today
	the geosynchronous orbital slots are allocated under international
	agreement. The Langrangian points, which have been suggested as
	space platform locations, have not been allocated, probably because
	the technology to utilize them is currently unavailable. 
	Does anyone know of any actual proposal to use a Lagrangian point?
	Can anyone think of other space resources (locations) which are
	potentially useful and yet restricted in number or accessibility?
	Thanks for your help.
	Tom Turano
	Digital Equipment Corporation

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

Sender: "Michael M Cashen.SBDERX"@Xerox.ARPA
Date: 21 Oct 85 02:03:03 PDT (Monday)
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V6 #11
From: cashen.SBDERX@Xerox.ARPA
To: ota@s1-b.Arpa
Cc: Space@S1-B.Arpa
In-Reply-To: ota%s1-b:ARPA:Xerox's message of 19 Oct 85 11:38:37 +0100
 (Saturday)


I wish to know some details about Halley's Comet i.e. Date of
visibility, Flight path, duration of visibility, etc. I live in Southern
England about 30 miles due North of London. Any information would be
much appreciated.
Mike

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

End of SPACE Digest V6 #12
*******************


1,,
Summary-line:   Tue, 22 Oct 85 03:00:37 pdt  Ted Anderson <ota>  SPACE Digest V6 #13
Received: by s1-b.ARPA id AA11722; Tue, 22 Oct 85 03:00:37 pdt
	id AA11722; Tue, 22 Oct 85 03:00:37 pdt
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 85 03:00:37 pdt
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8510221000.AA11722@s1-b.ARPA>
To: Space@Angband
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #13

*** EOOH ***
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 85 03:00:37 pdt
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@Angband
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #13

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 6 : Issue 13

Today's Topics:
		   Re: HALLEY'S COMET-- ANCESTORS--
			      HST Orbit
		      Re: space telescope orbit
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 20 Oct 85 01:00:38 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!harvard!bbnccv!bbncca!linus!utzoo!henry@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: HALLEY'S COMET-- ANCESTORS--
Sender: usenet@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU
To: space-incoming@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU

> ...Their ancestor discovered the famous comet...
No he didn't, he deduced (but did not live long enough to prove) that
several major comets were in fact periodic appearances of the same comet.
This might count as a discovery of the comet, but Comet Halley was seen
millenia before Halley was born.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

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

Date: 21 Oct 1985 08:34:16 EDT
From: METH@USC-ISI.ARPA
Subject: HST Orbit
To: SPACE@MIT-MC.ARPA
Cc: METH@USC-ISI.ARPA

HST is scheduled for a 600km orbit by the shuttle.  This is at the 
outer  limits of shuttle orbital capabilities,  given the  payload 
weight.

HST is designed for 5 year servicing,  20 year total life.  It was 
originally  designed for servicing on the ground at 10 years,  but 
now with the space station,  all servicing will be done on  orbit.  
Exact  maintenance  and  refirbishment  schedule is  still  to  be 
determined.

HST  has a significant amount of aero drag due to its  large  body 
and  solar  panel "wings."  It will probably need a reboost  every 
time it's serviced.   On the other hand,  if the orbital  transfer 
vehicle  ever becomes real,  that won't be a problem (maybe it can 
be boosted to an even higher orbit).

The  aluminum coating on the mirror probably will  NOT  evaporate, 
since  it's overcoated with magnesium fluoride.   The REAL problem 
is molecular contamination,  and atomic oxygen  degradation.   The 
former  could  be solved by burning the coating off  (the  Al/MgF2 
won't  be  damamged),  the latter is a relatively new  phenomenon, 
still being quantified.

--Sheldon Meth
-------

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

Date: 21 Oct 85 04:10:46 GMT
From: sdcsvax!telesoft!garym@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Gary Morris @shine)
Subject: Re: space telescope orbit
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU
To: space-incoming@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU

In article <694@alberta.UUCP> andrew@pembina.UUCP (Andrew Folkins) writes:
>In article <8510161537.AA16848@s1-b.ARPA> HQM%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA (Henry Minsky) writes:
>>
>>If they orbit it at the same height as the shuttle, won't it drag the
>>atmosphere and burn up like skylab in a few years?
>>
>>And if they boost it to a higher orbit, how can anyone get to it to make
>>repairs when it breaks?
>
>My guess is a fairly high low earth orbit, somewhere around 300 nautical
>miles (Anyone out there know the maximum operational altitude of the shuttle?).
According to the "Space Shuttle Operators Manual" the space telescope will 
be deployed in orbit at 500 miles (800 km).  It also states the maximum
orbit for the Shuttle is 690 miles (1100 km).
-- 
Gary A. Morris -- USENET   :  ...{decvax,ucbvax}!sdcsvax!telesoft!garym
		  CompuServ:  76317,520
		  TeleMail :  GMorris/TeleSoft
"Always listen to experts.  They'll tell you what can't be done 
 and why.  Then do it."  	--  Lazarus Long

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

End of SPACE Digest V6 #13
*******************


1,,
Summary-line:   Wed, 23 Oct 85 03:00:37 pdt  Ted Anderson <ota>  SPACE Digest V6 #14
Received: by s1-b.ARPA id AA03319; Wed, 23 Oct 85 03:00:37 pdt
	id AA03319; Wed, 23 Oct 85 03:00:37 pdt
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 85 03:00:37 pdt
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8510231000.AA03319@s1-b.ARPA>
To: Space@Angband
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #14

*** EOOH ***
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 85 03:00:37 pdt
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@Angband
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #14

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 6 : Issue 14

Today's Topics:
				 SDI
			    Please add me.
			 Private space miners
	Weinberger lied, satellite shot to bits wasn't defunct
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-raynal!kovner@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU
Date: 22 Oct 85 19:20:18 GMT
Subject: SDI
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU
To: space-incoming@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU

One point which I have not seen made about SDI is the (to me) impossibility of
deploying even a 100% successful system. Any such system will take sufficient
time to deploy that the other side could easily launch a pre-emptive strike
between the time a system is developed and by the time it is deployed. To me,
deploying even an imperfect system could cause a pre-emptive strike by the
other side, especially if the other side is not CONVINCED that the system is
imperfect. And, after all, why deploy such a system if it does not work?
(Except for the profits made by the companies producing it; something not
likely to be appreciated by a Communist government.) 
I am thus forced to agree with those that say that SDI is of no use without
international cooperation. I do say that it would be of tremendous use in
preventing a country with few nuclear missiles from starting a war. A few
missiles could be easily handled by a system designed to defend against
thousands. However, it is probably easier to assemble (or steal) nuclear
weapons than missiles; thus terrorists planting bombs is a greater threat
than a small country obtaining nuclear missiles.
I would also like an end to the threat of nuclear war. I just do not see
how SDI alone could produce it.
Steve Kovner 
UUCP:  { decvax, allegra, ucbvax }!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-regina!kovner
ARPA:  kovner%regina.DEC@decwrl.ARPA
Stay tuned for "32 Seconds to Cairo", the story of the first captain of a
submarine with nuclear piles.

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

To: space%s1-b@lbl-rtsg.arpa
Subject: Please add me.
Date: 22 Oct 85 17:54:49 PDT (Tue)
From: jef@lbl-rtsg.arpa

Thanks.  (Hi, Ted!)
---
Jef

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

From: unmvax!nmtvax!wildstar@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU
Date: 22 Oct 85 01:39:43 GMT
Subject: Private space miners
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU
To: space-incoming@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU

     I have a question for everyone:
     If I were to build a spacecraft, as a private company, which was 
capable of travel to the asteroid belt, are there any enforceable laws
out there that would prohibit me from mining rare earths, gold, platinum,
and the like and returning earthside to sell the product?
     I had the idea of using Joe Neumann's "energy device" as an energy
source for a constant-acceleration drive system. Certain people denounce
the device as a "perpetual motion machine", other people call it a
"mass-energy converter".  I for one am just willing to experiment with
small models to see if I can get a self-sustaining current. If it really
works, with the current feedback will ensure that a smaller model will
be just as effective as a larger one, if you assume you have materials
that can take the stress.
     I do recall the UN has an Outer Planets Treaty, and that there is
also one that claims all extra-terrestrial resources to be "common human
heritage".  I think there was also an international treaty restricting the
role of spaceflight to individual governments, as well as a United States
law prohibiting private spaceflight.  But I am curious to know the 
existance and present status of these laws, if such laws exist and are
currently in force.
Sincerely Yours,
Andrew Jonathan Fine
(Wildstar)

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

Date: 22 Oct 1985 2321-PDT
From: Rem@IMSSS
Subject: Weinberger lied, satellite shot to bits wasn't defunct
To: ARMS-D%MIT-MC@SCORE
Cc: SPACE%MIT-MC@SCORE

According to an article in Science (journal of AAAS) earlier this month,
the "Solwind" satellite shot down to test the anti-satellite weapon system
wasn't really defunct as Casper Weinberger (Sec. of Defense) claimed,
and the scientists who were processing data from it and have now lost
the source of data are rather angry. The satellite had a device for taking
pictures of the corona of the Sun, one of only two such devices in space,
the other being on the Solar-Max which was recently repaired by the
space shuttle. While the Solar-Max was out of commission prior to the
repair, Solwind was the only such instrument. Furthermore, the device
on he Solar-Max is inferior, giving little pieces of image that have to
be patched together instead of a full image as Solwind gave before it
was shot to bits. Furthermore, there was an advantage in having continuous
longterm data from a consistent source rather than having to switch to
a different instrument. Therefore a real loss occurred when Solwind was
destroyed, and Casper Weinberger lied to us when he claimed tha ASAT
test was conducted on a no-longer functional satellite.
-------

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

End of SPACE Digest V6 #14
*******************


1,,
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 85 03:00:54 pst
From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <MAILER-DAEMON>
Subject: Returned mail: Can't create output
To: ota

*** EOOH ***
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 85 03:00:54 pst
From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <MAILER-DAEMON>
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #15
To: ota

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 6 : Issue 15

Today's Topics:
			Re: Voyager at Uranus
		    Hallyey's comet info requested
			 propulsion question
		Unified Field Theory and space travel
		Simberg Testimony to Space Commission
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 21 Oct 85 22:35:32 GMT
From: hplabs!ames!eugene@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Eugene Miya)
Subject: Re: Voyager at Uranus
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU
To: space-incoming@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU

I had occasion to visit my old haunts at JPL on Friday (a working day off
for me) where I had a chance to revisit old friends [wow! some soon to
be Shuttle mission specialists, others proposing Uranus orbiters]
and meet new JPL people who read this news group.  I had a chance to
stop by and see a few Voyager images which is what you want to hear about.  
First, there is not much detail to see.  Yes, there is a fuzzy, disk
(looks a bit like distant shots of Titan, Saturn's methane covered moon).
It is a side view maybe 3/4 full.  The satellites are visible, but only
as points.  The images I saw were tinted with blue, probably the
same one Doug and others report.  I didn't get a chance to see a histogram
of the images as a spent less time with imaging team and more time with
HyperCube people.
Second, you [I forgot to tell you this] can get these images from
the JPL by writing the public information office [don't mention me,
that doesn't help] or get tours of the Lab thru PIO.  Black and White
Voyager Bulletins are available without charge while supplies last.
They are typically a page or two with one photo and text.  Better to
know someone currently working there on the project.
Encounter is sometime in January 1986.
>From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  {hplabs,ihnp4,dual,hao,decwrl,allegra}!ames!aurora!eugene
  emiya@ames-vmsb

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

Date: Thu, 24 Oct 85 07:43:37 pdt
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: space@angband
Subject: Hallyey's comet info requested


Date: 08 Oct 85 23:45:31 EST (Tue)
From: "Andrew V Royappa" <avr@Purdue.EDU>

	Hello .. I'm looking for  information  about  tours/trips to the
southern hemisphere (either Australia, or South America) to see Halley's
comet,  come  winter.  I'd   appreciate   you  passing  on  any  related
information to me.

				Thank you,

					Andrew Royappa
					avr@purdue.arpa
					avr@purdue.edu
				{ihnp4,pur-ee,decvax,ucbvax}!purdue!avr

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

Date: 24 Oct 85 09:35:00 PDT
From: Emilio Calius <calius@su-star>
Subject: propulsion question
To: "space%angband" <space%angband@score>
Reply-To: Emilio Calius <calius@su-star>


	I'm familiar with most space propulsion systems, but have never heard
of Joe Neumann's "energy device".

	Would somebody out there care to enlighten me?

	Emilio P. Calius
------

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

Date: 24 Oct 85 13:05:55 GMT
From: decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-amber!dipirro@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Are we having fun yet?)
Subject: Unified Field Theory and space travel
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU
To: space-incoming@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU

	I recently watched a program on PBS called "What Einstein Never Knew."
It was primarily a discussion of recent developments in the area of Unified
Field Theory. Physicists appear to be following several different paths.
Experimental physicists are still trying to find relationships between the
four forces in the context of the universe as we know it (and have recently
found a connection between electromagnetic and weak nuclear forces).
Theoretical physicists are proposing new universe concepts which cannot be
verified through experimentation directly. One such theory is called
"supersymmetry." It talks of all things being symmetrical in a universe which
has 10 or 11 physical dimensions, in which we see only three. Another theory
was called the "string" theory (I think) and can explain the relationship
between all four major forces.
	I'd be interested to know if any of the new theories will cause
reconsideration of some of Einstein's theories of relativity. I'm particularly
interested in the speed of light being a limiting factor for space travel.
Most people agree that as long as speed-of-light restrictions apply, it is
impractical for intelligent life forms to travel to different star systems
(unless, of course, their solar system is about to blow up).
	Before he died, Einstein was thinking about the curvature of space
due to gravity. He believed that space is warped by objects with mass. Even
light could not travel "directly" from point A to point B but had to follow
the curvature of space. That implied that if one could travel directly from
point A to point B that one could get there faster than light. However, one
need not travel faster than light-speed. This is an oversimplified view (but
I can't help that...Its how my mind works).
	It seems to me that any Unified Field Theory could help explain if
and how its possible to travel "faster than light," since it must involve
the relationship between gravity and electromagnetic forces. Could anyone
out there enlighten me? I think that space travel (particularly faster-than-
light space travel) belong here in net.space. If people disagree, we can
move the discussion elsewhere.
Steve DiPirro
Digital Equipment Corp.
"If space itself is warped, then so must I be..."

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

Date: Thu, 24 Oct 85 11:09:22 pdt
To: space@angband
Subject: Simberg Testimony to Space Commission 
Forwarded-By: Craig E. Ward <cew@isi-hobgoblin.arpa>
From: Rand Simberg <SIMBERG@USC-ECL.ARPA>

For those who are interested, here is the testimony that I presented to
the Space Commission.   


						    Rand Simberg 
						    437 Whiting St.
						    El Segundo, CA

Dear Dr. Paine, 

     As a result of your request for suggestions, you and your
commission have no doubt received many ideas from many people on
appropriate goals and visions for our future space program.  While I
offer no new technical concepts or missions to add to your abundant
list, I would like to present a few thoughts that may help you to
organize and unify those that you have received.

      Before selecting visions for our relationship with space,
setting goals, and deriving programs needed to carry them out, it is
vital to determine what criteria a future direction in space should
satisfy.  The criteria that I would choose are the following:

     o the visions or philosophies should be of obvious value and 
       acceptable to the American public; 
     o increments of them should be immediately achievable; and 
     o carrying them to completion should require a great deal of time.  

     The first criterion is needed to assure the acceptance of the
vision.  It also provide a means to prioritize this program among
other national goals.  The second criterion provides intermediate
benefits in the short-term; thus, visible progress will demonstrate
the utility of the program, and ensure continuing support for it.
The last criteria will prevent the vision from dying through
fulfilment, as, in the most notable example, the Apollo program did.
To paraphrase John F. Kennedy, what is needed is a goal that is not
so difficult as to be unachievable, nor so easy as to be trivial.

     Having defined the criteria, I will now attempt to come up with
some unifying visions that satisfy them.  Based upon my criteria, I
have chosen four broad goals for future space programs:

	 1)  To aid us in properly husbanding our earthly resources 

	 2)  To expand our knowledge of the universe 

	 3)  To open up the resources and wealth of the rest of the 
	     universe to humanity 

	 4)  To ensure that the values upon which this nation was 
	     founded (i.e. individual freedom and human rights) are 
	     preserved as our species expands into the universe 

     The first goal is perhaps the most pressing.  Despite the recent
depression in commodity prices, and the ingenuity with which we met
many of  the resource "crises" of the recent past, we still must
recognize that our  earthly resources are finite, and that we must be
proper stewards of our  planet, the only currently known abode of
life.  This includes not only  managing our resources more wisely, in
the sense of improved agricultural  and industrial productivity, but
also using space to aid in the prevention  of pollution and other
hazards to our apparently unique biosphere.   Appropriate programs to
meet this goal would include more advanced weather  and remote sensing
satellites, as well as increasing the ability of all  citizens to
communicate and receive data on a global basis.  There are many
government policies that could be changed, with little or no public
expenditure, to encourage this.

     Private investment and endeavors that collect knowledge of
environmental conditions, distributing information globally, or make
stored data available should be encouraged.  The ultimate goal for
this program should be to give each citizen of the Earth enough
information to understand his or her surroundings, and to eventually
allow all of the processes of the entire Earth to be understood.
This program supports the principle of free flow of information,
while encouraging the development of technologies directly  applicable
to the Information Age that we are now just entering.

     The second goal, expansion of our understanding of the universe,
takes this first goal and directs it outwards.  Only a few centuries
ago, the horizon of human knowledge was bounded by the physical
horizon.  The search for knowledge uplifts us spiritually and is a key
characteristic that, as a species, sets us apart from the other
inhabitants of this planet.  The progress of man and an improvement of
the human condition depends upon human curiosity and willingness to
discover new things.  Exploring space and attempting to understand
what we have found and are finding there will inevitably produce new
developments to improve life on Earth.

     As our society continues to grow, it will eventually approach the
limits of the Earth.  Ultimately, the only way to effectively bypass
our Earth-bound limits to growth is to carry out the third goal,
availing ourselves of the abundant resources in the Solar System.  A
well-planned program of asteroidal and planetary exploration will, in
addition to telling us much about the origin of our solar system and
the universe beyond, point the way to new sources of material and
energy for humanity.  Using these new resources in space will reduce
the costs of space operations, allowing the program to become self
sustaining, and make even more and cheaper resources available.  In
time, perhaps even within your fifty year planning horizon, the costs
of space resources will be reduced to the point where they can be
economically substituted for terrestrial materials, relieving many of
the environmental pressures on our long-suffering planet.

     The fourth goal, value and freedom preservation, should be kept
in mind as we contemplate international space ventures.  While
international space missions have many benefits to offer in reduced
costs, shared knowledge, and improved relations, we must be careful
that, in our zeal to promote such programs, we not lose sight of those
values that make our nation almost unique among the world community.
Agreements such as the appropriately ill-fated United Nations Moon
Treaty tend to ignore those ideals for which we fought over two
hundred years ago.  Constitutional rights of U.S. citizens, and those
rights guaranteed in the U.N. Charter, must be adequately safeguarded.
A prudent national space program will ensure that our ideological
adversaries not be allowed the capability to quarantine our nation and
its hard-fought values on the Earth, while at the same time we must
guarantee access to space by all cultures and beliefs, to preserve
human diversity.

     I would like to conclude on a cautionary note.  Many people,
equating boldness with sheer technological prowess, will urge you to
set goals such as a manned mission to Mars, or some other specific
technical achievement that may not necessarily be part of a long-term,
well thought-out plan.  While it is important and useful, for many
reasons, to carry out manned planetary exploration, it is much more
important to develop the logistic nodes necessary to facilitate many
and varied space missions.  Although the Apollo program was a
remarkable technical achievement, and has paid for itself many times
over, the returns from it would have been incomparably greater had it
been done as one building block of a rationally paced scheme to first
establish ourselves in low earth orbit and then gone on to the moon to
stay.  We should not repeat the same mistake we made with Apollo of
setting an expensive, short-term, accomplishable goal without also
building up an enduring space economy.

     Your commission has been granted an historic opportunity to
finally and firmly set our nation's space program in the proper
direction.  A truly bold space program will not consist of amazing
technical feats; it should consist rather of developing the necessary
on-orbit facilities and capabilities that allow space operations to
become self-sustaining, and so render going to Mars, or indeed the
asteroids or Galilean moons, a trivial and routine affair.  It should
be made so easy, in fact, that it will become commonplace, and not be
subject to the whims of Earth-bound legislatures.  If this occurs, the
Space Commission will have achieved what should be its true purpose:
to make a National Space Commission totally superfluous to the
everyday activities of hundreds and thousands of humans living and
working in space.

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

End of SPACE Digest V6 #15
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.ARPA id AA27544; Thu, 7 Nov 85 03:01:02 pst
	id AA27544; Thu, 7 Nov 85 03:01:02 pst
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 85 03:01:02 pst
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8511071101.AA27544@s1-b.ARPA>
To: Space@Angband
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #16

*** EOOH ***
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 85 03:01:02 pst
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@Angband
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #16

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 6 : Issue 16

Today's Topics:
			Re: SPACE Digest V6 #3
			 DATA on ASAT debris
		      Re: space telescope orbit
			Re: Voyager at Uranus
			Flying to the Astroids
			Re: Voyager at Uranus
		       Re: propulsion question
	    VAZX/UNIX BSD 4.2 at NASA and Aerospace Sites?
	      Re: Unified Field Theory and space travel
			    Halley's Comet
		Re(2): Voyager at Uranus & caltech IDs
			 Private Space Miners
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:           Thu, 24 Oct 85 11:15:35 PDT
From: "Niket K. Patwardhan" <bilbo.niket@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU>
Return-Path:    <bilbo.niket>
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC
Cc: usenet@ucb-vax, "Dick Pierce"@ucb-vax
Subject:        Re: SPACE Digest V6 #3
In-Reply-To:    Message of 05 Oct 85  0348 PDT
                    from "Ted Anderson <OTA@S1-A.ARPA>"

Sorry about using space-net, but this is the only way I know to get back to
Dick Pierce.

I saw your thing on lenses.... my question is "Is it possible to make a lens
that has a different focal length in one direction than in the other?" For
example, if parallel rays come at it from the left they get focussed 10cm away,
and if they come from the right they get focussed 100 cm away. The reason I ask
is that if this is possible, then the little projector R2D2 used to project
Leia's 3-D image in Star Wars is feasible. I know by looking at lens catalogs
that differences about the thickness of the lens exist, but is complicated by
the fact that the apparent plane at which the focussing starts is not the same
in each direction.


Replies to
lcc.niket@ucla-cs
lcc.niket@locus.ucla.edu

Use both to ensure delivery.

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

Date: 22 Oct 85 19:05:04 GMT
From: dual!ames!al@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Al Globus)
Subject: DATA on ASAT debris
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU
To: space-incoming@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU

According to Aviation Week and Space Technology:
The DARPA P78-1 gamma ray spectrometer satellite was blown into
approximately 150 pieces by the ASAT warhead.  The satellite was
in a 320 nautical mile polar orbit.

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

Date: 22 Oct 85 18:59:45 GMT
From: dual!ames!al@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Al Globus)
Subject: Re: space telescope orbit
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU
To: space-incoming@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU

> In article <8510161537.AA16848@s1-b.ARPA> HQM%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA (Henry Minsky) writes:
> >
> >I am confused as to how NASA is going to win with the
> >space telescope's orbit:
> >
> >If they orbit it at the same height as the shuttle, won't it drag the
> >atmosphere and burn up like skylab in a few years?
> >
> >And if they boost it to a higher orbit, how can anyone get to it to make
> >repairs when it breaks?
> As the ST will be visited fairly often, there will be ample opportunities
> to haul it up a few more miles.  I don't think they'll let it get down
> to the 150-180 miles that Skylab was at.
> 
> -- 
> Andrew Folkins        ...ihnp4!alberta!andrew    
>  
> "Any statements to the effect that this parrot is still a going concern
>  are hereby considered inoperative!"
I don't remember the numbers, but according to Aviation Week the Space
Telescope mission will set an shuttle altitude record.  Furthermore,
the shuttle can nominally go about twice as high as it usually does.

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

From: hplabs!hpfcdc!hpfcla!ajs@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU
Date: 21 Oct 85 16:25:00 GMT
Subject: Re: Voyager at Uranus
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU
To: space-incoming@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU

> Does anybody know if the Planetary Society is going to let members get
> anywhere near JPL during the Voyager Uranus encounter?
I doubt it.  When the Viking missions landed in '76, they sent home most
of the JPL employees (!) for half a day.
> (Unfortunately, my Caltech ID is a few years out of date.)
Alas, mine too.  :-)  But once upon a time it sufficed to get me in to
watch some live photos come back from the first Mercury encounter -- so
who knows?
Alan Silverstein

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

Date: 25 Oct 85 12:59:54 GMT
From: decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-comet!timpson@ucb-vax.berkeley.edu  (THE REST THE UNIVERSE)
Subject: Flying to the Astroids
Sender: usenet@ucb-vax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@ucb-vax.berkeley.edu

Andrew
    I know of no reason why you can"t mine the asteroids but Newmans
"
"Mass energy convertor" is bogus.  Tie into net.physics to find out more
Newman will not let anyone examine his device until he gets a patent which
will never come unless he lets someone examine it.  In a nut shell he's hiding
something.
                                   steve:^)
The meak shall inherit the earth.  The rest...THE UNIVERSE

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

Date: 25 Oct 85 17:08:19 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!spuxll!fc@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (fc)
Subject: Re: Voyager at Uranus
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU
To: space-incoming@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU

>> Does anybody know if the Planetary Society is going to let members get
>> anywhere near JPL during the Voyager Uranus encounter?
> I doubt it.  When the Viking missions landed in '76, they sent home most
> of the JPL employees (!) for half a day.
What was the reason for sending home "most of the JPL employees"?
Statements like the above make me wonder what the
Planetary Society/JPL/US Govt. etc would do if a confirmed encounter
with intelligent non-earth life were made?  Would there be full disclosure,
or would there be a coverup to avoid a possible panic?

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

Date: 25 Oct 85 20:59:49 GMT
From: vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!fluke!ssc-vax!bcsaic!pamp@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (pam pincha)
Subject: Re: propulsion question
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU
To: space-incoming@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU

In article <8510241643.AA04354@s1-b.ARPA> Emilio Calius <calius@su-star> writes:
>
>	I'm familiar with most space propulsion systems, but have never heard
>of Joe Neumann's "energy device".
>
>	Would somebody out there care to enlighten me?
>
>	Emilio P. Calius
>------
For current discussion of said machine check in on net.research or
net.misc.

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

Date: 24 Oct 85 21:24:56 GMT
From: hplabs!ames!al@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Al Globus)
Subject: VAZX/UNIX BSD 4.2 at NASA and Aerospace Sites?
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU
To: space-incoming@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU

I'm trying to determin which NASA and contractor (e.g., Lockheed, TRW, etc.)
sites have a VAX/UNIX BSD 4.2 system in use.  If you know of any such system,
please contact me at:
Al Globus
MS 239-19
NASA Ames Research Center
Moffett Field, CA 94035
FTS 464-5751
(415) 694-5751
(408) 425-7038 (after 9AM California time)
telemail: aglobus
Usenet: ames!al
Thanks in advance ...

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

Date: 27 Oct 85 04:05:06 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Unified Field Theory and space travel
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU
To: space-incoming@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU

> 	I'd be interested to know if any of the new theories will cause
> reconsideration of some of Einstein's theories of relativity. I'm particularly
> interested in the speed of light being a limiting factor for space travel.
Reconsideration of the General Theory of Relativity is virtually certain,
partly because it appears to be incompatible with quantum mechanics and
partly because it contains major internal anomalies like the possibility
of the Tipler time machine.  [Briefly, intense rapidly-spinning gravity
fields can be used to build a time machine with unlimited range into both
past and future.]  Alas, General Relativity is just basically the current
theory of gravitation.  The Special Theory of Relativity, which sets the
various speed-of-light limits, is on much firmer ground and is unlikely to
be invalidated by new theorizing.  Of course, it is always possible that
some subtle way to bypass it may be found.
> Most people agree that as long as speed-of-light restrictions apply, it is
> impractical for intelligent life forms to travel to different star systems
> (unless, of course, their solar system is about to blow up).
Fortunately, wrong.  Within relativity, starships are slow and expensive, but
they are neither impossible nor impractical.  In recent years the literature
on interstellar travel (notably the JBIS "Interstellar Studies" issues) has
contained dozens of starship and starprobe concepts.  For example, if you
ignore a couple of decades of engineering development and the associated
funding delays, we have the technology to build antimatter rockets right
now.  There are any number of ways to reach tens of percent of the speed
of light, which suffices for interstellar flight within human lifetimes.
Not for interstellar commuting, mind you; near-term interstellar trips are
likely to be long enough that you could not make many in one lifetime.
For that, we need either highly-relativistic travel or (preferably)
faster-than-light travel.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

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

Date: 28 Oct 1985 1722-PST (Monday)
From: Craig E. Ward <cew@isi-hobgoblin.arpa>
To: bboard@usc-isib.ARPA
Cc: space@mit-mc.ARPA
Subject: Halley's Comet


The November meeting of OASIS/L5 will feature a presentation about Halley's
Comet by Tom McDonough.

Mr. McDonough is a lecturer in Engineering at CalTech, SETI coordinator for
the Planetary Society and author of the forthcoming book Halley's Comet:
A Viewer's Guide.

He will discuss the history of the comet and give an overview of how and where
to view it during its 1985-86 approach.

Time and place:

	Saturday, November 16, 1985 7:00 p.m.
	Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Von Karmen Auditorium
	Pasadena, CA

Admission is free and open to the public.

General information about OASIS/L5 events may be obtained by calling
(213)374-1381.

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

Date: 28 Oct 85 00:11:07 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!harvard!think!mit-eddie!cybvax0!frog!aphasia!gww@ucbvax  (George Williams)
Subject: Re(2): Voyager at Uranus & caltech IDs
Sender: usenet@ucbvax
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In the good old days JPL guards did not check the dates on Caltech IDs.
Unfortunately JPL now does stuff for DOD => security worries => Caltech IDs
 aren't acceptable anymore.
Damn the defense department, if JPL needs their money why couldn't they fence
off a small piece of the Lab? (Just ranting, pay me no mind:-)

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

Date: 29 Oct 85 12:46:26 EST
From: Dale.Amon@FAS.RI.CMU.EDU
Subject: Private Space Miners
To: BBoard.Maintainer@A.CS.CMU.EDU

There is really nothing to stop you from mining the asteroids. Since the US
(and the USSR) declined to sign the treaty with the 'common heritage'
clause, there are no restrictions on such utilizations. The only restriction
is that there can be no 'national expropriation', ie the US cannot plant a
flag and claim the body.

I don't know where you've been if you think private spaceflight is illegal.
And I'm sure the people at the space commercialization office at DOT would
be equally surprised.

There have already been two private test firings of large 'sounding'
rockets. Two companies are now backed with large amounts of money to develop
private launch vehicles, one of which is a manned vehicle with the intent of
taking tourists into space for two day trips. The scuttlebut is that Soceity
Expeditions has agreed to set up a funding package of up to $280M to back
Pacific American Launch Services (Gary Hudsen) in design and construction of
the reusable VTVL-SSTO Phoenix. Vessel is modular and refuelable, so unlike
the shuttle, it can leave LEO. A Phoenix is projected to cost about the same
as a 747. Completion supposedly by the early 1990's. Maybe you can book a
flight to watch NASA put up it's space station.

Actually, I don't honestly know how real the funding is. I've been trying to
get hold of Gary to find out, but I haven't gotten a call back yet. I'd also
guess the first flight will be several years late and will cost twice as
much as expected to develop, build and operate. But even then, it will fly
economic circles around anything the turkeys at NASA or DOD are up to.

And there is another point: given that you can get there and they can't, who
cares what they say anyway? That's the WHOLE POINT of frontiers!!!

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

End of SPACE Digest V6 #16
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.ARPA id AA03552; Sat, 9 Nov 85 03:00:54 pst
	id AA03552; Sat, 9 Nov 85 03:00:54 pst
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 85 03:00:54 pst
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8511091100.AA03552@s1-b.ARPA>
To: Space@Angband
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #17

*** EOOH ***
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 85 03:00:54 pst
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@Angband
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #17

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 6 : Issue 17

Today's Topics:
			Re: Voyager at Uranus
	      Re: Unified Field Theory and space travel
	      Re: Unified Field Theory and space travel
			Senator Glenn comments
			  Re: Private Space
		   RFI - Shuttle launches from VAFB
				   
		      Re: space telescope orbit
			ASAT test on "Solwind"
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 29 Oct 85 02:28:53 GMT
From: hplabs!ames!eugene@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Eugene Miya)
Subject: Re: Voyager at Uranus
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> >> Does anybody know if the Planetary Society is going to let members get
> >> anywhere near JPL during the Voyager Uranus encounter?
> 
> > I doubt it.  When the Viking missions landed in '76, they sent home most
> > of the JPL employees (!) for half a day.
> 
> What was the reason for sending home "most of the JPL employees"?
> 
> Statements like the above make me wonder what the
> Planetary Society/JPL/US Govt. etc would do if a confirmed encounter
> with intelligent non-earth life were made?  Would there be full disclosure,
> or would there be a coverup to avoid a possible panic?
I cannot verify the statement on Viking.  They did not send people
home on Voyager encounter days, but I can see reasons why: the Parking
Situation at the Lab is the "1" topic of discussion.  Strictly pragmatic.
I've posted this response before:
Regarding Government paranoia: the Planetary Society would have no
official way of transmitting such info.  I suspect most scientists
would not know what do do if such an event happened.  I'll ask
the SETI people for you, however, they are several buildings over.
I will give you two insight based on two events.  The first took
place after the release of the film Close Encounters of the Third
Kind.  Lunchtime discussion [highly official stuff this ;-) !]
centered around the handling and the portrail of the Government.
Several planetary scientists [no name please] at the table came to
the conclusion that if an encounter occurred as portraried in the
film, they [these scientists] would use a cover much like the nerve
gas cover in the film.  It was not clear to my friends that
exposure to the general public would be health for aliens or the public,
to the point of using nerve gas to keep civilians away.  On the
other hand, as Sagan would point out, a civilization capable of
interstellar travel could damn well inform as much of the Earth as it
well pleased.
The second real incident occurred during the 1st encounter with
Voyager at lunch again.  A day or so after encounter.  A planetary
scientist [this person was responsible for teaching Neil Armstrong
about the geology of the Moon] walked up to the table, tray in hand
and said, "Guys, you aren't going to believe this, but they think
this discovered a volcano erupting on Io [nearest large Moon
of Jupiter]."  Someone else, "Why do you realize the odds of
actually taking a photograph of such an event?"  Later an official
meeting was held to cover the release of this information which 
occurred three days later.  Clearly all sorts of checking and
official wording was taking place.  Nothing like actually being
at the Lab when its happening.
More later upon talking to SETI friends.
From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  {hplabs,ihnp4,dual,hao,decwrl,allegra}!ames!aurora!eugene
  emiya@ames-vmsb

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

Date: 29 Oct 85 21:02:41 GMT
From: decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-louie!dipirro@ucb-vax.berkeley.edu  (Are we having fun yet?)
Subject: Re: Unified Field Theory and space travel
Sender: usenet@ucb-vax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>>	I'd be interested to know if any of the new theories will cause
>>reconsideration of some of Einstein's theories of relativity. I'm particularly
>>interested in the speed of light being a limiting factor for space travel.
>>Most people agree that as long as speed-of-light restrictions apply, it is
>>impractical for intelligent life forms to travel to different star systems
>>(unless, of course, their solar system is about to blow up).
>
>Most people are wrong!  Interstellar flight at sublight speeds is almost
>certainly practical with forseeable technology.  A few years out of one's
>life is not an impossible price to pay to get to a place with room to grow.
>One will not casually visit other star systems at sublight, but colonization
>is quite practical.
I've gotten quite a few flames of this nature. I misrepresented my own views.
So I guess I deserve it. I realize that space travel at close-to-light speeds
is feasible in the foreseeable future. It may even be practical for colonization
or research. However, travel to any star system at nonrelativistic speeds will
take a LONG TIME and require some clever mechanism to support humans for the
trip duration. However, if those humans do not intend to return, then they can
travel at nearly the speed of light and into the future at the same time. They
are gambling that technology won't find a better way to do this in the time
that slipped by. These people might find much more advanced humans already at
their destination when they get there.
I still contend that its not practical, economically or otherwise. That is not
to say that we shouldn't or won't do it. I think we will as soon as we're able.
Impracticality has never stopped humans before.
Steve DiPirro
Digital Equipment Corp.
"All my views are also the views of my cats, Hughie & Louie."

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

Date: 30 Oct 85 21:28:26 GMT
From: ernie!mazlack@ucb-vax.berkeley.edu  (Lawrence J. &)
Subject: Re: Unified Field Theory and space travel
Sender: usenet@ucb-vax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

If someone travels at near light speed, isn't elapsed time for she/he
less than the elapsed time for someone traveling at a much slower speed.
If so, it wouldn't be too bad a deal for the traveller in terms of life-time
spent - although the society that sent him/her would undergo considerable
change.  Whether or not there could be economic payoffs would depend on the
time frame of the investor.  For example, forest product companies plant trees
that will not be harvested for 15 years while other investors think in terms
of weeks or minutes for their payoffs.
If I'm right on the relativistic time differentiation, can anyone tell me how
to actually calculate the difference???
  ...Larry Mazlack  MAZLACK@ERNIE.BERKELEY.EDU

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

Date: 1 Nov 85 16:34:27 EST
From: Dale.Amon@FAS.RI.CMU.EDU
Subject: Senator Glenn comments
To: BBoard.Maintainer@A.CS.CMU.EDU

This last week I presented testimony at the NCS hearings in Cleveland. Among
the other presentors was a Glenn staff member reading Sen. Glenn's position
paper. Much was reasonable, but he made one statement which utterly
horrified me, and I'm sure will equally horrify most of you.

He suggested that rocket technology, because of it's potential use as ICBM's,
be internationally regulated the way nuclear technology is.

One twist of the pen, and you and I will never own a private spaceship.
Admittedly, we probably wouldn't anyway, but at least we can dream. I
would like to ask any of you who are as violently opposed to such a scheme
as I am to write Senator Glenn and tell him that this is not a very good
idea.

	Sen. John Glenn
	SH 503 Hart Senate Office Bldg
	Washington, DC 20510

Just imagine where aviation would be today if in the first part of this
century it had been regulated like the nuclear industry.

I have hopes that in the early teens of the next century, we will see
spaceships owned by anyone of any race, creed, nation, minority, majority
or political leaning who could buy a jet plane today.

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

Date: 2 Nov 85 00:43:09 GMT
From: tektronix!uw-beaver!fluke!ssc-vax!eder@ucb-vax.berkeley.edu  (Dani Eder)
Subject: Re: Private Space
Sender: usenet@ucb-vax.berkeley.edu
Return-Path: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> rockets. Two companies are now backed with large amounts of money to develop
> private launch vehicles, one of which is a manned vehicle with the intent of
> taking tourists into space for two day trips. The scuttlebut is that Soceity
> Expeditions has agreed to set up a funding package of up to $280M to back
> Pacific American Launch Services (Gary Hudsen) in design and construction of
> the reusable VTVL-SSTO Phoenix. Vessel is modular and refuelable, so unlike
> the shuttle, it can leave LEO. A Phoenix is projected to cost about the same
> as a 747. Completion supposedly by the early 1990's. Maybe you can book a
> flight to watch NASA put up it's space station.
> 
> Actually, I don't honestly know how real the funding is. I've been trying to
> get hold of Gary to find out, but I haven't gotten a call back yet. I'd also
> guess the first flight will be several years late and will cost twice as
> much as expected to develop, build and operate. But even then, it will fly
> economic circles around anything the turkeys at NASA or DOD are up to.
> 
     Having reviewed the Phoenix reference design, I can say several things
about it.  For a vehicle that has several new technologies in the design
(aerospike engine, oxidizer rich combustor, transpiration cooled heat
shield), he is carrying a very low weight growth margin . The figure in
Hudson's weight statement is about 5% of inert weight (weight without
propellant).  It should be more like 20%.  After proving the new 
technologies, we estimate it would cost Boeing $2.7 Billion to build
a vehicle like the Phoenix, and that the first one off the assembly line
would cost about $300 million (3 times a 747). 
     Considering that we can use existing manufacturing and assembly
plants, with experienced people , whereas Pacific American would be
starting from scratch, I find it doubtful they could build it for
less than we can.  There might be some advantage in engineering if they
go 100% CAD, but on the other hand, we own a CRAY to do number crunching.
We don't yet have a keyboard for every engineer, its more like one/three.
Dani Eder/Advanced Space Transportation/Boeing/ssc-vax!eder

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

Date: Wed 6 Nov 85 11:58:02-PST
From: Bob Knight <KNIGHT@SRI-NIC.ARPA>
Subject: RFI - Shuttle launches from VAFB
To: space@S1-B.ARPA

Forgive me for possibly repeating this question:  is there a schedule yet
for shuttle launches from Vandenburg?  Will the Air Force even release 
information ahead of time saying what on what day launches will happen?

Bob

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

Date: Wed,  6 Nov 85 22:01:16 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Subject: 
To: decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-amber!dipirro@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
Cc: KFL@MIT-MC.ARPA, Space@S1-B.ARPA

    Date: 24 Oct 85 13:05:55 GMT
    From: decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-amber!dipirro@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Are we
    having fun yet?)

    Most people agree that as long as speed-of-light restrictions apply, it is
    impractical for intelligent life forms to travel to different star systems
    (unless, of course, their solar system is about to blow up).

  I certainly hope this is wrong, since I seriously doubt that faster-
than-light travel will ever be possible.
  I don't see why it should be impractical.  Certainly it would take
enormous amounts of energy to travel insterstellar distances in reasonable
amounts of time, but you can get any distance in an arbitrarily short
amount of time, thanks to relativistic time dilation, if you have the
energy and don't mind the fact that much greater lengths of time are
passing on earth and at your destination.
  Arthur C. Clarke has pointed out that you can get as far as the
Andromeda galaxy, two million light years away, within a human lifetime
if you accelerate and decelerate at 1 g (the acceleration of gravity
experienced on earth).  And if you double the acceleration, the time
goes down by a factor of four.
								...Keith

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

Date: Thu 7 Nov 85 09:45:10-EST
From: DINGMAN@RADC-TOPS20.ARPA
Subject: Re: space telescope orbit
To: space@MIT-MC.ARPA


   The operational altitude of the orbiter is 115 miles to 600 miles.
I would imagine at the upper limits maneuverability is limited due to
fuel requirements to get back down.  The shuttle will remain with the
ST for the duration of the mission (about a week) to check out its
systems and directional (pointing) stability.

   Also, the computer components of the ST are modular, designed to be 
popped in and out for repair.  The expected life of ST is 15 years.

--- jd

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

Date:     Wed, 6 Nov 85 16:39:19 CST
From: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI <wmartin@ALMSA-1.ARPA>
To: space@s1-b.ARPA
Subject:  ASAT test on "Solwind"

Does anyone have any info on just WHY the functioning "Solwind" satellite
was chosen as the ASAT test target, as opposed to some other, really
non-functioning piece of space junk or dead satellite?

I can think of several hypotheses:

1) They really needed to use a functioning machine as the target to give
definite evidence that the attack succeeded, and really destroyed the target
object. Hitting an inert object couldn't be observed, and they would
have no evidence that the test actually succeeded. And they had to use
a publicly-known and generally-detectable satellite as the target instead
of a malfunctioning military spy satellite or the like so that a) they
didn't have to officially acknowledge the existence of any such military
satellites, and b) so the Soviets could monitor Solwind's signals (and be
given the frequency and telemetry data openly and freely, which couldn't
be done with a military satellite as the target object) and thus they would
know for sure the US had a functioning ASAT when those signals ceased.

2) The orbit that Solwind was in was one the ASAT could reach, and there
wasn't anything else reachable to attack. (Or again, as above, nothing
we would openly acknowledge as being ours that could be reached.)

3) Somebody just really made a big mistake. Maybe "Solwind" was listed
on some master list as being "expired" or "past its lifetime", and the
fact that it was still providing useful data was just not known by the
people making the decision, or they were given false data due to error 
or conspiracy/subversion?

4) Solwind had some kind of sensors on board (and still operating) that
helped the test in some way -- it detected and relayed some form of
useful info back to its controllers up until the impact/destruction.

Any one or more of these theories have any basis in fact? Expert
commentary solicited!

It would help in understanding this if it were known what other
satellites were in similar or equivalent orbits to Solwind. Or was it
unique for some reason?

I wonder what would have happened if they had used a for-real Soviet
satellite as the test target...? They could have picked any
particularily annoying Soviet "secret" satellite, and then claim that it
was *ours*, sent up to be used as a target. Then blasted it. The
Soviets, not acknowledging that it was theirs in the first place,
couldn't have complained about it! Hmmm... Maybe a dangerous game
there...

Anyway, for argument's sake, lets ignore the anti-ASAT arguments for
a bit and just base this on an assumption that it *had* to be tested
on *something* up there. What else could have been used besides Solwind?
Would it have been worth the cost to launch a satellite just to be a
test target? Compare that cost with the projected return from the rest
of Solwind's lifespan; what would be most cost-effective?

Will

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

End of SPACE Digest V6 #17
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA02964; Wed, 13 Nov 85 08:32:07 PST
	id AA02964; Wed, 13 Nov 85 08:32:07 PST
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 85 08:32:07 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8511131632.AA02964@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #18

*** EOOH ***
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 85 08:32:07 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #18

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 6 : Issue 18

Today's Topics:
			  Re: Private Space
	     Re: StarDate: October 25 Tethered Satellites
			Re: Voyager at Uranus
		       Re: Private Space Miners
		       Re: Private space miners
		      Re: space telescope orbit
			  Re: Private Space
			Re: Voyager at Uranus
			   Time Retardation
	  ESA'S GIOTTO MISSION AND OTHER HALLEY EXPEDITIONS
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Henry Spencer
Date: 5 Nov 85 23:54:51 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Private Space
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Return-Path: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> ...  After proving the new 
> technologies, we estimate it would cost Boeing $2.7 Billion to build
> a vehicle like the Phoenix, and that the first one off the assembly line
> would cost about $300 million (3 times a 747). 
> 
>      Considering that we can use existing manufacturing and assembly
> plants, with experienced people , whereas Pacific American would be
> starting from scratch, I find it doubtful they could build it for
> less than we can...
No offence to you personally or to Boeing, Dani, but the military and
space branches of major aerospace companies are incapable of building
anything cheaply.  Even when it can be, and should be, built cheaply.
They simply don't know how any more.
I agree, by the way, that Hudson's weight margin in particular makes
Phoenix a high-risk investment.  But I strongly suspect that if it can
be done at all, it can be done more cheaply than Boeing would do it.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

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

From: Howard Hull
Date: 7 Nov 85 04:32:26 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!seismo!hao!hull@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Howard Hull)
Subject: Re: StarDate: October 25 Tethered Satellites
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Return-Path: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>         Scientists estimate that in the initial test of the tethered
> satellite, it can extract enough electricity to burn fifty l00-watt
> bulbs.  That's energy production from orbital motion -- possibly a
> prime source of power for satellites in the future.
> Script by Diana Hadley.
> (c) Copyright 1984, 1985 McDonald Observatory, University of Texas at Austin

Golly, maybe we can use this energy to boost the satellites to higher orbits!
                              (-: *W*I*N*K* :-)
Actually, maybe boost a part of a satellite to a higher orbit...Hmmmn, at the
penalty of dunking the remaining section, of course.  Shades of the Soviet
lunar landers which used to decelerate the instrument section by throwing the
carrier portion at the lunar surface only seconds before the whole works would
have cratered in...
								     Howard Hull
[If yet unproven concepts are outlawed in the range of discussion...
                   ...Then only the deranged will discuss yet unproven concepts]
        {ucbvax!hplabs | allegra!nbires | harpo!seismo } !hao!hull

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

From: ajs
Date: 28 Oct 85 00:11:00 GMT
From: hplabs!hpfcdc!hpfcla!ajs@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Voyager at Uranus
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Return-Path: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>> I doubt it.  When the Viking missions landed in '76, they sent home most
>> of the JPL employees (!) for half a day.
>
> What was the reason for sending home "most of the JPL employees"?
All I remember is, we got some notice from our managers (dunno if it was
in writing), and I don't think we were paid for the time.  My vague
memory is that it was paranoia about someone (anyone, even a JPL
employee) somehow wrecking the landing, or even just the receipt of the
data during the landing.  Remember, JPL is in California, where it's
taken for granted that weirdos abound.  The honchos probably worried
about some anti-science cult attempt to gain attention and/or prevent
"heresy".
Alan Silverstein

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

Date: 8 Nov 85 01:30:36 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!seismo!hao!ames!al@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Al Globus)
Subject: Re: Private Space Miners
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Return-Path: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> Pacific American Launch Services (Gary Hudsen) in design and construction of
> the reusable VTVL-SSTO Phoenix. Vessel is modular and refuelable, so unlike
> the shuttle, it can leave LEO. A Phoenix is projected to cost about the same
> as a 747. Completion supposedly by the early 1990's. Maybe you can book a
> flight to watch NASA put up it's space station.
> 
Does anyone know what Gary Hudsen's experience in space flight is?  As
far as I can tell he's blown up one booster on the launch pad and that,
aside from studies, is it.  Does he have experienced people on his
staff?  I.e., I'd like to believe he can pull off Phoenix but have
no reason to think he can.  Ever hopeful (but very skeptical) ...

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

Date: 8 Nov 85 01:15:35 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!seismo!hao!ames!al@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Al Globus)
Subject: Re: Private space miners
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Return-Path: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>      If I were to build a spacecraft, as a private company, which was 
> capable of travel to the asteroid belt, are there any enforceable laws
> out there that would prohibit me from mining rare earths, gold, platinum,
> and the like and returning earthside to sell the product?
I don't think so, but I'm no lawyer.
> 
>      I do recall the UN has an Outer Planets Treaty, and that there is
> also one that claims all extra-terrestrial resources to be "common human
> heritage".  
The so-called Moon Treaty was not ratified by the US Senate.
> I think there was also an international treaty restricting the
> role of spaceflight to individual governments, 
No, but there is something along the lines of governments being
responsable for regulation of satellites launched from their soil.
> as well as a United States
> law prohibiting private spaceflight. 
No.  As a matter of fact, it is official US policy to encourage private
spaceflight.  Thank Mr. Reagan for that.

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

Date: 8 Nov 85 22:56:18 GMT
From: ihnp4!ihnp3!dhp@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Douglas H. Price)
Subject: Re: space telescope orbit
Real-Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (TOPS-20 MMailr forced this upon me)
Sender: space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

There was a notation in Aviation (sic) Leak that the telescope would be placed
at the maximum orbital height that the shuttle could reach with that weight
of cargo (~325mi?)
-- 
						Douglas H. Price
						Analysts International Corp.
						@ AT&T Bell Laboratories
						..!ihnp4!ihnp3!dhp

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

Date: 11 Nov 85 09:05:42 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!chris@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Chris Torek)
Subject: Re: Private Space
Real-Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (TOPS-20 MMailr forced this upon me)
Sender: space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> ... there are some intriguing ideas [in Phoenix], but they are
> untried technologies.  It will take much time, people, and money
> to develop the technologies to the point of being able to carry
> passengers.  I wish it were otherwise.  If you or anyone else has
> a cheaper way to do things, please tell me.
This is exactly the point.  If Boeing were to develop these ideas
`properly', it would take much time, people and money.  The
`entrepreneurs' will instead try to develop these on a shoestring
---a crazy idea `of course'---and will probably fail, but if they
succeed, WOW!
Boeing's investors would never approve.  Pacific American Launch
Systems', on the other hand....
-- 
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 4251)
UUCP:	seismo!umcp-cs!chris
CSNet:	chris@umcp-cs		ARPA:	chris@mimsy.umd.edu

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

Date: 8 Nov 85 16:28:10 GMT
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!randvax!kovacs!rivero@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Michael Foster Rivero)
Subject: Re: Voyager at Uranus
Real-Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (TOPS-20 MMailr forced this upon me)
Sender: space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <22000009@hpfcla.UUCP> ajs@hpfcla.UUCP writes:
>>> I doubt it.  When the Viking missions landed in '76, they sent home most
>>> of the JPL employees (!) for half a day.
>>
>> What was the reason for sending home "most of the JPL employees"?
>
>All I remember is, we got some notice from our managers (dunno if it was
>in writing), and I don't think we were paid for the time.  My vague
>memory is that it was paranoia about someone (anyone, even a JPL
>employee) somehow wrecking the landing, or even just the receipt of the
>data during the landing.  Remember, JPL is in California, where it's
>taken for granted that weirdos abound.  The honchos probably worried
>about some anti-science cult attempt to gain attention and/or prevent
>"heresy".
>
>Alan Silverstein
	  As a flight controller for the Viking Missions, I would like
	to  clear  the air a little.  The employees who were sent home
	were not sent home because they were suspected  wierdos!  They
	were  sent  home  to  gaurentee  a reduced load on all power /
	computer systems.
	  Viking had already suffered bad press for  missing  the  Bi-
	Centennial  landing date on July Fourth, and JPL was taking no
	chances on the landing itself.  Every piece of  computer  gear
	was  on standby, and sending everyone home was deemed the best
	way to keep 'em off the time sharing systems.
	  JPL people are NOT weird. Just delightfully eccentric!
				Michael Rivero
				First Order Viking Lander Image Processing

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

Date: 9 Nov 85 14:49:00 PST
From: <art@acc.arpa>
Subject: Time Retardation
To: "space" <space@mit-mc.arpa>
Reply-To: <art@acc.arpa>


> If someone travels at near light speed, isn't elapsed time for she/he
> less than the elapsed time for someone traveling at a much slower speed.

The difference in the rate at which time passes for two different inertial
frames of reference is determined by the Lorentz Transformation:

	     ---------
	    /    v**2		v = Velocity of one frame with respect to
	\  / 1 - ----			the other.
	 \/      c**2		c = Speed of light.

As one approaches the speed of light, the rate that time passes in one
frame of reference (like a spaceship) as "observed" from the other
(say on Earth) approaches zero.  Some thought on this leads to the classic
"Twin Paradox".  I'll let someone else point that solution out.

					"Art Berggreen"<Art@ACC.ARPA>

------

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

Date: 15 AUG 1985 20:10:00 GMT
To: <space@s1-b.arpa>
From: <#d2f%ddathd21.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu> (#D2F)
Subject: ESA'S GIOTTO MISSION AND OTHER HALLEY EXPEDITIONS

Ralf Eberhardt
Technische Hochschule Darmstadt
Hochschulrechenzentrum/Beratung AB
Petersenstrasse 30
6100 Darmstadt
WEST GERMANY
(#d2f%ddathd21.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.EDU)

SINCE THERE HAVE BEEN QUESTIONS ABOUT ESA'S HALLEY MISSION IN THIS
DIGEST LATELY, HERE IS SOME INFORMATION OUT OF THE "ESA BULLETIN"
(ISS. MAY 84) :

Terminal Navigation for Giotto - the benefits of international Co-
operation (R.E.Muench,Orbit Attitude Division,ESOC,Darmstadt,Germany)

... Giotto is a spin-stabilised spacecraft with a despun high-gain
antenna, pointed continuosly towards the Earth during the cruise and
encounter phases. The spacecraft, which weighs 950 kg at launch, is
equipped with the following instruments for navigational purposes:

- V-slit Sun sensors
- Infrared pencil-beam Earth sensors (for the geostationary transfer
  orbit only)
- Star mapper (for the cruise phase only)
- Hydrazine thrusters for attitude and orbit manoeuvres
- Solid-propellant motor for the perigee kick.

... The encounter (with Halley) is planned for a fixed arrival time on
13/14 March 1986, based on ground station availability, and with a
nominal target point several hundred kilometres sunward of the comet
nucleus. For navigational purposes, this aiming point will be defined
in the Giotto target plane, which contains the spacecraft position at
comet encounter, the plane normally being parallel to the spacecraft's
velocity relative to the comet.

For navigational purposes,the scientific instruments onboard can be
classified into three groups. The first group consists of those experi-
ments that could expect their optimal return by impacting the comet nu-
cleus. They are a plasma analyser (electron), a neutral mass-spectro-
meter, a magnetometer, and an optical probe.
The second group requires an optimal flyby at a distance of no more than
500 km on either side of the nucleus with respect to the Sun (impact
would be suitable, though less desirable). This group comprises an
ion mass-spectrometer, a dust impact detector, a dust mass-spectrometer,
an instrument for measuring energetic particles, and a plasma analyser
(fast ion).
The last group contains only one experiment, a multicolour camera. Its
optimal flyby distance is 1000 km on the sunward side of the comet, de-
termined by the flyby velocity (movement of camera mirror) and the size
of the comet's inner coma.
Apart from checkout and several rehearsals, the instruments will only
be switched on during the last four hours before encounter. At encoun-
ter, with a relative velocity between comet and spacecraft of 68 km/s
the disturbances caused by the cometary dust may influence the space-
craft's stability, so that the communications downlink could be lost.
(...)
Under the patronage of the Inter-Agency Consultative Group (IACG),
international cooperation in all areas concerned with comet Halley
is being explored and developed. Here the Japanese Planet-A and
and MS-T5 missions, the Soviet Vega mission and NASA's ICE (formerly
ISEE-3) mission to comet Giacobini-Zinner will try to optimize the
overall scientific return by attempting a collaboration that should
both improve the returns of the individual missions and maximize the
overall scientific return from the missions as a whole. Of particular
interest for Giotto navigation is the earlier flyby of the two Vega
spacecraft.


OUT OF THE SAME 'ESA BULLETIN' COMES THE FOLLOWING TABLE OF KEY
MISSIONS TO HALLEY'S COMET:

AGENCY          PROJECT     LAUNCH       FLYBY-DATE    FLYBY-DISTANCE
---------------------------------------------------------------------
ESA             GIOTTO      JULY 85      13 MARCH 86   500 KM
INTERCOSMOS     VEGA-1      DECEMBER 84  6  MARCH 86   10000 KM
                VEGA-2      DECEMBER 84  9  MARCH 86   3000 - 10000 KM
ISAS            MS-T5       JANUARY  85     MARCH 86   0.1 AU
                PLANET-A    AUGUST   85  8  MARCH 86   100000 KM
NASA            ICE      (*)DECEMBER 83  28 MARCH 86   0.21 AU
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(*) Lunar swingby manoeuvre to inject ICE (formerly ISEE-3) into a
    heliocentric trajectory to comet Giacobini-Zinner (flyby on
    11 September 85, 15000 km on the sunward side)

SINCE ALL THIS INFORMATION IS FROM MAY 1984, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S
STILL ALL VALID, BUT I TRUST IN ITS RELIABILITY.

                        --- Ralf Eberhardt

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

End of SPACE Digest V6 #18
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA06942; Thu, 14 Nov 85 03:00:53 PST
	id AA06942; Thu, 14 Nov 85 03:00:53 PST
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 85 03:00:53 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8511141100.AA06942@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #19

*** EOOH ***
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 85 03:00:53 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #19

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 6 : Issue 19

Today's Topics:
		     catalog meteorites for real?
		      RE: SETI AND PUBLIC ACCESS
			   Hughes satellite
		   Re: Improving Starships Enroute
			  Re: Private Space
			     VAFB Shuttle
			    Private Space
		      Re: ASAT test on "Solwind"
		   Re: catalog meteorites for real?
		 Re: Unified Field Theory - Time dil
		 Re: StarDate: October 25 Tethered S
	       Re: Unified Field Theory and space trav
			 Re: slingshot effect
		   Re: catalog meteorites for real?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun 10 Nov 85 13:48:44-PST
From: Christopher Schmidt <SCHMIDT@sumex-aim.arpa>
Subject: catalog meteorites for real?
To: Space-Enthusiasts@mit-mc.arpa

	I saw ~1 lb slices of meteorites for sale at $125 in a fancy
Christmas catalog originating in Oregon.  The text sounds like they're
the real thing, but the price seems way too low to me.  Does anybody
know if this is some kind of ripoff?  I called the company to verify
the price and availability.  They are $125 and there are 109 of them left.
	If no-one on this list exposes the offer as a hoax I'll order
one next week and post a "review" and ordering info after I've seen what
you get for your bucks.  --Christopher
-------

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

Date:    Mon, 11 Nov 85 07:39:33 PST
From: olsen@jpl-vlsi.arpa
Subject: RE: SETI AND PUBLIC ACCESS
To: space%mc@jpl-vlsi.arpa

   As one of the JPL members of the NASA SETI Program, I know that detailed
protocols for public announcements are being drawn up for the event of a
detection.  This will not lay to rest the fears of those of you who have
a (sometimes, very well founded) paranoia about government paranoia.  However,
I must also point out that we will be sifting through many false alarms which
must pass a complex hierarchy of tests before any announcement can be made.
The latter stages of these tests will necessarily involve observatories and
scientists who are not part of the official NASA SETI program, and it will
probably be impossible to keep a bona fide detection secret should some
government functionary desire to do so.
                                 Edward Olsen
                                 JPL

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

Date: 7 Nov 85 23:58:39 GMT
From: ihnp4!mgnetp!we53!busch!wucs!wuphys!jmc@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Jimmy Chen)
Subject: Hughes satellite
Real-Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (TOPS-20 MMailr forced this upon me)
Sender: space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

I haven't been keeping up with the news lately.  Does
anyone know what happened with the attempt
to restart the Hughes satellite that the shuttle
repaired in space.  Last I heard, they had waited long
enough for the fuel to warm up in the sun and were
about to (or already had) fired the engine.
Thanks.
                                Jimmy Chen
                             (inhp4!wuphys!jmc)

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

Date: 8 Nov 85 20:08:11 GMT
From: tektronix!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!eder@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dani Eder)
Subject: Re: Improving Starships Enroute
Real-Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (TOPS-20 MMailr forced this upon me)
Sender: space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> ... However, travel to any star system at nonrelativistic speeds will
> take a LONG TIME and require some clever mechanism to support humans for the
> trip duration. However, if those humans do not intend to return, then they can
> travel at nearly the speed of light and into the future at the same time. They
> are gambling that technology won't find a better way to do this in the time
> that slipped by. These people might find much more advanced humans already at
> their destination when they get there.
> 
> Steve DiPirro
> Digital Equipment Corp.
> 
     That may not be the bugaboo it is thought to be.  If an expedition
starts out with a well equipped starship, with a varied assortment of raw
materials (which you would do anyway if you were colonizing), and stays in
touch with home via radio/laser, as new technologies are developed they
could be incorporated into the ship's design.
     You would need something like a fair sized asteroid plus a complete
manufacturing complex and a skilled crew, well suited to the generation
ship type of interstellar travel.  Really unusual materials might even
be delivered to the expedition by way of small, fast courier.
Dani Eder/ Advanced Space Transportation/ Boeing

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

Date: 8 Nov 85 21:13:25 GMT
From: tektronix!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!eder@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dani Eder)
Subject: Re: Private Space
Real-Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (TOPS-20 MMailr forced this upon me)
Sender: space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> > ...  After proving the new 
> > technologies, we estimate it would cost Boeing $2.7 Billion to build
> > a vehicle like the Phoenix, and that the first one off the assembly line
> > would cost about $300 million (3 times a 747). 
> > 
> >      Considering that we can use existing manufacturing and assembly
> > plants, with experienced people , whereas Pacific American would be
> > starting from scratch, I find it doubtful they could build it for
> > less than we can...
> 
> No offence to you personally or to Boeing, Dani, but the military and
> space branches of major aerospace companies are incapable of building
> anything cheaply.  Even when it can be, and should be, built cheaply.
> They simply don't know how any more.
> 
> I agree, by the way, that Hudson's weight margin in particular makes
> Phoenix a high-risk investment.  But I strongly suspect that if it can
> be done at all, it can be done more cheaply than Boeing would do it.
> -- 
> 				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
> 				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
     Since the group I work for is in the midst of a study whose goal
is the reduction of space transportation cost by a factor of 5 to 10,
we have become quite aware of what makes space hardware expensive.
Note that the estimates I gave above are based on the way the Boeing
Company makes things.  Most of what we do is build commercial jet
transports, and thus our cost equations are mostly derived from that
experience.  For example, the Phoenix tank is to be made of 2219-T87
aluminum alloy , and we happen to have a lot of experience in making
things out of aluminum, i.e. airplanes.  
     What is the real driver in costs is your design margins.  If
you lose one engine on a jet transport, the plane still flys, but
somewhat slower.  A small percentage of the rivets holding the plane
together can fall out without catastrophic failures.  As a consequence,
the amount of checking you do between flights and the maintenance you
do is small.  On the Shuttle, if one engine goes out at the wrong time,
you end up in the Atlantic.  If a few key tiles fall off, your skin
burns through, and perhaps lose the vehicle.  Therefore, you must check
these things between flights.  Which costs money.
     When you design an airplane, you stress parts to maybe 50% of
ultimate capacity.  On the Shuttle, some parts are designed to 90%
of ultimate strength.  Therefore you must design them more carefully,
not making approximations.  You must build the parts with much more
attention to quality, since a flaw would be much more likely to degrade
the part below its required strength.  These add to cost.
     If and when we have propulsion capable enough to allow larger
design margins, we will be able to operate more like airplanes, and
hence be cheaper.
     I was looking at the Phoenix to see if there was any good ideas
in it that we could apply to our work, and there are some intriguing
ideas, but they are untried technologies.  It will take much time,
people , and money to develop the technologies to the point of
being able to carry passengers.  I wish it were otherwise.  If you
or anyone else has a cheaper way to do things, please tell me.
You may save the US many billions of dollars in the next fifteen
years.  But merely saying "we will be a new, efficient company",
as Hudson is claiming for Pacific American Launch Systems, will not
do.  You must be able to say 'we can design a part in x hours' or
'we can build structure in y hours per pound' or 'this engine is
z percent higher specific impulse than the SSME'.
Dani Eder/Advanced Space Transportation/ Boeing

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

From: prodmkt@acc.arpa
Date: 12 Nov 85 13:34:00 PST
Subject: VAFB Shuttle
To: "space-incoming" <space-incoming@s1-b.arpa>
Reply-To: <prodmkt@acc.arpa>


The first couple of flights have been scheduled. The first for 20 March '86.
Although, rumor here is that a particular contractor, who shall remain
nameless, is hopelessly behind schedule. Any shuttle flight's from VAFB in
'86 would be a surprise.

By the way, living here in Lompoc, we get a fair amount of local info that
while public, may not get wide circulation. If there is any interest in VAFB
shuttle (or other) type info, let me know and I'll begin to forward it.

------

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

Date:     Wed, 13 Nov 85 13:31:32 CST
From: Carl Rosene <animal@rice.edu>
Subject:  Private Space
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>No offence to you personally or to Boeing, Dani, but the military and
>space branches of major aerospace companies are incapable of building
>anything cheaply.  Even when it can be, and should be, built cheaply.
>They simply don't know how any more.
>I agree, by the way, that Hudson's weight margin in particular makes
>Phoenix a high-risk investment.  But I strongly suspect that if it can
>be done at all, it can be done more cheaply than Boeing would do it.

No offence to you personally Henry, but I'm a little tired of all
the people out there making blanket statements about how the military or
aerospace companies are incapable of doing their jobs well or cost
effectively. 

I am especially skeptical of shoe-string projects aiming for manned or
or unmanned space flight by new, inexperienced companies which insist on
doing their own engineering. I have often observed that one of the most
valuable commodities that an engineering group can bring to a project is
experience in similar projects. That is one thing that Boeing and the rest
have that these new companies for the most part do not.

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

Date: 12 Nov 85 21:25:00 GMT
From: pur-ee!uiucdcsb!carroll@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: ASAT test on "Solwind"
Real-Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (TOPS-20 MMailr forced this upon me)
Sender: space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

No real information, but knowing our government, SolWind was probably just
listed as "dead", and no one bothered to check. It was operating past it's
"official" lifetime, and for someone from the Pentagon, something functioning
even that long was probably so out of the norm that it would never occur to
the military mind that it might still work.
			Mr. Sarcasm

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

Date: 12 Nov 85 18:49:00 GMT
From: pur-ee!uiucdcsp!ashby@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: catalog meteorites for real?
Real-Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (TOPS-20 MMailr forced this upon me)
Sender: space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

I would say the price is way too high.  Metorites are not all
that uncommon, so you are simply paying a lot of money for a
well-traveled piece of rock.  If you want, you can send me
the $125 and I will send you 10 lbs. of Illinite - a rock
found only in Chambana-land.
                                 - Steve Ashby
                                   Univ. of Illinois

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

Date: 12 Nov 85 21:20:00 GMT
From: pur-ee!uiucdcsb!carroll@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Unified Field Theory - Time dil
Real-Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (TOPS-20 MMailr forced this upon me)
Sender: space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Not strictly true. You can travel at the speed of light, if you have
no "rest mass", e.g. a photon. As to traveling faster than light, your
time dilation becomes imaginary, and no one knows what that means.
The main argument against faster than light (FTL) is causality violations.
If you could get from place to place faster than light, you could send
messages back in time, because what is "now" is different for people who
are moving at different speeds. It is easy to create a situation with
three people, one saying "A happened before B", "B happened before A",
and "A and B were simultaneous".

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

Date: 12 Nov 85 21:30:00 GMT
From: pur-ee!uiucdcsb!carroll@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: StarDate: October 25 Tethered S
Real-Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (TOPS-20 MMailr forced this upon me)
Sender: space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

You could use it to boost to a higher orbit; just put some ion engines
on the satellite, and use the electricity gained to boost. You get the
energy from the Earth's rotation, so it would make the day slightly
longer (snicker). This was the subject of a story in Analog not too long
ago; unfortunately I don't remember the title or issue. It concerned a
space station constructed of two rafts of Shuttle ET's, tethered. (Made
a nice place to land, since there was a small effective gravity on
either end).

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

Date: 12 Nov 85 21:09:00 GMT
From: pur-ee!uiucdcsb!carroll@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Unified Field Theory and space trav
Real-Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (TOPS-20 MMailr forced this upon me)
Sender: space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

For math types, the important quantity is sqrt(1-(v/c)**2). If we call that
R, then time, mass, and length change as follows, from the viewpoint of
someone on EARTH! Please note, everything depends on who is the observer.
T' = T * R
M' = M / R
L' = L * R
	Where T',M',L' are what you see while the voyagers are traveling
rapidly, and T,M,L are what they were just before they left. So, when v
is close to c, one hour on Earth (T) becomes a very small amount of time
on the ship (T'). The inevitable question is: "I thought it was all relative,
why don't the voyagers see Earth as running slow in time?", or the Twins
Paradox. The answer is that someone (the voyagers) accelerated, and the other
people didn't, and that distinguishes them. Accleration and gravity slow
down clocks too, just like high speeds.

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

Date: 12 Nov 85 23:53:24 GMT
From: tektronix!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!gml@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Gregory M Lobdell)
Subject: Re: slingshot effect
Real-Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (TOPS-20 MMailr forced this upon me)
Sender: space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> 
> Can anyone explain to me (in 250 words or less) the famed
> 'slingshot' effect that is used to accelerate space probes?
> 
I am told, though I haven't actually written a simulation for it
that the slingshot effect is due to the fact that you are falling
into a moving object, so as you fall, it pulls you along.
Gregg Lobdell

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

Date: 12 Nov 85 22:11:41 GMT
From: ihnp4!mgnetp!we53!busch!wucs!wuphys!sas@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Scott A. Sandford)
Subject: Re: catalog meteorites for real?
Real-Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (TOPS-20 MMailr forced this upon me)
Sender: space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

     In response to the question about the prices listed for
meteorite slices.  The cost may or may not be
reasonable, and depends on several things.  There are
many kinds of meteorites and some are rarer than
others, and hence more expensive.
     The most common type of meteorite is called an
Ordinary Chondrite.  These meteorites fall
predominantly into 3 'types' called the LL, L and H
Ord. Chondrites and between them they account for
roughly 90% of the observed meteorite falls.  These
meteorites are made up of silicate minerals and contain
small (~1mm) marble like objects called chondrules
(hence the name chondrites).
     There are many other rarer types of meteorites of which
I will name only a few.  These include a wide variety
of iron and stony-iron meteorites, basaltic
achondrites, carbonaceous chondrites, and the SNC's.  
     What they are worth depends on how rare the
meteorite type is, how big the sample is, and what you want 
them for.  If you are looking for a gift to be displayed on a
shelf I'd recommend a polished slice of an iron
meteorite that's been etched to show its Widmanstatten
pattern, or even better, a polished slice of a
pallasite (a stony-iron).  These types seem to have the
'sex-appeal' lots of people are looking for when they
buy meteorites.  Most meteorites look like relatively
boring rocks to the uninitiated, however.  I'd emphasis that if 
you're buying to have something to look at, you want a _polished_
section.  You'd probably also want a slice that
contained some of the meteorite's fusion crust, the
melted area that is formed near the surface of the
meteorite during atmospheric entry.
     The true worth of a meteorite (in my opinion) is
based on its scientific value, since studies of
meteorites tell us alot about the origin of the solar
system, the formation of the elements, etc.  This makes
the carbonaceous chondrites particularly special,
because they are thought to be very old and 'primitive'
meteorites.  The C. chondrites are not particulary
exciting to look at, however.  Another valuable
meteorite type is the SNC's (named after
Shergotty-Nakhla-Chassigny, the 3 major meteorites in
this group).  These meteorites are of particular
scientific value because some (not all) scientists
think they may be from Mars.  These meteorites look
even duller than the carboanceous chondrites.  It is extremely 
unlikely you'll find this type of meteorite for sale and it'd be
a crime if it were, as the sample should really be in a
laboratory somewhere.
     The final upshot of this is that meteorites tend
to cost what private citizens are willing to pay for
them.  A reasonable price is basically whatever you feel is
reasonable.  I would recommend you not buy a meteorite
as an 'investment' for the simple reason that it's not
clear to me they appreciate.  In fact there are more and
more meteorites being found all the time and they're
not as rare as they once were.  During a scientific
expedition to Antarctica that I was on last year we
found almost 300 meteorites!  You certainly will not be
able to sell your samples to scientists since they can
get what they need for free through scientific exchange
with museums and through programs like the one I was
involved with in Antarctica.
     If you still want a meteorite just for display,
I'd really recommend that you get a polished section and
look at the section first so you know what you're
getting (otherwise you might get a boring piece of
black rock).  Find out what type of meteorite the slice
is from so you can read up on what is known about it
and impress your friends.  And finally, shop around.
Although I don't have any names in my files any more, I
know that there are several business that do nothing
but sell meteorites (including a road side stand near
Rancho de Chimayo in N.M., not far from where I grew
up).  Perhaps one of them can give you a better deal.
I wouldn't be surprised if you cut your costs
significantly by looking around.
     I hope this answered the question.  If not I can
always try again.
		Scott Sandford
		McDonnell Center for the Space Sciences
		Box 1105
		Washington University Physics Department
		St. Louis, Missouri 63130
----------------------------------------------------------
If you cut too many corners, you end up running around in
circles.
--------------------------------------------------------

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

End of SPACE Digest V6 #19
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA04966; Fri, 15 Nov 85 03:00:51 PST
	id AA04966; Fri, 15 Nov 85 03:00:51 PST
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 85 03:00:51 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8511151100.AA04966@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #20

*** EOOH ***
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 85 03:00:51 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #20

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 6 : Issue 20

Today's Topics:
		      Re: Re: Voyager at Uranus
			  Re: Private Space
			   Slingshot effect
		  Haag meteorite collection for sale
			 Meteorites for sale
	 Info on shuttle mission results and other NASA news
		       Re: SPACE Digest V6 #19
			 Phoenix/Gary Hudson
			   Slingshot effect
			ASAT test on "Solwind"
  [ihnp4!seismo!RUTGERS.ARPA!Carter: We think *gun* control is bad.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 10 Nov 85 05:23:38 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!aplcen!cp1!yojna1!wb6rqn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Brian Lloyd)
Subject: Re: Re: Voyager at Uranus
Real-Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (TOPS-20 MMailr forced this upon me)
Sender: space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> >> I doubt it.  When the Viking missions landed in '76, they sent home most
> >> of the JPL employees (!) for half a day.
> >
> > What was the reason for sending home "most of the JPL employees"?
> 
Heck, they let me in.  I sat next to Leonard Nimoy.  There is nothing like 
high-powered intellectual capability to liven up a party, I always say!
Brian Lloyd
...![bellcore!cp1]!yojna1!wb6rqn

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

Date: 11 Nov 85 15:40:34 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!aplcen!cp1!yojna1!wb6rqn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Brian Lloyd)
Subject: Re: Private Space
Real-Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (TOPS-20 MMailr forced this upon me)
Sender: space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> > ...  After proving the new 
> > technologies, we estimate it would cost Boeing $2.7 Billion to build
> > a vehicle like the Phoenix, and that the first one off the assembly line
> > would cost about $300 million (3 times a 747). [...]
> > 
> No offence to you personally or to Boeing, Dani, but the military and
> space branches of major aerospace companies are incapable of building
> anything cheaply.  Even when it can be, and should be, built cheaply.
> They simply don't know how any more. [...]
> 
> 				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
> 				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
The aerospace industry as a whole suffers because there are no simple 
technologies for the construction of air- and spacecraft.  Our current
technologies are very labor intensive.  Combine that with the product liability
problems faced by the aerospace companies (currently 30-40% of the cost of a
new aircraft is product liability insurance) and it is not likely that any
aerospace company can produce an inexpensive anything.
If you are interested in an inexpensive air/spacecraft you must:
  1.  come up with a way to reduce the product liability costs, and ...
  2.  come up with a structure that has a strength-to-weight ratio that is
      as good as the riveted sheet metal, monocoque construction used today,
      that also is not labor intensive (expensive) to build.
Another reason that military and NASA craft are so expensive is that they
are built to military and government specifications (a mouse built to 
government specs is an elephant), so you are correct in stating that the
military and space branches of the major aerospace manufacturers tend to
build expensive products, but it is by decree rather than by choice.  They
build what the customer wants, and to the customer's specifications.
What we are really talking about here is commercial production where things
tend to be a little looser, albeit plagued by the product liability problem.
Most of the technology is now in place and I think that Dani's numbers sound
quite reasonable.
By the way, Henry, what is your experience in the aerospace industry?
Brian Lloyd
...![bellcore!cp1]!yojna1!wb6rqn

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

Date: 14 Nov 85 14:45:27 GMT
From: decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-star!fisher@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Burns Fisher ZKO1-1/D42 DTN 381-1466)
Subject: Slingshot effect
Real-Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (TOPS-20 MMailr forced this upon me)
Sender: space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

//
I am not expert on this subject, but it was my impression that there are
two different kinds of effects going on here:
The first is a change of velocity, not necessarily speed.  If you whip around
the planet and zip off with a direction 180 degrees different (not really
possible, I guess, but I can talk about that without vector notation), you
have changed your velocity by -2V.  Similarly with different angles.  The
solar polar mission coming up uses Jupitor to sling the spacecraft into an
orbit which is ~90degrees to the ecliptic, nearly impossible using engines.
The second, I am a bit more fuzzy on, but I have heard that if you fire
your engines while you are down in the gravity well of a planet that it
has a multiplier effect of some sort.  That is, your final speed is higher
than if you waited until you got out of the well and then fired.  I guess
that makes some vague sense from a conservation of energy viewpoint...the
planet pulls down mass M, but only mass M-m goes back out (at a higher speed).
I'd be interested in hearing clarifications and/or corrections.
Burns

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

Date: Thu 14 Nov 85 09:13:18-PST
From: Bill Park <PARK@sri-ai.arpa>
Subject: Haag meteorite collection for sale
To: Space-Enthusiasts@mit-mc.arpa
Cc: Park@sri-ai.arpa

For you meteorite fans, Scientific American of November 1985, page 46
has an advertisement for the sale of the Robert A. Hagg meteorite
collection.  A catalog is available for $1 from:

	Robert A. Haag Collection
	Meteorites
	P.O. Box 27527
	Tucson, AZ  85726
	(602)882-8804
-------

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

Date:     Thu, 14 Nov 85 14:30:21 CST
From: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI <wmartin@ALMSA-2.ALMSA>
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject:  Meteorites for sale

I, too, got the catalog with the meteorites for sale. It is from "Norm
Thompson", a dealer who used to concentrate on African animal-related
products and safari-style clothes for the armchair "great white hunter"
types. I guess the rising ecological consciousness made selling 
elephant-hair bracelets and zebra skins a declining market, and the firm
has expanded into glitzy knick-knacks and expensive clothing. The same
catalog that has the meteorites has a $61,500 steam launch ($55,000 in
Diesel power) and a $425 teddy bear.

The meteorites are iron; they are sliced and polished, and the ad text
specifically mentions the Widmanstatten pattern (using the spelling
from the last posting -- I sort of recall that being "Wiedmanstatten",
but don't have any source to look it up in around here). The picture
shows sliced and polished-face half-meteorite chunks (prepared like
geodes usually are), so that would give both the burnt outer fusion
crust and the innards, though I don't recall them explicitly stating
that you get that form. (I would think that larger pieces would be
cut into several slices, which might mean you'd get little crust on
such slices.)

As far as price, it seemed high instead of low to me, but then I am
frugal and miserly about decorative objects like this. However, before
buying from these people, I would look in a library at recent issues of
astronomy and rockhound/gem hobbyists magazines, and also at scientific
supply house catalogs. I would think any sellers of meteorites would
advertise in such places, and school or lab-equipment suppliers might
sell these also.

Happy Holidays!

Will

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

Date:     Thu, 14 Nov 85 14:41:32 CST
From: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI <wmartin@ALMSA-2.ALMSA>
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject:  Info on shuttle mission results and other NASA news

Would it be possible to feed the SPACE Digest with any NASA press releases or
reports, if they are available at some stage in their preparation in an
electronic form, related to current activities? We have seen the regular
media neglect the spece missions more and more (this is inevitable as
they become more common, and actually, I suppose, desirable, as we make
space-based activities a normal and ordinary part of human actions). I
would think that NASA would still be preparing info or reports about the
results of shuttle missions and other space activities, and such could
be "narrowcasted" to those of us interested in the subject via this
electronic medium. If they exist in an on-line form on a machine
connected into the Internet in some way, could it be made a standard
practice to release these via electronic mail to this list at the same
time as they are released on paper through more traditional channels?

Any NASA types out there -- please pass this on to your PR people.
(Send it in as a suggestion and make a few bucks! That's fine with me!)

Regards, Will Martin
US Army Materiel Command

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

Date:           Thu, 14 Nov 85 14:59:31 PST
From: "Niket K. Patwardhan" <bilbo.niket@locus.ucla.edu>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Cc: ota@s1-b.arpa
Subject:        Re: SPACE Digest V6 #19
In-Reply-To:    Message of Thu, 14 Nov 85 03:11:39 PST
                    from "Ted Anderson <ota@s1-b.arpa>"
                    <8511141111.AA07112@s1-b.arpa>


I don't know why causality should be linked to pure forward motion in time.
(Ie why cant something that happens in the future cause something in the past?)
If you really want to preserve the transitivity of causality, all you need is
that space-time have some kind of directionality, ie you can go from point A
to point B but not from B to A. You can also make time travel possible as a
notion if you eliminate the idea of free will (ie if I travelled back in time,
something would prevent me from killing my father before I was conceived, even
if I had all the means to do so!)

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

Date: Thu 14 Nov 85 15:05:33-PST
From: Terry C. Savage <TCS@usc-ecl.arpa>
Subject: Phoenix/Gary Hudson
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa
Cc: ;@andromeda, tcs@usc-ecl.arpa



One issue that is becoming increasingly important in space launch
considerations is insurance. Insurance companies like track records.
Being a young, inexperienced company will cost you very directly
in that area, and will tend to offset whatever efficiencies may or may
not be present.

There is also the psychological facotor--I would personally be willing
to fly in/ship something valuable in a spacecraft built by Boeing,
Rockwell, or one of the majors very early in the production run
(Hell, I'd test fly it, if they'd let me!). The Phoenix? I'll be
happy to go after the 10,000th passenger comes *back* safely, if
it won't invalidate my life insurance.


TCS
-------

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

Date: Thu, 14 Nov 85 22:12:51 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@mit-mc.arpa>
Subject: Slingshot effect
To: tektronix!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!gml@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Cc: KFL@mit-mc.arpa, Space@s1-b.arpa

    Date: 12 Nov 85 23:53:24 GMT
    From: tektronix!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!gml@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
    (Gregory M Lobdell)

    > 
    > Can anyone explain to me (in 250 words or less) the famed
    > 'slingshot' effect that is used to accelerate space probes?
    > 
    I am told, though I haven't actually written a simulation for it
    that the slingshot effect is due to the fact that you are falling
    into a moving object, so as you fall, it pulls you along.

  (Why didn't I see the message that this is in reply to?)
  When a spacecraft falls towards a planet but misses it, its
trajectory is a hyperbola.  It leaves with the same velocity as it
arrived with.  BUT note that this is relative to the planet!  Relative
to the Sun, it looks very different, and it is possible for the
spacecraft to have accelerated from zero to twice the oribital speed
of the planet *relative to the Sun*.  This is what allows the Pioneer
and Voyager probes to reach solar escape velocity (which, in the
vicinity of Jupiter is 1.414 times the orbital speed of Jupiter) with
negligible fuel consumption.
  It is possible to imagine a set of neutron stars or other dense
massive objects set up to fly by the solar system and another star at
a large fraction of the speed of light.  Using these, one could travel
between the stars at a large fraction of the speed of light with very
little energy consumption.
  A second slingshot effect is that it is more effective to burn fuel
when passing close to a massive object.  It has been pointed out that
with today's technology, we can send a probe past Jupiter in such a
way that Jupiter's slingshot effect will cancel out most of the
probe's solar orbital velocity, and will cause the probe to drop
towards the Sun (this is much more energy efficient than trying to get
to the Sun directly, since you have to cancel out earth's orbital
velocity somehow).  By the time it gets near the Sun it will be moving
quite rapidly, mostly because of its long fall from Jupiter.  Just
when it's closest to the Sun is when you burn all your fuel as rapidly
as possible.  This will cause it to fly away from the Sun at about
1000 miles per second!  At that velocity, about 100 times that of the
Voyager probes, it can reach Earth in a day, Jupiter in a week, Pluto
in 6 weeks, and Alpha Centauri in about 8 centuries.  It could be
used for exploration or perhaps for energy by catching it in an
electromagnetic gun (you actually get more energy out than you put
in.  The extra comes from dropping part of the Earth's mass (the fuel)
into the Sun, and from dropping Jupiter's orbit a tiny fraction of an
inch closer to the Sun.)
								...Keith

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

Date: 14 Nov 85  23:18 EST (Thu)
From: _Bob <Carter@red.rutgers.edu>
To: pur-ee!uiucdcsb!carroll@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Cc: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa
Subject: ASAT test on "Solwind"
In-Reply-To: Msg of 12 Nov 1985  16:25-EST from pur-ee!uiucdcsb!carroll at ucbvax.berkeley.edu

 
Dear Mr. Sarcasm:

    Consider: 1.   It was necessary to hit something in orbit that
		   was transmitting, else they wouldn't have known
		   they hit it.

	      2.   Solwind had already done what it was sent up to do.

	      3.   It would have cost a packet to send something up
		   just to shoot down again.

	      4.   They owned the d*mned thing.

    I've had some experience with military people, and much more with
American academics.  There's a lot to be said for the military mind.

_B

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

Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1985  02:29 EST
Sender: GZT.TDF%MIT-OZ@mit-mc.arpa
From: "David D. Story" <FTD%MIT-OZ@mit-mc.arpa>
To: Space@mit-mc.arpa, Arms-d@mit-mc.arpa, cbosgd!cbrma!kk@seismo.css.gov,
        ssc-vax!marla@uw-beaver.arpa
Subject: [ihnp4!seismo!RUTGERS.ARPA!Carter: We think *gun* control is bad.]
Phase-Of-The-Moon: NM+2D.22H.45M.12S.

>>Date: Saturday, 9 November 1985  11:57-EST
>>From: ihnp4!seismo!RUTGERS.ARPA!Carter (Bob Carter)
>>To:   Today's at MIT-MC
>>Re:   We think *gun* control is bad.

  >  Date: Friday, 1 November 1985  16:34-EST
  >  From: Dale.Amon at FAS.RI.CMU.EDU
  >  To:   SPACE at MIT-MC, BBoard.Maintainer at A.CS.CMU.EDU
  >  Re:   Senator Glenn comments

  > This last week I presented testimony at the NCS hearings in
  > Cleveland. Among the other presentors was a Glenn staff member
  > reading Sen. Glenn's position paper. Much was reasonable, but he
  > made one statement which utterly horrified me, and I'm sure will
  > equally horrify most of you.

  > He suggested that rocket technology, because of it's potential use
  >    as ICBM's, be internationally regulated the way nuclear technology
  > is.

  > One twist of the pen, and you and I will never own a private
  > spaceship.  Admittedly, we probably wouldn't anyway, but at least
  > we can dream. I would like to ask any of you who are as violently
  > opposed to such a scheme as I am to write Senator Glenn and tell
  > him that this is not a very good idea.

	Sen. John Glenn SH 503 Hart Senate Office Bldg Washington, DC
	20510

  > Just imagine where aviation would be today if in the first part of
  >    this century it had been regulated like the nuclear industry.

  > I have hopes that in the early teens of the next century, we will
  > see spaceships owned by anyone of any race, creed, nation,
  > minority, majority
  > or political leaning who could buy a jet plane today.

Does this mean that NASA is requesting their own security clearances
such as the DOE Q which semi-equivocates to DOD TOP SECRET ? And possible
further breakdown such as NSC/DOD/DOE NWCS clearances (which is really
need-to-know information). IF SO I AM FOR IT even though NATO need-to-
know is not specifically included (I would imagine that this would be
considered by government application on a case by case basis). 

I think that since so many of the NEWFIES coming into technology have
little regard for export licensing and the like and think that the
best way to make a buck is by shipping out critical technology by
means of black market (I have been approached by some of these,
especially the ones from the finer academic institutions - most
notably at AAAI '83). These think that export licensing of potential
military technology is a joke (I think that the lack of restriction
even with licensing is a joke).

Foreign Countries might have the bomb but that is of little use
without delivery (sometimes I wonder why they would even want to
join the insanity seeing that it means small revamps of targeting by 
US and THEM and THOSE with the technology base capable of mounting
even a peaceful space program).

I also take exception that you would include this in the firearms
list. I think this lies in the area of the fallacy of composition.
Regardless of that, I appreciate your information and would like
to ask why you think we should export of information and products
to countries that would rather blow each other off the map and have
neither the money, programs or technology base for doing little else
than delivering a nuclear warhead. There are already consortiums set
up for those countries to participate in that are reasonably ethical.
I qualify that statement by asking if you think that it is reasonable for
the French to sell Exocets to gun toting dictators that get their
votes in rather a Hitlereze fashion and their rocks off by pulling
triggers, regardless of the consequences, to placate their political
factions. If not that one, how about a free trip over Korea by way
of a beaten short cut. Or live in Prague in '68.

	We should use the U.S., E.C.C. & U.K. technology base to
extract some reasonableness if they really want the goodies. To
wholesale it out is a depletion of the technological edge as well as
economically and finacially unsound practice. The total investiture
in rocketry and our technology base are not even closely reflected
in even our elementary textbooks. Don't you think that for all the
give away we should extract something in return from the AYATOLLAHs
SANDINISTAs, SOMOZAs, SHAHs, CUBANs, and the rest !


					Comments Welcomed

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

End of SPACE Digest V6 #20
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA09361; Sat, 16 Nov 85 03:00:40 PST
	id AA09361; Sat, 16 Nov 85 03:00:40 PST
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 85 03:00:40 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8511161100.AA09361@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #21

*** EOOH ***
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 85 03:00:40 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #21

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 6 : Issue 21

Today's Topics:
			  Voyager at Uranus
			   slingshot effect
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:           Fri, 15 Nov 85 15:56:54 PST
From: Matthew J Weinstein <matt@locus.ucla.edu>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Subject:        Voyager at Uranus
In-Reply-To:    Message of Fri, 15 Nov 85 03:11:37 PST
                    from "Ted Anderson <ota@s1-b.arpa>"
                    <8511151111.AA05145@s1-b.arpa>


I recently received this semi-official info:

On the day of closest approach to Uranus (which I believe is January
24th, 1986),  Caltech's Beckmann Auditorium will be open to the public
for viewing of the pictures being sent from Voyager.  In the evening, 
there will be a panel discussion (Carl Sagan, maybe Al Hibbs?, others).  

Von Karmann Auditorium at JPL will be closed to the public (and JPL
employees) during encounter (it will be stuffed to the gills with the
press).

Hope this is of interest...

					- Matt

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

Date: 12 Nov 85 01:05:40 GMT
From: cbosgd!clyde!watmath!wateng!watale!wpallen@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Warren P. Allen @ U of Waterloo X 2522)
Subject: slingshot effect
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Can anyone explain to me (in 250 words or less) the famed
'slingshot' effect that is used to accelerate space probes?
I understand this effect is used not only to change the
trajectory of the craft, but also its *speed*.
I know it has to do with angular momentum, but *how* is the
planet's momentum transfered to the space craft?
PS. keep it simple if possible..
thanx

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

End of SPACE Digest V6 #21
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA11440; Sun, 17 Nov 85 03:00:43 PST
	id AA11440; Sun, 17 Nov 85 03:00:43 PST
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 85 03:00:43 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8511171100.AA11440@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #22

*** EOOH ***
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 85 03:00:43 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #22

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 6 : Issue 22

Today's Topics:
			 Re: Time Retardation
	       Re: Unified Field Theory and space trav
		      Star-Wars/Space Telescopes
			 Re: slingshot effect
       Re: Info on shuttle mission results and other NASA news
			    Re: Slingshot
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 13 Nov 85 22:51:52 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!seismo!harvard!talcott!sesame!slerner@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Simcha-Yitzchak Lerner)
Subject: Re: Time Retardation
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> 
> 
> The difference in the rate at which time passes for two different inertial
> frames of reference is determined by the Lorentz Transformation:
> 
> 	     ---------
> 	    /    v**2		v = Velocity of one frame with respect to
> 	\  / 1 - ----			the other.
> 	 \/      c**2		c = Speed of light.
> 
> As one approaches the speed of light, the rate that time passes in one
> frame of reference (like a spaceship) as "observed" from the other
> (say on Earth) approaches zero.
What happens if two ships leave with opposite vectors, and they both approach
the speed of light relative to their initial frame.  The v above, relative to
each other, would approach 2*c, giving a non-real answer.  Where am I goofing?
(Or is it time to invest in a FTL ship?  :-) )
-- 
Opinions expressed are public domain, and do not belong to Lotus
Development Corp.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Simcha-Yitzchak Lerner
              {genrad|ihnp4|ima}!wjh12!talcott!sesame!slerner
                      {cbosgd|harvard}!talcott!sesame!slerner
                       talcott!sesame!slerner@harvard.ARPA

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

Date: 14 Nov 85 18:06:39 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!hao!hplabsb!bl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Unified Field Theory and space trav
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> 
> For math types, the important quantity is sqrt(1-(v/c)**2). If we call that
> R, then time, mass, and length change as follows, from the viewpoint of
> someone on EARTH! Please note, everything depends on who is the observer.
> T' = T * R
> M' = M / R
> L' = L * R
> 
> 	Where T',M',L' are what you see while the voyagers are traveling
> rapidly, and T,M,L are what they were just before they left. So, when v
> is close to c, one hour on Earth (T) becomes a very small amount of time
> on the ship (T'). The inevitable question is: "I thought it was all relative,
> why don't the voyagers see Earth as running slow in time?", or the Twins
> Paradox. The answer is that someone (the voyagers) accelerated, and the other
> people didn't, and that distinguishes them. Accleration and gravity slow
> down clocks too, just like high speeds.
OK, lets rephrase the question.  The two twins get into identical space ships
and accelerate at the same amount but in opposite directions.  What do they
observe about the other?

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

Date: 14 Nov 85 22:40:59 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!mcvax!ukc!gcb1@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (G.C.Blair)
Subject: Star-Wars/Space Telescopes
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

I consider myself fairly well up-to-date with the current advances in
the so-called "Star Wars" technology & research, but I realised something
today which had never occurred to me before:
We all know how you can make a parabolic mirror by stretching a thin
film of aluminised plastic over a ring of metal or some other such
material, then using a vacuum pump to suck the film into the shape of
a parabola, but has this actually been achieved in space (ie en vacuo)?
Surely the principle demands that the pressure on the front surface is
greater than the pressure from the back? So in a vacuum, the pressure
would be equal from both sides, even with the vacuum pump, thus the
sheet of plastic would not deform into the required shape. Does this
then mean that the telescope would require a closed volume of gas in
front of the mirror, supplying a pressure, but also re-introducing
an absorbing medium for the light? This latter argument is certainly
one that I have never heard propounded. Does anyone know of any
experiments that have been carried out in a vacuum on this topic?
			Grant C. Blair
[Is anyone out there willing to sponsor me to do Stars Wars research? Please?]

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

Date: 13 Nov 85 17:49:00 GMT
From: pur-ee!uiucdcsb!carroll@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: slingshot effect
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Very simple explanation: Suppose the space craft is traveling radially out
from the sun. Now, it approaches a planet, say toward the back side (i.e.
on the side away from the direction the planet is traveling). It will be
attracted to the planet, and therefore gain speed in the direction the
planet is moving. Because the planet is in a nearly circular orbit, it's
radial velocity is about zero, so the space craft picks up radial velocity
coming in and loses it going out in equal amounts. It does, however, gain
some velocity perpendicular to that by being attracted to the planet as the
planet moves away. So, the total velocity vector is now larger than it
was originally. What the space craft gains is lost by the planet, but due
to the large size difference no one notices. Actually slingshot effects are
a lot worse than this, since the space craft starts with orbital motion, but
that's the general idea.
	Alternatively, consider two objects approaching each other, just
offset a little. If they attract, you could set it up so that they just go
around each other a half orbit, so that each ends up moving in the opposite
direction it started in.

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

Date: 15 Nov 85 18:51:51 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!seismo!hao!ames!eugene@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Eugene Miya)
Subject: Re: Info on shuttle mission results and other NASA news
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> Would it be possible to feed the SPACE Digest with any NASA press releases or
> reports, if they are available at some stage in their preparation in an
> electronic form, related to current activities?
> 
> Any NASA types out there -- please pass this on to your PR people.
> (Send it in as a suggestion and make a few bucks! That's fine with me!)
> 
> Regards, Will Martin
> US Army Materiel Command
I have high respect for your suggestions Will.  This has been proposed
to me, and I will try to answer your questions about the problems we
have.
1) Foremost.  The money which goes into the space agency goes (obviously)
to project oriented research.  PR is an after fact.  I have been working
with the Ames people recently to get some TRs published.  Our
publication people are all heavily overworked and using obsolete tools.
At Ames, we just hard an NBI system installed, but insite training was poor,
networking between them does not exist, and the money is not there.
Functions such as this come third to projects preceded by research and so
forth. I think most large bureacracies are like this.  Also, none of the
PR branches have laser printers.  Use of the word LASER in the government
implies numerous safety rules which these departments don't deal with
[another story].  This illustrates some of our problems.
2) There is quite a bulk of NASA data out there: Voyager status notes,
Tech Briefs, Pioneer reports, NASA Activities, etc.  Who decides what,
how much, and so forth?   There is a lot of "junk."  I receieved
a couple of complaints when I posted NASA Activities. Following
the USENET is a major time kill (yeah, tell me something new...).
3) Networks and computers are foreign to large portions of NASA.
I am on here by the graces of my management and the graces of
a different Division who runs this machine (our Central Computer
Facility does not have Unix machines [we actually have an SGI IRIS]).
I have been called in my Division chief's office on more than one
USENET posting when it came from the net somewhere else back to my
management.  Information including simple correspondence typically
must go thru a clearance cycle [e.g., your voice represents the Agency
whether you disclaim things or not.].  Dispersal of information to
"foreign" ....  worries a lot of people.  I cannot accept invitations
to speak or present papers based on electronic mail (must have
hardcopy with letterhead and 'signature.')
I recently visited one research Center (larger than Ames but back East)
which had never seen a Mac before.  This Center has 2 (two) IBM PCs
with all other work done on IBM and other mainframes.  Univac would
love to sell Ames one of their machines, but they were luck to get two
people show up for their presentation.
4) There are, as posted by others, small BBSs at various NASA Centers
like Johnson and Goddard.  The numbers are available.
5) Roger Noe has written suggesting involvement on internal discussion
groups.  Al Globius (ames!al) started a local news group on discussing
space station design topics, but few local researchers got involved.
This brings up problems of propritary information from contractors
and vendors, and the possibly of "premature announcement" of ideas
which are not policy.
It would be nice to spend more time, but back to work.
From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  {hplabs,ihnp4,dual,hao,decwrl,allegra}!ames!aurora!eugene
  emiya@ames-vmsb

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

Date:           Sat, 16 Nov 85 08:40:22 PST
From: Richard K. Jennings <jennings@aerospace.arpa>
To: space@mit-mc.arpa
Subject:        Re: Slingshot

	Consider a small space probe passing close to (within the 
gravitational field of) a somewhat larger mass (say the planet
Jupiter).  Jupiter is speeding around the Sun.  Mutual attraction
causes the probe to (negligibly) pull Jupiter along its velocity
vector (proportional to its mass) and vice versa -- except the
force exerted by Jupiter is much much larger.  Since Jupiter has
more mass, the force exerted by the probe isn't easily observed.
Since the probe is quite light, and Jupiter's gravitational field is
quite strong, an easily observable acceleration is observed.
	In short, Jupiter through the wonders of gravity imparts
a very small fraction of its *orbital* energy to the probe -- which
then goes shooting out of the solar system like a bat of of h*ll!

	This effect is also possible with the Sun, since the Sun is
also moving.  Previous comments pertaining to the efficient use of
propellant in gravity wells, while true, do not account for the 
energy gain produced by the slingshot effect.

Regards, Rich

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

End of SPACE Digest V6 #22
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA01663; Tue, 19 Nov 85 03:00:56 PST
	id AA01663; Tue, 19 Nov 85 03:00:56 PST
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 85 03:00:56 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8511191100.AA01663@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #23

*** EOOH ***
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 85 03:00:56 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #23

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 6 : Issue 23

Today's Topics:
			 Re: Hughes satellite
		    Re: Star-Wars/Space Telescopes
		    Re: Star-Wars/Space Telescopes
       Re: Info on shuttle mission results and other NASA news
	       Re: Unified Field Theory and space trav
			   .9c+.9c != 1.8c
			    Scott Sandford
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 16 Nov 85 02:35:03 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!hao!ames!al@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Al Globus)
Subject: Re: Hughes satellite
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> I haven't been keeping up with the news lately.  Does
> anyone know what happened with the attempt
> to restart the Hughes satellite that the shuttle
> repaired in space.  Last I heard, they had waited long
> enough for the fuel to warm up in the sun and were
> about to (or already had) fired the engine.
> 
It's currently undergoing checkout in the proper orbit.  Looks like
we're going to get a big win here!

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

Date: 18 Nov 85 00:36:12 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!seismo!brl-tgr!gwyn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Doug Gwyn <ucdavis!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!seismo!brl-
Subject: Re: Star-Wars/Space Telescopes
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> Consequently, the best source for Stars Wars research support is
> Eugene Velikov, (no relation to Velikovsky) of the Academy of
> Science, Moscow, a head of Kurchatov, and a mastermind of their
> own advanced Star Wars effort at Krasnaya Pachra and other Russian
> military labs, (so secure that even scientists from the "Eastern 
> Allies" can not visit them).  Incidentally, Velikov has lobbied 
> Senator Pell and others against our new fledgling program and 
> has served on disarmament committees.  My own personal information 
> is that the Russian program was in progress at least as far back
> as 1976.  I suspect the Russians have made a monumental discovery
> and are not willing to share it with us, and if I am correct as
> to what is is, I don't blame them because in a few more years it
> will give them a massive military edge.  I also think the concept 
> of their program is considerably more aggressive (offensive) than 
> ours.
It is, I thought, well known that the Soviets test-fired a
neutral particle beam "weapon" several years ago.  One assumes
that they are farther along by now.
If it weren't so dangerous, it would be almost amusing how
readily a lot of Americans (apparently including the President
himself) jump at the chance to bargain away strategic defense
at the negotiating table.  The only logic for a strategic defense
would preclude failing to deploy it.  If you read the memoirs
of high-level Soviet defectors (not ballet performers, but those
involved in the military, intelligence, or diplomatic service),
you will find that it is quite common for the Soviets to
encourage nuclear-freeze, unilateral disarmament, and anti-
defense movements in the U.S.  Often this is not as overt as
Velikov lobbying in the Senate.  But if you're the least bit
suspicious of the Soviet government having our best interests at
heart, you might be able to conclude what their perception of
the real worth of America's military development is.  Of course,
your values may not be quite the same as theirs..
This subject should probably move off net.physics, but I don't
know where it belongs.  Sorry.

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

Date: 17 Nov 85 11:21:07 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!prometheus!pmk@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Paul M Koloc)
Subject: Re: Star-Wars/Space Telescopes
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> I consider myself fairly well up-to-date with the current advances in
> the so-called "Star Wars" technology & research, but I realised something
> today which had never occurred to me before:
> 
> We all know how you can make a parabolic mirror by stretching a thin
> film of aluminised plastic over a ring of metal or some other such
> material, then using a vacuum pump to suck the film into the shape of
> a parabola, but has this actually been achieved in space (ie en vacuo)?
> Surely the principle demands that the pressure on the front surface is
> greater than the pressure from the back? So in a vacuum, the pressure
> would be equal from both sides, even with the vacuum pump, thus the
> sheet of plastic would not deform into the required shape. Does this
> then mean that the telescope would require a closed volume of gas in
> front of the mirror, supplying a pressure, but also re-introducing
> an absorbing medium for the light? This latter argument is certainly
> one that I have never heard propounded. Does anyone know of any
> experiments that have been carried out in a vacuum on this topic?
> 
> 			Grant C. Blair
> 
For ground based lasers blasting straight up out of the
atmosphere the attenuation is approximately equivalent to the
photon attenuation of one mile of air at sea level.  This will 
change drastically once a few dozen thermonuclear hits kick up 
some glowing dust clouds.  In any event a high speed of sound 
gases such as helium might work and their attenuation would be 
quite negligible when compared to the ground - space trip.  
Perhaps a better way would be to use an array of medium voltage 
small electron guns that would spray electrons like an ink jet 
printer except that the electrons would "coat" the plastic mirror 
with a variable density coating of charge.  A rigid screen grid 
could act as an attractive ground.  Leakage could be controlled 
with a very low pressure helium neon gas, for example.  The  
reaction time might be fast enough for such a system. 
> [Is anyone out there willing to sponsor me to do Stars Wars research? Please?]
The congress to date has been too gutless to pass the Senate version
of the budget bill.  Consequently the government is under a ECR
which really screws the lid down on SDI.  Also there is a need to
"grand stand" with spectacular "demos" to keep the democrats in
congress happy that something positive is happening in defensive
defense development.  That means the "IST" part of the program,
(Innovative Science and Technology) which is where the later 
development of a truly effective program will come from, has 
taken some pretty debilitating cuts.
Jim Ionson heads up IST and has to spend more time responding to 
twinkies than supporting the research of some really high risk 
but super high payoff concepts.  What's really interesting is that 
some of this research promises to have a much greater and more 
positive impact on the later commercial development of space and
other useful technologies. 
Consequently, the best source for Stars Wars research support is
Eugene Velikov, (no relation to Velikovsky) of the Academy of
Science, Moscow, a head of Kurchatov, and a mastermind of their
own advanced Star Wars effort at Krasnaya Pachra and other Russian
military labs, (so secure that even scientists from the "Eastern 
Allies" can not visit them).  Incidentally, Velikov has lobbied 
Senator Pell and others against our new fledgling program and 
has served on disarmament committees.  My own personal information 
is that the Russian program was in progress at least as far back
as 1976.  I suspect the Russians have made a monumental discovery
and are not willing to share it with us, and if I am correct as
to what is is, I don't blame them because in a few more years it
will give them a massive military edge.  I also think the concept 
of their program is considerably more aggressive (offensive) than 
ours.
+---------------------------------------------------------+--------+
| Paul M. Koloc, President: (301) 445-1075                | FUSION |
| Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222        |  this  |
| {umcp-cs | seismo}!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP  | decade |
+---------------------------------------------------------+--------+

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

Date: 16 Nov 85 22:07:12 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!seismo!harvard!think!mit-eddie!mit-amt!jrd@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Jim Davis)
Subject: Re: Info on shuttle mission results and other NASA news
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In a previous message Will Martin asked that STS info be posted
here.  There is already a group dedicated to the Shuttle, it is called
net.columbia.  STS info should go there.  Duplication of subject
area should be avoided.
-- 
ARPA:jrd@media-lab.mit.edu
Phone: (617)-253-0360

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

Date: Sun, 17 Nov 85 15:27:48 PST
From: mcgeer@kim.berkeley.edu (Rick McGeer)
To: ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!hao!hplabsb!bl
Subject: Re: Unified Field Theory and space trav
Cc: space@mit-mc.arpa

>> 
>> For math types, the important quantity is sqrt(1-(v/c)**2). If we call that
>> R, then time, mass, and length change as follows, from the viewpoint of
>> someone on EARTH! Please note, everything depends on who is the observer.
>> T' = T * R
>> M' = M / R
>> L' = L * R
>> 
>> 	Where T',M',L' are what you see while the voyagers are traveling
>> rapidly, and T,M,L are what they were just before they left. So, when v
>> is close to c, one hour on Earth (T) becomes a very small amount of time
>> on the ship (T'). The inevitable question is: "I thought it was all relative,
>> why don't the voyagers see Earth as running slow in time?", or the Twins
>> Paradox. The answer is that someone (the voyagers) accelerated, and the other
>> people didn't, and that distinguishes them. Accleration and gravity slow
>> down clocks too, just like high speeds.
>OK, lets rephrase the question.  The two twins get into identical space ships
>and accelerate at the same amount but in opposite directions.  What do they
>observe about the other?

	If their roles are symmetric, then clearly neither twin is preferred:
when they meet again, *so long as their roles have been prefectly symmetric*
(identical accelerations, identical velocity vectors (in magnitude) wrt to
a third observer, identical trip times, again wrt a third observer) they will
be the same age.

	Let's consider the following: let's suppose that the twins (call them
Harold & Maude) leave from Earth and head for planets P & Q, each of which
are 8 light years from Earth in radially opposite directions.  Harold &
Maude travel at .8 c, and acceleration and deceleration times are negligible
and can be ignored.  They return immediately.

OK.  For each, 1-v^2/c^2 = .36, hence tau = .6.  Hence the distance for each
of them are foreshortened by an identical amount, namely to 4.8 light years.
At a velocity of .8c, they reach the planets in six years, by their own clocks,
return in an identical time, and have each (according to their own clocks)
aged 12 years.  According to an observer of earth, 20 years have passed.

But while their roles have been symmetric, each believes the other has been
aging very strangely.  Suppose H & M, before they leave, agree to send a signal
to the other at the end of each year.  Since their roles are symmetric, we need
only consider Harold.  Maude's velocity relative to him is

1.6c/1.64 ~= .975c

Hence, by the Doppler effect, Harold will receive .113 flashes/year on the
outbound trip.  Hence (according to Harold) Maude has aged only .678 years
on his outbound trip...

Then Harold turns around.  He still hasn't received 5.322 of Maude's outbound
flashes.  Now, he's moving with speed  zero relative to Maude *when she fired
the flashes*.  Hence, 0 doppler effect.  Hence, for the first 5.322 years of
his return voyage he gets a flash a year.

Now Harold starts to pick up the flashes Maude sent on the inbound journey.
Her velocity relative to him is -.975c, which means that the frequency of
the flashes is now 1/.113 flashes * year, or 8.84 flashes/year, which means
that over the last .678 years of his trip Harold picks up six flashes from
Maude.  Of course, Maude perceives exactly the same phenomenon...

To summarize:

Harold thinks Maude aged .678 years though the first six years of his trip.
Harold thinks Maude aged 5.322 yrs. through the next 5.322 years
Harold thinks Maude aged 6 years during the last .678 years of his trip.

and Maude thinks the reverse.  Who's right and who's wrong?  Well, neither
and both: the key thing is that events separated by space can't be temporally
compared.

					-- Rick.

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

Date: 18 Nov 85 18:11:00 PST
From: <art@acc.arpa>
Subject: .9c+.9c != 1.8c
To: "space" <space@mit-mc.arpa>
Reply-To: <art@acc.arpa>


>> As one approaches the speed of light, the rate that time passes in one
>> frame of reference (like a spaceship) as "observed" from the other
>> (say on Earth) approaches zero.
>What happens if two ships leave with opposite vectors, and they both approach
>the speed of light relative to their initial frame.  The v above, relative to
>each other, would approach 2*c, giving a non-real answer.  Where am I goofing?
>(Or is it time to invest in a FTL ship?  :-) )

[I'll try my best, but I'm not a physicist]

Here one has to examine which frame of reference that the velocities are
measured in.  If two ships leave the Earth in opposite directions, then
both ships will be "seen" to travel at some speed less than "c" in their
respective directions by an Earthbound observer.  The Earthbound observer
will also "see" the clocks on each ship slow down due to time dilation.
If we change the frame of reference to be on either ship, then the other
ship will be "seen" to be traveling at a somewhat greater velocity than
"seen" from Earth, but STILL LESS THAN "c".  As seen from Earth, each
ship's clock is slow, and will therefore measure a lower velocity for the
other ship than the Earth based clock.  As seen from a ship, the velocity
of the other ship, measured using the Earth based clock is also lower,
because the Earth based clock is perceived to be slower.

From what I've read, the "Twin Paradox" is most properly dealt with in
General Relativity, because at least one of the frames of reference is
ACCELERATED.  Special Relativity really deals with relationships between
Inertial (non accelerated) frames of reference.

In the case of the "Twin Paradox", for two observers to agree, they must
both have experienced the same measurable "Events".  An Earthbound Twin
only experiences the ship departure and return.  The spacefaring twin also
experiences the acceleration event, and therefore the situations are not
symetric.  For two spacefaring twins who take identical but opposite trips,
I believe that their ages will agree.

Finally think about what "Measuring velocity" entails.  How does one
establish the "distance" between any two remote points?  "When" does
a ship pass such a point (any signal telling us is limited to speed
of light)?  On the cosmic scale, one cannot deal with time and distance
independently.
					Art@ACC.ARPA

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

Date: 19 Nov 85 05:10:31 EST
From: Dale.Amon@fas.ri.cmu.edu
Subject: Scott Sandford
To: BBoard.Maintainer@a.cs.cmu.edu

I'm curious if Scott Sandford's antarctic trips are with Dr. Cassidy. I may
have seen you in some of his slides if you were...

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

End of SPACE Digest V6 #23
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA05237; Wed, 20 Nov 85 03:00:58 PST
	id AA05237; Wed, 20 Nov 85 03:00:58 PST
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 85 03:00:58 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8511201100.AA05237@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #24

*** EOOH ***
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 85 03:00:58 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #24

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 6 : Issue 24

Today's Topics:
			       Phoenix
			       spinoffs
	       Re: Unified Field Theory and space trav
	       Re: Unified Field Theory and space trav
	       Re: Unified Field Theory and space trav
			  Re: Private Space
       Re: Info on shuttle mission results and other NASA news
			 Re: slingshot effect
			 Re: Slingshot effect
			 Re: Slingshot effect
		       Re: SPACE Digest V6 #19
			 Re: Time Retardation
       Re: Info on shuttle mission results and other NASA news
			   slingshot effect
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 19 Nov 85 05:40:30 EST
From: Dale.Amon@fas.ri.cmu.edu
Subject: Phoenix
To: BBoard.Maintainer@a.cs.cmu.edu

I don't wish to get into a battle of experts, but I can say that Gary has
some good people checking him on this. One very senior design person I have
talked to has said, "Gary is the only one in the business doing it right". I
unfortunately cannot give out his name because he is high up in one of the
aerospace companies and they would not appreciate it. (the company is not
Boeing).

Although I cannot verify current details, I think much of the work will be
subcontracted to places like General Dynamics, etc. Gary has an agreement
with Vandenberg for test launches.

As I said to someone recently in a discussion, I fully expect the Phoenix
will be nowhere near as safe to fly in as a Boeing 747. It will probably be
about as safe as a Ford Trimotor or earlier transport. But it will be
the only way off planet for most of us. I really could care less about what
NASA builds. If it doesn't get me off the ground, what use is it, and why
should I pay for it?

There are more than enough of us willing to take our chances, just as there
were more than enough of our parents willing to fly the early airliners.

The whole problem, Dani, is that you are talking about building a spaceship
with the safety factors of a 1980's aircraft. We are not IN the 1980's of
space flight. This is the 1920's of space (maybe event the 10's). For those
who wish to wait sixty years for safety and luxury, you are more than
welcome.

Entrepreneurs take horrifying (to large stable companies) risks, use bunches
of untested technology and make up for money with sweet equity of people who
do it as a labor of love. Boeing has a union. Gary will have people
practically paying HIM to work 15 hours a day 7 days a week 52 weeks a year.
And if one crashes and kills a few test pilots, there will be a dozen more
standing in line waiting for their chance to fly the hottest, fastest and
most squirrelly thing going. Our generation is no less courageous than that
of our fathers.

The only doubt I have is that the funding can be found. If it can, I think
about $500M and 10 years from now there will be LEO passenger service and a
few new craters where some of our generations REAL heroes have bought the
farm.

Let the wimps get out of the way. People with real guts are coming through.


			What'sa matter? Ya wanna live forever or sumpin?
					Dale

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

Date: Tuesday, 19 Nov 1985 04:57:36-PST
From: redford%jeremy.DEC@decwrl.dec.com  (John Redford)
To: space@mit-mc.arpa
Subject: spinoffs


  There's been a lot of talk recently about spinoffs of high-tech 
government programs, particularly in regard to SDI. I'd like to get 
some discussion going on this, because it's a commonly used argument 
both for SDI and the space program in general.  Let me start with a 
blanket statement:

The commercial value of spinoffs is negligible.

Before I get jumped on by people citing jet aircraft and nuclear 
power plants, let me define the term spinoff a little more carefully.
A spinoff is a technological development arising from 
research into something else.  The Boeing 707 was not a spinoff of 
previous work because the previous work was directly aimed at 
producing a passenger jet aircraft.  Likewise nuclear power: the 
government invested tens of billions of dollars into reactor 
research; it was not a casual side-effect of bomb work.

That said, let's look at two spinoffs commonly attributed to the 
space program: integrated circuits and non-stick frying pans.  Frying 
pans are often cited as a trivial spinoff, but they are not even that.
Teflon was actually developed by Du Pont in the Fifties, long 
before Apollo needed tough plastics with high melting points.  

Surely, though, ICs are something major?  Yes, and in the extremely
early days of the early sixties the space program did have an effect
on their development. They set the initial standards for temperature
and mechanical stress that the IC makers had to meet, and also
provided a small but steady market for them.  It wasn't long, though,
before the commercial market and the aerospace market diverged.  The
parts for military and space equipment needed to be
radiation-resistant and extremely reliable, and that excluded the more
advanced technologies.  NASA landed men on the Moon using only
resistor-transistor and diode-transistor logic, not even TTL.  Last I
heard they still relied on DTL for their electronics.  Several
generations have come and gone since DTL was introduced: regular TTL,
PMOS, and enhancement-only NMOS. NASA is continually stuck with using
obsolete parts because it takes so long to develop anything, and
because its needs are so different from those of the mainstream
markets. 

This last point is the major obstacle to spinoffs.  A research 
program might develop something unique and innovative, but it rarely 
gains market acceptance because it is specialized to the needs of 
that program.  The bottom line is that if you want your research to 
be of commercial value, it must be directed to commercial needs.  
Military and space work has commercial value largely by accident.
Spending 20 billion dollars to put someone on the moon is going to 
put someone on the moon, and not necessarily do anything else.  
Spending 200 billion dollars to build orbital death rays is going to 
build orbital death rays, and not help us in the world-wide battle for 
industrial high-tech dominance.

John Redford

P.S. Well OK, there is one important exception to the above, and that 
is communication satellites.  These were launched on modified ICBM's, 
and so would not have been possible without the missile program.  The 
entire comsat industry is worth one or two billion a year.  That's 
certainly not trivial, but it's not large either; beer and cosmetics 
are of similar size.

Posted:	Tue 19-Nov-1985 14:56 Jerusalem Local Time (GMT+2)
To:	RHEA::DECWRL::"space@mc"

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

Date: 16 Nov 85 20:22:00 GMT
From: pur-ee!uiucdcsb!jabusch@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Unified Field Theory and space trav
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

	The twins don't observe anything about each other, because
they can't see through spaceships  :)

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

Date: 17 Nov 85 00:38:00 GMT
From: pur-ee!uiucdcsb!carroll@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Unified Field Theory and space trav
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

They see the same thing as the equations describe, if you assume that they
don't spend much of their time accelerating. Each sees the other as "running"
slower than he is, based on their relative velocity (which would be twice that
of a "stationary" observer). You may say, "Wait, that's not possible. They
can't both see the other as running slower", but it is, if you realize that
there is NO universal "present". The "present" for each of the twins has
is different in different regions of space. The only time people can agree
on what time it is is when they are both in the same inertial frame, i.e.
at rest with respect to each other and not-accelerating. There is a good book
by Einstein about this, I will try to find the name of it, but I think it's
just entitled "Relativity".
	Please note: There are two theories of relativity. The Special case
deals only with relative motion in inertail frames (non-accelerating (so
called "inertial" because Newton's laws (of inertia) are accurate in one)).
General Relativity deals with acceleration, gravity, and other things, but
is widely complex. (In fact, my friend the physics major tells me that it
has only been tested to first order approximations, because the effects are
hard to compute and very hard to test).

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

Date: 17 Nov 85 02:08:06 GMT
From: cbosgd!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Unified Field Theory and space trav
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> OK, lets rephrase the question.  The two twins get into identical space ships
> and accelerate at the same amount but in opposite directions.  What do they
> observe about the other?
When and how do they do the observing?  Special Relativity states firmly that
"simultaneous" is a meaningless word at any distance.  To get the twins to
agree on timing, you will have to get them back together again.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

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

Date: 17 Nov 85 02:42:01 GMT
From: cbosgd!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Private Space
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> The aerospace industry as a whole suffers because there are no simple 
> technologies for the construction of air- and spacecraft...
> 
> Another reason that military and NASA craft are so expensive is that they
> are built to military and government specifications... [of necessity]
Every time I am about to succumb to the argument that "there just ain't no
better way", I remember the A-4 Skyhawk.  Dani, Brian, are you aware of it?
It was a light carried-based bomber, heavily used by the US Navy in the 50s
and 60s, and still in service with various other nations.  What is striking
about it is that the US Navy's top aeronautical-engineering people were
firmly convinced, and could argue convincingly, that it was impossible.
The spec said such-and-such a load, such-and-such a radius, and a maximum
weight of 30,000 pounds.  Most everybody thought this was reasonable, perhaps
a bit tight.  Ed Heinemann of Douglas said that it could be done with a much
smaller aircraft, less than half that weight.  Most everyone thought he was
lying or crazy.
I should emphasize that nobody doubted Heinemann's ability -- he had designed
a good fraction of the Navy's aircraft inventory at the time -- or Douglas's
ability to build aircraft promptly and well.  They simply did not think that
it was physically possible to meet those specs at under 15,000 pounds.
Gross weight of the first production Skyhawk was 14,600 pounds.  It met the
spec fully.  Furthermore, it was *not* optimized so single-mindedly as to
make it impractical.  It was 100 knots faster than the spec asked for (in
fact, it set a world record for sustained speed at low altitude).  It had
100 miles more combat radius.  It was stressed for higher G-loading than
the spec called for.  Developed versions eventually carried nearly their
own weight in payload.  In actual combat in Vietnam, it acquired a reputation
for being almost indestructible.  Its serviceability exceeded that of any
other combat jet in Vietnam, with better than 95% readiness.  A rough guess
by informed people put its maintenance load at 40% of what it would have
needed if it had been built as an ordinary 30,000 pound aircraft.
The result was the first combat aircraft to stay in production for a quarter
of a century.  The final production Skyhawks were still nearly identical to
Heinemann's original design sketch.
Oh yes, the Navy said "pretty please, can you possibly bring it in under a
million dollars, so we can afford it?".  (Money was tight at the time, and
cost estimates for the 30,000 pound bomber were circa two million.)  The
first few hundred Skyhawks cost $860,000 each.  On schedule, too.
Nor was this an isolated incident, although it was the most spectacular one.
The Skyhawk evolved out of a proposal for a 6,000 pound (!) supersonic
interceptor.  Heinemann's 68,000 pound Skywarrior met a spec that several
other companies had rejected as impossible at 100,000 pounds.  And -- of some
relevance -- in the early 50s Heinemann's crew did a detailed study for a
ONE-STAGE satellite launcher; they thought it was possible.  (Some of their
ideas were later used in the "one-and-a-half-stage" Atlas.)
All in all, this is a remarkable example of just how much things can be
tightened up when the boss knows his stuff and insists that the "standard
method" just isn't good enough.  It's a shame that Heinemann was too old
(and working for the wrong company) to be chief engineer for the Shuttle.
The aerospace business needs more Heinemanns.
> By the way, Henry, what is your experience in the aerospace industry?
Fortunately :-), none.  I'm just a skeptical observer.
-- 
Theorem:  **NO** new technology is needed to build the Space Station.
Proof:  We built one fifteen years ago.
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

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

Date: 19 Nov 85 01:47:37 GMT
From: ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtgzz!dls@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (d.l.skran)
Subject: Re: Info on shuttle mission results and other NASA news
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

After reading this posting, I cannot help but feel that the 
situation at NASA is little short of tragic. Many indvidual employees
where I work apparently have more computing power on their desks
than whole divisions of NASA. The notion of a publications
department not having a laser printer when you can buy one
for under $10,000 dollars is incredible. It sounds like
we are almost an entire generation of equipment ahead of you.
Dale Skran
Trying hard not to reveal too many specifics
Not speaking for AT&T.

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

Date: 19 Nov 85 04:29:01 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!harvard!talcott!sesame!slerner@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Simcha-Yitzchak Lerner)
Subject: Re: slingshot effect
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> 
> Can anyone explain to me (in 250 words or less) the famed
> 'slingshot' effect that is used to accelerate space probes?
I am not going to go into full detail, but it has to due with the
loss of mass from doing an engine burn in the gravity well.  You
gain speed from falling, loose mass from the burn, and loose less
speed going out than coming in (assuming you stay out of atmosphere)
since your mass is down.
'nuff said!
-- 
Opinions expressed are public domain, and do not belong to Lotus
Development Corp.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Simcha-Yitzchak Lerner
              {genrad|ihnp4|ima}!wjh12!talcott!sesame!slerner
                      {cbosgd|harvard}!talcott!sesame!slerner
                       talcott!sesame!slerner@harvard.ARPA

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

Date: 17 Nov 85 17:16:00 GMT
From: pur-ee!uiucdcsb!mcdaniel@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Slingshot effect
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Could someone please post the EQUATIONS for the slingshot effect?!?
It's hard to figure ( :-) ) how it works, given only text.

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

Date: 17 Nov 85 21:38:00 GMT
From: pur-ee!uiucdcsb!carroll@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Slingshot effect
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Isn't it control of direction that is more efficient deep in a gravity
well? I.e., if you want to make a course correction, it's a lot cheaper to
do it close to a large mass (as exemplified by the Solar Polar Mission doing
it's course change next to Jupiter). I would suppose that it is easier since
you can dump your momentum into a huge momentum sink (in effect, using the
planet as reaction mass).

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

Date: 18 Nov 85 03:52:16 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!cmcl2!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Frank Adams)
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V6 #19
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <8511142311.AA02684@s1-b.arpa> bilbo.niket@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU ("Niket K. Patwardhan") writes:
>
>I don't know why causality should be linked to pure forward motion in time.
>(Ie why cant something that happens in the future cause something in the
>past?)  If you really want to preserve the transitivity of causality, all you
>need is that space-time have some kind of directionality, ie you can go from
>point A to point B but not from B to A.
That directionality is called time.
>You can also make time travel possible as a
>notion if you eliminate the idea of free will (ie if I travelled back in time,
>something would prevent me from killing my father before I was conceived, even
>if I had all the means to do so!)
What something, pray tell?
Frank Adams                           ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
Multimate International    52 Oakland Ave North    E. Hartford, CT 06108

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

Date: 17 Nov 85 21:34:00 GMT
From: pur-ee!uiucdcsb!carroll@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Time Retardation
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

It is possible to see two things receeding from each other at 2c from
YOUR point of view. The people on the ships, however, see something
different. To transform their speed in YOUR reference frame, you have to use
the transform (a+b)/(1+(ab/c*c)) where a,b are the speeds observed in
YOUR reference frame. Note that if a,b = c (speed of light), then each
ship sees the other receeding at (c+c)/(1+(c*c/c*c)) = c. So, no one
ever sees something moving away from him at a speed greater than c, i.e.
the speed of an object in an inertial frame is always <= c.
	This is in the same vein as the question "What happens if some
ship is going at .9c and fires something out the front at .9c? Doesn't
it go at 1.8c?". No, it doesn't. The ship sees it go at .9c, but the
"stationary" observer sees it move at something less than c. (For an
exact answer, switch to the ship reference frame, and compute the above
as if the "stationary" observer and the object are moving at .9c in
opposite directions).

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

Date: 19 Nov 85 20:45:30 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!brl-tgr!wmartin@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Will Martin )
Subject: Re: Info on shuttle mission results and other NASA news
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <39@mit-amt.MIT.EDU> jrd@mit-amt.MIT.EDU (Jim Davis) writes:
>In a previous message Will Martin asked that STS info be posted
>here.  There is already a group dedicated to the Shuttle, it is called
>net.columbia.  STS info should go there.  Duplication of subject
>area should be avoided.
Heavy sigh... We see here again a lack of realization of what is going
on in the Internet environment and with newsgroup/mailing-list gateways.
I'm lucky -- I can see net.space and net.columbia at a host where I have
limited USENET access; I get the ARPA SPACE Digest at my regular "home"
host, mailed to me on the MILNET. Few other people can see this stuff
from both viewpoints, however, and it can come and go away for me, too.
When I posted that (to which Eugene Miya has written an excellent
response explaining why it is unlikely that it will happen), I referred
explicitly and specifically to the SPACE Digest on the ARPA side. (For
me, it is much more reliable and long-term available than USENET access.)
The SPACE Digest has a gateway between it and USENET's net.space
newsgroup. This recently was put back into operation after being down
for a while. There is NOT a gateway between it and net.columbia (the
USENET's space-shuttle newsgroup). So, to the ARPA side, which is where
I addressed that query, net.columbia might as well not exist, and stuff
posted to it is never seen. For maximum exposure, and for distribution
to the ENTIRE community, information like I was requesting (reviews of
the results of missions, reports on satellites and projects, anything
and everything we could get out of NASA) MUST be posted to net.space or
sent to the SPACE Digest. It will do no good for the ARPA side to put it
on net.columbia.
It would be nice to get a one-way gateway feeding net.columbia into the
SPACE Digest, but this probably would result in the postings eventually
migrating over to net.space, since the software would feed them back
through the two-way SPACE Digest <> net.space gateway as new items. In
practical terms it means that an ARPA Digest or mailing list can have a
single gateway to a USENET newsgroup, and we will have to live within
this constraint.
To those of you on USENET, pay attention to the header fields when
responding to or evaluating a posting you see in net.space (or any other
gatewayed newsgroup). If it comes from an ARPA site, and especially if
it refers to a "Digest" as the medium, DON'T evaluate it like it was
a posting from a USENET site and refer the poster to "more appropriate"
newsgroups, which do not exist in that poster's environment.
Will Martin
UUCP/USENET: seismo!brl-bmd!wmartin   or   ARPA/MILNET: wmartin@almsa-1.ARPA

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

Date: 19 Nov 85 20:00:07 GMT
From: decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-tle!crimmin@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (DTN 1-2015)
Subject: slingshot effect
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> When a spacecraft falls towards a planet but misses it,
> its trajectory is a hyperbola. It leaves with the same
> velocity as it arrived with. BUT note that this is
> relative to the planet! Relative to the Sun, it looks very
> different, and it is possible for the spacecraft to have
> accelerated from zero to twice the orbital speed of the
> planet *relative to the Sun*. 
Queries: 
[Assume a probe using the slingshot effect around Jupiter]
Is the trajectory a hyperbola while the probe is en route
to Jupiter, or only after it misses? 
Watching from Jupiter, the probe approaches and departs at
the same velocity. Does the probe perceive a faster
velocity in relation to Jupiter? to the Sun? 
What is the meaning of *zero* the orbital speed of the 
planet relative to the Sun? Does it mean that the probe
is moving at the same orbital speed as Jupiter? If so, how
does the probe catch up and swing (sling?) around the planet.
Is this correct? From the Sun, the probe appears to 
accelerate to a speed twice that of Jupiter in its orbit 
of the Sun. But from Jupiter, the probe appears to come 
and go at a constant velocity. Can you descibe how this 
works?
Piter (New Hampshire)

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

End of SPACE Digest V6 #24
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA03338; Thu, 21 Nov 85 03:00:48 PST
	id AA03338; Thu, 21 Nov 85 03:00:48 PST
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 85 03:00:48 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8511211100.AA03338@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #25

*** EOOH ***
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 85 03:00:48 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #25

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 6 : Issue 25

Today's Topics:
		       Re: SPACE Digest V6 #24
			   Slingshot effect
				   
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 20 Nov 85 11:10 EST
From: Kyle.wbst@xerox.arpa
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V6 #24
In-Reply-To: <8511201101.AA05248@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Cc: Kyle.wbst@xerox.arpa

re: Dale.Amon@fas.ri.cmu.edu's message concerning Phoenix... I missed
the earlier reference to this. Can someone explain what Phoenix is and
who is spearheading the effort?

re: John Redford's comments on spinoffs: ...

Teflon was actually invented in the late 1930's (If memory serves me
right) not in the 1950's as he states.

He states that the beer and cosmetic industries are of similar size to
the one or two billion dollar comsat industry, when in actuality these
consumer items are an order of magnitude larger than his comment (check
out what women spend on eye make up alone in the USA for a mind blowing
statistic). If he really wanted to put things in perspective, he would
find that we spend more in one year (adjusted for inflation) on
advertising  in this country than was spent on the entire Apollo program
during 10 years of its life.

The space program did not set the initial standards for IC makers as he
states. When my team designed some of the hardware that flew to the moon
on the Apollo program, we used integrated circuit chips that had
initially been designed for the Minuteman Missile program. The TI 5202
chip (which included bipolar complementary transistors on the same
substrate ..i.e. both pnp and npn types) was used on Apollo as a high
gain Operational Amplifier, but that same chip was being used previously
on Minuteman as an SSI (small scale integration) digital logic circuit.
The Block II Apollo hardware was what actually made it to the moon.
After the fire that killed three astronauts during a test of the older
Block I hardware, a decision was made to redesign the system for less
weight, more reliability, and in-flight flexibility (removing the Block
I philosophy of carrying spare part modules); however where possible, we
were encouraged to salvage as much of the Block I design as was feasible
to minimize schedule & cost impacts to the program. As a result. if one
looks at the Block II Apollo electronic/electromechanical systems you
will indeed find a strange mixture of maturity levels in the technology,
but some of the IC's used were actually very current for that time. 

Finally, let me comment on the major misconception his message
perpetuates; i.e that Apollo-type programs rarely generate technological
spin-offs that have benefit in the commercial market place. I don't know
about now (as I'm no longer in the space program), but during the Apollo
era, an interdisciplinary infrastructure was created in this country
that can only be described as a golden age of technology. NASA's problem
was in not having the ability to properly trace the spin offs down and
document them in a major PR campaign. I know personally many engineers
and scientists who went on after the space program to build better heart
pacemakers, better commercial computer sub assemblies, better display
systems and U/I (user interfaces) for electronic publishing/composition
systems,  industrial pollution detectors that protect workers in
hazardous environments, improved sensing circuits for nuclear magnetic
resonance (NMR) scanners now in vogue in the medical profession, and
improved  articficial kidney machines that allow more lives to be saved
each year than on previous designs; just to name a few (I have not
mentioning the specific companies involved to avoid any conflicts here
re: free advertising).  

What has really been missed as the biggest spin-off is the large cadre
of engineers who went on with a "can do" attitude after leaving the
space program and continued to do the impossible for the benefit of this
country and the various companies they worked for.

Earle F. Kyle.

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

Date: Thu, 21 Nov 85 00:20:37 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@mit-mc.arpa>
Subject: Slingshot effect
To: decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-tle!crimmin@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Cc: KFL@mit-mc.arpa, Space@s1-b.arpa

    Date: 19 Nov 85 20:00:07 GMT
    From: decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-tle!crimmin@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (DTN 1-2015)
    Subject: slingshot effect

    Is the trajectory a hyperbola while the probe is en route
    to Jupiter, or only after it misses? 

  The trajectory isn't really a simple curve, since it is influenced
by both the Sun and Jupiter.  At first, you can regard it as being an
ellipse about the Sun.  If Jupiter didn't get in the way, it would
continue to orbit the Sun in an elliptical orbit with perihelion near
Earth's orbit and a aphelion near Jupiter's orbit.  Eventually, it
would get close enough to either Jupiter or Earth that its orbit would
be perturbed (or it would crash into one of those planets, or perhaps
into an asteroid - not into Mars though, it passes above or below
Mars' orbit).
  But of course the elliptical orbit is so designed that Jupiter will
be at the apogee when the probe is there, so it never completes even
one full elliptical orbit of the Sun.  This, by the way, is called a
Hohmann minimum energy orbit - the least energy way to get from here
to Jupiter.
  The probe does not quite hit Jupiter, but it does pass so close that
Jupiter's effect on the probe greatly overwhelms the Sun's effect.  If
we now switch to a frame of reference in which Jupiter is stationary
(we were in a frame of reference in which the Sun was stationary), we
see the probe coming almost directly towards Jupiter in nearly a
straight line.  As the probe gets closer it speeds up and curves
towards Jupiter.  It swings past, the path straightens out in a new
direction, and it slows down.  Once more it is in a nearly straight
line, going almost directly away from Jupiter, and is going at the
same speed it came in at.  Note that since it 'fell' to Jupiter from a
great altitude, it had more than Jupiter-escape-velocity at every
distance from Jupiter, so it could not possibly have become a
satellite of Jupiter.  No matter how it was aimed, unless it hit
Jupiter it had to leave the vicinity of Jupiter as fast as it came in.
In the vicinity of Jupiter and in the reference frame in which Jupiter
is stationary, the path of the probe was a hyperbola with Jupiter at
one focus.
  Switching back to a Sun centered reference frame we see that the
velocity is not the same as it was.  After passing by Jupiter the
probe is now going much faster.  Once it becomes distant enough from
Jupiter that the Sun's gravity is the only significant force on the
probe, the path of the probe is a hyperbola with the Sun at one focus.
If nothing gets in the way, the probe will continue out of the solar
system and into interstellar space to wander among the stars for
countless eons.  The chances of it ever running into a star or a
planet in another solar system are vanishingly small, even though it
will be roaming entirely within our galaxy - it doesn't have galactic
escape velocity.  It is an interesting exercise to imagine how one
would go about detecting a Voyager/Pioneer type probe in interstellar
space, even assuming there are several in each cubic light year
(launched by other civilizations).

    Watching from Jupiter, the probe approaches and departs at
    the same velocity.

  Right.

    Does the probe perceive a faster velocity in relation to Jupiter?
    to the Sun?

  After leaving the vicinity of Jupiter, the probe is going faster
relative to the Sun than relative to Jupiter.  A few years later, when
Jupiter is on the other side of the Sun, the probe is going faster
relative to Jupiter than to the Sun, not that that is especially
relevant.

    What is the meaning of *zero* the orbital speed of the 
    planet relative to the Sun?

  I meant that if the probe was in the vicinity of Jupiter and was at
rest relative to the Sun, Jupiter could accelerate the probe to twice
Jupiter's orbital velocity, relative to the Sun.  That alone is faster
than solar escape velocity.
  The Voyager and Pioneer probes were not at rest relative to the Sun,
however their velocity relative to the Sun in the vicinity of Jupiter
WAS less than Jupiter's, i.e. Jupiter overtook the probes.
  It's kind of confusing.  One could, in principly, go anywhere simply
by aiming your rocket in the right direction.  But we don't have
anywhere near enough energy to do it that way.  So it is done in the
most energy efficient way possible, hence the various Hohmann orbits
and slingshot effects.

    Is this correct? From the Sun, the probe appears to
    accelerate to a speed twice that of Jupiter in its orbit 
    of the Sun. But from Jupiter, the probe appears to come 
    and go at a constant velocity.

  Right.  Not really twice Jupiter's speed, that is the theoretical
maximum.  Anyway, you don't really want to go that fast if you want to
get to Saturn and to pass both Jupiter and Saturn as SLOWLY as
possible, to have lots of time for observations.
  Also (in the Jupiter frame), the probe does come and go at the SAME
velocity, but it isn't really a CONSTANT velocity.  It increases to a
maximum at the closest point to Jupiter and then decreases back to the
original value.
  I think there is an out-of-ecliptic-plane probe being planned, that
will pass underneath Jupiter so as to rise up out of the plane which
all the planets travel around the Sun.  This will give us the first
clear view of the Sun's north and south poles.  It is ironic that a
probe meant to study the Sun has to go past Jupiter first, since
Jupiter is four times further than the Sun, and in the opposite
direction.  But it is the most energy efficient way to get a probe out
of the ecliptic plane.  It would be done in the same way if the probe
was to drop straight into the Sun.  In space it is just as hard to
lose velocity as to gain it, and any probe to the Sun has to lose the
Earth's orbital velocity about the Sun or it will just continue to
orbit the Sun in the vicinity of Earth.
  Hope this answers your question.
								...Keith

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

Date:    21-Nov-1985 01.38.15. EST
From: FLASH%UMASS.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
To: SPACE@mit-mc.arpa
Subject: 

Greetings,
    I would be greatly honored if you would please add me to
the SPACE mailing list!
                       Rick Flashman

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

End of SPACE Digest V6 #25
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA07126; Fri, 22 Nov 85 03:00:43 PST
	id AA07126; Fri, 22 Nov 85 03:00:43 PST
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 85 03:00:43 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8511221100.AA07126@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #26

*** EOOH ***
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 85 03:00:43 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #26

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 6 : Issue 26

Today's Topics:
			     Shuttle news
		    John Redman's Spinoff Comments
			 Re: Slingshot effect
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Return-Path: CCRJW%UMCVMB.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 85 16:37:21 CST
From: CCRJW%UMCVMB.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu  (Richard Winkel     UMC
  Computing Services)
To: SPACE@mit-mc.arpa
Subject: Shuttle news

Recently there was a posting here which mentioned the existence of a
net newsletter devoted to the space shuttle.  Would someone please
post it's full address??

Thanks,
Richard Winkel

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

Date:           Thu, 21 Nov 85 20:04:13 PST
From: Richard K. Jennings <jennings@aerospace.arpa>
To: kyle.wbst@xerox.arpa
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject:        John Redman's Spinoff Comments

	Earle, your comments concerning the impact of NASA's efforts
are true today with respect to both NASA and DOD programs as they
were during your period of service.  One effect you did not mention
is the impact upon the rest of the public, upon which the 'can
do' attitude rubbed off on.
	Even though Mr Reagan is not universally supported by *all*
our non-technical office staff, he (during the last 2 1/2 years) has
got them reaching for the stars through his impact upon the entertainment
industry and the media.  
	As someone dedicated to space development I find this a refreshing 
change for the old attitude that money spent upon space was causing
poor children to starve.  If mankind is to survive it will be in space,
and the spinoffs of money spent to get their, as you point out, are 
far more than technical or material.
	I enjoyed your response,

Regards, Rich.

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

From: decvax!tektronix!ogcvax!sequent!brian@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space@ogcvax
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 85 14:08:24 pst
Subject: Re: Slingshot effect
Newsgroups: net.space
In-Reply-To: <[MIT-MC.ARPA].718657.851114.KFL>

   Outstanding! Yours was the first explanation of the slingshot effect that
truly made sense to me. No, I am not the poster of the original question,
just an interested evesdropper.

--Brian M. Godfrey

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

End of SPACE Digest V6 #26
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA11310; Sat, 23 Nov 85 03:00:50 PST
	id AA11310; Sat, 23 Nov 85 03:00:50 PST
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 85 03:00:50 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8511231100.AA11310@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #27

*** EOOH ***
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 85 03:00:50 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #27

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 6 : Issue 27

Today's Topics:
			 Re: Time Retardation
			    Planet program
		    Re: Re: Re: Voyager at Uranus
		     NASA satellite transmissions
		   Re: NASA satellite transmissions
			     L-5 Society
			    Re: Star-Wars
		    Re: Star-Wars/Space Telescopes
			      Phoenix E
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 18 Nov 85 23:26:50 GMT
From: cbosgd!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Time Retardation
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> What happens if two ships leave with opposite vectors, and they both approach
> the speed of light relative to their initial frame.  The v above, relative to
> each other, would approach 2*c, giving a non-real answer.  Where am I goofing?
Velocity addition follows different rules at relativistic speeds.  The
velocity of one ship as observed from the other never exceeds (or reaches)
the speed of light.  So the FTL velocity isn't "real".
Note that imaginary numbers aren't necessarily the kiss of death for a
theory; the elaborate body of theory surrounding the still-hypothetical
tachyon has them everywhere, but they turn out to be unobservable.
> (Or is it time to invest in a FTL ship?  :-) )
Only if the dealer demos it for you first!
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

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

Date: 19 Nov 85 15:07:12 GMT
From: ihnp4!inuxc!inuxe!fred@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Fred Mendenhall)
Subject: Planet program
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
	A few months ago their seemed to be interest in sharing
Astromonical software on the net. In particular, their was interest
in programs to define planetary positions. I am in the middle of
working on such a program and have posted it on net.sources. 
While it is incomplete, it does work for finding the Sun, Mercury,
Venus and Mars. It is written in C and runs on a VAX 11/780 -
AT&T Unix system V. You may have to do some hacking to make it fly
on other systems.
	I plan on finishing it for the outer gas giants but they 
are harder to determine and it probably won't be until after the
first of the year until I get to it. Questions, concerns and
CONSTRUCTIVE criticisms should be sent to:
			inuxe!fred

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

Date: 19 Nov 85 19:20:28 GMT
From: cbosgd!osu-eddie!julian@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Julian Gomez)
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Voyager at Uranus
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> All I remember is, we got some notice from our managers (dunno if it was
> in writing), and I don't think we were paid for the time.  My vague
> memory is that it was paranoia about someone (anyone, even a JPL
> employee) somehow wrecking the landing, or even just the receipt of the
> data during the landing.  Remember, JPL is in California, where it's
> taken for granted that weirdos abound.  The honchos probably worried
> about some anti-science cult attempt to gain attention and/or prevent
> "heresy".
> 
> Alan Silverstein
They must have lightened up after that. For the Voyager/Jupiter and
Pioneer/Saturn encounters in 1979 they didn't make any mention of
sending anyone home, including non-mission staff.
(I was at JPL from 77-81)
-- 
"If Chaos himself sat umpire, what better could he do?"
	Julian "a tribble took it" Gomez
	Computer Graphics Research Group, The Ohio State University
	{ucbvax,decvax}!cbosg!osu-eddie!julian

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

Date: 19 Nov 85 18:04:42 GMT
From: tektronix!reed!nsc-pdc!joemu@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Joe Mueller)
Subject: NASA satellite transmissions
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

[eat me]
Can anyone tell me how to find out when NASA is transmitting on the satellite
that home satellite dishes can pick up? My "satellite TV week" magazine tells
me that there is "selected shuttle coverage" on this feed but whenever I look
it's just a bunch of snow. Is there much coverage of the missions or did I
(silly me) fall for a sales pitch from a satellite dish salesman?

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

Date: 20 Nov 85 17:50:12 GMT
From: tektronix!tekcbi!jimb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Jim Boland)
Subject: Re: NASA satellite transmissions
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> [eat me]
> 
> Can anyone tell me how to find out when NASA is transmitting on the satellite
> that home satellite dishes can pick up? My "satellite TV week" magazine tells
> me that there is "selected shuttle coverage" on this feed but whenever I look
> it's just a bunch of snow. Is there much coverage of the missions or did I
> (silly me) fall for a sales pitch from a satellite dish salesman?
The NASA select channel on is only active during a mission.  In other
words, from just prior(hours) to launch  till just after (hours) landing.
I haven't watched lately because the satellite they moved to is too low
for my dish location (~73 degrees).  However, I used to watch all the 
video fed from the shuttle (great pictures of earth) as well as hearing
all conversations between Houston and shuttle.  Lots of time was spent
with a camera showing the folks at mission control.  Video from shuttle
is limited to segments of about 20 mins. as they are in range of some
relay station.  Keep it on in the background while working around the
house or shop.  It is not the kind of programming that will keep you
glued to the set.  They also let you know what the significant
segments will be and when.

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

Date: 21 Nov 85 16:44:41 EST
From: JOSEPH@red.rutgers.edu
Subject: L-5 Society
To: space@s1-b.arpa

Hi Folks,

I am trying to get in touch with the L-5 Society.  Does anyone
know their current address or phone number?  Are they still a going
concern?  Does anyone know of better lobbying organizations working
towards establishing civilian colonies in space?


				Thanks

				Seymour

P.S. Please reply Via Mail as I don't regularly read space
-------

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

Date: 19 Nov 85 11:55:10 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!seismo!mcvax!ukc!cstvax!db@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dave Berry)
Subject: Re: Star-Wars
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <3327@brl-tgr.ARPA> gwyn@brl-tgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn <gwyn>) writes:
>> I suspect the Russians have made a monumental discovery
>> and are not willing to share it with us, and if I am correct as
>> to what is is, I don't blame them because in a few more years it
>> will give them a massive military edge.
>
>It is, I thought, well known that the Soviets test-fired a
>neutral particle beam "weapon" several years ago.  One assumes
>that they are farther along by now.
Yes, but do they have the computing skills/resources to control an actual
system (as opposed to a test version)?  I doubt it - people here are being 
jailed for shipping PDP-11s to Warsaw Pact countries, and from what we know of 
their computer science research they're far behind us.  And YOUR software 
engineers don't think SDI is feasible, so I doubt that the USSR could manage it.
>If it weren't so dangerous, it would be almost amusing how
>readily a lot of Americans (apparently including the President
>himself) jump at the chance to bargain away strategic defense
>at the negotiating table.
You haven't had one for 40 years and you're still the most powerful nation
on Earth.
>If you read the memoirs
>of high-level Soviet defectors (not ballet performers, but those
>involved in the military, intelligence, or diplomatic service),
>you will find that it is quite common for the Soviets to
>encourage nuclear-freeze, unilateral disarmament, and anti-
>defense movements in the U.S.  Often this is not as overt as
>Velikov lobbying in the Senate.  But if you're the least bit
>suspicious of the Soviet government having our best interests at
>heart, you might be able to conclude what their perception of
>the real worth of America's military development is.  Of course,
>your values may not be quite the same as theirs..
I've been involved in the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament for some years,
and I've seen little of this money.  Even if it's there, it doesn't mean
that an arms freeze is to our disadvantage - I think an arms freeze would
benefit everyone in the world (*) including the USSR, who could then develop
their economy & provide a better standard of living for their people.
* - except those who make money from developing weapons, of course.
>This subject should probably move off net.physics, but I don't
>know where it belongs.  Sorry.
Try the arms-digest (now available as mod.arms-d).
-- 
	Dave Berry. CS postgrad, Univ. of Edinburgh		
					...mcvax!ukc!cstvax!db

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

Date: 21 Nov 85 07:54:39 GMT
From: ernie!tedrick@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Tom Tedrick)
Subject: Re: Star-Wars/Space Telescopes
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>Consequently, the best source for Stars Wars research support is
>Eugene Velikov, (no relation to Velikovsky) of the Academy of
>Science, Moscow, a head of Kurchatov, and a mastermind of their
>own advanced Star Wars effort at Krasnaya Pachra and other Russian
>military labs, (so secure that even scientists from the "Eastern 
>Allies" can not visit them).  Incidentally, Velikov has lobbied 
>Senator Pell and others against our new fledgling program and 
>has served on disarmament committees.  My own personal information 
>is that the Russian program was in progress at least as far back
>as 1976.  I suspect the Russians have made a monumental discovery
>and are not willing to share it with us, and if I am correct as
>to what is is, I don't blame them because in a few more years it
>will give them a massive military edge.  I also think the concept 
>of their program is considerably more aggressive (offensive) than 
>ours.
One thing that has bothered me about the debate on Star Wars
research is the idea that one can afford to stop work in
some area of weapons research. The classical theory of war
includes the application of new weapons and tactics on a
massive scale as a fundamental principle. The easiest way
to win a war is to develop some new weapon that is unknown
to the other side and use it on a massive scale in a lightning
surprise attack, thereby destroying the enemy before he has
a chance to develop countermeasures. One can never predict
for certain that some new weapon cannot be created which
will upset the balance of power, therefore as long as we
have hostile nations, abandoning research is potentially
suicidal. The eternal arms race isn't appealing, but
giving up the struggle may lead to destruction.

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

Date: 22 Nov 85 19:10:24 EST
From: Dale.Amon@fas.ri.cmu.edu
Subject: Phoenix E
To: BBoard.Maintainer@a.cs.cmu.edu

I just got off the phone with Gary, and if anyone is interested in sending
in resumes, this is his address:

Hudsen, Gary C.
	Name:		Gary C. Hudsen
	Title:		President
	Affil:		Pacific American Launch Services
	HomeMail:	8 Admiralty Place,
			Redwood City, CA 94065

He is busy with fundraising at the moment, and does not guarantee an
immediate response, but you might as well get yourself on file.

The news is that Society Expeditions already has hundred's of thousands of
dollars in the escrow fund. The number of serious enquiries they have
received is enormous.

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

End of SPACE Digest V6 #27
*******************


0,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA13649; Sun, 24 Nov 85 03:00:46 PST
	id AA13649; Sun, 24 Nov 85 03:00:46 PST
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 85 03:00:46 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8511241100.AA13649@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #28

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 6 : Issue 28

Today's Topics:
	       Re: Unified Field Theory and space trav
			  Re: Scott Sandford
			  Re: Scott Sandford
			 Stages to Saturn #1
		    Re: Star-Wars/Space Telescopes
		    Re: Star-Wars/Space Telescopes
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 21 Nov 85 17:08:02 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!harvard!think!mit-eddie!cybvax0!frog!john@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (John Woods, Software)
Subject: Re: Unified Field Theory and space trav
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>>OK,lets rephrase the question.  The two twins get into identical space ships
>>and accelerate at the same amount but in opposite directions.  What do they
>>observe about the other?
>When and how do they do the observing?  Special Relativity states firmly that
>"simultaneous" is a meaningless word at any distance.  To get the twins to
>agree on timing, you will have to get them back together again.
> 				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
>
To use the standard example, each twin has a radio transmitter that emits
a tick every second.  Each twin has a receiver which counts the times between
the other twin's ticks.  Because the twins are separating, you expect a
certain increase in time between ticks, because the radio pulse has slightly
farther to travel each time.  However, Relativity predicts that after you take
that into account, each twin will perceive the other twin's ticks as being
slower than the clock of the receiving twin.
I recently read Bertrand Russell's book, "Relativity", and enjoyed it quite a
bit.  Though I already knew the equations of Relativity (the simpler ones,
anyway, I didn't delve deeply into it in college), his book gave me a great
deal more insight into *why* the equations really work.
--
John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (617) 626-1101
...!decvax!frog!john, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw%mit-ccc@MIT-XX.ARPA
Out of my way, I'm a scientist!
	War of the Worlds

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

Date: 22 Nov 85 15:31:16 GMT
From: ihnp4!mgnetp!we53!busch!wucs!wuphys!sas@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Scott A. Sandford)
Subject: Re: Scott Sandford
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <8511191016.AA01592@s1-b.arpa>, Dale.Amon@FAS.RI.CMU.EDU writes:
> I'm curious if Scott Sandford's antarctic trips are with Dr. Cassidy. I may
> have seen you in some of his slides if you were...
     As a matter of fact, my trip was with Bill Cassidy!
Bill is the man in charge of ANSMET (Antarctic Search
for Meteorites), a field program that is funded by USARP
(U.S. Antarctic Research Program), a division of the
NSF (National Science Foundation).  Okay, that's enough
initials for now.
     Whether you've seen me in some of his slides or
not depends on which field season he showed you, since
a different crew goes down every year.    I was along on
the 1984-1985 field season to the Allen Hills.  
     I should mention to people who are interested in
learning more about these expeditions that there will
be a short article on the 1984-1985 season coming out
in EOS soon (probably by the end of this month).  The
journal should have a photo of a natural rock arch on
the cover.  I spotted the arch during our expedition
and it's presently believed to be the world's southern
most natural arch!  Our expedition was also filmed for inclusion 
in a documentary called PLANET EARTH which will be airing on
PBS.  The series has 7 parts and will be starting
January 22.  Our segment should be in the 3rd part, which
is entitled Quest for Genesis, and is probably about 5
minutes long.  I haven't seen the film, but a friend
has and she says the whole series is well worth seeing.
    As to whether you would remember me even if you
had seen me, I will give you the following useless
clues.    I had a beard (of course, every other male
member of the expedition did too).  I wore glacier
glasses that covered much of my face (just like
everybody else).  I wore a red USARP anarak (just like
everybody else).  I wore white "bunny boots" (something 
that not everybody prefered).  As you may have guessed
by now, it's hard to tell who's who once you have on
all your cold weather gear.  We had trouble telling
each other apart in the field sometimes.  I have a
great picture of our entire crew lined up on a windy
day and I'm fond of asking my friends to point me out
in the picture.  Three fourths of them get it wrong (my
wife did too).    Oh well, so much for getting a big
Hollywood break from by spot on the PBS series.
    I'd be happy to answer any other questions people
might have.

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

Date: 22 Nov 85 15:31:16 GMT
From: ihnp4!mgnetp!we53!busch!wucs!wuphys!sas@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Scott A. Sandford)
Subject: Re: Scott Sandford
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <8511191016.AA01592@s1-b.arpa>, Dale.Amon@FAS.RI.CMU.EDU writes:
> I'm curious if Scott Sandford's antarctic trips are with Dr. Cassidy. I may
> have seen you in some of his slides if you were...
     As a matter of fact, my trip was with Bill Cassidy!
Bill is the man in charge of ANSMET (Antarctic Search
for Meteorites), a field program that is funded by USARP
(U.S. Antarctic Research Program), a division of the
NSF (National Science Foundation).  Okay, that's enough
initials for now.
     Whether you've seen me in some of his slides or
not depends on which field season he showed you, since
a different crew goes down every year.    I was along on
the 1984-1985 field season to the Allen Hills.  
     I should mention to people who are interested in
learning more about these expeditions that there will
be a short article on the 1984-1985 season coming out
in EOS soon (probably by the end of this month).  The
journal should have a photo of a natural rock arch on
the cover.  I spotted the arch during our expedition
and it's presently believed to be the world's southern
most natural arch!  Our expedition was also filmed for inclusion 
in a documentary called PLANET EARTH which will be airing on
PBS.  The series has 7 parts and will be starting
January 22.  Our segment should be in the 3rd part, which
is entitled Quest for Genesis, and is probably about 5
minutes long.  I haven't seen the film, but a friend
has and she says the whole series is well worth seeing.
    As to whether you would remember me even if you
had seen me, I will give you the following useless
clues.    I had a beard (of course, every other male
member of the expedition did too).  I wore glacier
glasses that covered much of my face (just like
everybody else).  I wore a red USARP anarak (just like
everybody else).  I wore white "bunny boots" (something 
that not everybody prefered).  As you may have guessed
by now, it's hard to tell who's who once you have on
all your cold weather gear.  We had trouble telling
each other apart in the field sometimes.  I have a
great picture of our entire crew lined up on a windy
day and I'm fond of asking my friends to point me out
in the picture.  Three fourths of them get it wrong (my
wife did too).    Oh well, so much for getting a big
Hollywood break from by spot on the PBS series.
    I'd be happy to answer any other questions people
might have.

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

Date: 21 Nov 85 15:23:38 GMT
From: ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dave Newkirk)
Subject: Stages to Saturn #1
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

I've just finished reading "Stages to Saturn - A Technological History of
the Apollo/Saturn Launch Vehicles", and I thought you might like to hear
some of the high points in this 510 page tome.  Here's the first, about
making the domes on the ends of the propellant tanks on the third stage:
"We cut our eye teeth on this phase of manufacturing," recalled H. E. Bauer,
a company executive who was deeply involved in the S-IV and IVB project.
To join the metal `peels' together to form a hemispheric half-shell, Douglas
used a rotating fixture and a `down hand' technique  of welding.  In this
mode, the weld torch moved on a track while the molten welding `puddle'
remained in the proper position from force of gravity, which also minimized
undesireable porosity.  While welding the orange peel segments, a strange
problem developed.  The tracking system for the weld torch hinged on the
detection of discontinuities produced by induced eddy currents along the
seams to be welded.  The exasperating torch heads wandered all over the place,
however, apparently unable to follow the seams at all.  Oddly enough, the
trouble was traced to manufacturing standards being set too high!  "Because
the individual segments had been so carefully formed and sized," Bauer
explained, "upon butting them together no sensible level of electrical
discontinuity to the instrument developed."  Some insensitive soul suggested
the application of a bastard file to rough up the seams and create enough
discontinuity that the tracking system could to its job.  After adamant
protests from the manufacturing people at Long Beach, Douglas specialists
refined the tracking system to give it a much higher gain, and scarfed
(grooved) the segments to provide a path for the tracking sensors to follow.
From "Stages to Saturn - A Technological History of the Apollo/Saturn Launch
Vehicles", available from the Superindendant of Documents, U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402. Order NASA SP-4206, $12.00.
-- 
				Dave Newkirk, ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn

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

Date: 22 Nov 85 02:52:38 GMT
From: ihnp4!houxm!mtuxo!mtgzz!dls@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (d.l.skran)
Subject: Re: Star-Wars/Space Telescopes
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

I would love to hear your guess as to what that massive
Russian breakthrough might be.
Dale

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

Date: 22 Nov 85 02:52:38 GMT
From: ihnp4!houxm!mtuxo!mtgzz!dls@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (d.l.skran)
Subject: Re: Star-Wars/Space Telescopes
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

I would love to hear your guess as to what that massive
Russian breakthrough might be.
Dale

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

End of SPACE Digest V6 #28
*******************


0,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA16512; Mon, 25 Nov 85 03:00:41 PST
	id AA16512; Mon, 25 Nov 85 03:00:41 PST
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 85 03:00:41 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8511251100.AA16512@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #29

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 6 : Issue 29

Today's Topics:
			     Re: spinoffs
			World Space Foundation
	    CACM 85/11 article: SIGNAL PROCESSING IN SETI
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 24 Nov 85 12:57:17 PST
From: ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: ihnp4!space
Subject: Re: spinoffs
In-Reply-To: your article <8511191259.AA24626@decwrl.DEC.COM>

Don't be so pessimistic!  There are books full of spinoff descriptions
available from NASA.  REAL spinoff's, not the myth about teflon or the
general push toward miniature components.  For example, the environment
used to sustain people with immune system deficiencies is a direct
application of space suit technologies & clean rooms.  Most of the
spinoff's are small, technical advances that together can build up
industries.  The big advance coming now is direct manufacture in space.

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

Date:         Sun, 24 Nov 85 15:36:24 EST
From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Reply-To:  ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA
To: SPACE-INCOMING@s1-b.arpa
Subject:      World Space Foundation

Does anyone know the address of the World Space Foundation, an
organization which (if I'm not mistaken) is attempting to make
a prototype solar sail for launch off the Shuttle?  Does anyone
know the status of this project, or good references to what's
currently going on?
                  --Geoffrey Landis, Brown University

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

Date: Mon 25 Nov 85 01:20:53-CST
From: Werner Uhrig  <CMP.WERNER@r20.utexas.edu>
Subject: CACM 85/11 article: SIGNAL PROCESSING IN SETI
To: space@r20.utexas.edu
Cc: sf-lovers@r20.utexas.edu

on page

1151    SIGNAL PROCESSING IN SETI. D K Cullers, Ivan R Linscott, Bernard Oliver
        The Search for Extraterrestial Intelligence (SETI) through the
        automatic detection of interstellar signals will require highly
        concurrent processing: on the order of 100 or more microprocessors -
        each serving 100kHz of spectrum or less - to service 10 MHz of
        bandwidth spectrum.
-------

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

End of SPACE Digest V6 #29
*******************


0,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA19796; Tue, 26 Nov 85 03:00:46 PST
	id AA19796; Tue, 26 Nov 85 03:00:46 PST
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 85 03:00:46 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8511261100.AA19796@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #30

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 6 : Issue 30

Today's Topics:
			     Re: spinoffs
		Shuttle Articles in Discover Magazine
			    Re: Star-Wars
			 Re: slingshot effect
		 Re: Re: Improving Starships Enroute
		     Re: Re: SPACE Digest V6 #19
			 Re: slingshot effect
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted-Date: Mon 25 Nov 1985 07:43:01 EST
Date: Mon 25 Nov 1985 07:43:01 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Re: spinoffs
To: ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Cc: space@mit-mc.arpa
In-Reply-To: ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn's message of Sun, 24 Nov 85 12:57:17 PST

I was interested in spinoffs, so a few years ago I sent away for one
of those (NASA) books.  It was pitiful.  The best spinoff they could point
to was ferrofluids, which are used in (among other things) magnetic disk
drives as a dust seal.  Its worth maybe $100 million, tops.

> The big advance coming now is direct manufacture in space.

I am skeptical.  There is not one product yet identified that is a good
bet for large scale space manufacturing.  What about the drugs purified
with continuous flow electrophoresis?  Don't bet on them: drugs can
be purified on earth using other techniques (for example, by affinity
chromatography in columns filled with monoclonal antibodies).  What
about perfect crystals for semiconductors?  When launch costs are
$50+/ounce that's unlikely to be economical (at least for silicon) and
we can expect continued improvements in earth-based crystal growing
techniques.  The Japanese, for example, are growing crystals in
strong magnetic fields to reduce convection.

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

Posted-Date: Mon 25 Nov 1985 07:39:47 EST
Date: Mon 25 Nov 1985 07:39:47 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Shuttle Articles in Discover Magazine
To: space@mit-mc.arpa

I just read Discover magazine's November 1985 issue.  It has a series
of three articles on the space shuttle.  The cover is a picture of the
shuttle floating in orbit, with the quote: "The shuttle is a superb
technological achievement, and it's flown by brave, immensely competent
men and women...   But what is it good for?"  Lest you think the issue
was put together by anti-space Luddites, that quote is from the third
article, by Gerard O'Neill.  (O'Neill's Geostar company is going to
launch its satellites using Ariane.)

The first article was on the history and economics of the shuttle.  I
was appalled.  The shuttle is an economic failure to dwarf the Concorde.

First of all, it hasn't reached its design payload capacity (ever
wondered why the payload bay is so empty?) of 65000 pounds.  That's
going to require increasing the thrust on the SSME's to 109% of rated
capacity, and that has proved difficult to achieve (it's going to cost
around a billion dollars more to do it).  Current maximum payload is
around 47000 pounds.

Second, it's expensive.  The average full cost minus development cost
of a shuttle launch is $108 million.  That's $2298 per pound at present
or, when the engines are improved, $1662 per pound.  Throwing in
development cost raises the cost another $42 million.  In contrast,
former NASA administrator James Fletcher estimated in 1972 that a Saturn-V
costs $1677 (in 1985 dollars) to put a pound into orbit.  Incredibly, NASA
has spent $14 billion and ten years and has no improvement in launch
costs to show for it.

Third, it can't recoup operating expenses, much less development costs,
because of foreign competition.  NASA can only charge $71 million for a
fully dedicated flight, and doesn't even get that much for most flights.
This situation can only get worse as new, more efficient, versions of
foreign rockets are developed.

What NASA should do is learn from the shuttle experience and design an
improved shuttle with better economics.  But no, they're going to build
a space station.  I can take solace in the fact that the europeans are
working on shuttle-like vehicles (Hermes and HOTOL) and you can bet
they will learn from NASA's mistakes.

For the shuttle, things could become grim in a few years if fiber
optics really depresses the market for communications satellites, and
if DOD decides to build a new expendable booster as backup for the
shuttle.

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

Date: 21 Nov 85 14:47:05 GMT
From: amdcad!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!prometheus!pmk@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Paul M Koloc)
Subject: Re: Star-Wars
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Paul M. Koloc, pmk@prometheus writes
>>> I suspect the Russians have made a monumental discovery
>>> and are not willing to share it with us, and if I am correct as
>>> to what is is, I don't blame them because in a few more years it
>>> will give them a massive military edge.
>> In article <3327@brl-tgr.ARPA> gwyn@brl-tgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn <gwyn>) adds:
>>It is, I thought, well known that the Soviets test-fired a
>>neutral particle beam "weapon" several years ago.  One assumes
>>that they are farther along by now.
> Dave Berry. CS postgrad, Univ. of Edinburgh.mcvax!ukc!cstvax!db says"
> Yes, but do they have the computing skills/resources to control an actual
> system (as opposed to a test version)?  I doubt it
>
16k of 68020 should be enough, plus a 64 manned space platforms
should be effective. 
Consider that the chemical potential energy of the launchers
sitting in silos in the Soviet Union, are a few minutes from
being converted to the gravitation potential energy and kinetic
energy of space based nuclear terror.  Weapons are as much in
space as if they were waiting to drop on us from an artificial
moon.   So the argument of keeping space free of weapons is
bogus.  Orbital Space will look like the Tokyo subway system 
during rush hour, if some jerk pulls the trigger.
The "monumental discovery" is a compact pulsed high power density
fusion device based on work by Kurtmulleav at K. P.  The power
source in addition as direct MHD drive for beam weapons, may be
for both a boost phase rocket engine and an electric mode drive
for pulsed "super high specific thrust" orbital engines.  This
would reduce the cost of the "SDI" program by at least 10, and
the difficulty with the Russian idea of the strategic concept is
that it includes having racks of nuclear fission or fission-
fusion devices for a space initiated total attack on the selected
surface geopolitical targets. I don't think they can pulse the
device fast enough, yet, for most of these applications. 
THIS concept of SDI actually increases the spread of potential 
nuclear death, and is not part of the the Presidents program.
However, there are those (father of the beast) who would use 
these devices as drivers of space based excimer lasers. (Which 
work with a vengeance but still the laser effects are micro-
scopic compared with the nuclear explosive driver).
This doesn't make for a neat and tidy system, and from an
engineering point of view the use of these devices would be too
disruptive to be highly effective.
What must be done is to rid the solar system of fission devices;
even a commercial reactor could conceivably wipe out the concept
of humanity as we know it in a few short centuries.  But like a
one year old 500 kg child playing with your shot gun, please
won't work.  Try to give him something else, less deadly, that he
perceives as more fun.  One basically has to "update" the defensive 
power of the masses with something they would take pride and feel 
psychologically secure.  That means "put a substitute" defense
in place and then "scrap" the nuclear based one.  One whose drivers
are based on controlled fusion would not be lethal to mankind.
> You haven't had one for 40 years and you're still the most powerful 
> nation on Earth.  
We have been tested & seriously bloodied a couple of times, during
that time.  But there is no substitute for a strong defense to
reduce the loss of life.   Even disarming the citizens of large
technologically advanced nations, on the average results in about
two or three orders of magnitude increase in the loss of life,
since a totalitarian regime can assume power without great
difficulty and they can exterminate tens of millions ie.
Hitler of Germany, and Stalin of Russia.  
> 
> >If you read the memoirs
> >of high-level Soviet defectors (not ballet performers, but those
> >involved in the military, intelligence, or diplomatic service),
> >you will find that it is quite common for the Soviets to
> >encourage nuclear-freeze, unilateral disarmament, and anti-
> >defense movements in the U.S.  
> 
> I've been involved in the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament for some years,
> and I've seen little of this money.  
It doesn't take much money to encourage "apple pie" liberal
causes.  Everybody wants peace, unfortunately it's a tough cookie
to hold on to, and like turning a spinning bicycle wheel it
sometimes takes force in a orthogonal direction to get it where
you want it. 
> * - except those who make money from developing weapons, of course.
Well not just weapons, it turns out that Velikov and (Furth of
PPPL) have been scheming ways to boost government funding of "big
physics" such as fusion, including joint projects that wouldn't
otherwise be supported by each government alone.  It's a good
cover for Velikov.  Furth was turned down last year from
going ahead with a so called "hot core" tokamak (20 year old
Russian invention) which would cost $2.6 billion & wouldn't "burn".
Pure government boondoggle "science".  Tokamaks are great plasma
physics test chambers (when they are carefully engineered like
the German ASDEX).  As of a few years ago it has been generally
accepted by the few in the know that they can't be ever made to 
work commercially.  
So why propose a costly project whose engineering is not feasible? 
The answer seems to be that if it's not BIG, it's not noticed by
the government and the research base isn't large enough to bring
in enough of a lobby effort to keep it going.   That works for 
the Soviets as well.
So let's be fair and include big physics as a culprit.  Fusion
could have been commercialized by now if "big" could have been
forced out of the the equation.   With fusion in hand the
frontier of space would be a piece of cake and we wouldn't have 
time to play "my fist is bigger".  
+---------------------------------------------------------+--------+
| Paul M. Koloc, President: (301) 445-1075                | FUSION |
| Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222        |  this  |
| {umcp-cs | seismo}!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP  | decade |
+---------------------------------------------------------+--------+

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

Date: 23 Nov 85 00:29:00 GMT
From: pur-ee!uiucdcsb!carroll@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: slingshot effect
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

The zero factor on the orbital velocity means that the probe is moving in
a purely radial direction, i.e. straght out from the Sun. The planet, however,
sees it as moving at orbital speed away. After slinging around, it is moving
at the same SPEED with a different VECTOR. So, from the planet's point of view
it comes in one way and goes out the opposite. From the Sun's point of view,
it goes in with no orbital and come out with 2 times the planets orbital
velocity.
		     <-	+++++++++++++++++
					  +
     (Jupiter's Orbital Velocity)  <-- J   +
					   +
					   +
					   +
			                   + <-- Path of Probe (+)
					   +
					  E  
					   
					SUN

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

Date: 21 Nov 85 21:34:00 GMT
From: decvax!yale!ism70!josh@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Re: Improving Starships Enroute
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

You would need a very sophisticated mathematician and quite a fast computer
to calculate the doppler shift assuming the starship is constantly thrusting
which necessary to reach a fair % of c. Otherwise communications would be a
impossible.

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

Date: 21 Nov 85 21:40:00 GMT
From: decvax!yale!ism70!josh@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Re: SPACE Digest V6 #19
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

time travel is impossible because time is linked to velocity, and
by velocity we mean universal expansion and contraction, entropy,
something which we cannot alter or even cancel out to stop time.
the power to do that is infinte.

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

Date: 21 Nov 85 03:16:24 GMT
From: decvax!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!hao!ames!eugene@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Eugene Miya)
Subject: Re: slingshot effect
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> You
> gain speed from falling, loose mass from the burn, and loose less
> speed going out than coming in (assuming you stay out of atmosphere)
> since your mass is down.
> 
What?! WRONG! Neither Voyager nor Pioneer "burned" into the Jovian or
Saturn systems.  No significant mass loss.
From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  {hplabs,ihnp4,dual,hao,decwrl,allegra}!ames!aurora!eugene
  emiya@ames-vmsb.ARPA

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

End of SPACE Digest V6 #30
*******************


0,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA01798; Wed, 27 Nov 85 03:00:45 PST
	id AA01798; Wed, 27 Nov 85 03:00:45 PST
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 85 03:00:45 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8511271100.AA01798@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #31

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 6 : Issue 31

Today's Topics:
			     Re: spinoffs
		      comments on previous issue
			 Re: Time Retardation
			 Re: Slingshot effect
			       Phoenix
			     Re: spinoffs
			Re: L5 Society Request
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 22 Nov 85 16:23:03 GMT
From: sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!randvax!kovacs!rivero@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Michael Foster Rivero)
Subject: Re: spinoffs
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <8511191259.AA24626@decwrl.DEC.COM> redford@JEREMY.DEC (John Redford) writes:
>
>The commercial value of spinoffs is negligible.
>
>P.S. Well OK, there is one important exception to the above, and that 
>is communication satellites.  These were launched on modified ICBM's, 
>and so would not have been possible without the missile program.  The 
>entire comsat industry is worth one or two billion a year.  That's 
>certainly not trivial, but it's not large either; beer and cosmetics 
>are of similar size.
>
>Posted:	Tue 19-Nov-1985 14:56 Jerusalem Local Time (GMT+2)
>To:	RHEA::DECWRL::"space@mc"
	  As Carl Sagen points out, Americans spend more on Pizza than
	on the Space Program.
	  Admittedly, there is little DIRECT  commercial  return  from
	the  Space Program.  Hopefully, the commercialization of space
	will change that over the next decade.
	  The returns from Space research are exactly that.  RESEARCH!
	There  is a lot of research done on behalf of space that finds
	its way into industrial applications.  In our company, we have
	several  ex-space employees.  A  lot  of  the  techniques  and
	algorithms we use were learned during the "good old  days"  at
	NASA.
	  There is also the return of pure knowledge, not  to  mention
	National  image.  Let's face it.  The desire for knowledge did
	not get us to the moon.  The desire  to  retake  the  lead  in
	space from the Russians got the bucks for the Buck Rogers.
	  As for SDI, there is one clear  spinoff  from  the  project.
	The  need  to  hoist  a  lot of equipment into space will help
	drive the cost of delivery down.  Just as the air war  in  WW2
	helped  set  the  technical stage for cheap passenger airlines
	(by underwriting a lot of  the  nuts  and  bolts  technology),
	SDI's needs will help set the stage for cheap space travel.
	  Example:  Space Shuttles are very  expensive,  one-at-a-time
	vehicles  built  on  a  prototype  basis.  If  the SDI were to
	decide it needed a lot of  shuttles,  then  an  assembly  line
	would be funded, and the cost of the individual shuttles would
	drop to a point where private  companies  could  afford  them,
	especially at post-SDI-deployment surplus rates!  Remember how
	many early airlines started with war-surplus aircraft?
	  As an aside, if the external shuttle tanks were  re-designed
	to   ride  all  the  way  to  orbit,  they  might  make  great
	pressurized bulk storage units that could  be  attached  to  a
	space   station  framework.   You  could  vent  the  remaining
	propellants to vacuum, seal and pressurize the  tank  with  an
	added  airlock,  and  have  an  instant  office  space.   With
	shuttles going up on a once a  month  basis  during  SDI,  you
	would  have  a  LOT  of  pressurized space at the end of every
	year.
	  The point is, once we are fully in space,  it  can  be  made
	economical.  It  is  the  initial  investment in getting there
	that  is  the  "killer"  and  projects   like   SDI,   whether
	politically  valid  or  not (and the jury is still out on that
	one) are the most source of that investment.
					Michael Rivero

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

Date:         Tue, 26 Nov 85 15:57:19 EST
From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Reply-To:  ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA
To: SPACE-INCOMING@s1-b.arpa
Subject:      comments on previous issue

Paul M. Koloc:
>The "monumental discovery" is a compact pulsed high power density
>fusion device based on work by Kurtmulleav at K. P.  The power
>source in addition as direct MHD drive for beam weapons, may be
>for both a boost phase rocket engine and an electric mode drive
>for pulsed "super high specific thrust" orbital engines.  This
If you are going to make assertions like this, please give a
reference.
decvax!yale!ism70!josh (no other name given):
>You would need a very sophisticated mathematician and quite a fast
>computer to calculate the doppler shift assuming the starship is
>constantly thrusting...
I don't know why you think that.  The Lorentz equation is easily
integrated; anyone reasonably good at physics should be able to
derive the constant thrust solution in an hour or so (see any text
on special relativity.  In fact, it would make a good homework
assignment for a modern physics class).  Even if it weren't easily
soluble, though, all you would need is to have a tunable receiver.
The doppler shift of a starship accelerating at 1 G is on the order of
1% every four days; a shift that slow you could easily tune in by hand.
                         --Geoffrey A. Landis

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

Date: 22 Nov 85 02:02:08 GMT
From: decvax!mcnc!philabs!micomvax!musocs!mcgill-vision!mouse@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (der Mouse)
Subject: Re: Time Retardation
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

[[  This is  getting off  of  space issues, so  I  am  cross-posting  to
net.physics   and  directing   followups  to  net.physics  only.     For
net.physics people, this started in net.space.  ]]
OK, since nobody else responded (or is news just slow to here?)
>> The difference in the rate at which time passes for two different inertial
>> frames of reference is determined by the Lorentz Transformation:
>> 	     ---------
>> 	    /    v**2		v = Velocity of one frame with respect to
>> 	\  / 1 - ----			the other.
>> 	 \/      c**2		c = Speed of light.
>> 
> What  happens  if two ships leave with opposite vectors, and  they  both
> approach the  speed  of light  relative to  their initial frame.   The v
> above, relative  to  each  other, would approach 2*c, giving  a non-real
> answer.  Where am  I goofing?  (Or is it time to invest in  a FTL ship? 
> :-)
     "v = Velocity of one frame with respect to the other".  That is, as
observed by an observer attached  to the other (frame).  The velocity of
frame X  as observed by (an observer in)  frame Y is  (necessarily) less
than c, so the result doesn't go imaginary.  The 2c velocity is obtained
by  measuring from  a third intertial  frame; if you want to get results
for two frames based on quantities observed in a  third, you have to use
more complicated equations.
-- 
					der Mouse
USA: {ihnp4,decvax,akgua,etc}!utcsri!mcgill-vision!mouse
     philabs!micomvax!musocs!mcgill-vision!mouse
Europe: mcvax!seismo!cmcl2!philabs!micomvax!musocs!mcgill-vision!mouse
Hacker: One responsible for destroying /
Wizard: One responsible for recovering it afterward

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

Date: Tue, 26 Nov 85 14:53:03 PST
From: ihnp4!houxm!houxa!heli@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: houxm!space
Subject: Re: Slingshot effect

I liked your explanation of the slingshot effect, but I thought I would
point out to you that "velocity" with respect to Jupiter is affected.  I
think you meant to say that the "speed" with respect to Jupiter is unaffected.
Remember, velocity has "speed" and "direction."

Greg Thorson
AT&T Bell Labs
Holmdel, NJ  07733
houxa!heli

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

Posted-Date: Tue 26 Nov 1985 16:38:21 EST
Date: Tue 26 Nov 1985 16:38:21 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Phoenix
To: Dale.Amon@fas.ri.cmu.edu
Cc: space@mit-mc.arpa
In-Reply-To: Dale.Amon's message of 19 Nov 85 05:40:30 EST

> The whole problem, Dani, is that you are talking about building a spaceship
> with the safety factors of a 1980's aircraft. We are not IN the 1980's of
> space flight. 

I don't think ANYONE has ever built a spacecraft (or, at least, a
launching vehicle) with the safety of a modern airliner.  The shuttle
has come too close to disaster too many times, and hasn't flown often
enough to get out all the bugs.  Someone (OMB? DOD?) estimated that 1
or 2 shuttles will crash in the next 400 shuttle flights.

Perhaps we're in the 1930's of spaceflight, and the shuttle is the
American Hindenberg (it certainly has enough hydrogen in it...).

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

Date: 26 Nov 85 02:07:39 GMT
From: decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!hao!ames!eugene@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Eugene Miya)
Subject: Re: spinoffs
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Sorry, "ames" has been down over the weekend, and I had to go skiing.
NASA [note the caps] does not attempt to justify it's existence via
"spinoffs" although some of you may note that there is a publication
of this title.  NASA's business is SPACE and AERONAUTICS, to almost
a blind ignorance of other technologies [materials science, computers,
etc.]  Only when it is in their interest does NASA concern itself.
I wrote a brief thing describing the importance of thinking about living
in an age where Relativity and space travel are reality, [about two years
ago?]  and I received a couple of comments about "more eliquoent (sp)
than Carl..."  [Thanks, I'm not that good].  I said that spinoffs are not
the justification for any large research program.  NASA does not [nor
does SDI for that matter] heavily justify spinoff.
I also want to make a comment about "Space Research."  NASA, contrary
to popular believe, is NOT a research organization. It's an engineering
organization.  I've had this told to me by high NASA management.  I've
promised a SETI commentary, I have to get that to the net before I go
back East next week to NASA HQ.
Be seeing ya.
From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  {hplabs,ihnp4,dual,hao,decwrl,allegra}!ames!aurora!eugene
  emiya@ames-vmsb.ARPA

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

Date: 24 Nov 85 02:15:27 GMT
From: ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtgzz!dls@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (d.l.skran)
Subject: Re: L5 Society Request
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

I noted your request for a mail response, but outgoing
mail from my system never seems to work. Also, I believe
this information to be of general interest.
Yes, the L5 Society is alive and well. The address is
L5 Society
International Headquarters
1060 East Elm St
Tucson, Arizona 85719
If you happen to be in New Jersey, the local chapter
is
North Jersey L5 Society
PO Box 674
Holmdel, NJ 07733
Currently NSI & L5 are in the final stages of merger
talks.
Other groups that might be considered effective include:
National Space Institute
Spacepac
Campaign for Space PAC
American Space Foundation
Students for the Exploration and Development of Space
Research only groups include
World Space Foundation
Space Studies Institute
Dale L. Skran Jr.
President, NJL5
Speaking for himself, as usual.

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

End of SPACE Digest V6 #31
*******************


0,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA04661; Thu, 28 Nov 85 03:00:40 PST
	id AA04661; Thu, 28 Nov 85 03:00:40 PST
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 85 03:00:40 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8511281100.AA04661@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #32

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 6 : Issue 32

Today's Topics:
		 Re: Re: Improving Starships Enroute
			     VAFB shuttle
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 24 Nov 85 21:18:52 GMT
From: decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!cmcl2!seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!shell!graffiti!peter@ucbvax.  (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Re: Improving Starships Enroute
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> 
> You would need a very sophisticated mathematician and quite a fast computer
> to calculate the doppler shift assuming the starship is constantly thrusting
> which necessary to reach a fair % of c. Otherwise communications would be a
> impossible.
Actually the equations would be much simpler than, say, the AGA gasflow
equations for turbine flowmeters, let alone orifice plates. You can do those
in Forth on an 1802 in realtime. Doppler shift & constant-acceleration
problems are simple.
-- 
Name: Peter da Silva
Graphic: `-_-'
UUCP: ...!shell!{graffiti,baylor}!peter
IAEF: ...!kitty!baylor!peter

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

From: prodmkt@acc.arpa
Date: 27 Nov 85 11:07:00 PST
Subject: VAFB shuttle
To: "space-incoming" <space-incoming@s1-b.arpa>
Reply-To: <prodmkt@acc.arpa>


Well, the first shuttle flight from VAFB has once again been postponed.
The official word pins the problem on "construction delays". The new
target date is "sometime in July". (Nearly a year late now)

The vehicle ( Columbia, I think), is supposed to arrive at VAFB in
mid-December, although with the delay that's doubtful.

Several people have asked about viewing sites for the launch. If you want
to stay in Lompoc ( there are an incredible number of new motels/hotels 
being constructed) make plans now. Most of the existing rooms were booked for
the 20 March date. The locals are excpecting an enormous amount (200k) of
spectators for the first launch (I'm going fishing I think). The Lompoc valley
is really not equipped to handle that amount of humanity. If there really
is that number of people here, the crush will be a monumental pain. Unless the
Air Force makes accomodations for viewing on the north part of the base,
the best you can hope for is a spot next to a flower field, about 8-10
miles distant.

The shuttle complex is being built (still) on facilities that were originally
started for the old Manned Orbiting Lab (MOL) program, on what's known as
South Vandenberg. I'm sure that the really good viewing spots will be closed.
Jalama beach to the south (4-6 miles), Point Sal to the north (6-8 miles with 
an unobstructed view of the pad) are the one's that should be opened to help
ease the crunch in the valley. Everyone's expecting a good show, and lot's of 
noise, but I doubt that the shuttle will come anywhere close to the Titan IIIC
launch's.

The most dramatic event I think, will be the landing. The shuttle is scheduled 
to return to VAFB. This makes for much easier, and much closer viewing of the 
vehicle in flight, as the normal approach to the VAFB runway runs directly over
on the prevailing winds.
------

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

End of SPACE Digest V6 #32
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA06601; Fri, 29 Nov 85 03:00:49 PST
	id AA06601; Fri, 29 Nov 85 03:00:49 PST
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 85 03:00:49 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8511291100.AA06601@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #33

*** EOOH ***
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 85 03:00:49 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #33

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 6 : Issue 33

Today's Topics:
		       Re: Stages to Saturn #2
			   Re: Re: spinoffs
			 Stages to Saturn #2
			     Re: spinoffs
		   Re: NASA satellite transmissions
		    Re: Star-Wars/Space Telescopes
			   Re: VAFB Shuttle
		       Night Launch of Atlantis
			     Re: spinoffs
			     Re: spinoffs
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 27 Nov 85 14:12:11 GMT
From: ihnp4!riccb!rjnoe@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Roger J. Noe)
Subject: Re: Stages to Saturn #2
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> At Huntington Beach, workmen complained of misanthropic pigeons roosting
> and hovering around the rafters of the high-ceiling production buildings.
That was not the only problem with those big buildings.  In the huge Vehicle
Assembly Building at Cape Canaveral, clouds used to form about 500 feet up
and drop rain inside the building.  I think it's all air-conditioned now.
--
Roger Noe

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

Date: 27 Nov 85 14:17:52 GMT
From: ihnp4!riccb!rjnoe@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Roger J. Noe)
Subject: Re: Re: spinoffs
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> > The big advance coming now is direct manufacture in space.
> 
> I am skeptical.  There is not one product yet identified that is a good
> bet for large scale space manufacturing.  What about the drugs purified
> with continuous flow electrophoresis?  Don't bet on them: drugs can
> be purified on earth using other techniques (for example, by affinity
> chromatography in columns filled with monoclonal antibodies).
I think the productivity of the CFES experiments has been something like
four HUNDRED times that on Earth and may go higher.  Also, what about the
monodisperse latex reactor experiments with the uniform spheres?  Can
THAT be done on Earth?
--
Roger Noe

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

Date: 25 Nov 85 14:45:49 GMT
From: ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dave Newkirk)
Subject: Stages to Saturn #2
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

At Huntington Beach, workmen complained of misanthropic pigeons roosting
and hovering around the rafters of the high-ceiling production buildings.
The droppings not only created sanitation problems for the Saturn stages,
but also for the workers.  A hand-picked pigeon elimination section went
to work on the problem.  High-frequency whistles worked for a time, but
the pigeons returned.  Occasional indoor potshots at the ubiquitous birds
produced humanitarian protests and holes in the roof.  Workmen tried to
pigeon-proof the building by sealing off all outside openings, but the
persistent creatures fluttered in through gaps where the huge door
machinery and track rails were installed.  Ornithologists consulted on
the problem finally suggested some specially treated seeds to temporarily
affect the pigoen's nervous systems.  It worked.  After pecking at the
seeds, the pigeons sat quite still for a time, then finally flew off,
never to return.  Cheerfuly, the maintenance crews refreshed the seed
supply every 60 days just to make sure their feathered foes kept their
distance.
From "Stages to Saturn - A Technological History of the Apollo/Saturn Launch
Vehicles", available from the Superindendant of Documents, U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402. Order NASA SP-4206, $12.00.
-- 
				Dave Newkirk, ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn

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

Date: 24 Nov 85 01:08:15 GMT
From: cbosgd!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: spinoffs
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> Frying pans are often cited as a trivial spinoff, but they are not even that.
> Teflon was actually developed by Du Pont in the Fifties, long 
> before Apollo needed tough plastics with high melting points.  
Quite correct, commercial Teflon was basically a spinoff from the Manhattan
Project, not the space program.  The Manhattan Project did the original
basic engineering needed to turn a laboratory curiosity	discovered in the
30's into a useful material.  DuPont finished it up for commercial use.
Possibly the space program may have done some work on one of the Teflon
variants (note that the original Teflon was not useful for frying pans,
since it wouldn't stick to the pan!) and hence gotten the story started.
> Surely, though, ICs are something major?  Yes, and in the extremely
> early days of the early sixties the space program did have an effect
> on their development.
Yes and no; ICs were a spinoff from ICBMs more than from the space program.
> They set the initial standards for temperature
> and mechanical stress that the IC makers had to meet, and also
> provided a small but steady market for them.
If you check, I think you will find that the original development of the
first practical ICs was military-funded work for the Minuteman ICBM.  So
the government role was a bit more central than just being a demanding
customer.
> ...  NASA landed men on the Moon using only
> resistor-transistor and diode-transistor logic, not even TTL.  Last I
> heard they still relied on DTL for their electronics.  Several
> generations have come and gone since DTL was introduced: regular TTL,
> PMOS, and enhancement-only NMOS. NASA is continually stuck with using
> obsolete parts because it takes so long to develop anything, and
> because its needs are so different from those of the mainstream
> markets. 
Don't forget a couple of other major reasons:  (1) NASA has been a little
bit short of funds lately, and (2) NASA's reliability requirements are
such that they can't risk using something hot out of the development groups.
The latter is not unique to NASA; you'll find the same phenomenon in any
environment where major mistakes are unacceptable.  The Bell System invented
the transistor, but it was a good many years before solid-state electronics
showed up in telephone switching systems.  When your equipment is supposed
to work for 40 years, you *can't* use a part in critical applications until
a good reliability database has been built up for it.
NASA landed men on the Moon using old IC technologies because most of the
Apollo hardware was designed in the early 60's, before TTL.  Remember the
lead times involved; Apollo incorporated new technologies only in areas
where it didn't require serious redesign.  Apollo hardware had to be ready
to *fly* in about 1967, which meant that a lot of decisions had to be made
very early indeed to permit adequate development and testing.  For example,
the VAB is bigger than it needed to be for the Saturn V, because the size
of the building had to be fixed before anyone was sure how big the booster
would be.  For another example, the Apollo SM engine was powerful enough to
lift the CSM off the surface of the moon, because its specs were fixed too
early for anyone to be sure that this would be unnecessary.  Remember that
NASA was running final tests for the first Apollo flight, with the lunar
landing (optimistically) hoped to follow in a year or so, a total of six
years after Apollo was ordered.  A rather tight schedule, given that nearly
every piece of hardware they used had to built from scratch.
> ...  A research 
> program might develop something unique and innovative, but it rarely 
> gains market acceptance because it is specialized to the needs of 
> that program...
But the underlying technology is another story.  Nobody is contending that
the precise parts used for Apollo were good for much else.
> The bottom line is that if you want your research to 
> be of commercial value, it must be directed to commercial needs.  
> Military and space work has commercial value largely by accident.
If so, then there have been a lot of rather lucrative accidents.  Enough
to make them fairly predictable, in fact.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

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

Date: 26 Nov 85 18:47:33 GMT
From: tektronix!tekcbi!jimb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Jim Boland)
Subject: Re: NASA satellite transmissions
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> [eat me]
> 
> Can anyone tell me how to find out when NASA is transmitting on the satellite
> that home satellite dishes can pick up? My "satellite TV week" magazine tells
> me that there is "selected shuttle coverage" on this feed but whenever I look
> it's just a bunch of snow. 
There is a preliminary schedule for the shuttle on the group net.columbia
If you are not subscribed to that group, you might try it out.  They keep
you up to date on the missions (not just columbia) and the have the TV
schedule.  The schedule for the launch which starts today (Tuesday) 
arrived today in that group today.

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

Date: 23 Nov 85 17:17:00 GMT
From: pur-ee!uiucdcsb!carroll@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Star-Wars/Space Telescopes
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

/* Written  8:47 am  Nov 21, 1985 by pmk@prometheus.UUCP in uiucdcsb:net.space 
*
What must be done is to rid the solar system of fission devices;
even a commercial reactor could conceivably wipe out the concept
of humanity as we know it in a few short centuries.
*
Could you expain how that works? Even the worst possible fission power
accident would be not nearly as bad as a nuclear weapon explosion. If you
worried about mutations and the like, you should really read the reports
on the Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors, who have a not even detectablly
above the norm mutation rate.

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

Date: 28 Nov 85 11:00:00 PST
From: Emilio Calius <calius@su-star.arpa>
Subject: Re: VAFB Shuttle
To: "space%mit-mc" <space%mit-mc@su-score.arpa>
Reply-To: Emilio Calius <calius@su-star>


	Also, they're counting on the new composite-case SRBs to get a decent
payload from Vandenberg. As reported recently in Aviation Leak, a test case
failed under internal hydraulic pressure at 1.2 of the design load. Problem
is, ultimate failure is supposed not to occur before 1.4 design pressure.
This suggests that not all the bugs in the manufacturing process have been
worked out yet. Some people may be happy about the extra time margin.

Emilio P. Calius
Dept. of Aero/Astro
Stanford Univ.
------

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

Date: 27 Nov 85 05:25:44 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!bonnie!akgua!akguc!codas!mikel@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Mikel Manitius)
Subject: Night Launch of Atlantis
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Gosh, what a view! It lit up the entire cape and more! Like sunlight!
From my view accross the Bannana River it was quite a sight - the second
voyage of Atlantis! Probably the best view of a launch yet!
I can only say this to yee who dare venture to watch a lanuch:
bring binoculars, lots of film, a sleeping bag, and fill the car
up before you get there, trafic after a launch is murder (even
three hours later!)
Now - if I could only digitize a picture and post it.........
-- 
			Mikel Manitius @ AT&T-IS Altamonte Springs, FL
			...{ihnp4|akguc|attmail|indra!koura}!codas!mikel

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

Date: 27 Nov 85 16:08:59 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!frog!john@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (John Woods, Software)
Subject: Re: spinoffs
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> NASA [note the caps] does not attempt to justify it's existence via
> "spinoffs" although some of you may note that there is a publication
> of this title.  NASA's business is SPACE and AERONAUTICS, to almost
> a blind ignorance of other technologies [materials science, computers,
> etc.]  Only when it is in their interest does NASA concern itself.
> 
> I wrote a brief thing describing the importance of thinking about living
> in an age where Relativity and space travel are reality, [about two years
> ago?]  and I received a couple of comments about "more eliquoent (sp)
> than Carl..."  [Thanks, I'm not that good].  I said that spinoffs are not
> the justification for any large research program.  NASA does not [nor
> does SDI for that matter] heavily justify spinoff.
> 
It's always dangerous to argue about horses after the horse has spoken, but...
I just received my first issue of "NASA Tech Briefs", a publication put out
by NASA to tell the world what patents they have ripe for plucking.  This is
in addition to the publication Spinoffs, which (according to the blurb in
the Tech Briefs) exists to tell about those patents which have been
successfully plucked.
(At least some portion of) NASA is quite aware of the benefits of spinoffs,
and, at least as a practical matter, understand that when talking to Congress
or businessmen, the best way to "justify" this "``huge'' expense" is to point
out how much money their constituents/they stand to make because of it.
However, I am tremendously glad that NASA tells their engineers to screw the
spinoffs and get on with "SPACE and AERONAUTICS", like they are supposed to.
When NASA speaks to me, their justification comes from missions, not Velcro.
And I'm a satisfied customer!
--
John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (617) 626-1101
...!decvax!frog!john, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw%mit-ccc@MIT-XX.ARPA
Out of my way, I'm a scientist!
	War of the Worlds

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

Date: 28 Nov 85 21:10:36 GMT
From: ihnp4!alberta!cadomin!andrew@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Andrew Folkins)
Subject: Re: spinoffs
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <8511251310.AA17146@s1-b.arpa> dietz@SLB-DOLL.CSNET (Paul Dietz) writes:
>> The big advance coming now is direct manufacture in space.
>
>I am skeptical.  There is not one product yet identified that is a good
>bet for large scale space manufacturing.  
 
Powersats.  How much is ten gigawatts of installed electrical capacity 
worth today?  Next question, how much would it cost to fuel comparable
coal, oil, or nuclear powered generators over a twenty-plus year lifetime?
I'll admit that these things may not be feasible to build today, but
in fifty years, Powersat Inc. is going to be high up in the Fortune 500.
 
O'Neill's figures in _The High Frontier_ gave **exponentially** growing
revenues once the program got going.  For an investment of $10 billion/year
for 20 years, revenue was $100 billion/year by year 25. The initial
investment included major space stations and lunar bases. Once 
the infrastructure is in place, the powersats themselves can be built
very cheaply - the energy (solar) and materials (lunar) are free.
Now, back to the real world . . .

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

End of SPACE Digest V6 #33
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA08898; Sat, 30 Nov 85 03:00:42 PST
	id AA08898; Sat, 30 Nov 85 03:00:42 PST
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 85 03:00:42 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8511301100.AA08898@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #34

*** EOOH ***
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 85 03:00:42 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #34

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 6 : Issue 34

Today's Topics:
			   Re: Re: spinoffs
			  REAL Star Wars...
			   Dreams of space
	      Re: Shuttle Articles in Discover Magazine
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted-Date: Fri 29 Nov 1985 18:15:34 EST
Date: Fri 29 Nov 1985 18:15:34 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Re: Re: spinoffs
To: ihnp4!riccb!rjnoe@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Cc: space@mit-mc.arpa
In-Reply-To: ihnp4!riccb!rjnoe's message of 27 Nov 85 14:17:52 GMT

> I think the productivity of the CFES experiments has been something like
> four HUNDRED times that on Earth and may go higher.  Also, what about the
> monodisperse latex reactor experiments with the uniform spheres?  Can
> THAT be done on Earth?

The production rate of CFES is 400x higher than CFES done on earth, not
400x better than other techniques.  Ortho Pharmaceutical, which was 
Mcdonnell-Douglas's partner in the project, has pulled out, saying they
can now purify the drugs as cheaply on earth.  Also the 400x better
is raw production rates, not cost of the final product.

The latex reactor is why I said "large scale" space manufacturing.  It
was a one-shot run of a speciality product with very limited demand.

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

Posted-Date: Fri 29 Nov 1985 18:31:39 EST
Date: Fri 29 Nov 1985 18:31:39 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: REAL Star Wars...
To: space@mit-mc.arpa, arms-d@mit-mc.arpa

While thinking about Star Wars and possible Soviet countermeasures, I
thought back to Niven & Pournelle's latest book ("Footfall").




To battle the invading aliens, the good guys built an Orion-style pulse
rocket.  The US was working on this in the early sixties but dropped it
when the Atmospheric Test Ban Treaty was signed.  The idea is well
known: a massive spacecraft is propelled by exploding shaped nuclear
charges under it.  The charges send streams of high velocity material
(polyethylene, say) against a massive steel pusher plate/radiation
shield.  One launch uses tens of bombs and puts thousands of
tons in orbit.

There's nothing high tech about this.  If we could do it in the early
sixties the Russians could probably do it today.  They have lots of
bombs and lots of steel, and the technology is more like shipbuilding
than rocketry.

Orion's justification was as a space battleship.  What a ship!  By
turning its pusher plate against oncoming warheads it could withstand
a one megaton blast 500 feet away.  It could use its own propulsion
charges as weapons.  It has plenty of mass budget for shielding against
lasers, particle beams, rocks, or whatever, and for its own offensive
weaponry.  An Orion-type ship pitted against an SDI-type defense would
be like a cat amongst the pidgeons.  The only way to counter it
is build your own.

Orion-style ships could lift armored reentry vehicles and scads of
decoys into space.  Even worse, such a ship could be lifted into
a retrograde orbit where it could scatter large quantities of gravel.
An effective ploy would be to scatter 1000 tonnes of 1 milligram
tungsten particles (say) in retrograde equatorial orbits out to several
earth radii.  Any satellite intersecting this disk would be hit within
several months.  Near-earth space could be seeded much more heavily,
rendering the shuttle useless.

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

Date: 30 Nov 1985 00:11-EST
From: Nicholas.Spies@h.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: Dreams of space
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

	 This might seem off the wall, but I don't think it is. What
	 dreams have you had about space, prompted perhaps by the first
	 moon landing, an EVA or whatever? I have, for one, dreamed of
	 returning to the original lunar landing site 200 years later
	 to see the discarded space suits and so forth enshrined in a
	 octagonal building with the lunar sky grey because of the moon
	 being enclosed in plastic to allow it to have an artificial
	 atmosphere because it was dotted with large industrial plants
	 extracting minerals. This is but one of many dreams inspired
	 by the space program.

	 I say this is probably not off the wall because Werner von
	 Braun said that the Fritz Lang film "The Girl in the Moon" was
	 an important inspiration for a generation of German rocket
	 scientists, and films are nothing if they are not dreams or
	 inspire dreams.

	 It would be interesting to collect dreams that the space
	 venture has inspired, both to gain an intuitive understanding
	 of the "meaning" of space and perhaps shed some light on what
	 new realities are being strived for.

	 Nicholas Spies (h.cs.cmu.edu.arpa)

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

Date: 28 Nov 85 14:29:49 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!water!watdcsu!broehl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Bernie Roehl)
Subject: Re: Shuttle Articles in Discover Magazine
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <8511251341.AA17196@s1-b.arpa> dietz@SLB-DOLL.CSNET (Paul Dietz) writes:
>I just read Discover magazine's November 1985 issue...
>"The shuttle is a superb
>technological achievement, and it's flown by brave, immensely competent
>men and women...   But what is it good for?"
Sound like the sort of cover quote designed to sell magazines...
(and it worked -- you bought one, didn't you?)
>What NASA should do is learn from the shuttle experience and design an
>improved shuttle with better economics.
Why?  They've already spent a lot of money developing something that works.
You're suggesting they spend even more money doing it again?  This makes very
little sense.  
>But no, they're going to build
>a space station.
... which is precisely what they need.  What's more useful, a station or
more shuttles? 
>I can take solace in the fact that the europeans are
>working on shuttle-like vehicles (Hermes and HOTOL) and you can bet
>they will learn from NASA's mistakes.
... and from the countless things NASA's done right.  After NASA's done the
R & D, it's easy for the Europeans (and the Soviets) to simply use that
technology to build their own.  Improving on someone else's design is a lot
easier than designing from scratch yourself (which is why so many countries
are poor innovators but strong industrial nations nevertheless).
>For the shuttle, things could become grim in a few years if fiber
>optics really depresses the market for communications satellites...
Unlikely.
>if DOD decides to build a new expendable booster as backup for the
>shuttle.
Possible, but also unlikely.
Whatever the economics, the shuttle has made space more accessible.  It has
also allowed the integration of the manned and unmanned aspects of space 
flight, and made it possible to do things like satellite recovery and on-orbit
repair.  It's proven that you can build a reusable manned spacecraft.  It's
allowed non-astronauts to travel into space to do useful work.
Even if other countries jump on the bandwagon, and even if they manage to
do it cheaper (by using NASA-developed technology) and better (by improving
on the basic design) the fact remains that they are depending on the
innovation of the engineers who built the shuttle.  It's really unfair to
criticize the shuttle program solely on the basis of cost/pound.

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

End of SPACE Digest V6 #34
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA11840; Sun, 1 Dec 85 03:00:59 PST
	id AA11840; Sun, 1 Dec 85 03:00:59 PST
Date: Sun, 1 Dec 85 03:00:59 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8512011100.AA11840@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #35

*** EOOH ***
Date: Sun, 1 Dec 85 03:00:59 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #35

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 6 : Issue 35

Today's Topics:
	      Re: Shuttle Articles in Discover Magazine
vacuum instabilities, gauge theories, interstellar propulsion, and SDI
vacuum instabilites, gauge theories, interstellar propulsion, and SDI.
		 Re: Re: Improving Starships Enroute
		 Re: Space Station from Shuttle Tanks
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted-Date: Sat 30 Nov 1985 10:07:31 EST
Date: Sat 30 Nov 1985 10:07:31 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Re: Shuttle Articles in Discover Magazine
To: Bernie Roehl <ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!water!watdcsu!broehl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu>
Cc: space@mit-mc.arpa
In-Reply-To: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!water!watdcsu!broehl's message of 28 Nov 85 14:29:49 GMT

>>What NASA should do is learn from the shuttle experience and design an
>>improved shuttle with better economics.
>Why?  They've already spent a lot of money developing something that works.
>You're suggesting they spend even more money doing it again?  This makes very
>little sense.  

I said why -- because the shuttle loses money.  In the long run, NASA
can't keep susidizing shuttle launches.  In an economic sense the
shuttle *doesn't* work.  Spending money to do it again -- and do it
*right* -- makes more sense than pouring money down the current rathole.

>>But no, they're going to build
>>a space station.
>... which is precisely what they need.  What's more useful, a station or
>more shuttles? 

NASA is having a hard time saying what the space station will be
used for, and the space station's utility is going to be limited
by how often NASA can send up shuttles (the Europeans are complaining
that NASA will limit it to 14 launches a year; they want 20, but
that would cost NASA too much money).  Agreed, we don't need more
shuttles of the current design, but real exploitation of space needs
cheaper launchers.

According to AWST, the National Advisory Council on Space (or whatever
it is called; the thing Paine & O'Neill are on) is going to say that
the number one priority for opening up space is reducing the cost
of putting payload in orbit by a factor of 10, and by another factor
of ten in the long term -- NOT building a space station.

>Whatever the economics, the shuttle has made space more accessible.  It has
>also allowed the integration of the manned and unmanned aspects of space 
>flight, and made it possible to do things like satellite recovery and on-orbit
>repair.  It's proven that you can build a reusable manned spacecraft.  It's
>allowed non-astronauts to travel into space to do useful work.
>Even if other countries jump on the bandwagon, and even if they manage to
>do it cheaper (by using NASA-developed technology) and better (by improving
>on the basic design) the fact remains that they are depending on the
>innovation of the engineers who built the shuttle.  It's really unfair to
>criticize the shuttle program solely on the basis of cost/pound.

But why should one want to integrate manned and unmanned space travel?
Being forced to lift people into orbit just to launch satellites is silly
and costly.

The shuttle can only do on-orbit repair and recovery of satellites
in low orbit, a pretty small market (and it would be smaller still if
the PAM motors weren't needed, as they aren't if an expendable launcher
is used).   The shuttle is reusable, yes, but not nearly to the extent
needed for economical operation.  Non-astronauts could be launched in
other vehicles (and I don't consider the ability to orbit
congress-critters to be a benefit, unless you leave them there).

The fact that other countries are developing reusable vehicles in
no way redeems NASA's failure; indeed, if the other countries are
using lots of NASA's technology then NASA's failure to develop
a better follow-on is even more damning.

It is eminently fair to criticize the shuttle on the basis of
cost/pound to orbit.  Reducing this cost was the primary justification
of the shuttle program!  Even if a later design works, the current
shuttle is, by this criterion, a failure.

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

Date: Sat, 30 Nov 85 15:42:28 pst
From: creon@ames-nas.arpa (Creon Levit)
To: space@mit-mc.arpa
Subject: vacuum instabilities, gauge theories, interstellar propulsion, and SDI

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

Date: Sat, 30 Nov 85 15:44:01 pst
From: creon@ames-nas.arpa (Creon Levit)
To: space@mit-mc.arpa
Subject: vacuum instabilites, gauge theories, interstellar propulsion, and SDI.

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD   11/9/85

REVISED 11/17/85

SUBJECT:Comments on AFRPL TR-83-067

Alternate Propulsion Energy Sources

TO:ARPANET physics mailing group

FROM:Jack Sarfatti
     POB 26548
     San Francisco,CA 94126
     (415) 398 6690

	Dr. R.L. Forward, author of AFRPL TR-83-067, does an in depth study of
antiproton annihilation propulsion and the zero point Casimir energy battery 
of the abelian gauge U(1) fiber quantum electrodynamic vacuum. However, he 
does not take into account the effect of the other basic nonabelian weak 
flavor and strong color gauge forces on vacuum structure. Consequently, some 
of his negative conclusions, based on the false assumption of a unique 
nondegenerate interacting quantum field vacuum, may well prove premature. (see
Note below)

	The modern theory of the unification of the forces uses the 
mathematics of fiber bundles. Fiber bundles generalize the Cartesian product 
of linear spaces to include global twists. For example, a cylinder is the 
Cartesian product of a circle base space with an untwisted line segment fiber.
But, the nonorientable Mobius strip has the same base space and the same fiber
with a global twist.

	 The internal degrees of freedom, such as weak flavor and strong 
color, are extra dimensions that form fiber spaces erected over events in 
Einstein's space-time. Space-time is the lower four dimensional base space of 
the Yang Mills gauge fiber bundles. Similar to general relativity where 
gravity is the  curvature in the lower dimensional base space-time, the 
electroweak-strong gauge forces are curvatures in the higher dimensional fiber
bundle spaces. The spinor source fields, that emit and absorb the virtual off 
mass shell gauge quanta carrying the forces, are cross sections. Cross 
sections are paths through the higher dimensional bundle space that project to
world lines in the lower dimensional base space-time. Internal symmetry 
transformations at a fixed point in space-time are lifts from holonomic loops 
in time. Thus, physics is geometrodynamical fulfilling Einstein's Vision. 

	The electromagnetic U(1)spherical S(1) fibered vacuum is only the 
first approximation to the real vacuum. However, the vacuum contains zero 
point quantum fluctuations from all the gauge boson field harmonic 
oscillators, as well as virtual pairs from all the fermion spinor fields.








	The second approximation would be the nonabelian U(1)xSU(2) 
electroweak gauge bundle [S(1)xS(2) spherical fiber] with spontaneous 
tachyonic phase symmetry breaking. This is analogous to a ferromagnet in which
the spontaneous magnetization of the ground state breaks the rotational 
symmetry of the action functional. The result is a set of energy degenerate 
electroweak vacua in zero external gauge fields. Applying an external field 
will split this degeneracy similar to the Zeeman effect.

	Further approximations would be U(1)xSU(2)xSU(3) incorporating the 
color strong force that binds quarks into nucleons and mesons, followed by the
SU(5) GUT [S(23) spherical fiber] whose X gauge quanta induce proton decay. 
Finally,as far as we know at present, we must include the effect of the 
photino and gravitino supergravity forces.

	Supergravity is the local gauge force induced by supersymmetry that 
causes fermion/boson transitions which were previously thought to be 
impossible because of a superselection rule. Two supersymmetry transformations
yield a translation in space-time. This may lead to some sort of hyperdrive.

	While the first U(1) approximation is inadequate, the second 
electroweak  U(1)xSU(2) approximation may be adequate to the task of finding 
alternate propulsion energy sources. Some SU(3) [S(7) spherical fiber]strong 
color corrections for stimulated beta decay may be needed because it involves 
the weak isospin flip of a d-quark to a u-quark. The two flavor-changing 
charged weak bosons violate parity   (mirror symmetry) by coupling only to 
left-handed spinor matter or right handed spinor antimatter. The neutral weak 
boson conserves both flavor and parity like the photon. Stimulated beta decay 
would use the self-interaction of the weak part of the flavor conserving 
photon to make flavor changing pairs that might flip the d quark to a u quark 
in the nucleon similar to a chain reaction or a laser amplifier. Stimulated 
beta decay, if it can be induced, would be a new alternate propulsion energy 
source and would solve the radioactive waste disposal problem.

	It is also interesting to note that the 't Hooft-Polyakov magnetic 
monopole solution of nonabelian gauge theory has a mixing of the dynamical 
rotational spin of base space-time with internal fiber spins. This could lead 
to quantum action at a distance SDI weapons, e.g. nonlocally induced 
stimulated beta decay rendering nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete.












	The U(1)xSU(2) quantum vacuum of the electroweak unified flavor force 
has a mutable structure determined by the macroscopic quantum wave function (
order parameter) of a relativistic self-interacting weak isodoublet tachyonic 
(imaginary rest mass faster-than-light) superfluid. The small Goldstone-Nambu 
phase oscillations in the tachyonic superfluid give real slower than light 
rest mass to the three virtual gauge quanta that carry the weak force of beta 
radioactivity.  Even the six leptons and the six quarks receive their rest 
masses from the tachyonic vacuum superfluid. The U(1) gauge boson (photon) of 
the electromagnetic force and the eight gauge bosons of the SU(3) color force 
remain massless. The small amplitude oscillations are the real rest mass Higgs
particles. The electric charge superselection rule and the fact that a 
composite tachyon bradyon pair can have zero rest mass implies that the mass 
of the Higgs is 2 to the 3/2 power times the mass of the charged W, i.e about 
224 Gev.The scalar tachyonic superfluid is made out of correlated pairs of 
spinor tachyons - similar to the BCS electron pair superconductor.



	First order vacuum to vacuum phase transitions triggered by an 
external magnetic field from a space-based superconducting magnet might 
provide an alternate SDI space weapon and propulsion energy source suitable 
for interstellar voyages. 

































Note:
*e.g."...for it seems that these fields are conservative in the sense that 
they only act as catalysts to convert some form of potential energy into some 
other form of energy. Once you have extracted energy from the system by some 
mechanism that changes from an initial state to a final state, you must put an
equal amount of energy back into the mechanism to move it back to its original
state. The vacuum fluctuation fields are therefore not a source of unlimited 
'free energy' (p.6-1)

     "I suspect ... we will find out that the quantum fluctuation energy is 
unusable because of some quantum version of the second law of thermodynamics."
(p.6-4)

     "We will need to have a 'heat sink' for the quantum energy engine, and 
what can have less energy density than the nothing that makes up the vacuum?"(
p.6-5- from AFRPL TR-83-067)

	The vacuum is neither unique nor immutable nor made up out of nothing.
Contrary to Forward, the quantum fluctuation fields are not conservative.That 
is, the quantum vacuum thermodynamic state space is not a simply connected 
manifold with trivial homology/cohomology. There are closed forms that are not
exact and cycles that are not boundaries. Forward's remark is only valid for 
the simply connected limit when all closed forms are exact etc.  The set of 
vacua are composite structures whose components include a Dirac sea of filled 
negative mass fermion states, virtual spinor particle-antiparticle pairs, 
virtual gauge bosons( virtual particles are off the mass shell, but real 
particles are on the mass shell). There are bradyonic, tachyonic, and 
Wickyonic branches to the mass shell. The Wickyonic branch allows us to break 
the speed of light barrier without violating relativity. We also have an 
imaginary rest mass self-interacting weak isodoublet tachyonic superfluid 
whose instabilities may provide us with large amounts of energy dwarfing even 
antiproton propulsion.

	External gauge fields remove the energy degeneracy of the set of 
vacua. The external fields create metastable vacuum phases partially protected
by energy barriers through which "instantons" quantum tunnel via Wick 
rotations. Wick rotations change the signature of the space-time metric from 
hyperbolic to elliptic. Indeed, my studies of the Dirac equation suggest not 
only bradyon and tachyon free particle spinor solutions inside and outside the
light cone, respectively, but also, as noted above, "Wickyon" solutions that 
can quantum tunnel through the light cone from subluminal to superluminal 
speed with a finite expenditure of energy. 

	Aspect's Paris experiment shows the reality of nonlocal photon spin-
spin quantum correlations over faster than light space-like separations 
between the detections of photons emitted in a double quantum jump. An 
experiment (T. Hellmuth et-al) at the Max Planck Institut in Garching, shows 
the reality of retroactive (backwards in time) "delayed choice" (John A. 
Wheeler) using a Mach-Zender interferometer. Controversy exists over the issue
of the controllability of these nonlocal quantum action at a distance effects 
that violate Einsteinian locality. If these effects can be controlled they 
will have profound SDI impact.

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

Date: 27 Nov 85 21:49:00 GMT
From: pur-ee!uiucdcsb!carroll@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Re: Improving Starships Enroute
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Only if the acceleration varied a lot. Otherwise it's a pretty easy
and straight forward problem.

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

Date: 29 Nov 85 20:37:58 GMT
From: tektronix!uw-beaver!tikal!sigma!bill@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (William Swan)
Subject: Re: Space Station from Shuttle Tanks
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <275@kovacs.UUCP> rivero@kovacs.UUCP (Michael Foster Rivero) writes:
>[...]	  As an aside, if the external shuttle tanks were  re-designed
>	to   ride  all  the  way  to  orbit,  they  might  make  great
>	pressurized bulk storage units that could  be  attached  to  a
>	space   station  framework.  [...]			  With
>	shuttles going up on a once a  month  basis  during  SDI,  you
>	would  have  a  LOT  of  pressurized space at the end of every
>	year.
(I just subscribed to this group, apologies if this is old ground...)
I worked on the Shuttle project from '72 to '75. I seem to recall that
they were planning on carrying the external tank into orbit, the idea
being exactly as Mr. Rivero proposed, to create a Space Station out of
the expended tanks. 
Has this changed? Do they drop it before (final) orbit now?
-- 
William Swan  {ihnp4,decvax,allegra,...}!uw-beaver!tikal!sigma!bill

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

End of SPACE Digest V6 #35
*******************


0,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA15680; Mon, 2 Dec 85 03:00:49 PST
	id AA15680; Mon, 2 Dec 85 03:00:49 PST
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 85 03:00:49 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8512021100.AA15680@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #36

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 6 : Issue 36

Today's Topics:
		 Re: Re: (communication with) Starsh
		   re: Russian fusion breakthrough
	  Re: Star-Wars/Space Telescopes (parabolic mirrors)
		 Re: Space Station from Shuttle Tanks
			Re: REAL Star Wars...
			     Re: spinoffs
		    Re: Re: Shuttle external tanks
		       A High Tech Maginot Line
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 30 Nov 85 19:38:00 GMT
From: pur-ee!uiucdcsb!carroll@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Re: (communication with) Starsh
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Unless the starship varied it's thrust during the voyage in a non-
pre-planned manner (i.e. based on decisions made by the starship crew
enroute). Even that is not too bad, since the starship crew can easily
tell what their shift is relative to Sol (by looking at hydrogen lines
in the sun, or by keeping track of their acceleration), while Earth can
afford to have broad band reciever (to grab the signal from the starship;
Earth meanwhile always broadcasts at a constant frequency, and the
starship can easily calculate the frequency for them to recieve at).

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

Date: Sunday,  1 Dec 1985 03:56:27-PST
From: redford%jeremy.DEC@decwrl.dec.com  (John Redford)
To: space@mit-mc.arpa
Subject: re: Russian fusion breakthrough


Paul Koloc writes:

>The "monumental discovery" [in the Russian SDI program] is a compact
>pulsed high power density fusion device based on work by Kurtmulleav
>at K. P.  The power source in addition as direct MHD drive for beam
>weapons, may be for both a boost phase rocket engine and an electric
>mode drive for pulsed "super high specific thrust" orbital engines.
>This would reduce the cost of the "SDI" program by at least 10...

A fusion reactor that was compact and powerful enough for use in
rockets would indeed be a marvellous thing.  I'm always impressed at
how some claim that the Russians are on the verge of incredible
breakthroughs, while others say that they need to steal all their
technology from the West.   However, a compact power source is just 
one of many major advances that would be needed for SDI.  Given 
that you can power a fairly energetic beam (of something), it still 
has to be generated, aimed, put into space to begin with, and 
defended from someone throwing a rock at it in the opposite orbit.  Cut
the cost of SDI by 10?  Not hardly.

He also writes:

>What must be done is to rid the solar system of fission devices;
>even a commercial reactor could conceivably wipe out the concept
>of humanity as we know it in a few short centuries.  But like a
>one year old 500 kg child playing with your shot gun, please
>won't work.  Try to give him something else, less deadly, that he
>perceives as more fun.  One basically has to "update" the defensive 
>power of the masses with something they would take pride and feel 
>psychologically secure.  That means "put a substitute" defense
>in place and then "scrap" the nuclear based one. 

This argument, that a good enough SDI will eliminate nuclear weapons, 
always baffles me.  SDI wouldn't even protect against all the 
different kinds of weapons now in existence.  Cruise missiles would 
still get through, and probably submarine-launched ones as well.  The 
nuclear arms race is not going to get called off just because a defense is 
found against one part of the strategic triad.

Furthermore, there have been nearly perfect defenses in the past, and 
they have not prevented war.  In World War I, barbed wire and machine 
guns were an almost perfect defense against infantry attacks.  Each 
side lost millions of men in hopeless assaults against fortified positions.
So did they decide to call things off?  Did they say "We cannot beat
them, so let's negotiate."?  Of course not.  Instead they tried to beat the 
defense with offensive weapons like tanks, and ultimately 
they succeeded.

Why would SDI be any different?  Counter-measures to it are already 
being thought about.  "Ridding the solar system of fission devices" 
would indeed be a great thing, but technical tricks like SDI won't do it.

John Redford

Posted:	Sun 1-Dec-1985 13:54 Jerusalem Local Time (GMT+2)
To:	RHEA::DECWRL::"space@mc"

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

Date: 24 Nov 85 19:48:57 GMT
From: decvax!linus!philabs!sbcs!debray@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Saumya Debray)
Subject: Re: Star-Wars/Space Telescopes (parabolic mirrors)
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> We all know how you can make a parabolic mirror by stretching a thin
> film of aluminised plastic over a ring of metal or some other such
> material, then using a vacuum pump to suck the film into the shape of
> a parabola ...
Seems to me that since air pressure is the same in all directions, this
would give a spherical rather than a parabolic mirror.
-- 
Saumya Debray
SUNY at Stony Brook
	uucp: {allegra, hocsd, philabs, ogcvax} !sbcs!debray
	arpa: debray%suny-sb.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
	CSNet: debray@sbcs.csnet

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

Posted-Date: Sun 1 Dec 1985 10:14:57 EST
Date: Sun 1 Dec 1985 10:14:57 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Re: Space Station from Shuttle Tanks
To: William Swan <tektronix!uw-beaver!tikal!sigma!bill@ucbvax.berkeley.edu>
Cc: rivero%kovacs.uucp@csnet-relay.arpa, space@mit-mc.arpa
In-Reply-To: tektronix!uw-beaver!tikal!sigma!bill's message of 29 Nov 85 20:37:58 GMT

Currently, the shuttle is maneuvered so the ET drops into the Indian
Ocean (or the Pacific on some launch paths).

As I understand it, detailed studies by NASA have shown that it's not
simple to turn an external tank into a space station.  A space station
is just too complicated (with wiring, electronics, temperature control &
ventilation, etc.) to make in orbit at this time (except by simple
assembly of prefab modules).

A near-term use of ET's is as reaction mass.  The simplest way to
do this, NASA has found, is to drop the ET on the end of a long tether
below (or above) the shuttle, then release it.  Unfortunately, any
mass saving in OMS fuel is used up by the mass of the cable.  This
idea could be used, however, to boost a space station into higher
orbits, since the cable could be left in orbit and used many times.

ET's can't just be left in low orbit without processing, since they
have a large cross section and experience considerable drag (as did
Skylab).  There are designs on the board for solar furnaces for melting
ET's, turing each into a twelve foot solid aluminum sphere.

If SDI ever comes to pass (which seems doubtful) a major problem
will be shielding the electronics against cosmic rays and
14.7 MeV neutrons from thermonuclear weapons.  The last are especially
nasty; the only way to shield against them is by using lots of mass.
Raw ET material would be good for this; one ET can be turned into
a solid aluminum sphere twelve feet across.

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

Date: 1 Dec 85 00:34:45 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: REAL Star Wars...
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> ...Orion's justification was as a space battleship...
No, its original justification was as a heavy launch vehicle, and a
spaceship capable of exploring the whole solar system quickly and cheaply.
(Sample:  a large manned Mars expedition tentatively planned for 1965.)
That's why a lot of very good people put a lot of effort into the early
stages.  The switch to military justifications came towards the end, when
Orion was visibly dying as a result of high-level policy decisions in favor
of chemical rockets and against nuclear propulsion.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

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

Posted-Date: Sun 1 Dec 1985 11:07:59 EST
Date: Sun 1 Dec 1985 11:07:59 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Re: spinoffs
To: space@mit-mc.arpa
In-Reply-To: ihnp4!alberta!cadomin!andrew's message of 28 Nov 85 21:10:36 GMT

>>> The big advance coming now is direct manufacture in space.
>>
>>I am skeptical.  There is not one product yet identified that is a good
>>bet for large scale space manufacturing.  
>
ihnp4!alberta!cadomin!andrew@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Andrew Folkins)
writes: 
>Powersats. ...

Of course.  I was refering to products that can be made using NASA's
LEO space station.  Sorry I didn't make that clear.

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

Date: 1 Dec 85 14:13:00 PST
From: Emilio Calius <calius@su-star.arpa>
Subject: Re: Re: Shuttle external tanks
To: "space%mit-mc" <space%mit-mc@su-score.arpa>
Reply-To: Emilio Calius <calius@su-star>


	I think that most everybody agrees that the effort required to carry
the ET to LEO is fairly trivial. Why hasn't it been done? I don't know, but I
can't help thinking that somebody in NASA made a political decision.

        However, once you've got it in orbit, there are several issues to be
resolved:
	1) How much does the Shuttle orbit change from one mission to the next?
That will determine how much delta V is required to assemble several tanks in
to a space station, a tank farm, a scrap yard, or whatever you have in mind.
Would 1 or 2 dedicated missions be sufficient for this purpose or do we have to
wait for the OMV?.
Note that big Coke can is a navigational hazard and also should have a limited
lifetime in the low orbits where it's likely to end up. How do we avoid a repeat
of the Skylab circus?

	2) Once you've got them where you want them, there remains the question
of adapting them for whatever purpose you have in mind. This is likely to 
require a fair amount of 0g shop work in which the US seems to be lagging behind
the USSR. For example, if you want to convert the tank into workshop/hangar
space, you will have to add a lot of local strengthening to the basic pressure
vessel structure, as well as adding all the services you require (electricity,
air, fluids, thermal control, etc.), airlocks (if you are making a hangar, you
have to figure out how to make one end into a door), and installing and checking
out your equipment. Contrast this with sending up space station modules pre-
configured and checked out on the ground. Even if you just want to use the tank
as a tank you will have to figure out how to modify it so that you can fill &
empty it in 0g (remember that its present plumbing is designed to be used once,
at longitudinal accelerations >= 1g).

	3) If you're going to have humans routinely working inside in a "shirt-
sleeve" environment for longer than a few days, I am not sure wether the single
skin design of the ET is acceptable without some sort of escape mechanism. I
would feel much more confortable with a second skin and a self-sealing medium
in between. So maybe you have to coat the tank with some kind of foam and add
a shield or "bumper".

	Maybe all of the above issues have already been resolved. If that is so
I would like to hear about it. Anyway, I still think that throwing away the ET
and its residual fuel is still a waste of a potentially very useful resource.
Just think of the residual contents of the tanks and refuelling the orbit
control systems of satellites as well as the OMV.

Emilio P. Calius
Dept. of Aero/Astro
Stanford Univ.
------

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

Date: 1 Dec 85 23:10:00 PST
From: <art@acc.arpa>
Subject: A High Tech Maginot Line
To: "space" <space@mit-mc.arpa>
Reply-To: <art@acc.arpa>


One concern I have about SDI is the situation France was in at the
start of WWII.  The French had built an "impregnable" defensive system
along the German border called the Maginot Line.  But the German Panzer
Army was a development in warfare technology that the Maginot Line was
not prepared for and the German Armies ran right through it.  If we
put up SDI and our adversaries have converted to cruise missiles and
low level supersonic bombers, will we be protected?  It seems that SDI
may just result in a change of tactics and an ongoing vicious cycle of
weapons development.  We had better try to learn from history, lest we
repeat it.  Let us hope that our respective leaders can find some way
to at least reduce the number of existing weapons.

------

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

End of SPACE Digest V6 #36
*******************


0,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA19788; Tue, 3 Dec 85 03:00:59 PST
	id AA19788; Tue, 3 Dec 85 03:00:59 PST
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 85 03:00:59 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8512031100.AA19788@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #37

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 6 : Issue 37

Today's Topics:
	  Re: Star-Wars/Space Telescopes (parabolic mirrors)
Re: vacuum instabilites, gauge theories, interstellar propulsion, and SDI.
			Re: REAL Star Wars...
			       Spinoffs
	  Re: Star-Wars/Space Telescopes (parabolic mirrors)
			  Twelve foot sphere
	      Re: Shuttle Articles in Discover Magazine
	      Re: Shuttle Articles in Discover Magazine
		   Re: NASA satellite transmissions
			     Re: spinoffs
			     Re: spinoffs
vacuum instabilities, gauge theories, interstellar propulsion, and SDI
			 Stages to Saturn #3
	    Re: Re: Shuttle Articles in Discover Magazine
		     Re: A High Tech Maginot Line
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 2 Dec 85 07:44:07 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!seismo!gatech!gitpyr!cmpbsdb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Don Barry)
Subject: Re: Star-Wars/Space Telescopes (parabolic mirrors)
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <26@sbcs.UUCP>, debray@sbcs.UUCP (Saumya Debray) writes:
> Seems to me that since air pressure is the same in all directions, this
> would give a spherical rather than a parabolic mirror.
By the same argument, a suspended string would form a spherical arc - 
instead, the form is a catenary, described by the hyperbolic functions.
I am unaware of the figure of equipressure deformation of an elastic disc,
but one technique that is used to generate true parabolas in a uniform gravity
field is that of spin-molding.  It is an easy matter to calculate the
equipotential surface of a spinning liquid, and imposing the condition of
stability, the figure is a paraboloid.
-- 
Don Barry (Chemistry Dept)          CSnet: cmpbsdb%gitpyr.GTNET@gatech.CSNET
Georgia Institute of Technology    BITNET: CMPBSDB @ GITVM1
Atlanta, GA 30332      ARPA: cmpbsdb%gitpyr.GTNET%gatech.CSNET@csnet-relay.ARPA 
UUCP: ...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!cmpbsdb

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

Date: Mon, 2 Dec 85 06:16:20 PST
From: ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: ihnp4!space
Subject: Re: vacuum instabilites, gauge theories, interstellar propulsion, and SDI.
In-Reply-To: your article <8511302344.AA00327@ames-nas.ARPA>

I only understood every other word of your article.  Please send the pure
physics theory to net.physics (or whatever) and give me the translation.

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

Posted-Date: Mon 2 Dec 1985 08:08:00 EST
Date: Mon 2 Dec 1985 08:08:00 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Re: REAL Star Wars...
Cc: space@mit-mc.arpa
To: Henry Spencer <ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu>
In-Reply-To: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry's message of 1 Dec 85 00:34:45 GMT

>> ...Orion's justification was as a space battleship...
>No, its original justification was as a heavy launch vehicle, and a
>spaceship capable of exploring the whole solar system quickly and cheaply.

Quite right.  DOD took over only after the civilians decided to go
with chemical propellants (I just reread the relevant chapter of
Dyson's book).  What really killed Orion, I suspect, is the fallout
problem.

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

Posted-Date: Mon 2 Dec 1985 16:54:27 EST
Date: Mon 2 Dec 1985 16:54:27 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Spinoffs
To: space@mit-mc.arpa

It really isn't fair to say that a research program has nothing to do
with a discovery if bringing that discovery to commercial use requires
an additional N billion dollars (far exceeding the cost of the research
program).  A serendipitous discovery can be quite cheap, and serves
more of a trailblazing function.  This kind of discovery, however,
might better be stimulated by basic research.  

I just thought of another spinoff from the space program: cryogenics.
NASA had to develop a lot of the technology for manipulating liquid
hydrogen in bulk.  Today we see liquid hydrogen tank trucks on the
highways, but several decades ago LH was a real engineering nightmare.
Liquid hydrogen handling technology could have considerable spinoff
potential if LH fueled SST's are built (although since NASA is involved
in aeronautics, it's not clear this would count as a spinoff).

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

Date: 2 Dec 85 23:39:16 GMT
From: ernie!rimey@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Ken &)
Subject: Re: Star-Wars/Space Telescopes (parabolic mirrors)
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>> Seems to me that since air pressure is the same in all directions, this
>> would give a spherical rather than a parabolic mirror.
>By the same argument, a suspended string would form a spherical arc - 
>instead, the form is a catenary, described by the hyperbolic functions.
>	...
>Don Barry (Chemistry Dept)          CSnet: cmpbsdb%gitpyr.GTNET@gatech.CSNET
No, Saumya is certainly right.  Soap bubbles are certainly spherical,
even when they sit on circular wire frames.  The force on each piece
of the surface is equal to the pressure (times the area of the piece)
and oriented perpendicular to that piece.
If on each piece of a string you put a force (proportional to the
length of the piece) perpendicular to that piece of string, the string
would form a circle.  THAT is the correct analogy.
						Ken Rimey
						rimey@dali.berkeley.edu

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

Date: Mon,  2 Dec 85 20:56:57 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@mit-mc.arpa>
Subject: Twelve foot sphere
To: "DIETZ%SLB-DOLL.CSNET@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>"@mit-mc.arpa
Cc: KFL@mit-mc.arpa, Space@s1-b.arpa

    Date: Sun 1 Dec 1985 10:14:57 EST
    From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>

    ... There are designs on the board for solar furnaces for melting
    ET's, turing each into a twelve foot solid aluminum sphere. ...
    ... one ET can be turned into a solid aluminum sphere twelve feet
    across. ...

  This is hard to believe.  A twelve foot diameter aluminum sphere
would mass 69,000 kilograms or 76 tons.  Are you sure you aren't
counting the mass of the spent fuel as well as the mass of the
shell?
								...Keith

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

Date: Mon, 2 Dec 85 08:45:28 est
From: Bernie Roehl <broehl%watdcsu%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
To: slb-doll.csnet@clyde!ulysses!ucbvax!csnet-relay.arpa!dietz
Subject: Re: Shuttle Articles in Discover Magazine
Cc: space@mit-mc.arpa

>>>What NASA should do is learn from the shuttle experience and design an
>>>improved shuttle with better economics.
>>Why?

>I said why -- because the shuttle loses money.  In the long run, NASA
>can't keep susidizing shuttle launches.  In an economic sense the
>shuttle *doesn't* work.  Spending money to do it again -- and do it
>*right* -- makes more sense than pouring money down the current rathole.

Only if the savings (i.e. the difference in operating expenses) is
greater than the development cost, which is unlikely.

>shuttles of the current design, but real exploitation of space needs
>cheaper launchers.

Agreed, in the long term cheaper launchers are important.

>...the National Advisory Council on Space (or whatever
>it is called; the thing Paine & O'Neill are on) is going to say that
>the number one priority for opening up space is reducing the cost
>of putting payload in orbit by a factor of 10, and by another factor
>of ten in the long term.

Again, I agree.  *However*, this is not likely to happen for some time
(unfortunatly) simply because funding for a new series of shuttles is
unlikely.  We've barely started using the ones we have, coming up with
a new fleet that may have slightly better economics would not go over
well it this point.  In any case, you won't get a factor of 10 reduction
with an improved shuttle design; we're talking a totally different kind
of vehicle.  Probably single stage to orbit, quite possibly vertical launch/
vertical landing, low maintenance, 48 hour turnaround.


>But why should one want to integrate manned and unmanned space travel?

For the same reason we don't have unmanned cargo planes (or trains, or ships).
It makes good sense to have people there in case something goes wrong (which
is, if anything, *more* likely in a complex activity like spaceflight than
in rail transport).

>...then NASA's failure to develop
>a better follow-on is even more damning.

Spending billions of dollars to develop that follow-on after just a few
years of using the first-generation shuttle would be a silly waste of
hard-to-get funding.

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

Date: Mon, 2 Dec 85 08:49:17 est
From: Bernie Roehl <broehl%watdcsu%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
To: space@mit-mc.arpa

Subject: Re: Shuttle Articles in Discover Magazine

>>>What NASA should do is learn from the shuttle experience and design an
>>>improved shuttle with better economics.
>>Why?

>I said why -- because the shuttle loses money.  In the long run, NASA
>can't keep susidizing shuttle launches.  In an economic sense the
>shuttle *doesn't* work.  Spending money to do it again -- and do it
>*right* -- makes more sense than pouring money down the current rathole.

Only if the savings (i.e. the difference in operating expenses) is
greater than the development cost, which is unlikely.

>shuttles of the current design, but real exploitation of space needs
>cheaper launchers.

Agreed, in the long term cheaper launchers are important.

>...the National Advisory Council on Space (or whatever
>it is called; the thing Paine & O'Neill are on) is going to say that
>the number one priority for opening up space is reducing the cost
>of putting payload in orbit by a factor of 10, and by another factor
>of ten in the long term.

Again, I agree.  *However*, this is not likely to happen for some time
(unfortunatly) simply because funding for a new series of shuttles is
unlikely.  We've barely started using the ones we have, coming up with
a new fleet that may have slightly better economics would not go over
well it this point.  In any case, you won't get a factor of 10 reduction
with an improved shuttle design; we're talking a totally different kind
of vehicle.  Probably single stage to orbit, quite possibly vertical launch/
vertical landing, low maintenance, 48 hour turnaround.


>But why should one want to integrate manned and unmanned space travel?

For the same reason we don't have unmanned cargo planes (or trains, or ships).
It makes good sense to have people there in case something goes wrong (which
is, if anything, *more* likely in a complex activity like spaceflight than
in rail transport).

>...then NASA's failure to develop
>a better follow-on is even more damning.

Spending billions of dollars to develop that follow-on after just a few
years of using the first-generation shuttle would be a silly waste of
hard-to-get funding.

				--Bernie Roehl
				(broehl@watdcsu)

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

To: Jim Boland <tektronix!tekcbi!jimb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu>
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Re: NASA satellite transmissions
In-Reply-To: Your message of 26 Nov 85 18:47:33 GMT.
Date: 02 Dec 85 18:58:47 PST (Mon)
From: Mike Iglesias <iglesias@uci.edu>

How about someone who has access to net.columbia posting it here for us
people on the arpanet who don't get net.columbia.

Thanks.

Mike Iglesias
University of California, Irvine

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

Date: 29 Nov 85 15:59:09 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!seismo!hao!noao!terak!mot!anasazi!john@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (John Moore)
Subject: Re: spinoffs
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <380@anasazi.UUCP> john@anasazi.UUCP (John Moore) writes:
>In article <8511191259.AA24626@decwrl.DEC.COM> redford@JEREMY.DEC (John Redford) writes:
>>
>>  There's been a lot of talk recently about spinoffs of high-tech 
And I wrote lots of reply. However, I forgot to mention two instances of
spinoff which I am personally involved in.
I used to work at a company which did Command and Control simulations for the
US Navy. In the process of this work, we developed a sophisticated
simulator program. At some point in this work, the USC Medical Center
in Los Angeles discovered that they had serious control problems in
their Emergency Room and Outpatient Clinic. They hired us to do the
operations research necessary to identify and correct these problems.
Our military OR work, and specifically that simulator, were then used
to solve their problems quite successfully.
I know a researcher in the radar field who has worked on FM military
remote sensing radars. He is now adapting that technology to geological,
mining and other commercial fields.
These may be little spinoffs, but multiply them by a few million
engineers and you get a lot of spinoffs. Just because you cannot point
to more than one BIG spinoff doesn't mean that the spinoff of all of
that military work isn't there. I would maintain that a large part
of the training and experience now in commercial high-tech fields
is a DIRECT result of military work.
-- 
John Moore (NJ7E/XE1HDO)
{decvax|ihnp4|hao}!noao!terak!anasazi!john
{hao!noao|decvax|ihnp4|seismo}!terak!anasazi!john
terak!anasazi!john@SEISMO.CSS.GOV
(602) 952-8205 (day or evening)
5302 E. Lafayette Blvd, Phoenix, Az, 85018 (home address)

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

Date: 29 Nov 85 15:43:30 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!seismo!hao!noao!terak!mot!anasazi!john@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (John Moore)
Subject: Re: spinoffs
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <8511191259.AA24626@decwrl.DEC.COM> redford@JEREMY.DEC (John Redford) writes:
>
>  There's been a lot of talk recently about spinoffs of high-tech 
>government programs, particularly in regard to SDI. I'd like to get 
>some discussion going on this, because it's a commonly used argument 
>both for SDI and the space program in general.  Let me start with a 
>blanket statement:
>
>The commercial value of spinoffs is negligible.
>
>program might develop something unique and innovative, but it rarely 
>gains market acceptance because it is specialized to the needs of 
>that program.  The bottom line is that if you want your research to 
>be of commercial value, it must be directed to commercial needs.  
Somehow I find the logic of this argument a bit extreme. Since any
advanced weapons research involves learning things, sometimes very
basic things, it is similar to scientific research (often indistinguishable).
So, if it is not commercially worthwhile, then neither is scientific
research. Lets drop all funding of scientific research - since it is
not directed at producing commercial results, it will rarely be useful!
Picking on a couple of wrong examples is a tried and true debaters
trick, but it doesn't prove anything. So 747's and teflon aren't
exactly spinoffs - does it follow that there are no spinoffs?
Finally, lets look a bit harder for spinoffs. Example: the National
Security Agency, back in the 50's and 60's, was a pioneer in computer
technology. The IBM Stretch was built to their specifications. The
spinoff from this was experience and engineering details used by
IBM to advance the state of the art (please, no flames about 360's, I
don't like 'em either). I have no doubt whatsoever that military
research into advanced communications systems has contributed to
commercial communications. Motorolla Government Systems Division is
here in Phoenix, and it is constantly emitting spinoff companies where
those engineers who learned the state of the art in military systems
are applying it to civilian systems where they perceive the opportunity
for greater profit. The same is true around any weapons research facility.
Another case of spinoff is amateur radio. Much pioneering work in such
technologies as FM and SSB was first done by amateurs for non-commercial
motives. Packet radio is in that stage now. Nevertheless, the SPINOFF
from this work is used worldwide commercially.
>P.S. Well OK, there is one important exception to the above, and that 
>is communication satellites.  These were launched on modified ICBM's, 
>and so would not have been possible without the missile program.  The 
Only ONE important exception?
Finally, let's keep this in mind. The purpose of a weapons development
project is to protect the freedom without which all the rest of these
considerations are meaningless. Rarely can one be justified solely on the
basis of spinoffs. However, the spinoff potential is really there
and can create surprising benefits.
-- 
John Moore (NJ7E/XE1HDO)
{decvax|ihnp4|hao}!noao!terak!anasazi!john
{hao!noao|decvax|ihnp4|seismo}!terak!anasazi!john
terak!anasazi!john@SEISMO.CSS.GOV
(602) 952-8205 (day or evening)
5302 E. Lafayette Blvd, Phoenix, Az, 85018 (home address)

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

Date: 2 Dec 85  23:53 EST (Mon)
From: _Bob <Carter@red.rutgers.edu>
To: creon@ames-nas.arpa (Creon Levit)
Cc: space@mit-mc.arpa
Subject: vacuum instabilities, gauge theories, interstellar propulsion, and SDI
In-Reply-To: Msg of 30 Nov 1985  18:42-EST from creon at ames-nas.arpa (Creon Levit)

    From: creon@ames-nas.arpa (Creon Levit)

    Dr. R.L. Forward, author of AFRPL TR-83-067, does an in depth
    study of antiproton annihilation propulsion and the zero point 
    Casimir energy battery of the abelian gauge U(1) fiber quantum
    electrodynamic vacuum. However, he does not take into account the
    effect of the other basic nonabelian weak flavor and strong color
    gauge forces on vacuum structure. Consequently, some of his
    negative conclusions, based on the false assumption of a unique
    nondegenerate interacting quantum field vacuum, may well prove
    premature. (see Note below)

Well, I saw (Note below).  Aside from noticing that you hint at
faster-than-light drive a perfect defense against nukes, I did not
understand anything you said.

Would you mind explaining it for hoi polloi?  And telling when we can
have eternal life and non-fattening pecan pie?

_B

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

Date: 2 Dec 85 14:46:05 GMT
From: ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dave Newkirk)
Subject: Stages to Saturn #3
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

	Not everyone was happy about the escalating preeminence of
automation.  Many of Douglas's own people opposed the the ubiquitous
computer.  In fact," an automation expert at Douglas admitted, "the
company was surprised to find that its equipment took the automation
more readily than did its engineers."
	In the pre-Saturn days of rocket and missile operations, many
checkout procedures were performed manually and worked well with complex
vehicles like the Thor-Delta.  Douglas engineers used manual checkout
techniques for the earliest S-IV stages; pre-checkout, acceptance
firing, and post-checkout required a total of 1200 hours per stage.
Verteran `switch-flippers,' who for so long scanned gauges and dials,
flipping the right switch in a critical situation, had been vital links
in the overall loop.  They were now replaced by ranks of grey-enameled
computers.  For checkout procedures on the Saturn V third stage, the
S-IVB, fully automated techniques replaced the manual checkout for the
first time.  Although the magnitude of testing rose by 40 percent per
stage, the new automated systems reduced the checkout time to about 500
hours total.  H. E. Bauer clearly remembered the occasion when men and
the new machines first confronted each other.  "One seasoned switch
flipper came into the blockhouse after the equipment was installed; he
watched the blinking lights, the scanners, the recorders - everything
was working automatically, heaving out wide and endless runs of data
printouts..." The man balefully surveyed the mechanically throbbing
interloper and growled, "It's the Gray Puke!"  It was not an isolated
reaction.  As Bauer recalls, the ghastly name stuck and became part of
the permanent lexicon associated with the S-IVB stage.
From "Stages to Saturn - A Technological History of the Apollo/Saturn Launch
Vehicles", available from the Superindendant of Documents, U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402. Order NASA SP-4206, $12.00.
-- 
				Dave Newkirk, ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn

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

Date: 2 Dec 85 14:53:29 GMT
From: ihnp4!riccb!rjnoe@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Roger J. Noe)
Subject: Re: Re: Shuttle Articles in Discover Magazine
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> The fact that other countries are developing reusable vehicles in
> no way redeems NASA's failure; indeed, if the other countries are
> using lots of NASA's technology then NASA's failure to develop
> a better follow-on is even more damning.
Just a minute, here.  Where do you get off calling it NASA's failure?  They
have done remarkably well considering the miniscule budget Congress has given
them.  Are you a U.S. citizen and were you able to vote back in the very early
1970's?  If so, any "failure" that can be assessed is yours, not NASA's and
not even your congressional representatives'.  If you can vote in the U.S.
now, then any future "failure" will also be your responsibility.  If you never
have been extended the privilege of voting for this country's legislative and
executive positions and never will, then you have no basis whatsoever to
criticize this country's space program.
I'm all for a more economical shuttle AND a permanently manned station AND
a lunar base AND a manned mission to Mars, etc.  I'd be happy to allocate
ten per cent of my yearly income for these projects if it would help bring
them to fruition.  But until such an atmosphere of public opinion prevails
I think NASA is correct in pursuing the station and keeping the current
shuttle.
> It is eminently fair to criticize the shuttle on the basis of
> cost/pound to orbit.  Reducing this cost was the primary justification
> of the shuttle program!  Even if a later design works, the current
> shuttle is, by this criterion, a failure.
That's entirely incorrect.  Reducing the cost of reaching Earth orbit was
a primary MOTIVATION for the Space Transportation System program.  It was
never a justification, nor was it ever meant to be.  Had the original design
concepts (fully reusable) been adopted AND FUNDED we'd be much closer to this
goal than we are now.  Calling the present shuttle a failure even though a
future design will work better is like standing in front of the SR-71 and
saying that Orville and Wilbur Wright were incompetent boobs.  When it comes
to research and development, it can only be done in small steps unless you
have someone else's design to learn from.  The quantum leap from V-2 to
space transportation system could probably not have been achieved in anything
less than twenty years and that presumes one moves directly and consistently
toward STS during the entire two decades AND that there be sufficient funding
for such efforts.  Ground-breaking engineering is a very capital-intensive
undertaking.  It happens all too frequently that a project is made more
expensive rather than the reverse when engineers are denied the resources to
achieve what they have planned and are forced to scale it down.  I am not
suggesting for a moment that all engineering problems can be solved merely
by throwing enough money at them, but I do think it makes sense to commit
resources to R&D if one really wants to achieve something significant.
--
"It's only by NOT taking the human race seriously that I retain what
 fragments of my once considerable mental powers I still possess!"
	Roger Noe			ihnp4!riccb!rjnoe

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

Date: Mon, 2 Dec 85 08:11:03 pst
From: sdcsvax!sdcc3!loral!pavo@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (not_responsible_for_lost_or_stolen_items)
To: space@sdcc6.acc
Subject: Re: A High Tech Maginot Line
Newsgroups: net.space
In-Reply-To: <8512020718.AA15110@s1-b.arpa>
Cc: 

Your point is well taken, except for the fact that the Germans didn't
crash *through* the Maginot Line, they went around it by invading
neutral Belgium and out-flanking the defenses the French had built.
Apparently the designers hadn't considered that the Germans would
violate the neutrality of other nations.

		jim

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

End of SPACE Digest V6 #37
*******************


0,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA23607; Wed, 4 Dec 85 03:00:54 PST
	id AA23607; Wed, 4 Dec 85 03:00:54 PST
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 85 03:00:54 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8512041100.AA23607@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #38

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 6 : Issue 38

Today's Topics:
			Re: REAL Star Wars...
		     Re: A High Tech Maginot Line
		     Re: A High Tech Maginot Line
	      Re: Shuttle Articles in Discover Magazine
			space shuttle launches
			  parabolic mirrors
			   making parabolas
			 Shuttle sonic booms
		     NASA SHUTTLES: cost/pound?!
	      Re: Shuttle Articles in Discover Magazine
		    Comments on Mr Sarfatti's post
	  Re: Star-Wars/Space Telescopes (parabolic mirrors)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 3 Dec 85 05:01:12 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!harvard!bbnccv!bbncc5!jr@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (John Robinson)
Subject: Re: REAL Star Wars...
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <8511300112.AA08255@s1-b.arpa> dietz@SLB-DOLL.CSNET (Paul Dietz) writes:
...
>Orion-style ships could lift armored reentry vehicles and scads of
>decoys into space.  Even worse, such a ship could be lifted into
>a retrograde orbit where it could scatter large quantities of gravel.
>An effective ploy would be to scatter 1000 tonnes of 1 milligram
>tungsten particles (say) in retrograde equatorial orbits out to several
>earth radii.  Any satellite intersecting this disk would be hit within
>several months.  Near-earth space could be seeded much more heavily,
>rendering the shuttle useless.
Sounds kinda' like Saturn, no (except for the retrograde orbit)?
Could the rings be the last vestiges of a civilization that burned
itself up (or froze (or moved closer to the sun)) gigayears ago?
Might be a good SciFi theme.  (Maybe current Saturn formation theories
aren't going far enough :-)
/jr

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

Date: Tue, 3 Dec 85 07:32:43 PST
From: ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: ihnp4!space
Subject: Re: A High Tech Maginot Line
In-Reply-To: your article <8512020718.AA15110@s1-b.arpa>

The initial SDI plans are concerned with ICBM's using a layered defense.
The lowest layer (a kinetic kill weapon located near a potential target)
could destroy bombers, cruise missiles or warheads.  The higher layers
(in orbit) are aimed at the ICBM's themselves and the warheads.  Later
additions to SDI could include more advanced sensors and weapons to
track and kill cruise missiles & bombers at long range.  This could
also include a pop-up weapon (launched during an attack) that uses
x-ray lasers against sub-launched missiles, which are otherwise very
difficuly to catch since their flight time is so short.

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

Date: 2 Dec 85 19:09:53 GMT
From: cbosgd!cbdkc1!blb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  ( Ben Branch 3E293 CB x4790 WSB )
Subject: Re: A High Tech Maginot Line
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

I believe the Germans ran around the Maginot Line, which did not extend
along the Belgian border because the terrain was 'too rough' for the
Germans to attack there.
But the point about non-ICBM is well taken. Especially if you make
a cruise missile look like a private plane, as far as your space
defenses can tell.

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

Posted-Date: Tue 3 Dec 1985 09:21:35 EST
Date: Tue 3 Dec 1985 09:21:35 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Re: Shuttle Articles in Discover Magazine
To: Bernie Roehl <broehl%watdcsu%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Cc: space@mit-mc.arpa, dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
In-Reply-To: Bernie Roehl's message of Mon, 2 Dec 85 08:45:28 est

>>    In the long run, NASA
>>can't keep susidizing shuttle launches.  In an economic sense the
>>shuttle *doesn't* work.  Spending money to do it again -- and do it
>>*right* -- makes more sense than pouring money down the current rathole.

>Only if the savings (i.e. the difference in operating expenses) is
>greater than the development cost, which is unlikely.

NASA is going to spend $1.3 billion next year on shuttle launches
(that's after commercial fees have been paid).  In the long run,
wouldn't we be better off if NASA had spent that money on R&D?
As more shuttle flights are scheduled and the competition improves
these numbers may well get worse.

>  We've barely started using the ones we have, coming up with
>a new fleet that may have slightly better economics would not go over
>well it this point.  In any case, you won't get a factor of 10 reduction
>with an improved shuttle design; we're talking a totally different kind
>of vehicle.  Probably single stage to orbit, quite possibly vertical launch/
>vertical landing, low maintenance, 48 hour turnaround.

Recall, though, that the shuttle originally promised a to-orbit
cost of $100/lb which (taking into account inflation) is around 10x
cheaper than what it currently costs.  By "doing it right" I mean living
up to these original promises.

Your argument points out a drawback of reusable spacecraft: once you
build one, you're stuck with it.  NASA was expecting much heavier
traffic than they've been able to sustain, and, as a result, is
stuck with the shuttle for years to come.

Developing a better launcher with slightly improved economics will not
go over well with NASA.  But what about the europeans?  They'll be
grabbing NASA's market share, so they'll be quite willing to invest
the money.

>>But why should one want to integrate manned and unmanned space travel?

>For the same reason we don't have unmanned cargo planes (or trains, or ships).
>It makes good sense to have people there in case something goes wrong (which
>is, if anything, *more* likely in a complex activity like spaceflight than
>in rail transport).

The cargo plane analogy is bogus.  The economics of air & sea transport
are completely different from that of space transport, where reducing
mass is the primary concern.

At least in the satellite launch business, it makes little sense to
lift people into orbit along with the cargo.  The proper response is
to make the hardware sufficiently reliable that it doesn't need costly
human supervision.

>>...then NASA's failure to develop
>>a better follow-on is even more damning.

>Spending billions of dollars to develop that follow-on after just a few
>years of using the first-generation shuttle would be a silly waste of
>hard-to-get funding.

Developing the current shuttle was a silly waste of hard-to-get funding.
(I'll be charitable; it was a learning experience.)  Pouring billions
of dollars into subsidizing it would be even more tragic.  Developing a
better follow-on would at least bring us closer to the day space can be
economically exploited.

Note that I'm not suggesting mothballing the shuttles immediately.
They're all we've got now, given that we can't make Saturns anymore.
But fear of congressional retribution should not serve to stifle
criticism of NASA's mistakes (Congress will find out anyway).

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

Date:    3-Dec-1985 11.59.41. EST
From: WELCH%UMASS.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
To: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
Subject: space shuttle launches

Hello:

   I'm trying to find out the launch schedule for the Space Shuttle
through next summer.  Would you know it or someone's name I
could ask for it?

             Thank you,

                 Jonathan Welch (Welch@UMass.Bitnet)

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

Date: 3 Dec 85 15:52:04 EST
From: Michael.Peshkin@fas.ri.cmu.edu
Subject: parabolic mirrors
To: BBoard.Maintainer@a.cs.cmu.edu

> Soap bubbles are certainly spherical, even when they sit on circular wire
> frames.  The force on each piece of the surface is equal to the pressure
> (times the area of the piece) and oriented perpendicular to that piece.  If
> on each piece of a string you put a force (proportional to the length of the
> piece) perpendicular to that piece of string, the string would form a
> circle.  THAT is the correct analogy.  (Ken Rimey)

Soap bubbles and plastic membranes do not form the same shape.  With films
that can flow, we have potential energy proportional to area, and therefore
force independent of stretch.  Inflated on a circular rim, they form a part
of the shape that minimizes area: a sphere.

Plastic membranes may have an arbitrary relation of force to stretch.  By
inflating a uniform flat membrane on a circular rim, you will not get part
of a sphere.  Mirrors made this way approximate spheres (and parabolas)
because they are such a small fraction of a whole sphere.  

The string analogy fails because in 2d stretch of the medium is essential.
String (1d) needn't stretch to move, but an initially flat plastic
membrane on a circular rim must stretch or it will remain planar.  In soap
films, force is independent of stretch so stretch is irrelevant.  

When stretch is relevant, the initial shape of the membrane is relevant.
There are toy balloons which inflate to long thin shapes, even though the
rubber is uniform in thickness over almost the whole surface.

If anyone can calculate the shape of an initially flat membrane inflated on a
circular rim,  for a simple relation of energy to area (say E=(A-Ao)**2),  I
would like to hear of it.

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

Date: Tue 3 Dec 85 21:04:08-EST
From: FIRTH@tl-20b.arpa
Subject: making parabolas
To: space@s1-b.arpa

Don Barry is correct.

If a film with adequate surface tension is rotated and subjected to
a pressure difference, it deforms into a surface that is a paraboloid
of revolution.  Of course, if the surface tension is inadequate, you
get a disgusting blow-out.

Alas, I don't think this is going to work in near-Earth orbit: the
basic frame of reference is not inertial, being subjected to either
a gravity gradient (radial to the planet) or Coriolis forces (tangential
to it), and my back-of-the-VDU-screen calculation says that this is enough
to cause a significant distortion.

Robert Firth
-------

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

Date:           Tue, 3 Dec 85 18:07:23 PST
From: Jordan Brown <bilbo.jbrown@locus.ucla.edu>
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject:        Shuttle sonic booms

Why are there two sonic booms from the shuttle?  (I'm told it goes "boom-boom"
when it flies over before landing)

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

Date: 3 Dec 85 21:02:25 GMT
From: decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-oblio!earle@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Mr. SPPR)
Subject: NASA SHUTTLES: cost/pound?!
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

I believe that misrepresentation of statistics is being thrown around again as
usual.  The so-called bottom-line tactic that some people use is to me a useless
way of analyzing alot of situations.  The truth is the most everything that man
does, builds, or buys is not really necessary.  If you want to live like a cat,
than all we need to do is eat, sleep, and gather food.  I for one do not believe
that this is all we are good for.  It is always easier in hindsight to see that
certain objectives will not be met.  The cost/pound of putting something up in 
space is not what the shuttle was designed for.  I think that ANYONE WITH COMMON
SENSE can figure out that if you want to put something somewhere (in this case a
satellite) don't throw all of the huge amounts of manpower, thoughtpower, and 
money (READ: manpower+thoughtpower*10) at the problem as in the case of the
shuttle.  That is ONE use for it.  Some people are really silly sometimes if 
they think that 30-40 years from now (or longer) all we will be doing with the 
thing is putting people up there like mechanics!  There are alot of uses for 
the shuttle as a whole and in the technology (READ: THINGS LEARNED) that built
than in the cost/pound of putting a satellite up. 
This goes for any of the other ONE only uses for the shuttle.  Don't think that:
- fiber optics will destroy the shuttle because there won't be a need for sat.;
come on, if that's true, they will call this the wire planet in the future.
What about cellular telephones?  Maybe will should have a wire coming out of 
the top of our cars like in the bumper-cars at an amusement park!? 
- All manufacturing that can be done in space can be done on earth.  Do those
people really belive that the environment is the same on earth as it is in 
space?  Then how can that argument be made?
-We (speaking internationally now) will find uses for the 'space-plane' as I 
call it in the future that we haven't thought of yet.  
So in the future I hope some will not try to settle mans' uses for things in 
one swoop of the bottom-line in today's terms -- tomorrow's terms maybe called
the bottom-curve.  ;-)
						George Earle
						Digital Equip. Corp
						DECVAX!DECWRL!RHEA!OBLIO!EARLE
disclaimer...disclaimer...disclaimer...

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

Posted-Date: Tue 3 Dec 1985 18:41:08 EST
Date: Tue 3 Dec 1985 18:41:08 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Re: Shuttle Articles in Discover Magazine
To: Bernie Roehl <broehl%watdcsu%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Cc: space@mit-mc.arpa, dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
In-Reply-To: Bernie Roehl's message of Tue, 3 Dec 85 17:21:10 est

I see no evidence that launching people with a satellite increases
the launch reliability.  If anything, it decreases reliability, because
we've inserted another stage (the low-orbit to high orbit transfer)
into the launch process.  It is at this stage that three failures
have occured (the two PAM failures and the IUS failure with the TDRS
satellite).  The Ariane launches directly to geosynchronous altitude
(admittedly, the Ariane has more stages than the shuttle, and can
be criticized on that count).

Note also that no shuttle flight has managed to repair or recover
a broken satellite that was launched on the same mission.

>>At least in the satellite launch business, it makes little sense to
>>lift people into orbit along with the cargo.  The proper response is
>>to make the hardware sufficiently reliable that it doesn't need costly
>>human supervision.

>This can easily be as costly as sending humans along.  *Reliable* hardware
>is expensive; that's why Shuttle costs so much, and why Ariane's so cheap.

There is a difference between the reliability needed for carrying people
and the reliability needed for economic launchers.  For example,
launching a $100 million satellite on a booster with a 5% chance of
catastrophic failure is acceptable; the insurance costs will be a small
fraction of launch costs.  Launching people in such a booster is
clearly unacceptable.  The shuttle needs to be much more reliable than
expendable boosters, and it costs.  The question here is: does it make
sense to make the booster more reliable so that you can make the PAM
motor less reliable?  Not likely, given that the booster costs
orders of magnitude more than the PAM motor (assuming that the unmanned
system would even HAVE a PAM motor).  Also, using the shuttle to
launch high-energy upper stages using LH/LOX fuel is causing
big headaches.  The Centaur upper stage used with Gallileo is
having safety problems and may delay that mission for a while.

>>Developing the current shuttle was a silly waste of hard-to-get funding.

>Not at the time the decision was made.  There was a serious danger there
>would be no space program as such at all, just a bunch of Atlas and Titan
>boosters kicking communications satellites into orbit.  The shuttle changed
>all that, and instead of no spaceflight we have spaceflight that's so
>routine it's not even newsworthy anymore.

Now the truth comes out.  Could it be that the purpose of the shuttle
was not to provide cheap transport into orbit, but rather to allow NASA
(aka "the space program") to continue to exist?  That putting people
into space was taken as given and a justification was invented for
doing so?  This is not necessarily bad, if the money would otherwise
have gone to some worthy cause like propping up the price of butter.
But... I suspect that if the shuttle hadn't been developed the aerospace
companies would have gone to work improving their expendable boosters,
much as the europeans did.  As it happened, they didn't, because NASA
was supposed to produce a fantastically cheap launcher that would make
any such expendable booster uneconomical, and working on the shuttle
was a risk-free source of money.

  ---

An aside: an article in Business Week (12/9/85, page 124) talks
about the DOD and their shuttle facility at Vandenburg.  It contains
the paragraph:

  "Operation of manned space-launch facilities at Vandenburg
  will add only $400 million to the military's $15 billion space
  budget next year.  But Congress may have to increase that figure
  considerably in 1987 and beyond because of plans to replace the
  present space shuttle.  The next-generation spacecraft will be
  designed to take off from an airport rather than from a rocket
  pad.  This will reduce waiting time between launches and cut their
  cost in half."

DOD apparently isn't constrained to justify the shuttle.  In fact, there
have been reports (in Science last year, for example) that
the DOD was concerned about the shuttle's poor reliability and
potential for catastrophic failure, and wanted to develop an interim
expendable booster (NASA was horrified; I don't know if the idea has
died).

The military is the biggest customer for low altitude satellites --
weather and spy satellites -- for which the shuttle is suited.
This is probably the biggest market for satellite repair the shuttle
can service, or, rather, will be once the shuttle is able to reach
polar orbit.

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

Date: Tue 3 Dec 85 22:28:33-EST
From: FIRTH@tl-20b.arpa
Subject: Comments on Mr Sarfatti's post
To: space@s1-b.arpa

[Moderator - feel free to condense, edit, discard, &c]

Some brief comments on Mr Sarfatti's message:

(1) please could we have some references?  His text was highly condensed.


(2) "	Fiber bundles generalize the Cartesian product 
	of linear spaces to include global twists. For example,
	a cylinder is the Cartesian product of a circle base
	space with an untwisted line segment fiber.  But, the
	nonorientable Mobius strip has the same base space and
	the same fiber with a global twist. "

    When I follow these instructions, I get a cross-cap, not a
    Moebius strip.  Have I goofed?


(3) "	Thus, physics is geometrodynamical fulfilling Einstein's Vision. "

    Sorry, I don't understand this.  Einstein envisaged a single tensor
    equation that would comprehend all the basic interaction forces.
    The theory proposed here seems to make each force a special case,
    described by a particular gauge transformation.

(4) "	The electromagnetic U(1)spherical S(1) fibered vacuum is only the 
	first approximation to the real vacuum...

	The second approximation would be the nonabelian U(1)xSU(2) 
	electroweak gauge bundle [S(1)xS(2) spherical fiber] ... "

    But, as Dirac pointed out [PAM Dirac, Principles of Quantum Mecahnics,
    4th Ed, Oxford, MCMLVIII], these models lead to divergent integrals
    for the vacuum state.  It is therefore hardly fair to call them
    "approximations" - they are fundamentally defective.

(5) "	Supergravity is the local gauge force induced by supersymmetry that 
	causes fermion/boson transitions which were previously thought to be 
	impossible because of a superselection rule. Two supersymmetry
	transformations yield a translation in space-time. This may lead
	to some sort of hyperdrive. "

    But the Boson -> Fermion transition seems irreversible.  If so, then
    the translation is impossible, and (alas) no hyperdrive that way.

(5) "	Stimulated beta decay, if it can be induced, would be a new
	alternate propulsion energy source "

    Yes. Basically, if we can convert matter into antimatter, then we
    can build a total conversion energy source, by converting half the
    matter, and letting the other half annihilate it.  (Containing such
    a reaction is merely a matter of engineering!).  Unfortunately, it
    seems today that you can stimulate beta decay only by energising the
    particle by substantially more than its rest mass, ie you have to put
    more energy into the thing than you get out.

(6) "	First order vacuum to vacuum phase transitions triggered by an 
	external magnetic field from a space-based superconducting magnet
	might provide an alternate SDI space weapon and propulsion energy
	source suitable for interstellar voyages. "

    Please don't!  The magnetic flux required to render the vacuum unstable
    is rather inconveniently large - enough to rip apart any ordinary matter.
    (I calculate ~10**28 Gauss but may, as ever, have goofed)

(7) "	There are closed forms that are not exact and cycles that are
	not boundaries. "

    I don't know enough to dispute this.  But, if it's true, then
    Caratheodory's Principle fails, and almost all of thermodynamics
    collapses.  In particular, if the thermodynamic equation of state
    is not an integrable Pfaffian, then even the First Law cannot be
    proved: a fluid mass could be partitioned into two parts, with
    greater aggregate thermal energy than the combination.

(8) "	Wick rotations change the signature of the space-time metric from 
	hyperbolic to elliptic. Indeed, my studies of the Dirac equation
	suggest not only bradyon and tachyon free particle spinor solutions
	inside and outside the light cone, respectively, but also, as noted
	above, "Wickyon" solutions that quantum tunnel through the light
	cone from subluminal to superluminal speed with a finite expenditure
	of energy. "

    They aren't rotations, but reflections of the wave functions in the
    light cone, ie in the plane x=ct.  Naturally, this transforms space-
    like into time-like coordinates, and subluminal into supraluminal
    particles.  The basic form of the space-time substrate remains the
    same, but of course if you change the axes, then an ellipse (closed
    along the time axis) becomes an hyperbola (open along the space axis)
    Unless I've missed something, this is not useful.

    References would be VERY helpful here, since I'm not aware of any
    particle that can spontaneously tunnel through the light cone.
    There are cases where subluminal and supraluminal particles are
    correlated (eg after muon-nutrino decay). 

(9) "	Aspect's Paris experiment shows the reality of nonlocal photon spin-
	spin quantum correlations over faster than light space-like
	separations between the detections of photons emitted in a
	double quantum jump. "

    Not a fair presentation.  The experiment shows, that if one of two
    correlated photons is perturbed, the other changes state in a manner
    that implies awareness of the perturbation.  To an external observer,
    the photons may be some distance apart.  But to an observer on one of
    the photons, they are still in contact (Lorentz equation), and so it
    is not anomalous that one should affect the other.

------

Robert Firth

-------

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

Date: 3 Dec 85 22:43:01 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!rochester!stuart@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Star-Wars/Space Telescopes (parabolic mirrors)
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

From: Stuart Friedberg  <stuart>
References: <384@ukc.UUCP> <26@sbcs.UUCP> <1124@gitpyr.UUCP>, <11128@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
  There seem to be at least two differing interpretations of the
original article.  My interpretation is that a disk of film is attached
to a fixed, rigid ring, and then more pressure is applied on one side
than the other.  This yields a caternary, not a spherical section.  The
critical difference between this and the soap bubble interpretation
(which leads to spherical sections) is that the edge of the disk is
FIXED and can not move.
  If you take a soap bubble, draw a circle on its surface and change
the internal pressure, the circle will shrink or grow.  Moreover,
every circle you can draw on the surface of the sphere will change by
the same proportion.
  If you take the anchored disk and change the pressure on one side,
the rim is FIXED, and circles drawn at different distances from the
rim will change by different proportions.
  By referring to the original article, it should be clear what the
proposed situation was.  In any case, unless additional forces
(rotations) are placed on the disk, the surface will be neither
spherical, nor parabolic as originally conjectured, but hyperbolic
(a 3-D caternary surface).
Stu Friedberg  {seismo, allegra}!rochester!stuart  stuart@rochester

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

End of SPACE Digest V6 #38
*******************


0,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA26988; Thu, 5 Dec 85 03:00:55 PST
	id AA26988; Thu, 5 Dec 85 03:00:55 PST
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 85 03:00:55 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8512051100.AA26988@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #39

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 6 : Issue 39

Today's Topics:
		     NASA SHUTTLES: cost/pound?!
			    SETI Evidence?
	  Vacuum instabilities, gauge theories, interstellar
		       Re:  Shuttle sonic booms
		       Re: SPACE Digest V6 #38
			   Automated craft
		 Re: Space Station from Shuttle Tanks
		 Re: Space Station from Shuttle Tank
		    Re: Re: Shuttle external tanks
		       Re: SPACE Digest V6 #38
		      Re: space shuttle launches
		       Re: Shuttle sonic booms
		Re: NASA SHUTTLES: cost/pound & etc...
		   Shuttle reliability for Comsats
		   Beggs in jail for next 25 years?
			     Re: spinoffs
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted-Date: Wed 4 Dec 1985 08:04:23 EST
Date: Wed 4 Dec 1985 08:04:23 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: NASA SHUTTLES: cost/pound?!
To: "Mr. SPPR" <decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-oblio!earle@ucbvax.berkeley.edu>
Cc: space@mit-mc.arpa, dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
In-Reply-To: decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-oblio!earle's message of 3 Dec 85 21:02:25 GMT

The shuttle was sold as a way to get mass into orbit cheaply.  Getting
mass into orbit cheaply is the single most important capability needed
for exploiting space.  The shuttle has failed to provide this
capability.  Because we don't have this capability, a lot of worthwhile
space activities (powersats, lunar colonies, etc.) will be delayed.

> fiber optics will destroy the shuttle because there won't be a need
> for sat.;
> come on, if that's true, they will call this the wire planet in the future.
> What about cellular telephones?  Maybe will should have a wire coming out of 
> the top of our cars like in the bumper-cars at an amusement park!? 

Cellular phones do not use satellites -- they use lots of ground based
tranceivers arranged in a tesselation pattern, connected by
cables or microwave links.  Satellite based cellular radio might
make sense in very sparse market areas, but (as far as I know)
no one has built such a system.

I think there's a good chance that fiber optics will take over the
trans-atlantic point-to-point communications market.  Fiber optic
technology is getting cheaper a lot faster than satellites, and is
already competitive.  Satellites will probably remain as broadcast
stations and for mobile communications, and for point-to-point
communication in sparse markets (3rd world countries).

At any rate, the market projections that NASA made to justify the
shuttle are not true, in part because of the replacement of satellites
by fiber optics.

> - All manufacturing that can be done in space can be done on earth.  Do those
> people really belive that the environment is the same on earth as it is in 
> space?  Then how can that argument be made?

I didn't say that.  I said I had yet to see evidence that there was
anything that could be manufactured in large quantities in space more
cheaply than it could be on the ground (and for which there is large
market on the ground, and for which the shuttle & space station are
sufficient).

> -We (speaking internationally now) will find uses for the 'space-plane' as I 
> call it in the future that we haven't thought of yet.  

This is more a statement of faith than a justification for the shuttle.

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

Posted-Date: Wed 4 Dec 1985 09:18:14 EST
Date: Wed 4 Dec 1985 09:18:14 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: SETI Evidence?
To: space@mit-mc.arpa
Cc: dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa

Recently, astronomers have discovered bizarre large scale structure
in radio emissions around the galactic nucleus.  Using the Very Large
Array (VLA) in New Mexico, astronomers have found large arcs of radio
emission, apparently indicating interstellar magnetic fields of
around 1E-4 gauss.  They guess these fields are generated by
dynamo-action in hot gas near the galactic center, perhaps around
a black hole.

Most unexpected, however, was the discovery of dim, smooth, gently
curved lines of emission called "threads".  These threads extend
from the galactic nucleus about 30 parsecs and are less than 0.5 parsecs
wide.  Astronomers have apparently not yet explained their existence.
They appear to be too regular to be shock fronts, there is no evidence
for a source if they are jets of matter, and, because they curve
away from the core, they are probably not the tracks of natural objects
(stars thrown out of a tight cluster, for example).  (See Science, Vol.
230, pages 652-653, Nov. 8, 1985).

Freeman Dyson ("Interstellar Propulsion Systems", in "Extraterrestrials:
Where Are They?", M. Hart and B. Zuckerman, Eds., Pergamon Press, 1982)
has suggested that interstellar spacecraft might slow down by
transferring energy to the interstellar plasma by Alfven drag.  As Dyson
says:

  "If it turns out that interstellar braking systems are feasible,
  then we have a new way to look for evidence of extraterrestrial
  intelligence.  Look for skid marks on the road!  A vehicle braking
  from high velocity will leave behind it a long straight tail
  of hot plasma which should be a source of persistent broad-band
  radio emission.  Radio astronomers interested in CETI should be on the
  look-out for straight tracks of glowing plasma in the sky."

Engaging in unbridled speculation, I'll hypothesize the threads are
skid marks of ET spacecraft.  The galactic core is a good place to brake
because the gas is dense and because the interstellar magnetic
field is strong  (Alfven drag being proportional to the square
of the local magnetic field).  The vehicles may be intergalactic
spacecraft, slowing down after entering this galaxy at near light speed
(after having been accelerated using a laser-propelled light sail,
say).  Alternately, perhaps the galactic core has a lot of interstellar
traffic and we're seeing some of it (maybe Bussard ramjets or
ram-augmented interstellar rockets are more feasible in the core,
and we're seeing their wakes.)

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

Date:  Wed, 4 Dec 85 09:49 EST
From: Jong@his-billerica-multics.arpa
Subject:  Vacuum instabilities, gauge theories, interstellar
          propulsion, and SDI
To: SPACE@mit-mc.arpa

I always dreamed that if I could invent faster-than-light drive,
I could immediately turn it to the problem of strategic defense.
Sounds like television-mentality science fiction to me, this
application, like Superman appearing and using his powers to
rescue kittens from trees.

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

Date: Wed, 4 Dec 85 08:57:21 pst
From: David Smith <dsmith@hplabsc>
To: space%s1-b@csnet-relay.arpa
Subject: Re:  Shuttle sonic booms
Cc: dsmith@hplabs.arpa

> Why are there two sonic booms from the shuttle?  (I'm told it goes "boom-boom"
> when it flies over before landing)

The shock waves from various protuberances coalesce (for reasons unknown
to me) around the bow and tail shocks.  As the bow shock passes the
observer, air pressure rises sharply.  Between bow and tail shocks, pressure
falls to below ambient.  The tail shock raises pressure sharply back to
ambient.  The two sharp pressure rises are heard as the two booms.  All
supersonic craft drag along an N-shaped wave heard as two booms.  How
well your ears can resolve them depends on the length and speed of the craft.
The shuttle is long, and as it approaches Edwards, it is slowing through Mach 1.

I have heard the shuttle's twin booms on the TV;  I have also heard twin
booms from aircraft I couldn't see in the vicinity of Beale AFB (home of
the SR-71).  The latter produced much more closely spaced booms.

			David Smith
			ucbvax!hplabs!dsmith

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

Date:           Wed, 4 Dec 85 10:22:25 PST
From: "Niket K. Patwardhan" <bilbo.niket@locus.ucla.edu>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Cc: ota@s1-b.arpa, FIRTH@tl-20b.arpa
Subject:        Re: SPACE Digest V6 #38
In-Reply-To:    Message of Wed, 4 Dec 85 03:13:03 PST
                    from "Ted Anderson <ota@s1-b.arpa>"
                    <8512041113.AA23781@s1-b.arpa>

>(9) "	Aspect's Paris experiment shows the reality of nonlocal photon spin-
>	spin quantum correlations over faster than light space-like
>	separations between the detections of photons emitted in a
>	double quantum jump. "
>
>    Not a fair presentation.  The experiment shows, that if one of two
>    correlated photons is perturbed, the other changes state in a manner
>    that implies awareness of the perturbation.  To an external observer,
>    the photons may be some distance apart.  But to an observer on one of
>    the photons, they are still in contact (Lorentz equation), and so it
>    is not anomalous that one should affect the other.
>
The original message to which this was a reply to, was pure gobbledygook to me.
(I thought it was a joke!) But.... since enough people seem to have taken it
seriously.... does the above mean that INFORMATION can be transmitted
instantaneously? I couldn't care less what the observers on the photons would
think, the external observer would see an instantaneous transmission of
information.

I like the explanation though... it has a nice satisfying feeling to it.

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

Date:     Wed, 4 Dec 85 13:57:53 CST
From: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI <wmartin@almsa-1.arpa>
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject:  Automated craft

>>But why should one want to integrate manned and unmanned space travel?
>For the same reason we don't have unmanned cargo planes (or trains, or ships).
>It makes good sense to have people there in case something goes wrong (which
>is, if anything, *more* likely in a complex activity like spaceflight than
>in rail transport).

I realize that this is straying quite far off the subject, but the above
comment brought something to mind, and I wonder if anyone else recalls
details about this: I have a vague recollection of a plan for automated
and unmanned ocean-going *sailing* ships to haul bulk cargo which has no
requirement for speedy delivery or is in any way perishable (like ore or
raw materials, for example).

These would use a variety of sensors to feed data to the automated
controller, and high-tech sail designs (like rotor types or other
advanced concepts) to provide a method of moving quantities of material
at very low per-ton cost, there being no fuel expense or sailors' wages
to pay. I believe I saw drawings of proposed configurations and some
brief description, but nothing more. Does anyone else recall this
concept? Anyone have any info on further research or development being
done for this, or was it a pipe dream that got no farther than a blurb in
Popular Science or the like?

As far as the safety hazards of such an unmanned device, I don't recall
seeing any discussion of that aspect. There would be some, of course,
but one would think that radio-controlled overrides or shut-offs and the
like would reduce the risks to an acceptable level. (Of course, the
controlling computer could always go mad and try to rule the world... 
Where have I seen *that* script before? :-)

Though this certainly isn't "space" per se, it is the same sort of
high-tech concept discussed by those interested in space, and the
problems of designing such an independent automaton are related to those
of working with planetary exploration robots and the like. And there
isn't any other ARPA group that would be better for discussing this.
(USENETters can forward copies to net.rec.boat if they want. :-)

Will Martin

ARPA/MILNET: wmartin@almsa-1.ARPA     USENET: seismo!brl-bmd!wmartin

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

Date: 2 Dec 85 22:49:06 GMT
From: cbosgd!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Space Station from Shuttle Tanks
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> As I understand it, detailed studies by NASA have shown that it's not
> simple to turn an external tank into a space station.  A space station
> is just too complicated (with wiring, electronics, temperature control &
> ventilation, etc.) to make in orbit at this time (except by simple
> assembly of prefab modules).
One possibility would be to revive the original Skylab "wet workshop"
concept.  Pre-install as much of the equipment as will stand being soaked
in liquid hydrogen for a while.	 On reaching orbit, vent the tank to space
for a while to clear out the hydrogen, and move in.  This concept hit some
snags during Skylab development, and was eventually abandoned, but Wernher
von Braun (for one) thought that the "wet workshop" approach could have
been made to work with a little more effort.  When it became clear that
there were going to be spare Saturn Vs around at the end of Apollo, the
"dry workshop" alternative became feasible, and the incentive for solving
the "wet workshop"'s problems went away.  Some features of Skylab, like the
metal-grid floors, were holdovers from the earlier concept.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

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

Date: 2 Dec 85 21:49:00 GMT
From: pur-ee!uiucdcsb!carroll@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Space Station from Shuttle Tank
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

It continues to be unbelievable to me that serious efforts are not being
made to put the ET's into orbit to be used at some later date. You could
almost build the space station out of them! They are already air-tight,
you just need an airlock.

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

Date: 2 Dec 85 22:56:31 GMT
From: cbosgd!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Re: Shuttle external tanks
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> ...[fitting out a tank as a space station means] installing and checking
> out your equipment. Contrast this with sending up space station modules pre-
> configured and checked out on the ground.
Don't forget that checking things out on the ground means major expenses
in "system integration" to make sure that things will stay in that state
throughout launch.  I believe the "Leasecraft" commercial platform project
concluded that it was simpler and cheaper, overall, to plug the thing
together in orbit, rather than doing it on the ground and then having to
make very, very sure that it would stay plugged together through a rough
and noisy launch.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

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

Date: Wed 4 Dec 85 21:16:02-EST
From: FIRTH@tl-20b.arpa
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V6 #38
To: bilbo.niket@locus.ucla.edu
Cc: Space@s1-b.arpa, ota@s1-b.arpa
In-Reply-To: Message from ""Niket K. Patwardhan" <bilbo.niket@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU>" of Wed 4 Dec 85 13:32:16-EST

Well, I'm also not sure how much of the original post was a joke,
but decided to say something about the parts that seem to make sense.

The simplest experiment that illustrates the "instantaneous action"
problem is the Wu experiment:

Take a source of photon pairs, eg an electron/positron annihilation.
This emits two photons in opposite directions (conservation of
momentum), and orthogonally polarised.  Now put a polarising filter in
the path of one of the streams of photons.  Of course, half get through.
Do the same for the other stream - again, half get through.

Now try this: what fraction of PAIRS get through BOTH filters?  (You
detect that a pair gets through because your two detectors ping at the
same time).  Well, if the photons were randomly polarised, the probabilities
multipl;y, and the answer would be 1/4.  Since they are orthogonally
polarised (correlated), the calculation is a bit harder, and comes to

	filters parallel: 1/8
	filters perpendicular: 3/8

all by good classical probability theory.  Now try the experiment.  The
result is

	filters parallel: 0
	filters perpendicular: 1/2

One explanation is this: the photons are not only initially correlated bu
remain correlated.  If one is perturbed by a filter (eg has its direction
of polarisation rotated) then the other changes ITS direction of polarisation
to remain orthogonal.  The photons are coupled.

Now put the filters, and detectors, VERY far apart (eg one in Pittsburgh and
the other in the Imperial library on Trantor).  We have no reason to suppose
we won't see the same result: the photons are still correlated.  So, in the
old, particle way of thinking, photon A (in Pittsburgh) has just got through
the filter and says "Hey, sister on Trantor, you better rotate left pi/8 to
stay orthogonal!".

The assumption that the photons become uncorrelated when they are some distance
apart is the assumption of "locality" (incidentally, one of the key assumptions
in the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen thought experiment), and experiments such as
the above lead one to suspect that this assumption is not always true.

Well, you could say that something - even if only a perturbation in a wave
function - "travels faster than light", though I find that model unhelpful.
But, as far as I know, nobody has been able to imagine a device that would use
this effect to send specific SIGNALS faster than light.

Robert Firth

PS: should you care, I happen to believe it IS possible to move information
faster than light, we just haven't found out how, because our model of reality
is defective.
-------

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

Date: 4 Dec 85 14:20:53 GMT
From: ihnp4!ihopa!riccb!rjnoe@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Roger J. Noe)
Subject: Re: space shuttle launches
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>    I'm trying to find out the launch schedule for the Space Shuttle
> through next summer.
>                  Jonathan Welch (Welch@UMass.Bitnet)
Extremely subject to change, here's what I've got.  If anyone else knows
different, I'd like to hear about it.
mission 24/61-C		12/18/85 (launch date)
mission 25/51-L		01/20/86
mission 26/61-E		03/06/86
mission 27/61-F		05/15/86 (Ulysses)
mission 28/61-G		05/21/86 (Galileo)
mission 29/61-H		06/??/86
mission 30/61-M		07/??/86
mission 31/62-A		07/??/86 (Polar orbit, VAFB launch, Teal Ruby)
mission 32/61-J		08/08/86 (Hubble telescope)
Note that it becomes pretty unpredictable as to order of missions once 62-A
creeps in there.  The current delay at Vandenberg is for further testing of
cryogenic fuel handling systems.  They want to be VERY sure things are working
properly with all that liquid hydrogen, oxygen, hydrazine and N2O4 they've
got to handle for a shuttle launch.
--
Roger Noe			ihnp4!riccb!rjnoe

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

Date: 4 Dec 85 16:22:57 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!cvl!umd5!don@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Shuttle sonic booms
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> Why are there two sonic booms from the shuttle?  (I'm told it goes "boom-boom"
> when it flies over before landing)
One shock wave from the nose of the craft, and one from the tail.
See the latest issue of Discover about hypersonic aircraft for some
excellent illustrations of shock cones.
-- 
--==---==---==--
"What happened ?"
"It seems the occipital area of my head impacted with the arm of the chair."
"No, I mean, what happened to us ?"
"That has yet to be surmised."
  ARPA: don@umd5.ARPA   BITNET: don%umd5@umd2
SPOKEN: Chris Sylvain
  UUCP: { {allegra, seismo}!umcp-cs, ihnp4!rlgvax } ...!cvl!umd5!don

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

Date: 4 Dec 85 15:45:07 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!ut-dillo!clyde@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Head UNIX slave)
Subject: Re: NASA SHUTTLES: cost/pound & etc...
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Come on now, the real worth of the Shuttle is that it keeps man in space!
The future of humanity in space is NOT in communications and spook
satellites, it is being out there ourselves, and that is what the Shuttle
does for us.
This reminds me of the narrow-mindedmess I saw after the Apollo project when
the Congress (led by Proxmire and Mondale) were trying to shut NASA down, and
much of the anti-space station noise I hear.  It is unfortunate that the
exploration of space must be 'justified' in economic terms here in the West.
The Soviet Union needs no such excuses, and so has already had several
versions of a 'space station' orbiting and has done a lot of planetary 
exploration.
As long as there are idiots who would rather spend money on
dairy price supports than on exploring the universe, the latter will
always have to justify itself in terms of the former, and will not always
succeed.
The Shuttle may not the best way to get what is needed done, but that is what
we have (and we are lucky to have gotten it).  The chances of NASA prying
any money loose for the next generation of Shuttle (or whatever) are pretty
grim, so we will be 'stuck' with Columbia, et al. for the forseeable future.
-- 
Shouter-To-Dead-Parrots @ Univ. of Texas Computation Center; Austin, Texas  
"All life is a blur of Republicans and meat." -Zippy the Pinhead
	clyde@ngp.UTEXAS.EDU, clyde@sally.UTEXAS.EDU
	...!ihnp4!ut-ngp!clyde, ...!allegra!ut-ngp!clyde

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

Date:  5 DEC 1985 0208 EST
From: BRUC@mit-mc.arpa   (Robert E. Bruccoleri)
Subject: Shuttle reliability for Comsats
To: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS@mit-mc.arpa

Although it is a small point, no communication satellite launched by the
shuttle has ever been destroyed or irretrievably lost. To recount, the TDRS
made to its station by consuming most of its reserve fuel after the second
stage of the IUS failed, the two satellites stranded by PAM failures
were recovered, and the Hughes Leasat was repaired and made its way to
geosynchronous orbit.

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

X-Sent: to SU-AI.ARPA by IMSSS.FRONSTAD.EDU via ETHERNET with PUPFTP; 1985-Dec-04 23:41:14 PST (=GMT-8hr)
X-Mailer: EMACS -> PSL (FORMAT+SEND-ALL) -> PUPFTP
Date: 1985 December 03 03:07:28 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM@imsss.stanford.edu>
To: SPACE@mit-mc.arpa
Subject: Beggs in jail for next 25 years?
Sender: REM%IMSSS@su-score.arpa (for undeliverable-mail notifications)
Reply-To: REM@MIT-MC.ARPA

What is going to happen if NASA chief Beggs is convicted of falsifying
accounting on government contracts in order to cover a cost overrun, and gets
sent to jail for 25 years?

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

Date: 29 Nov 85 16:30:49 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!hao!ames!eugene@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Eugene Miya)
Subject: Re: spinoffs
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> >I am skeptical.  There is not one product yet identified that is a good
> >bet for large scale space manufacturing.  
>  
> Powersats.  How much is ten gigawatts of installed electrical capacity 
> worth today?
> . . .
> in fifty years, Powersat Inc. is going to be high up in the Fortune 500.
>  
I'm skeptical.....
Let me point out one thing which was suggested and pointed out by two visiting
sources: Hans Mark when he was #2 man and another speaker.  At this time,
the people who have the most experience in this area are the Soviet and
the Japanese (yes!).  In fact, the Japanese have made a very interesting
proposal to supply power to the US space station using a scaled-down
version of microwave technology.  The effort is being pushed as an
international effort.  If this is the case, it's not clear to me that
a clear picture exists.  Again, let me point out the Soviet have used
GaAs technology in their arrays.
--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  {hplabs,ihnp4,dual,hao,decwrl,allegra}!ames!aurora!eugene
  emiya@ames-vmsb.ARPA

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

End of SPACE Digest V6 #39
*******************


0,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA02014; Fri, 6 Dec 85 03:00:58 PST
	id AA02014; Fri, 6 Dec 85 03:00:58 PST
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 85 03:00:58 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8512061100.AA02014@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #40

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 6 : Issue 40

Today's Topics:
	       VAX/UNIX BSD 4.2 commercial timesharing
	  Re: Star-Wars/Space Telescopes (parabolic mirrors)
		     Re: A High Tech Maginot Line
		       Re: Shuttle sonic booms
		      Re: instant communications
		       Re: Shuttle sonic booms
	      Re: Shuttle Articles in Discover Magazine
Photon correlation, the Bell inequality, and FTL information transfer
		       polarization correlation
			 Re: Automated craft
		       Re: SPACE Digest V6 #39
			 External Tanks (ETs)
		     Re: VOYAGER II transmissions
		 Re: HIGH TECH MAGINOT LINE: indeed?
		     Re: A High Tech Maginot Line
		 Re: Shuttle reliability for Comsats
		    Re: Star-Wars/Space Telescopes
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 5 Dec 85 02:18:30 GMT
From: dual!ames!al@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Al Globus)
Subject: VAX/UNIX BSD 4.2 commercial timesharing
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

We are distributing a software system that depends on VAX/UNIX BSD 4.2.  It
is a simulation used by space station contractors.  Some of the 
contractors who would like to use the system do not have a
VAX/UNIX BSD 4.2 system available.  If you know of a commercial
timesharing service in any of the following areas where one can
rent time and space on a VAX/UNIX BSD 4.2 system, please contact:
Al Globus
127 Cayuga
Santa Cruz, CA
95062
FTS 464-5751
(415) 694-5751
telemail: aglobus
The areas:
	Los Angeles, CA
	SF Bay Area, CA
	NY,NY area
	Houston, Texas
	Seattle, Washington
	Huntsville, AL
	Washington, DC
or near major aerospace contractors.
Thanx in advance.

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

Date: 4 Dec 85 05:21:52 GMT
From: decvax!linus!gatech!gitpyr!cmpbsdb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Don Barry)
Subject: Re: Star-Wars/Space Telescopes (parabolic mirrors)
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <11128@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, rimey@ernie.BERKELEY.EDU (Ken &) writes:
> No, Saumya is certainly right.  Soap bubbles are certainly spherical,
> even when they sit on circular wire frames.  The force on each piece
> of the surface is equal to the pressure (times the area of the piece)
> and oriented perpendicular to that piece.
An important fact to remember, however, is that a soap bubble has uniform 
tension at every point.  A deformed disk, however, obviously doesn't.  My
point is that all the variables aren't being looked at, and when they are
the figure is probably not going to be anything so nice as a conic section.
-- 
Don Barry (Chemistry Dept)          CSnet: cmpbsdb%gitpyr.GTNET@gatech.CSNET
Georgia Institute of Technology    BITNET: CMPBSDB @ GITVM1
Atlanta, GA 30332      ARPA: cmpbsdb%gitpyr.GTNET%gatech.CSNET@csnet-relay.ARPA 
UUCP: ...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!cmpbsdb

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

Posted-Date: Wed, 4 Dec 85 17:55:03 est
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 85 17:55:03 est
From: decwrl!decvax!linus!raybed2!rayssd!m1b@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (M. Joseph Barone)
To: raybed2!space
Subject: Re: A High Tech Maginot Line
In-Reply-To: your article <8512020718.AA15110@s1-b.arpa>


	The historical aspects of your analogy aren't correct:  the
Germans went around the Maginot Line just as hostiles would do to SDI
as the remainder of your analogy suggests.  The Maginot Line forced
the Germans to rethink their tactics, not develop new technology.

Joe Barone,	{allegra, decvax!brunix, linus, ccice5}!rayssd!m1b
Raytheon Co,	Submarine Signal Div., Box 330, Portsmouth, RI  02871

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

Date: Thu, 5 Dec 85 06:31:49 PST
From: ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: ihnp4!space
Subject: Re: Shuttle sonic booms
In-Reply-To: your article <8512040306.AA22588@s1-b.arpa>

Could it be the nose and wings set up separate shock waves at supersonic
speeds?

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

Date: Thu, 5 Dec 85 06:32:17 PST
From: ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: ihnp4!space
Subject: Re: instant communications
In-Reply-To: your article <8512041837.AA24883@s1-b.arpa>

There is a slightly less exotic way to send signals in 0 time.  It
was described in the excellent book "In Search of Schrodinger's Cat".
It goes something like this:  If you get some liquid helium in the
right state (temperature), it reacts like a single quantum particle,
so any disturbance is instantly felt by the whole pool of helium.
This has been tried with a very small drop of helium, but big enough
to show that it works.  It has been suggested that future applications
might be in computers, where the quantum particle could be stretched
into a thin line to act as an infinite-speed bus!  Weird stuff!

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

Date: 4 Dec 85 22:54:08 GMT
From: ihnp4!riccb!rjnoe@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Roger J. Noe)
Subject: Re: Shuttle sonic booms
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> Why are there two sonic booms from the shuttle?
It's because there are two "sonic cones" formed by the shuttle.  (There is
very likely a more scientific term for this, but I don't know what it is.)
With most supersonic aircraft, a cone-shaped shock wave expands from the
nose of the craft outward.  Where and when this cone intersects the surface
of the Earth determines who hears the sonic boom.  This cone usually expands
at a wide enough angle to engulf the rest of the aircraft.  But the shuttle
has a pretty unusual shape.  I think the vertical stabilizer (tail) rises
above the cone-shaped shock wave formed by the nose.  This causes the tail
to slam into the surrounding air the same way the nose does, and a second
shock wave, also shaped like a cone, forms at the edge of the tail.  This
is the explanation I have heard, anyway.  I don't think the two sonic booms
are from the top and bottom points of the "N-signature" of the shock wave
formed at the nose, or else every supersonic aircraft would exhibit this
phenomenon.  I used to hear F-4's go over my house many years ago, and I never
remember hearing a double sonic boom, although sometimes two or more Phantoms
would be in formation and each would have its own sonic boom.  Could someone
elaborate on this, please?  At least let me know if this is all accurate.
Thanks.
--
	Roger Noe			ihnp4!riccb!rjnoe

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

Date: 5 Dec 85 05:56:56 GMT
From: ihnp4!houxm!mtuxo!mtgzz!dls@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (d.l.skran)
Subject: Re: Shuttle Articles in Discover Magazine
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Mr. Dietz seems to be ignoring shuttle history as
he dunns what can only be described as in incrediblely successful
program.
Point 1: the military was a big factor in making the shuttle
	 uneconomical. NASA wanted as *smaller* shuttle with
	 lower thrust engines.
Point 2: NASA was told to design to cost(6 billion I recall), not
	 for any other major consideration except DOD requirements. 
	 Hence, designs with greater reusability and lower cost
	 could not be considered.
Point 3: The program was underfunded at all points, finally resulting
	 in near disaster at the end. Inadequate $ were available
	 for component testing so engines were tested all at once, with
	 predictably bad results.
Point 4: A very considerable cost for the shuttle is the maintenance of
	 permanent equipment(gantries, ground crews, etc.) Having one
	 more shuttle and many more flights would substantially lower costs
	 per flight. The original fleet was planned to have six, not four
	 shuttles.
Given the military role in crippling the shuttle, their current about
face is disgusting. 
The shuttle represents an enormous increase in our space going capability,
and is more flexible than the large Saturn. Ya, Saturn is cheaper per
pound, but we are not launching dirt into orbit. The shuttle has comparable
costs combined with a MUCH more useful craft.
I agree that a follow on shuttle is very important, but I see no reason
to start development for a couple of years. Let's build the station, and
do it "right" about 1995. Meanwhile, the military may have developed a
small orbital plane we can use as a basis for further work.
Seriously - more is happening every two months in space than happened
for years during the 60s. Just look at the tremendous amount and variety
of vital stuff that has gotten packed into the first 22 shuttle missions.
Without the shuttle we would be going NOWHERE FAST, just launching communication
satellites on some "big cheap booster." With the shuttle we are repairing
satellites, building beams in space, running Spacelab(s) all over the 
place, and providing small scale, low cost access to space(getaway specials).
Dale

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

Date: Thu, 05 Dec 85 10:55 PST
From: Dave Platt <Dave-Platt%LADC@cisl-service-multics.arpa>
To: Space <Space@s1-b.arpa>
Subject: Photon correlation, the Bell inequality, and FTL information transfer
Random-Quote: All I had to do is keep turning left.
              GOERGE ROBSON, winner of the 1946 Indianapolis 500

Re Niket Patwardhan's question about FTL information transfer, and Robert
Firth's example of instantaneous action... there was some discussion of
this general topic in Scientific American a couple of years ago.  The
principal of instantaneous action (or, more precisely, correlation of
particle pairs) shows up in the violation of something called the Bell
inequality, under certain conditions;  it's due to the fact that the
particle pair can be defined as a single quantum-mechanical waveform,
and perturbing one aspect (the photon in Pittsburg) naturally results
in a "simultaneous" change in the state of the other aspect.

Unfortunately, there is a very good theoretical/practical reason why
you can't use this effect to transfer information faster than light
from the POV of an observer (at least, you can't transfer any useful
information in this way).  Let's do a thought experiment to take a
look at why this is so.  Be warned... I'm flying strictly based on
memory here, and will probably oversimplify and/or accidentally
speak falsehoods in what's about to follow... but it's how I
understand the situation.

Imagine that you want to transfer information between Trantor and
Pittsburg.  To do this, you'll have to set up a station midway
between the two endpoints which is emitting a matched pair of
particle beams (let's use electrons, for the sake of convenience).
Naturally, each individual "beam" will have to be in some known,
"reference" spin state (let's say that Pittsburg receives a "spin up"
beam, and Trantor receives "spin down"), so that each party can
detect the fact that the other party is sending information (by
comparing the beam it receives against some reference standard to
see whether it has been perturbed).  If each beam is not in a
well-known state, then the only way to tell whether a particular
particle has been perturbed or not is to phone the person at the other
end of the hookup (via a light-speed hookup of some sort) and say
"My detector went *ping*;  did yours?"... which defeats the whole
purpose of the arrangement.

How to produce such nice beams?  You can certainly use well-known
reactions (e.g. spontaneous pair production from gammas) to create
pairs of electrons and positrons.  However... although you can be
sure that each pair of emitted particles is correlated, you have no way
of ensuring that different sets of pairs are also correlated.  For
example, your first pair might come out spin-up/spin-down, and the
second and third might come out spin-down/spin-up.  So... the output of
your correlated-pair source is not, itself, correlated over time;
instead, each beam of pair-particles is quite random, and you don't
have a "reference" state.  In short, you can't tell whether any
individual particle has been perturbed or not, because you can't
tell what its original, unperturbed state was.

So what?  Why not sort the particles coming out of your pair-generator,
and eliminate the ones that aren't in the state that you want?  You
could eliminate all spin-down particles from the Pittsburg beam, and
remove the spin-up particles from the Trantor beam, and be left with
two nice clean reference beams that could be modulated to your heart's
content;  they'd only be half as strong as the unsorted beams, but
you'd just have to soup up the black hole you're using as a power source
to compensate.

Here's where Heisenberg bites us.  The very act of sorting the particles
according to their spin is enough to scramble their spin state!  The
paradox is that by figuring out what the spin state of the particle WAS
when it entered your detection device, you must apply sufficient energy
to the particle (in the very act of detection) that you can't tell what
the state IS when it leaves the detector.  You're left with the unhappy
knowledge that the particles that made it through your filter were
all spin-up... but that does you no good, as roughly half of them will
have flipped over while passing through your spin detector.  You are
once again left with a randomly-correlated beam (albeit only half as
strong).  The sender on Trantor can modulate his/her beam, but the
receiver in Pittsburg has no way of telling whether the beam has been
modulated... a signal-to-noise ratio of 0!

Well.... that's my understanding of the situation.  I've used electrons
as the particle in question mostly because that's how I remember the
original Sci.Am. article being phrased, and I'm not entirely sure how
the spin-scrambling-detection issue would apply if you use photon
polarization as your signal carrier, rather than electron/positron
spin (I guess I don't grok just what happens to a photon when you run
it through a polarizing filter... I can only assume that the act of
doing so must perturb the photon enough to scramble its state in
an interesting way).

Perhaps someone who reads SPACE, and is also a net.physics person
can correct any misinformation I've dealt out above, and/or make
things clearer for us all?

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

Date: 5 Dec 85 16:41:40 EST
From: Hans.Moravec@rover.ri.cmu.edu
Subject: polarization correlation
To: BBoard.Maintainer@a.cs.cmu.edu

The observation that two polarization-correlated photons travelling away
in opposite directions from an event are effectively co-incident in either's
rest frame (no elapsed time, distance between them Lorentz contracted to
zero) is interesting, but irrelevant.

	Two identical fermions with rest mass (electrons or protons, say)
brought very close together acquire opposite spins (because of the Pauli
exclusion principle, to be old fashioned) whose measurement later, when
they're separated has the same strange correlation properties as the photon
pair polarization.  But since they have mass, the separation happens at less
than the speed of light, and they experience elapsed time and distance.

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

Date: Thu, 5 Dec 85 09:23:23 pst
From: decwrl!amdcad!cae780!weitek!mmm@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Mark Thorson)
To: cae780!space
Subject: Re: Automated craft
In-Reply-To: your article <8512042003.AA25298@s1-b.arpa>

Have you been reading net.rec.boat?  I started a discussion there a few
days ago about the construction of cheap sailboats that might fit your
application.  The main objections to my proposal (non-rigid hull made
of cloth, rope, and hollow plastic beads towed by a parafoil kite) have
involved steering and high seas.  A cargo ship would not require a direct
route or a smooth ride.

Mark Thorson  (...!cae780!weitek!mmm)

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

Posted-Date: 05 Dec 85 18:10:22 PST (Thu)
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V6 #39
In-Reply-To: Your message of Thu, 5 Dec 85 03:06:50 PST.
	     <8512051106.AA27075@s1-b.arpa>
Date: 05 Dec 85 18:10:22 PST (Thu)
From: jennings@aerospace.arpa

	Please remove me from your mailing list; I no longer require 
direct distribution.
Rich.

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

Posted-Date: 05 Dec 85 18:25:19 PST (Thu)
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa
Subject: External Tanks (ETs)
Date: 05 Dec 85 18:25:19 PST (Thu)
From: jennings@aerospace.arpa

	One problem with the external tanks is that in many ways
they resemble balloons: they are stressed to hold liquid under pressure
and not much else.  Even if they were to be used, they would need
quite a bit of extra structure to survive people.

Rich.

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

Date: Thu, 5 Dec 85 18:36:57 PST
From: mcgeer@ji (Rick McGeer)
To: Tyree@usc-isib.arpa, space@mit-mc.arpa
Subject: Re: VOYAGER II transmissions

	Does anyone have any information on which Bay Area TV stations will
be showing the Uranus pictures, if any will?

						Rick.

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

Date: 3 Dec 85 22:41:14 GMT
From: ihnp4!drutx!mtuxo!mtuxn!gdf@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (G.FERRAIOLO)
Subject: Re: HIGH TECH MAGINOT LINE: indeed?
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Please excuse me if this is not posted correctly, this is my first attempt
at a posting.
This is in response to a posting in net.space called 'HIGH TECH MAGINOT LINE'
The author claimed that the 'Germans smashed right through the line'
in a comparison of the Maginot line with SDI.  Whatever the value of
defensive fortifications, the Germans did not, repeat NOT NOT NOT,
smash trough the Maginot line.  They did succeed in outflanking it,
which may or may not be relevant to the issue of SDI, but they did not 
penetrate the line AT ALL.  The reason the Gerrmans were able to outflank
the line is that the French only built their defenses along the GERMAN
border.  The Germans entered France through Belgium and Luxemburg.
Hopefully, similar error will be avoided with SDI.  It is a very interesting
question as to what the outcome of the Spring campaign in the West in 1940
would have been if the French had fortified all their borders.  Most
people who have studied the situation consider the Maginot line to 
have been impregnable frontal attack.
Incidentally, if you want examples of successful use of fortifications,
look at WWI.  The French forts DID prevent the Germans from conquering 
France.  In WWII the Germans managed to circumvent the forts.  The 
problem of 'preparing for the last war' is common.  If you want to
assume that each successive war strictly alternates between dominance
by offense and dominance by defense and you only consider WWII as the
'last war' then the time is ripe for a defense oriented strategy.
Somehow I don't think it is that simple.

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

Date: 5 Dec 85 18:34:10 GMT
From: bellcore!petrus!karn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Phil R. Karn)
Subject: Re: A High Tech Maginot Line
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

The US government seems to have a hard time intercepting more than a few
percent of the illegal drugs smugged into this country.  This is despite the
fact that the smugglers put relatively "low tech" delivery devices (boats,
Cessnas, parachutes) up against satellite reconnaissance, F-15's and lots
of armed agents.  Does anyone seriously think that just throwing money
at the problem will help? It hasn't done much for the drug trade; an
AP wire story says that cocaine is as cheap as it's ever been.
And we're supposed to build a complete and impenetrable barrier to nuclear
weapons entering the country. If Reagan weren't so powerful, I'd be laughing
too hard to type.
Phil

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

Date: 5 Dec 85 18:46:45 GMT
From: bellcore!petrus!karn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Phil R. Karn)
Subject: Re: Shuttle reliability for Comsats
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> Although it is a small point, no communication satellite launched by the
> shuttle has ever been destroyed or irretrievably lost. To recount, the TDRS
> made to its station by consuming most of its reserve fuel after the second
> stage of the IUS failed, the two satellites stranded by PAM failures
> were recovered, and the Hughes Leasat was repaired and made its way to
> geosynchronous orbit.
And the Leasat launched on the the very same rescue mission failed promptly
after reaching geostationary orbit, beyond service-call range of the shuttle.
Our highest priority right now should be a LEO/GEO transfer vehicle,
which is even more important than the space station.
Phil

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

Date: 6 Dec 85 02:11:10 GMT
From: dual!ames!al@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Al Globus)
Subject: Re: Star-Wars/Space Telescopes
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> My own personal information 
> is that the Russian program was in progress at least as far back
> as 1976.  I suspect the Russians have made a monumental discovery
> and are not willing to share it with us, and if I am correct as
> to what is is, I don't blame them because in a few more years it
> will give them a massive military edge.
I lost count of the number of secret Soviet military programs making
monumental distcoveries that would give the Soviet military a massive
military edge in a few years that I've heard about in the last 20 years.
Maybe its true, but its beginning to sound like crying wolf to me.
  I also think the concept 
> of their program is considerably more aggressive (offensive) than 
> ours.
According to Aviation Week and Space Technology last spring the Soviet
military budget is approximately 70% for home defense.  The U.S.
budget for defense of the U.S. is approximately 3% of our military
funding.  There are good reasons for this.  We haven't been
invaded since the war of 1812.  The Soviets have suffer two major
and several smaller invasions this century.  We have no hostile boarders.
They have thousands of miles of hostile boarders.  Let's move to this
net.politics.

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

End of SPACE Digest V6 #40
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA06466; Sat, 7 Dec 85 03:01:22 PST
	id AA06466; Sat, 7 Dec 85 03:01:22 PST
Date: Sat, 7 Dec 85 03:01:22 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8512071101.AA06466@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #41

*** EOOH ***
Date: Sat, 7 Dec 85 03:01:22 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #41

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 6 : Issue 41

Today's Topics:
		   Re: NASA satellite transmissions
	  Re: Star-Wars/Space Telescopes (parabolic mirrors)
		     Re: A High Tech Maginot Line
			Re: REAL Star Wars...
		     Re: A High Tech Maginot Line
	    Re: Re: Shuttle Articles in Discover Magazine
		 Re: Shuttle reliability for Comsats
			   Manned Mars Trip
		       Re: SPACE Digest V6 #38
	      Re: Shuttle Articles in Discover Magazine
		     Re: A High Tech Maginot Line
		    Re: Star-Wars/Space Telescopes
	      Shuttle External Tanks and Space Stations
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 3 Dec 85 08:58:37 pst
From: sdcsvax!sdcc3!loral!pavo@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (not_responsible_for_lost_or_stolen_items)
To: space@sdcc6.acc
Subject: Re: NASA satellite transmissions
Newsgroups: net.space
In-Reply-To: <8512030304.AA19077@s1-b.arpa>

include net.columbia in net.space for those of you who don't
get net.columbia?  right, then those of us who get both get
to read all the shuttle stuff twice.  great idea.

		jim

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

Date: 6 Dec 85 05:02:17 GMT
From: ihnp4!ihlpg!tan@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Bill Tanenbaum)
Subject: Re: Star-Wars/Space Telescopes (parabolic mirrors)
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> > (Saumya Debray)
> > Seems to me that since air pressure is the same in all directions, this
> > would give a spherical rather than a parabolic mirror.
------------
> [Don Barry]
> By the same argument, a suspended string would form a spherical arc - 
> instead, the form is a catenary, described by the hyperbolic functions.
> I am unaware of the figure of equipressure deformation of an elastic disc,
> but one technique that is used to generate true parabolas in a uniform gravity
> field is that of spin-molding.  It is an easy matter to calculate the
> equipotential surface of a spinning liquid, and imposing the condition of
> stability, the figure is a paraboloid.
-----------
Don Barry is confusing two very different cases.  The suspended 
string and spin molding are cases where the force is due to gravity,
and thus has a UNIQUE DIRECTION, and is proportional to the
mass of the object.  In the case of the mirror, the force is ISOTROPIC
and independent of the mass of the mirror (assuming the mirror is
thin enough so gravity is negligible compared to vacuum pressure).
In such a case, Saumya Debray must be right.
-- 
Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL  ihnp4!ihlpg!tan

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

Date: Tue, 3 Dec 85 21:37:40 est
From: sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!burdvax!psuvax1!vu-vlsi!williams@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Thomas Williams - Student)
To: psuvax1!space
Subject: Re: A High Tech Maginot Line
In-Reply-To: your article <8512020718.AA15110@s1-b.arpa>

> start of WWII.  The French had built an "impregnable" defensive system
> along the German border called the Maginot Line.  But the German Panzer
> Army was a development in warfare technology that the Maginot Line was
> not prepared for and the German Armies ran right through it.  If we

The Germans went AROUND the Maginot Line not through it!

>  We had better try to learn from history.

Maybe some of us better learn our history first. :-) (?)

						-taw

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

Date: 3 Dec 85 19:26:39 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: REAL Star Wars...
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> ...What really killed Orion, I suspect, is the fallout problem. ...
That's not what killed it at the time, although it would prevent restarting
it now.  Its originators were aware of the issue.  At a time when nuclear
tests in the atmosphere were routine, the extra fallout from a moderate level
of Orion testing and use would have been minor.  With fallout-production rates
much reduced nowadays, it would be less acceptable.  The Test-Ban Treaty did
administer the coup de grace to Orion, since the two were incompatible without
further negotiation (which is provided for in the treaty, by the way), but the
project was already nearly dead for lack of support.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

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

Date: 3 Dec 85 19:22:08 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: A High Tech Maginot Line
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> ... The French had built an "impregnable" defensive system
> along the German border called the Maginot Line.  But the German Panzer
> Army was a development in warfare technology that the Maginot Line was
> not prepared for and the German Armies ran right through it...
Not true, they went around it rather than through it.  And they were able
to do that because it had been cut down from M. Maginot's original proposal,
which did not envisage such a gaping hole in the defences opposite the
Ardennes.  (It is worth noting that it was also undermanned and not well
maintained -- issues that will be worth remembering if SDI is deployed.)
And this discussion has drifted away from specifically space-related issues
to the point where it probably should not continue in net.space.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

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

Date: 4 Dec 85 00:38:07 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Re: Shuttle Articles in Discover Magazine
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> > The fact that other countries are developing reusable vehicles in
> > no way redeems NASA's failure...
> 
> ... Are you a U.S. citizen and were you able to vote back in the very early
> 1970's?  If so, any "failure" that can be assessed is yours, not NASA's and
> not even your congressional representatives'.  If you can vote in the U.S.
> now, then any future "failure" will also be your responsibility.
Nonsense.  If you foul up, it is *your* fault, not that of the Rockwell
shareholders.  They may perhaps be responsible for tolerating situations
that encourage fouling up, and thus share some of the blame, but you are
most definitely still accountable for your actions.  (Ask your boss about
this if you don't believe me.)  Same principle.  US voters may perhaps be
blamed for inadequate NASA funding, but not for NASA making promises that
it can't keep.
> If you never
> have been extended the privilege of voting for this country's legislative and
> executive positions and never will, then you have no basis whatsoever to
> criticize this country's space program.
Utter nonsense.  It may disqualify us from demanding answers from NASA brass,
on the grounds that they don't work for us, but calling a failure a failure
is not the exclusive prerogative of the people who pay the bills for it.
> > It is eminently fair to criticize the shuttle on the basis of
> > cost/pound to orbit.  Reducing this cost was the primary justification
> > of the shuttle program!  ...
> 
> That's entirely incorrect.  Reducing the cost of reaching Earth orbit was
> a primary MOTIVATION for the Space Transportation System program.  It was
> never a justification, nor was it ever meant to be...
The whole justification for undertaking an expensive development program in
the first place was that existing expendable boosters were not adequate to
do the job.  In what way?  They were too expensive.  I fail to see the fine
line you are drawing between "motivation" and "justification".  If anything,
you are drawing it the wrong way:  NASA's motive for the shuttle was a
combination of the development of space and bureaucratic self-preservation,
while the justification offered was lower launch costs.  Check out the
Congressional testimony if you don't believe me on the latter.
> Had the original design
> concepts (fully reusable) been adopted AND FUNDED we'd be much closer to this
> goal than we are now.
Agreed.  But it remains true that even the partly-reusable shuttle was claimed
by NASA to greatly reduce launch costs; it hasn't, and won't.
> Calling the present shuttle a failure even though a
> future design will work better is like standing in front of the SR-71 and
> saying that Orville and Wilbur Wright were incompetent boobs.
"fail, v.t.  1. attempt without success.  2. not to do.  3. disappoint. ..."
[from the little dictionary in my desk]  The issue at hand is not whether
the Wrights could build an SR-71, but whether they could make good on their
claims, i.e. whether they could build something that would fly.  They did
not claim to be able to reach Mach 3; NASA most definitely did claim to
be able to drastically reduce launch costs, with the shuttle.
> ... Ground-breaking engineering is a very capital-intensive
> undertaking.  It happens all too frequently that a project is made more
> expensive rather than the reverse when engineers are denied the resources to
> achieve what they have planned and are forced to scale it down. ...
Nobody is claiming that NASA wasn't (a) working under difficult conditions
to (b) achieve a rather difficult goal.  That does not change the facts:
they failed.  The promises they made *after* the scaling-down occurred have
not been kept.  Probably nobody on Earth could have kept them -- although
there are some people I'd have given better odds than I'd have given NASA
on the job -- so the blame rests with those who made the promises in the
first place.  NASA.
Understand, I think the shuttle is a winner on the whole (although I mourn
for what it could have been, and isn't).  Routine manned access to space is
definitely worth having, and that's what the shuttle is good at.  Alas, not
as good as something that didn't claim to be a cheap payload truck too --
a larger fleet of smaller orbiters would do a much better job on routine
manned access to space -- but a little is better than none.  NASA probably
couldn't have sold the shuttle on that basis only.  But let us be honest:
the shuttle was justified as a cheap payload truck, and it's not.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

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

Posted-Date: Fri 6 Dec 1985 08:04:45 EST
Date: Fri 6 Dec 1985 08:04:45 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz@slb-doll.CSNET>
Subject: Re: Shuttle reliability for Comsats
To: bellcore!petrus!karn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Phil R. Karn)
In-Reply-To: bellcore!petrus!karn's message of 5 Dec 85 18:46:45 GMT
Cc: space@mit-mc.arpa, dietz@slb-doll.CSNET

>And the Leasat launched on the the very same rescue mission failed promptly
>after reaching geostationary orbit, beyond service-call range of the shuttle.
>Our highest priority right now should be a LEO/GEO transfer vehicle,
>which is even more important than the space station.
>Phil

Yes.  You'll also need a place to store & service the OTV in low orbit,
perhaps an unmanned or intermittently manned platform of some kind.

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

Date: 5 Dec 85 19:46:09 GMT
From: decvax!linus!philabs!ttidca!ttidcb!jackson@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dick Jackson)
Subject: Manned Mars Trip
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

There's talk about an international manned Mars expedition. Naturally I'm
all for it. Is there a generally agreed best way to go?
My very uninformed thoughts are:
	- A very modular spacecraft, for redundancy
	- Artificial gravity through spinning
	- Return booster sent separately to Mars orbit
My spaceship, assembled in EO of course, would have at least three manned
modules plus landers which would fit together in a package for the
acceleration phase. Once at cruise the manned units would be sent out on
the end of tethers to form a sort of spider web, then the whole thing would
be spun up. For entry into Mars orbit the thing would be pulled together
again.
Once in orbit, the manned units could possibly be sent off on diverse
missions, e.g. rendezvous with the moons.
I don't really care if this makes total sense, the main point is that
system design for the Mars mission seems to offer a very rich field for
innovative spacefaring ideas. Who's next?
Dick Jackson

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

Date: Fri, 6 Dec 85 10:32:57 PST
From: ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: ihnp4!space
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V6 #38
In-Reply-To: your article <8512050225.AA26412@s1-b.arpa>

You should take a look at the book "In Search of Schrodinger's Cat"
which describes a method of putting liquid helium in a state where
a whole drop acts like a single quantum particle, responding to
stimulus instantly over its whole surface.  It was suggested this
technology be used for computer buses of infinite speed!

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

Date: 6 Dec 85 14:58:03 GMT
From: ihnp4!ihopa!riccb!rjnoe@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Roger J. Noe)
Subject: Re: Shuttle Articles in Discover Magazine
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> > ... Are you a U.S. citizen and were you able to vote back in the very early
> > 1970's?  If so, any "failure" that can be assessed is yours, not NASA's and
> > not even your congressional representatives'.  If you can vote in the U.S.
> > now, then any future "failure" will also be your responsibility.
> 
> Nonsense.  If you foul up, it is *your* fault, not that of [your company's]
> shareholders.  They may perhaps be responsible for tolerating situations
> that encourage fouling up, and thus share some of the blame, but you are
> most definitely still accountable for your actions. . . . Same principle.
> . . . .  US voters may perhaps be
> blamed for inadequate NASA funding, but not for NASA making promises that
> it can't keep.
Point 1:
I work for a publicly-held industrial concern, not a government
agency.  So it's not at all the "same principle."  My employers are
not elected public officials.  If you lived in the U.S. you might
understand the difference. (-:  Seriously, I do appreciate that
individuals are accountable for their actions.  But here in the USA
we are fortunate enough to have a measure of responsibility for our
government's actions.  These actions are mainly what the government
chooses to fund and by how much.  Pay attention to our next presidential
campaign and you'll see that most of the talking the candidates do is
along the lines of which programs will be cut, which will be started,
and how much our taxes will change to accommodate these changes.
Point 2:
I maintain that the only macro-mistake in the STS program was by how much
it was funded and for what reasons.  This decision drove all the others,
including the design of the STS.  That is why the shuttle costs more than
was projected.  That is all the NASA officials were doing, making projections
that if this much money was spent on development, then it would at some
specified point cost this much to launch this payload, etc.  I don't recall
ever reading in any of the congressional testimony that NASA guaranteed
such things.  Only that, to the best of their experience, it would come
to pass.  It is a rare engineering project indeed that accomplishes some-
thing never done before and does it in the time and within the budget
originally projected.  How can anyone say they "promised" something they
couldn't deliver?  And, even if one does aver that they made promises,
wasn't it incredibly naive to believe that they could do something that
incredible with such limited resources?
> > If you never
> > have been extended the privilege of voting for this country's legislative
> > and executive positions and never will, then you have no basis whatsoever
> > to criticize this country's space program.
> 
> Utter nonsense.  It may disqualify us from demanding answers from NASA brass,
> on the grounds that they don't work for us, but calling a failure a failure
> is not the exclusive prerogative of the people who pay the bills for it.
It's not because we pay the bills that I made that statement.  It's because
no other country has equalled U.S. accomplishments in space.  You think we
failed in the shuttle program?  What has Canada done better?  Oh, yeah, you
made the robot arm.  Impressive (I'm serious).  You've sent one astronaut
into space, but then that was on a U.S. space shuttle.  How many communications
satellites would Canada have up were it not for the U.S.?  Take off, eh.
(In your nonexistent shuttle, that is.)
> > Reducing the cost of reaching Earth orbit was
> > a primary MOTIVATION for the Space Transportation System program.  It was
> > never a justification . . .
> 
> I fail to see the fine
> line you are drawing between "motivation" and "justification".  If anything,
> you are drawing it the wrong way:  NASA's motive for the shuttle was a
> combination of the development of space and bureaucratic self-preservation,
> while the justification offered was lower launch costs.  Check out the
> Congressional testimony if you don't believe me on the latter.
No, I've got it right, you've got it backwards.  NASA was directed by the
President of the United States to develop a system which would lower these
costs.  They presented what ideas they had and stated their belief that it
would in fact lower launch costs.  Since this occurred before they began
the program, it is a motivation (stimulus to an action), not a justification.
Clearly, the word "justification" is entirely misplaced here because that is
denoted to be an after-the-fact demonstration of correctness.  NASA has not
maintained that they accomplished what they originally projected.
> But it remains true that even the partly-reusable shuttle was claimed
> by NASA to greatly reduce launch costs; it hasn't, and won't.
They claimed (even after budget cuts) that they thought it would still
reduce costs.  Again, that was just a projection.  In any event, they had
no choice but to build that which was funded.
> > Calling the present shuttle a failure even though a
> > future design will work better is like standing in front of the SR-71 and
> > saying that Orville and Wilbur Wright were incompetent boobs.
> 
> The issue at hand is not whether
> the Wrights could build an SR-71, but whether they could make good on their
> claims, i.e. whether they could build something that would fly.
Read again: the context was that the shuttle can be built better; because of
this, the current project is a failure.  You're mistaking someone else calling
NASA a failure versus calling the shuttle a failure.
> That does not change the facts:
> they failed.  The promises they made *after* the scaling-down occurred have
> not been kept.  Probably nobody on Earth could have kept them -- although
> there are some people I'd have given better odds than I'd have given NASA
> on the job -- so the blame rests with those who made the promises in the
> first place.  NASA.
Again, you're saying they made promises when all they did was make projections
based on almost no data.  Once they began operating, they knew how much things
would cost and they told everyone.  So who could have done better?  Who HAS
done better?
> Understand, I think the shuttle is a winner on the whole (although I mourn
> for what it could have been, and isn't).  Routine manned access to space is
> definitely worth having, and that's what the shuttle is good at.  Alas, not
> as good as something that didn't claim to be a cheap payload truck too --
> a larger fleet of smaller orbiters would do a much better job on routine
> manned access to space -- but a little is better than none.  NASA probably
> couldn't have sold the shuttle on that basis only.  But let us be honest:
> the shuttle was justified as a cheap payload truck, and it's not.
> -- 
> 				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
I agree with you on almost all that paragraph.  But NASA does not now claim
that the shuttle is a cheap payload truck.  That was what it was supposed to
be, but because the funding and politics went awry, it's not what we have.
But it was, for the last time, NOT justified on that basis.  NASA has not
claimed for years that's what the shuttle does or will do.  It should never
have been the emphasis.
I should also point out that there are generally accepted accounting
principles which do show that the shuttle is an economic success.  It's
all in how you want to look at it.
--
These ideas are mine and, it appears, nobody else's!
	Roger Noe			ihnp4!riccb!rjnoe

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

Date: 6 Dec 85 19:32:05 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!cmcl2!lanl!jlg@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: A High Tech Maginot Line
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> The US government seems to have a hard time intercepting more than a few
> percent of the illegal drugs smugged into this country.  This is despite the
> fact that the smugglers put relatively "low tech" delivery devices (boats,
> Cessnas, parachutes) up against satellite reconnaissance, F-15's and lots
> of armed agents.  Does anyone seriously think that just throwing money
> at the problem will help? It hasn't done much for the drug trade; an
> AP wire story says that cocaine is as cheap as it's ever been.
Of course, if the objective was simply to destroy all vehicles of the
type used by smugglers, the problem would be comparatively simple.  But
in order to catch drug smugglers in their "low tech" operations, we have
to resort to such "low tech" approaches as direct person-to-person
contact, read their rights, search their vehicle with dogs, etc..  The
DEA, Coast Guard, and other agencies don't have the luxury of saying
"this is war, any vehicle moving through the Caribbean shall be
destroyed." If they did, smuggling would soon cease.  So would all other
commerce and recreation.  The military technology of WW2 would be
sufficient to blockade the Caribbean these days (over the horizon radar
controlled guns for example).
The SDI on the other hand has exactly this luxury.  It will probably be
implemented in such a way that any space-going vehicle that is not part
of SDI would be a target for destruction if a war starts.  This would be
kind of rough on any civilian spacecraft (if SDI works).
The feasibility of SDI is still seriously in question, but the failure
to stop drug smuggling in not a counter-example.  These are two different
tasks with two completely different objectives.
J. Giles
Los Alamos
P.S.
   I don't think this is the right newsgroup for this discussion.
   Net.politics or ar.arms-d would be better.

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

Date: 6 Dec 85 15:52:54 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!brl-tgr!gwyn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Doug Gwyn <ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!brl-tgr!gwyn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu>)
Subject: Re: Star-Wars/Space Telescopes
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> They have thousands of miles of hostile boarders.
Maybe they should put an end to all those ugly roomers.

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

Date: 5 Dec 85 22:19:58 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!kcarroll@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Kieran A. Carroll)
Subject: Shuttle External Tanks and Space Stations
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

*
   While it maight be insuperably difficult to
make a shuttle's external tank into a functioning
space station (requiring all sorts of extra thermal
control, attitude and orbit control, power supply
and conditioning equipment, etc.), I don't believe
that it'd be too difficult (or expensive) to carry
one into orbit to be a >>part<< of a space station.
Provided with (a) an airlock at the top,
(b) a hatch between the oxygen and hydrogen tanks, and
(c) a simple vent, for discarding LH2 and LO2 as they
vaporize, an ET could be attached almost immediately to
the habitable portion of an already-existing
space station.  Extra thermal insulation might have to
be sprayed on the outside before launch, in order for the
ET not to become too cold (or hot!) on-orbit; this would
involve a mass penalty, as would the airlock, hatch and vent.
However, for the resulting >>small<< mass penalty
(maybe a total of 1 ton, or two?), a >>vast<< amount
of habitable volume would be added to the station!
While this volume would not initially contain any useful
equipment, I'm sure that uses would soon be found for it, 
enormously off-setting the initial investment.
If nothing else, it could be used as a relaxation area by the
crew (who, after all, will be spending 3 months at a time
in a space the size of 5 house-trailers strung together).
   It seems to me that the arguments against bringing the ETs
to orbit are based on the assumption that it'll have to
serve many functions at once, and that it'd be too expensive
to make it do that.  If you don't make it perform any other function
than providing "attic space" for the station, tho',
it can be provided essentially for free (in fact, bringing it
up to orbit may allow the shuttle to >>increase<< its
to-orbit payload, since the fuel previously used in the
ET-jettison manoeuvre won't have to be expended, and this may
offset the mass penalty of the extra ET-attached hardware).
I think that by requiring too much performance of the ET
as a space station component, its cost can of course be forced
(literally) sky-high; the same is true of >>any<< part of
a spacecraft.  Why not just bring up a few tanks empty,
at a very low cost, and find out what they're good for up there,
before adding performance requirements to them and raising their
cost?  (These people are not only looking a gift horse in the
mouth, they're sending it back because with a rating of only
1 horsepower, it's makes a lousy sportscar....)
   Any comments?
-- 
     Kieran A. Carroll @ U of Toronto Aerospace Institute
     {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!kcarroll

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

End of SPACE Digest V6 #41
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA01322; Wed, 11 Dec 85 03:01:06 PST
	id AA01322; Wed, 11 Dec 85 03:01:06 PST
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 85 03:01:06 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8512111101.AA01322@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #42

*** EOOH ***
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 85 03:01:06 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #42

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 6 : Issue 42

Today's Topics:
	    Re: Re: Shuttle Articles in Discover Magazine
			     Re: Phoenix
			 Re: Manned Mars Trip
		       Re: Shuttle sonic booms
			ET, The External Tank
 Review of Soviet work in quantum nonlocality and SDI super weapons?
			  experiment with ET
		  Re: Re: Re: Shuttle external tanks
		       January Discover Article
			 Manned Mars Mission
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 7 Dec 85 02:15:46 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!cmcl2!lanl!jlg@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Re: Shuttle Articles in Discover Magazine
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

I don't understand this line of controversy.  I though the shuttle WAS
cheaper per pound than saturn Vs and the like.  Oh, the actual dollar
amount might be the same - or even more - but inflation has reduced
the value of the dollar by more than A FACTOR OF TWO since the last
Apollo mission.  Is the $/lb. figure for the shuttle really that much?
Maybe I should get a back issue of Discover to figure out what started
this discussion in the first place.
J. Giles
Los Alamos

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

Date: 5 Dec 85 17:53:52 GMT
From: sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Stanley Friesen)
Subject: Re: Phoenix
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <8511262256.AA00949@s1-b.arpa> dietz@SLB-DOLL.CSNET (Paul Dietz) writes:
>
>Perhaps we're in the 1930's of spaceflight, and the shuttle is the
>American Hindenberg (it certainly has enough hydrogen in it...).
	I'd say thats about right, except that I would say the shuttle
is the Spirit of St Louis. A strained design intended solely to
*prove a point*, that something is possible, but not actually do it
*well*. Now that it has been shown to be possible there should be a
rapid increase in *commercial* developement which will quickly get us
to the next stage of space flight(the "50.s" :-)).
-- 
				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)
UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen
ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa

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

Posted-Date: Sat 7 Dec 1985 10:13:13 EST
Date: Sat 7 Dec 1985 10:13:13 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Re: Manned Mars Trip
To: Dick Jackson <decvax!linus!philabs!ttidca!ttidcb!jackson@ucbvax.berkeley.edu>
In-Reply-To: decvax!linus!philabs!ttidca!ttidcb!jackson's message of 5 Dec 85 19:46:09 GMT
Cc: space@mit-mc.arpa, dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa

A manned Mars trip should have low priority.  The following items
are more important:

   (1) Cheaper transport to low earth orbit
   (2) Reusable OTV's (robotic or remote controlled)
   (3) Storage areas in LEO and GEO for parts & fuel for OTV's
   (4) A LEO space station
   (5) A GEO space station
   (6) Visits to asteroids co-orbital with earth, if any exist
   (7) A lunar base
   (8) Visits to some Apollo/Amor asteroids

It really makes little sense to visit Mars until we can do so
economically.  This will require more infrastructure around earth
if we want to establish a base there at a reasonable cost.
The payback from asteroid visits is also likely to be higher,
if large amounts of mass can be returned to earth orbit.
Of course, there will be scientific benefits from a Mars mission,
but the results would be expensive, and more science could be done
on earth (in other fields) for the same money.

Of the eight points I listed above, (1) is the most important for
making a Mars mission practical.  A Mars ship will be heavy.  In
proposed Mars missions I've seen, the major cost has been bringing
the Mars ship and its fuel into orbit.

The rockets used in the Mars mission could be conventional LH/LOX
chemical rockets or NERVA-type nuclear rockets.
Some sort of beam-powered (microwave or laser) electric rocket
could also be practical, at least for the boost away from earth.

The first missions to Mars will probably establish bases on or near
Phobos and/or Deimos.  These moons are likely to contain water
and carbon compounds, and could be processed into air, food and fuel.

Probably the cheapest way to get to Mars in the near term is by
an Orion-type rocket.  It could be built in orbit to reduce fallout,
but this would again require cheap boosters to put its thousands of
tonnes of mass into space.  ET materials might be useful as shielding,
or for structural material, if a nickel-iron asteroid could be snared.
Water or carbon compounds from asteroids or the moons of Mars could be
used as reaction mass in the shaped nuclear charges.

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

Date: 6 Dec 85 23:14:52 GMT
From: ihnp4!nsc!saber!msc@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Mark Callow)
Subject: Re: Shuttle sonic booms
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> > Why are there two sonic booms from the shuttle?
> 
> It's because there are two "sonic cones" formed by the shuttle.  (There is
> .....
> explanation about how it's due to the shuttle's "strange" shape
> deleted for brevity.
Concorde also makes a double sonic boom.
-- 
From the TARDIS of Mark Callow
msc@saber.uucp,  sun!saber!msc@decwrl.dec.com ...{ihnp4,sun}!saber!msc
"Boards are long and hard and made of wood"

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

Date: 7 Dec 85 14:59:32 EST
From: Hank.Walker@unh.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: ET, The External Tank
To: BBoard.Maintainer@a.cs.cmu.edu

Why do people keep talking about venting the leftover LH2 and LO2 from the
ET once in orbit?  This is now very expensive fuel or water we're talking
about, perhaps more useful than the tank itself.  I'd try hard not to waste
any.

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

From: creon@ames-nas.arpa (Creon Levit)
Date:  7 Dec 1985 1642-PST (Saturday)
To: physics@sri-unix.arpa, space@mit-mc.arpa
Subject: Review of Soviet work in quantum nonlocality and SDI super weapons?

STRATEGIC DEFENSE STUDY GROUP
POB 26548, San Francisco, CA 94126
(415)398 6690/362 7779, 12/2/85

Memorandum for the record by J. Sarfatti.

Soviet view of quantum nonlocality and the potential for SDI super weapons.

Reference: Nonlocality in quantum physics. Soviet Physics Usp. 27(4)April 1984
(Usp Fiz Nauk 142 599-617).
by B.I. Spasski & A.V. Moskovskii of M.V. Lomonosov Moscow State University.

They say that we must distinguish two meanings of nonlocality. First, that of 
microcausality in quantum field theory in which the commutator of second 
quantized  boson fields vanishes for faster than light space-like separation 
between the two field points. The currents of spinor fields also obey 
microcausality in conventional local quantum field theory. Violation of this 
condition is the first meaning of nonlocality. They write:

 "In this sense, one means by nonlocal theories...generalizations of quantum 
field theory based on... a nonpoint interaction."

The second sense of nonlocality is then described:

[The remaining 200 lines of this almost totally incomprehensible message
 deleted to save space.  If anyone really wants to try and plow through
 this kind of stuff they should get on net.physics.  If you really want
 to look at this message send me a note and I'll forward you a copy.
	-The Moderator]

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

X-Sent: to SU-AI.ARPA by IMSSS.FRONSTAD.EDU via ETHERNET with PUPFTP; 1985-Dec-07 19:55:20 PST (=GMT-8hr)
X-Mailer: EMACS -> PSL (FORMAT+SEND-ALL) -> PUPFTP
Date: 1985 December 07 18:28:12 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM@imsss.stanford.edu>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: experiment with ET
Sender: REM%IMSSS@su-score.arpa (for undeliverable-mail notifications)
Reply-To: REM%IMSSS@SU-SCORE.ARPA (temporary until IMSSS.STANFORD.EDU registered)

| Date: 5 Dec 85 22:19:58 GMT
| From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!kcarroll@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
| Subject: Shuttle External Tanks and Space Stations
| Why not just bring up a few tanks empty,
| at a very low cost, and find out what they're good for up there, ...
I agree. This latest flight they "played" with building beams and pyramids
out of snap-together parts. Nothing useful, just find out what can and
cannot be done. Let's do the same for ET. (1) Keep ahold of an ET until in
orbit, and have a kit along for installing an airlock in one end. Don't
even need to have an air supply along. (2) In orbit, try installing the
airlock. If it fails, try a different way some later misson, but if it
succeeds then the very next mission (or so) carry both an airlock kit and
a pressurization tank and try repeating the successful installation and if
it succeeds again try pressurizing. (Or if orbital mechanics permit,
rendezvous with the already-up&airlocked ET from first mission.) Now that
we have regular visits to space, we don't have to worry that after a few
years the ET will come down over Perth Australia and scare everybody like
the spacelab did back when we didn't have a way to boost it to higher
orbit. We can easily leave several ETs in various stages of adaption in
LEO, and depending on orbital constraints visit one or another at future
times to continue work on them. (We know before launch which orbit we'll
be in so we know which one we'll be visiting this time so we can take
aboard the appropriate equipment for the next step in furbishing them.)
After an ET has been in space a few months, with an airlock and a little
system for ventilating (put some air in under low pressure to mix with
dangerous gasses left around from when it was a fuel tank, and allow the
mixture to vent out through a hole into space), the level of hazardous
gasses should be low enough to permit people to visit it safely, maybe
even fully pressurize it for shirtsleeve occupancy. After several ETs have
been made habitable, we might take extra fuel up so we can move around
between them and tow them into a single clump.

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

Date: 6 Dec 85 01:05:00 GMT
From: decvax!cca!pbear!peterb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Shuttle external tanks
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Actually I think many people are missing the point...
	IF construction is to occur in space, then some raw materials have to
be present. I think it would not cost that much MORE to take the tanks all
the way to orbit, and LEAVE them there. Then bring up the parts that have
wiring, ventalation, etc, and live in the shuttle while transforming an
external tank into a larger quarters. Hook the LS/CR (Life
Support/Comminications & Research) section onto the external tank at one end
and pump the free O2 in that tank to a container tank. Then crank up the LS
unit and ramble inside. It should handle the stress of a low pressure
atmosphere without much modification. Then with each launch, haul and adapt
another external tank for more space.
Peter Barada
ihnp4!ima!pbear!peterb

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

Posted-Date: Sun 8 Dec 1985 10:58:31 EST
Date: Sun 8 Dec 1985 10:58:31 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: January Discover Article
To: space@mit-mc.arpa, dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa

The January 86 issue of Discover has a very interesting article in
hypersonic aircraft ("The New Orient Express", pages 72-81).

The article starts by discussing conventional SST's, such as the
Concorde, that use turbojets.  These planes can be made more efficient,
but turbojets cannot operate at a high enough altitude to muffle the
sonic booms, restricting them to ocean-crossing flights.

To get around sonic booms, one must travel at hypersonic speeds at
higher altitudes.  The "Orient Express" is a hypothetical hypersonic
trans-pacific airliner.  It would travel at Mach 5+.  This is too fast
for turbojets: the heat is too much for the turbine that drives the
compressor.  The proposal is to use a hybrid engine called a
turboramjet.  In this design, the turbine is driven not by the exhaust
gases but rather by a "gas generator", a kind of combination rocket/
fuel injection system.  The temperature of the gas generator can be
controlled to limit heating of the turbine to acceptable levels.
A compressor is driven by this turbine; at low speeds it would
make the engine act like a turbojet; at high speeds the ram pressure of
the incoming air would make the engine act like a ramjet, with a
small boost from the turbine.

For transatmospheric vehicles (TAV's), there are several possible
engines, all using liquid hydrogen.  The first is the scramjet.  This
uses a weak shock wave from a highly pointed intake to slow the air
slightly through the engine, plus variable-geometry ducting to keep the
flame from blowing out.  These have been tested to Mach 8 (at which
point the wind tunnels overheat).  There are two ways to get a scramjet
to hypersonic speeds.  First, it could be carried on a first stage
propelled by turboramjets (which could also act as a endoatmospheric
transport, much like the 747 for the shuttle, and could be spun-off into
a commerical Orient Express).  Second, the scramjet could use a
conventional rocket as a fuel injector.  The rocket would burn a
highly fuel-rich mixture (even the space shutle main engines burn
a 4-1 molar ratio of hydrogen to oxygen), which would react
further with air before leaving the engine.  The rocket would provide
thrust even at zero forward speed, eliminating the need for the
first-stage vehicle.  The rocket exhaust may also drag air through the
engine at zero forward speed.  The proposed military TAV will use
this scramrocket.

An alternate to the scramjet is the cryojet.  This is a kind of
turboramrocket.  Cryogenic liquid hydrogen is used to cool the incoming
air before combustion, allowing the engine to breath air at higher
speeds.  The final boost to orbit uses the built-in rocket.  A further
refinement, the LACE (liquid air cycle engine) uses the liquid hydrogen
to liquify a small quantity of air for use in the fuel-injector rocket.
The British HOTOL will use LACE.  They hope to use it as a 60-passenger
transport that can fly from London to Sydney in 67 minutes, take-off to
touch-down.

This is exciting stuff.   It's apparent that jet and rocket technology
is converging, and for the first time we can imagine in detail what
a commercial spaceliner might look like.

The article is highly recommended.

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

Date:         Sun, 08 Dec 85 15:04:42 EST
From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Reply-To:  ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA
To: SPACE-INCOMING@s1-b.arpa
Subject:      Manned Mars Mission

     In response to Dick Jackson's query as to current concepts for a manned
Mars mission, there is a good summary paper, "An Expedition to Mars Employing
Shuttle-Era Systems, Solar Sails and Aerocapture", by Robert L. Staehle, in
the book "The Case for Mars", P.J. Boston, ed., Vol. 57 of Science and
Technology Series, American Astronautical Society Publications.  The paper
is AAS number 81-235.
     To summarize: The first element of the mission is to ship supplies to
Mars using Unmanned solar-sail cargo vehicles.  The solar sails suggested are
2 km square structures of 2.5 micron Kapton, coated with aluminum to make them
reflective.  The journey time from LEO to mars orbit is 4 years.  The cargo
carried include the propellant for operations at Mars and for Earth return,
the return vehicles, and the two Mars Landers.   When the arrival of this
equipment has been verified at Mars orbit, the crew is launched in two one-
way vehicles, each with 4 crewmembers.  At mars, the transfer vehicle is
abandoned, and the crew uses aerocapture vehicles to shed excess velocity
in several passes through the atmosphere, and attain orbit, picking up the
supplies cached there earlier.  18 months are spent at Mars (to wait for
a favorable return positioning.  The entire mission time, not including
the solar sail launchings, is just under three years.  53 Shuttle launches
are required, assuming a "delivery-configured orbiter", a shuttle stripped
down to remove all the equipment not required for a one-day payload delivery
mission.
     Refer to the paper for more specific details.
                         --Geoffrey A. Landis

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

End of SPACE Digest V6 #42
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA05546; Thu, 12 Dec 85 03:00:56 PST
	id AA05546; Thu, 12 Dec 85 03:00:56 PST
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 85 03:00:56 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8512121100.AA05546@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #43

*** EOOH ***
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 85 03:00:56 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #43

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 6 : Issue 43

Today's Topics:
		   Re: Star Wars and other nonsense
		 Re: Shuttle reliability for Comsats
	      Announcement of Opportunity (NASA Jargon)
		   Telescopes and parabolic mirrors
		 Van Allen article in January Sci Am
		     Re: A High Tech Maginot Line
		     Re: A High Tech Maginot Line
		A brief note about NASA and the usenet
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 11 Dec 85 11:30:44 PST
From: mcgeer@ji (Rick McGeer)
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa,
        tektronix!tekig5!tekigm!timothym@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Star Wars and other nonsense

	Can anyone tell me what, if anything, this missive contributed to any
space-related discussion?

	Post this to net.telepathy, or net.politics, or arms-d, or net.ai, or
somewhere where they deal with such stuff.  Not here.  Space is for discussion
of shuttles, screwball orbital devices, calculation-free postings about
dragging the external tank into orbit, and telling Henry Spencer to shut up
because he's only a Canadian :-).

	Seriously, I've heard enough about Maginot Lines, drug pushers and
other stuff kind of loosely related to SDI to fill my belly, twice.  Save it.
Can we get back to discussing space, please?

					-- Rick.

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

Date: 8 Dec 85 02:31:33 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Shuttle reliability for Comsats
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> Yes.  You'll also need a place to store & service the OTV in low orbit,
> perhaps an unmanned or intermittently manned platform of some kind.
No.  Parking your car does not imply a parking garage.  Nobody is going
to run off with the OTV.  Having a space station to park the OTV at is a
convenience, not a requirement.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

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

Date: 8 Dec 85 20:18:59 GMT
From: dual!ames!eugene@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Eugene Miya)
Subject: Announcement of Opportunity (NASA Jargon)
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Ah, my calendar reminds it is the approach of a new summer hiring period.
I don't have the time to be eloquent, so I dug up and modified the
posting I did last year at this time.  Sorry for the delay as I was in
Washington DC.  I realize some schools are out or just starting finals.
But anyway, 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
So here goes:

Announcement of Opportunity (NASA Jargon)

[leq: in a nearby by galaxy, close, closer, closest.....]
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 my time has run out.
the window for submitting SF 171s is January 1 to January 15.  If you are
interested, you should have your resume and forms filled out before January 1.
NASA is the US civilian space agency [we are not part of the DOD].  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 older
minis.  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:
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

	12/8 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 South)
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, two Cray XMPs, and numerous
other machines.  Located in the heart of Santa Clara Valley.
Aerodynamics, chemistry, life sciences, SETI, space station work (AI).

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.

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, but I have not tested it.  If you must know it,
give me two days to test it and then ask me.

Bob Steinberg
NASA Lewis Research Center
21000 Brookpark Rd.
Cleveland, OH 44135
LeRC does work on aerodynamics.  They have a Cray-1S.
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.

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.

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.]

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)

--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Res. Ctr.
  {hplabs,ihnp4,dual,hao,menlo70,icase}!ames!aurora!eugene
  eugene@ames-nas.ARPA

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

Date: 9 Dec 85 16:14:12 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!cmcl2!philabs!ams@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Ali Shaik)
Subject: Telescopes and parabolic mirrors
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

   One way to figure out if a thin circular sheet would deform
   to a paraboloid when pressurized is to set up the differential
   equations of deformation and solve them. Intuitive analogies
   to soap bubbles, etc may not always work.
   I looked up "Theory of plates and shells" by Timoshenko and
   Woinowsky-Kreiger, and sure enough, they had done all the dirty
   work for me! (see eq. 67 on page 57).
   The deflection contains the square of the radius multiplied by
   a large constant plus radius to the fourth power. The surface
   is a paraboloid to within 6% upto half the radius of the sheet.
   Thus darkening the area beyond 0.5r looks as if it would give
   close approximation to a paraboloid. I don't know how much
   this means in terms of image quality. It looks promising for
   manufacture of cheap telescopes. 
   - Ali "Bangalore" Shaik
    ihnp4!philabs!ams

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

Date: 10 Dec 85 01:15:27 GMT
From: decvax!bellcore!petrus!karn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Phil R. Karn)
Subject: Van Allen article in January Sci Am
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Be sure to see the article "Space Science, Space Technology and the
Space Station," by James A. Van Allen in the January 1986 Scientific
American. The abstract reads:
"The space-station program will seriously diminish the opportunities
for advancing space science and technology if it proceeds as planned. Most
national goals in space are better realized by robot spacecraft."
I suggest that all those who wish to comment on the article read it first.
Phil

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

Date: 8 Dec 85 12:39:07 GMT
From: sdcsvax!sdcc3!sdcc7!ln63fkn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Paul van de Graaf)
Subject: Re: A High Tech Maginot Line
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <34395@lanl.ARPA> jlg@a.UUCP (Jim Giles) writes:
>The feasibility of SDI is still seriously in question, but the failure
>to stop drug smuggling in not a counter-example.  These are two different
>tasks with two completely different objectives.
I recall that the war-head in a cruise missile weighs about 350 pounds.
Considering that TONS of marajuana are smuggled into the U. S. every day...
What's to stop Joe terrorist, or for that matter the Soviets, from smuggling
hundreds of war-heads into the U. S. and setting them off in choice locations.
Spy Satellites might help you in this area, but SDI certainly won't.
Paul van de Graaf		sdcsvax!sdcc7!ln63fkn		U. C. San Diego

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

Date: 10 Dec 85 00:19:00 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!cmcl2!lanl!jlg@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: A High Tech Maginot Line
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> I recall that the war-head in a cruise missile weighs about 350 pounds.
> Considering that TONS of marajuana are smuggled into the U. S. every day...
> What's to stop Joe terrorist, or for that matter the Soviets, from smuggling
> hundreds of war-heads into the U. S. and setting them off in choice locations.
> Spy Satellites might help you in this area, but SDI certainly won't.
When the Soviets start to use this as a delivery method, I think I'll start
to worry.  I'll worry harder than you think - to smuggle warheads into this
country is an overt act of war.  The soviets won't try this sort of
intrigue because of the probably that we would launch an immediate attack
if such activities were detected.  We wouldn't have to catch every warhead,
if we detect just one the war will have been declared.  SDI doesn't help
against this form of attack because it is not the sort of attack the
Soviets would use.
Drug smuggling is still not a counter-example against SDI.  SDI is a
specific defense against a specific form of attack - ie. that form of
attack that our potential enemy currently places emphasis upon.
J. Giles
Los Alamos

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

Date: 8 Dec 85 20:40:35 GMT
From: dual!ames!eugene@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Eugene Miya)
Subject: A brief note about NASA and the usenet
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

I have just returned from a one week "vacation" to the Washington DC
area where I visited friends at the Langley Research Center, NASA HQ,
and the Goddard Space Flight Center.  I caught a cold very early on
and was in fact an hour late for my own presentations at LARC (talk
about feeling sick :-( ).  Presentations at HQ and Goddard went better.
They are amused with the USENET and net.space, net.columbia.
I also gave demos of Phil Karn's sat/azel system and Bob Morris's
sky program (people were impressed).  I learned that Goddard was now
on BITNET, they are hoping for an ARPA connect thru UOM.  These presentations
were mostly about UNIX, computer networks, and recent trends in Si Valley.
Special thanks go the the National Bureau of Standards for inviting
me to talk about my current research on performance measurement:
"Beyond the Livermore Loops: Second Generation Benchmarking."
A NASA Technical Note will be issued in January on this with some
prototype ideas run on Crays, Cybers, Convex, ELXSI, and other machines.
From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  {hplabs,ihnp4,dual,hao,decwrl,allegra}!ames!aurora!eugene
  emiya@ames-vmsb.ARPA

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

End of SPACE Digest V6 #43
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA10434; Fri, 13 Dec 85 03:00:53 PST
	id AA10434; Fri, 13 Dec 85 03:00:53 PST
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 85 03:00:53 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8512131100.AA10434@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #44

*** EOOH ***
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 85 03:00:53 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #44

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 6 : Issue 44

Today's Topics:
			 Stages to Saturn #4
		    "Shadowing" geosync satellites
			     Re: spinoffs
			    Trips to Mars
			SHuttle cost argument
			   PghL5 xmas party
		 Re: Telescopes and parabolic mirrors
			     Re: Spinoffs
	     electric propulsion; EP/Manned Mars mission;
		     Martian Moon Rocks -- Cheap!
			 Re: Manned Mars Trip
			   Low Earth Orbit
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 9 Dec 85 23:59:45 GMT
From: ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dave Newkirk)
Subject: Stages to Saturn #4
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Even with mechanical drones like the Gray Puke usurping the human
role, the man-behind-the-machine could still display sone semblance
of individuality.  Consider, for example, the case of the petulant
computer-printer - when the machine apparently took umbrage during
the automatic checkout sequence in preparation for an acceptance firing.
The moment of truth for the test arrived - the signal to fire.  After
uncounted hours of preparation, hundreds of workers now stood by to
observe the climactic moment of ignition.  In the crowded blockhouse,
all eyes focused on the rows of computers and monitor screens displaying
their last fragments of information.  Finally, the test conductor
typed in his `request' to start the terminal countdown for static firing.
The computer whirred, and the automatic typewriter responded with a
singular reply, "Say please." Startled, the test conductor concluded
he had made a typing error, and repeated his original message more
carefully.  The balky computer was not to be denied.  "Say please,"
it insisted.  At this point, the crowd in the blockhouse began stirring
restlessly.  The loaded S-IVB, readied for firing, remained poised
nearby with thousands of gallons of liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen
primed for detonation.  People were getting tense.  Reasonably certain
he was only working against a faulty firing tape, the test conductor
quickly decided to make one more try, rather than put it into discard
and risk more precious time to put a replacement tape into operation.
So once more, he entered into the machine his humble request to fire,
with a polite notation at the end: "please."  This time, there was no
problem.  "This is your programmer," the machine clattered back,
"wishing you good luck."  And with a roar, the rocket ignited.
From "Stages to Saturn - A Technological History of the Apollo/Saturn
Launch Vehicles", available from the "Superindendant of Documents", U.S.
Gov't Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402. Order NASA SP-4206, $12.00.
-- 
				Dave Newkirk, ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn

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

Date: 9 Dec 85 18:42:57 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!seismo!brl-tgr!wmartin@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Will Martin )
Subject: "Shadowing" geosync satellites
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Is the Space Shuttle large enough to "shadow" or interfere with the
transmissions between the surface and a geosync satellite? What about
the proposed Space Station? If so, won't it interfere on a regular
basis? If the shuttle interferes, it would do so fairly rarely, and this
would be tolerable. If the Space Station scrambles the transmissions
that are picked up by some cable system earth station every ninety
minutes, I would think that an interesting court case might result...
Will Martin
UUCP/USENET: seismo!brl-bmd!wmartin   or   ARPA/MILNET: wmartin@almsa-1.ARPA

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

Date: 9 Dec 85 14:28:18 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!rochester!rocksanne!sunybcs!jmpiazza@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Joseph M. Piazza)
Subject: Re: spinoffs
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <380@anasazi.UUCP> john@anasazi.UUCP (John Moore) writes:
>In article <8511191259.AA24626@decwrl.DEC.COM> redford@JEREMY.DEC (John Redford) writes:
>>
>>The commercial value of spinoffs is negligible.
>>
>>program might develop something unique and innovative, but it rarely 
>>gains market acceptance because it is specialized to the needs of 
>>that program.  The bottom line is that if you want your research to 
>>be of commercial value, it must be directed to commercial needs.  
>
>So, if it is not commercially worthwhile, then neither is scientific
>research. Lets drop all funding of scientific research - since it is
>not directed at producing commercial results, it will rarely be useful!
>
I recall local firm here in Western New York that designed and
manufactured a component for the shuttle was able to market a product
based on that component (a small motor, I believe).  The point here is
that the company was producing a product (and jobs) that it would NOT
have if it wasn't for the shuttle program, which esentially served to
subsidize the component's design making the step towards marketing it
was a very small one.
	joe piazza

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

Posted-Date: Mon 9 Dec 1985 12:26:09 EST
Date: Mon 9 Dec 1985 12:26:09 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Trips to Mars
To: space@mit-mc.arpa

I just saw a book that pretends to be an official manual for astronauts
participating in a mid-1990's UN Mars mission.  Ballantine books is the
publisher, I think.  It's a big red paperback, costs $12.95 + tax.
The book describes in detail an 11-man mission to Mars.  The craft
is powered by uprated space shuttle engines, burning LH/LOX.  The crew
lives in zero gee, and stays at Mars for 30 days.  I didn't see a
mention of cost; something like 40-50 shuttle flights (or the equivalent)
are needed to lift the vehicle, crew, various satellites and fuel into orbit,
so launch costs alone are around $6-10 billion.

Some comments: (1) most of the shuttle flights are for bringing up fuel
and fuel tanks.  Why not reuse shuttle external tanks?  Carrying
fuel is what they're designed for, after all.  (2) It's clear that the
major cost of the mission is launching material from the ground.
(3) If the astronauts stay in Mars orbit then there is little technology
needed for a Mars mission that has not already been developed or will
be developed for other uses (the space station, for example).  A good
first mission would have the astronauts rendevous with Phobos and/or
Deimos, and explore the Martian surface with remote controlled drone
aircraft and rovers.  (4) Once we have a space station and cheap
(x 10 cheaper) launchers, a Mars mission becomes quite inexpensive
(~ a billion dollars?).  (5) The technology needed for a Mars mission
is also useful for near-earth asteroid missions; indeed, the latter may
be easier and could serve as a useful first step.  Samples can
be recovered from small asteroids much more easily than from Mars.
(6) Since the Mars vehicle uses LH/LOX propellant, most of the fuel
mass is liquid oxygen.  Studies have shown that even at moderate production
levels (100's of tonnes/year?) lunar production of LOX can be
competitive with LOX launched from earth.

An aside: the vehicle must carry shielding against radiation from
solar flares.  In a solar flare, do the energetic protons hit the
spacecraft mainly from the direction of the sun, or do magnetic
fields make them come from the sides as well?

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

Date: 10 Dec 85 19:56:57 EST
From: Dale.Amon@fas.ri.cmu.edu
Subject: SHuttle cost argument
To: BBoard.Maintainer@a.cs.cmu.edu

I agree heartily with Spencer and find the injection of nationalism by other
parties to be inappropriate and childish.

If you want to be rah-rah free peoples in space, I'm in agreement. If you
want to be my country 'ubber alles', then cram it up your expansion nozzle.

NASA is well known for internal politics, and I have little doubt that
justifications were created in high level meetings. It is an intensely ugly
dog eat dog budgetary world we have created; the honest get squashed and the
stupid get caught (and create publicity for the defenders of the public who
haven't gotten caught yet). This does not change the fact the shuttle MUST
have a cheap follow on. You need only follow some of Newt Gingrich's simple
calculations to see that the net loss per flight will eat up most of the
available capital. (REF: USSF conference proceedings from last year)

It is a beautiful ship, and it is the first spaceship, but we need the
Phoenix or an equivalent to make things happen.

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

Date: 10 Dec 85 17:20:12 EST
From: Dale.Amon@fas.ri.cmu.edu
Subject: PghL5 xmas party
To: BBoard.Maintainer@a.cs.cmu.edu

For those of you who happen to be neraby, or perhaps are passing through
this weekend:

Our annual Pittsburgh L5 Christmas bash will be held this Saturday night,
December the 14th.  Beer and assorted goodies will be supplied, but bring
something if you can. Come and get launched where you can talk space and
everybody knows what you're talking about!!!

6823 Thomas Blvd, Apt #4
Pittsburgh, PA (Point Breeze area)
19:30-?? Sat 12/14/85.


    |          |        (*) |
    |-------------------------- Thomas Blvd ---
    |          |            |
    |          |            | Dallas
    |          |            |
--------------------------------- Penn Ave ----   Wilkinsburg->
   /           |            |
  / 5th
 /


PS: With a little luck, we'll have some video tapes of SF, launches, etc.

Bring a friend, so long as they have a high tolerance for discussion of
launch loops, mass drivers, NASA buzzwords, APU's, LEO's, relative
merits of orbits, social structures from lunar colonies, inner workings
of zero G toilets, mechanics of Zero G sex, rail guns, SDI, asteroid
mining, science fiction....

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

Date: 10 Dec 85 14:37:35 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!brl-tgr!gwyn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Doug Gwyn <ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!brl-tgr!gwyn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu>)
Subject: Re: Telescopes and parabolic mirrors
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> It looks promising for manufacture of cheap telescopes. 
Now we just need cheap space boosters.

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

Date: 7 Dec 85 18:29:00 GMT
From: pur-ee!uiucdcsb!carroll@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Spinoffs
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

There's also the case where one of the first graphics house's (a company
that produces computer graphics) got it's start in the military. They
had been doing studies on radiation penetration (mostly neutrons) of
various objects, when it occurred to them that if they just changed the
system to dealing with light, the whole thing would do really good
shaded 3-D images. Not very major, but just one more thing in the series.

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

To: space
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 85 15:51:04 eet
From: FYS-TS%FINHUT.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: electric propulsion; EP/Manned Mars mission;


Help|||||

Trying to contact people, who are doing something on electric
propulsion systems(i.e. ion-, field emission - and magneto-
plasma-dynamic thrusters). Nuclear electric propulsion of
course included.

Also, if someone knows, how to get in contact via networks
with R.M. Jones and/or C.G. Sauer, probably at JPL working
on nuclear electric propulsion, I'd be most delighted, if I
could get some hints.

Someone have interesting news about electric propulsion
missions? Anybady considered using a cluster of ion thrusters
for a manned Mars mission?

Tero Siili, Helsinki University of Technology

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

Posted-Date: Wed 11 Dec 1985 08:29:12 EST
Date: Wed 11 Dec 1985 08:29:12 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Martian Moon Rocks -- Cheap!
To: space@mit-mc.arpa, dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa

Here's a possible scheme for recovering large quantities of martian
moon material at very low cost.  (Question: earth's moon is to lunar
as a martian moon is to ???).

The idea is to erect a long kevlar cable from one of the martian moons
(Phobos, say).  The lower end of the cable is attached to the moon; the
upper end swings around at much greater than orbital velocity.  Payloads
are launched by reeling in the cable, attacking a bag of rocks to the
end, reeling it out again and releasing the bag at the proper time.
The beauty of this scheme is that it requires almost no power and no
reaction mass.  Energy and angular momentum are supplied by dropping
Phobos slightly closer to Mars.

If the cable is long enough the payloads can escape from Mars entirely,
and, if released when Phobos is on Mars's dayside, could conceivably
receive enough velocity change to put them onto a transfer orbit
to earth.  Near earth, the bags would be intercepted by small
spacecraft, steered into lunar flyby trajectories to lose speed, then
brought to high orbit.

This may not be feasible (for example, the cable could have to be too
strong or heavy), but it should be possible to lift mass into high
martian orbits by this mechanism where it could be returned to earth
by solar sail or nuclear propulsion (especially if the material contains
a lot of hydrogen for use as reaction mass), for a considerable saving
in the velocity change the sail or rocket would have to supply.

This scheme will have to end before Phobos drops onto Mars (talk about
environmental impact...).

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

Date: 10 Dec 85 20:01:54 GMT
From: ihnp4!iham1!spock@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Ed Weiss)
Subject: Re: Manned Mars Trip
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> A manned Mars trip should have low priority.  The following items
> are more important:
> 
>    (1) Cheaper transport to low earth orbit
>    (2) Reusable OTV's (robotic or remote controlled)
>    (3) Storage areas in LEO and GEO for parts & fuel for OTV's
>    (4) A LEO space station
>    (5) A GEO space station
>    (6) Visits to asteroids co-orbital with earth, if any exist
>    (7) A lunar base
>    (8) Visits to some Apollo/Amor asteroids
> 
> It really makes little sense to visit Mars until we can do so
> economically.  This will require more infrastructure around earth
> if we want to establish a base there at a reasonable cost.
> The payback from asteroid visits is also likely to be higher,
> if large amounts of mass can be returned to earth orbit.
> Of course, there will be scientific benefits from a Mars mission,
> but the results would be expensive, and more science could be done
> on earth (in other fields) for the same money.
> 
> .....
I think that we (the readers of this group and ME) spend too much time
thinking of the practical and economical reasons for space related
activities.  There has been much discussion on how to justify our
favorite program.  What we need to concentrate on is not the REAL
reasons why our program should be funded, but the reasons that will
CAUSE our program to be funded.
It seems to me that the best way to get funding is to appeal to
the common American's sense of adventure.  We need to capture
their imaginations.  THAT is how we are going to get funding.
That is why the space station is important.  It keeps space
in the public's mind.
(To get back to the subject line):  A Mars project may be the way to
get Americans as excited as they were for the Apollo project.  If this
happens then we may just get the funding we need.  Funding for a Mars
project may necessarily include many of the programs that we feel
are necessary.
The purpose of this article is not to say that we should stop thinking
of GOOD reasons to justify space programs.  What it is meant to say is
that when we try to SELL our programs, we must use some political savvy.
REMEMBER that the space budget is not fixed.  Congress can vote us
more money if they think it is politically good move.
Sorry about my soapbox!
-- 
					Ed Weiss
					ihnp4!iham1!spock
					--> Live Long and Prosper <--

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

Date: 25 Nov 85 21:38:34 GMT
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!randvax!kovacs!rivero@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Michael Foster Rivero)
Subject: Low Earth Orbit
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

	Anybody have any C programs for basic Low Earth Orbit calculations?
	Thanks in advance.
			Mike Rivero
randvax!kovacs!rivero

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

End of SPACE Digest V6 #44
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA13967; Sat, 14 Dec 85 03:00:50 PST
	id AA13967; Sat, 14 Dec 85 03:00:50 PST
Date: Sat, 14 Dec 85 03:00:50 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8512141100.AA13967@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #45

*** EOOH ***
Date: Sat, 14 Dec 85 03:00:50 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #45

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 6 : Issue 45

Today's Topics:
	    Re: Shuttle External Tanks and Space Stations
			      ET=>Orbit
		  Re: Re: Re: Shuttle external tanks
	    Re: Shuttle External Tanks and Space Stations
		  Re: "Shadowing" geosync satellites
			   Re: Beamed Power
		  Re: "Shadowing" geosync satellites
			    RE: cost/pound
	RE: Manned mission to Mars, Grandstanding, cost/pound
			 Spinoffs from space
		       Re: SPACE Digest V6 #42
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 10 Dec 85 20:21:51 GMT
From: mtxinu!rtech!amdahl!ems@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (ems)
Subject: Re: Shuttle External Tanks and Space Stations
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> ...
> If nothing else, it could be used as a relaxation area by the
> crew (who, after all, will be spending 3 months at a time
> in a space the size of 5 house-trailers strung together).
Oh boy!  3D raquet ball in space!
I actually spent 3.5 months in a space far smaller than 5 house-trailers
in a NASA sponsored project.  It was about 11 x 17 feet.  There
were three of us.  No windows.  No exit.
It would be very handy to have a place to go just to be alone.
An attic would be a great idea.
Another possible use?  Why not start a garden?  There was a
definite trend for dust, hair, etc. to build up in The Box
(our name for the project...)  The same should happen with
the space station.  Put a slow centifuge wheel in the tank,
add dirt/dust, water, seeds, and electric light.  (Maybe
even some 'fertilizer').  Might not be much to you to see a
flower or two, but there was a time when I would have found
it to be a great pleasure to see something living, something
from 'outside'...
-- 
E. Michael Smith  ...!{hplabs,ihnp4,amd,nsc}!amdahl!ems
This is the obligatory disclaimer of everything.

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

Date: 9 Dec 85 17:48:26 GMT
From: decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-star!fisher@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Burns Fisher ZKO1-1/D42 DTN 381-1466)
Subject: ET=>Orbit
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Many moons ago, in a completely separate discussion, I posted something which
said approximately, "I am always amazed at how spacecraft are designed so
closely to their environment, without a great deal of leeway".  Examples:
Apollo CSM had to rotate all the way to the moon in order to distribute heat;
comsats can't hang around in LEO/shuttle/xfer orbit for long because that
is not the environment they were designed for.  This is not criticism, just
fact.  (I don't want to get ames!eugene all upset at me again!)
I think that this same stuff applies to the ET schemes I have seen discussed.
To most of us, the ET is a source of kilo-cubic feet of space, perhaps
with only a tiny mod to make it work just right.  But think of all the
relationships that any tiny mod would mess up!  So we need the tank a bit
thicker, to hold the air pressure, huh?  Yes, but what of the extra mass?
What of the change in resonant frequency?  What of the strain on the
ET/Shuttle coupling? etc etc etc.  Oh, we just need to put in a "wet workshop"?
How do you test it?  Run power through the components while the ET is
full of LH2?  Etc.
My point is this:  In most of the discussion I have seen, we are assuming that
the benefits are obvious and the costs are low.  I suspect that the benefits
of having an UNMODIFIED ET in orbit are not obvious in the short term, and
the costs of modifying an ET to be useful are not necessarily low.
Burns
	...decwrl!rhea!star!fisher

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

Date: 10 Dec 85 20:01:35 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!harvard!think!mit-eddie!cybvax0!frog!john@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (John Woods, Software)
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Shuttle external tanks
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> 	IF construction is to occur in space, then some raw materials have to
> be present. I think it would not cost that much MORE to take the tanks all
> the way to orbit, and LEAVE them there.
The way I understand it (from L5 people who suggested it to NASA), the NASA
engineers who looked at the idea said it cost but a pittance extra to boost
them to orbit, and was overall a tremendous idea -- which they couldn't
possibly justify to the bean counters.
Advance science -- kill an accountant today!
--
John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (617) 626-1101
...!decvax!frog!john, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw%mit-ccc@MIT-XX.ARPA
Out of my way, I'm a scientist!
	War of the Worlds

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

Date: 11 Dec 85 18:52:24 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!brl-tgr!wmartin@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Will Martin )
Subject: Re: Shuttle External Tanks and Space Stations
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

I'm sure we can all agree that there may be difficulties in using
shuttle External Tanks (ETs) in building a space station. However, I'm
also sure that we can all agree that there MAY be a use for them later
in the space station construction project. Some possibilities (general
storage, air or fuel storage, garden space, privacy areas, etc.) have
already been suggested on the net. 
In any case, right now we are taking them to a certain point, and then
discarding them back to burn up in the atmosphere. To stop doing this may
cost something in shuttle payloads, or save something in fuel usage
(I've seen both views expressed here). I think the problem is that, if
the ETs are taken up to LEO, and just left there, their orbits will
decay relatively rapidly, and they will burn up and be lost anyway (plus
we'll have the old "Skylab-is-falling" bad PR of space debris falling
back in random locations).
So, what will it cost (in terms of impact on current missions,
development and implementation costs, etc.) to arrange for all future
ETs to be carried up to LEO and then put into some higher "parking"
orbit, where they can orbit eternally out of everyones' way until
someone decides they want one? Thus they can be stored for eventual use
if and when they are needed. I would think that this would be the best
course. It keeps open the greatest possible number of options, and I
would think that the incremental cost to do this would be roughly the
cost of one PAM or equivalent per shuttle launch, plus some amortized
engineering costs. This is trivial in comparison to the costs at some
future time to boost into orbit enough raw material or prefab assemblies
to create enclosed space equivalent to the volume of an ET.
When the future space station operators need an ET-sized space, all
they'll have to do is send up the inter-orbit transfer vehicle to the
"parking lot" where the ETs are orbiting, and give one a shove in the
right direction and time so that it sprials down to the station's orbit
at a convenient moment. Minimal cost, no need to bother the groundhogs, etc.
After all, mass in orbit is like money in the bank -- if you've got it
there, you can always get it out, and it can be left indefinitely for
future use, even if now you can't figure out what good it might be. If
it is not there, it will cost you to get some in there. Why throw away
what we already [almost] have by discarding ETs any longer? Up till now,
shuttle flights have really been more like experiments than operations,
so I can't fault NASA for not complicating things by trying to do this
too. But, as shuttle flights become routine business, lets get this
built in as a side benefit, as long as it can be done reasonably.
Regards,
Will Martin
UUCP/USENET: seismo!brl-bmd!wmartin   or   ARPA/MILNET: wmartin@almsa-1.ARPA

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

Date: 11 Dec 85 14:10:04 GMT
From: ihnp4!ihopa!riccb!rjnoe@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Roger J. Noe)
Subject: Re: "Shadowing" geosync satellites
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

If the station is not in an equatorial orbit, then any such "shadowing" will
not occur anywhere near as frequently as every 90 minutes.
--
Roger Noe			ihnp4!riccb!rjnoe

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

Date: Thu, 12 Dec 85 06:26:06 PST
From: ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: ihnp4!space
Subject: Re: Beamed Power
In-Reply-To: your article <8512101754.AA19045@s1-b.arpa>

I would think that beam speading would limit the range of an electron
beam severely.  How does the FEL get around this?

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

Date: 11 Dec 85 16:26:08 GMT
From: ihnp4!ihlpl!bde@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Ewbank)
Subject: Re: "Shadowing" geosync satellites
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

I would think that a space station would also be in geosync orbit?
If a space station is  NOT in geosync orbit, I think that a larger
problem would come when it entered Soviet airspace.
-- 
Bryan D. Ewbank
>> one line generic disclamer here <<
# AT&T Bell Labs IH 6M-523         #      ...!ihnp4!ihlpl!bde             #
# Naperville-Wheaton Rd.           #                                      #
# Naperville, Illinois  60566      #      5813 Oakwood, Apt. E            #
# (312) 979 - 4296                 #      Lisle, Illinois  60532          #

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

Date: 11 Dec 85 14:43:47 GMT
From: ihnp4!inuxc!inuxe!fred@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Fred Mendenhall)
Subject: RE: cost/pound
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>> A manned Mars trip should have low priority.  The following items
>> are more important:
>>   ....
> I think that we (the readers of this group and ME) spend too much time
>thinking of the practical and economical reasons for space related
>activities.  There has been much discussion on how to justify our
>favorite program.  What we need to concentrate on is not the REAL
>reasons why our program should be funded, but the reasons that will
>CAUSE our program to be funded.
......
>The purpose of this article is not to say that we should stop thinking
>of GOOD reasons to justify space programs.  What it is meant to say is
>that when we try to SELL our programs, we must use some political savvy.
>REMEMBER that the space budget is not fixed.  Congress can vote us
>more money if they think it is politically good move.
************************************************

excuse me for adding my $0.02.
As much as I love the phrase
"REAL MEN DON'T JUSTIFY ANYTHING"
I think in this case it is wrong. If our intent is to do more than
send robot probes to examine the universe around us, our efforts
and limited resources must be directed at projects that will demonstrate
the economic payback from working/building/mining/etc. off the planet.
If we fail to "justify" space development in terms of economics, the
space efforts of humanity will be nothing more that a series of
GRANDSTANDING displays of technological prowess, forever controlled
by the whim of politicians.  However, once working in space starts 
turning a profit, the migration of the race off the planet is assured. 
I'll leave it to you to decide whether a manned mission to Mars is more 
important than developing a transportation system that lowers the cost per
pound to LEO.
					inuxe!fred

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

Date: 11 Dec 85 21:00:20 GMT
From: ihnp4!iham1!spock@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Ed Weiss)
Subject: RE: Manned mission to Mars, Grandstanding, cost/pound
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Sorry, Fred.  I don't mean to get you upset.
I think we fundamentally agree.  I think the items you state ARE more
important in the short run and will be better for us in the long run.
What I'm saying is that maybe a GRANDSTANDING display will have the
side effect of giving us a lower cost per pound launch capability,
and other good stuff.
I just seems hard for us to get funding for GOOD reasons.  Good reasons
don't get our funders elected.
-- 
					Ed Weiss
					ihnp4!iham1!spock
					--> Live Long and Prosper <--

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

Date: Thu, 12 Dec 85 08:52:50 pst
From: David Smith <dsmith@hplabsc>
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Spinoffs from space
Cc: dsmith@hplabs.arpa, sobel@hplabs.arpa

The Monday, 12/9 INN news had a story about left handed sugars, and how
they might revolutionize the diet/junk food industry.  The story started
off with an animation of Viking landing on Mars.  It seems that the left
handed sugars were developed for the life detection system, in case the
Martian biochemistry was left handed.  Left handed sugar cost $30,000
per pound then.  The company which supplied the stuff has continued to
work on the process, and has the cost down to $1 per pound.  Now they
have to do a lot of testing to satisfy the FDA before it starts going
into food.

(What I don't understand is how left handed sugar can taste sweet, if
the body can't metabolize it.)

			David Smith
			ucbvax!hplabs!dsmith
			dsmith%hp-labs@csnet-relay.arpa

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

Date: 13 Dec 85 00:41 PST
From: Fischer.pa@xerox.arpa
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V6 #42
In-Reply-To: Ted Anderson <ota@s1-b.arpa>'s message of Wed, 11 Dec 85
 03:01:46 PST
To: Space@s1-b.arpa

The talk of "The New Orient Express" and TAVs reminded me (serious
question coming) of the Gerry Anderson Supermarionation movie
"Thunderbirds are GO!" (about 1966; availible as rental videotape now)
and the live action TV series "UFO" (1969?; reruns occasionally).  In
each, TAVs which were carried partway by aircraft or "wings" appeared.

Question: what's there to be gained using airbreathing engines to get
you as high and fast as possible first?  What percentage of "energy to
LEO" can conventional and exotic aero-engines (opposite anero-engines?)
possibly provide?  Is that percentage useful, ie does it cost less
weight or money to do it this way given that you've now got two systems
to carry, even partway?

Anyone know of alternative shuttle designs that would have used this?
Perhaps someone can explain the military TAV in these terms?

On the thumbnail, if an aircraft can reach 100,000 ft that's only 18.9
miles (out of 175?). I can't find a copy of the "Rubber book" and thus
don't know what part of escape speed mach 8 is.
 
I'm discounting obvious but important tangent arguments like airport
takeoff.

(ron)

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

End of SPACE Digest V6 #45
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA27270; Wed, 18 Dec 85 16:46:13 PST
	id AA27270; Wed, 18 Dec 85 16:46:13 PST
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 85 16:46:13 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8512190046.AA27270@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #46

*** EOOH ***
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 85 16:46:13 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #46

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 6 : Issue 46

Today's Topics:
		 Re: Automated craft  (sailing ships)
			 Re: Manned Mars Trip
			 Martian Rope Tricks
			 Re: Manned Mars Trip
		       Re: Shuttle sonic booms
	       ExtTank venting, need for space platform
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 12 Dec 85 17:23:40 GMT
From: decwrl!pyramid!nsc!amdahl!ems@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (ems)
Subject: Re: Automated craft  (sailing ships)
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>>> But why should one want to integrate manned and unmanned space travel?
>> For the same reason we don't have unmanned cargo planes (or trains, or
>> ships). It makes good sense to have people there in case something
>> goes wrong
> 
> I realize that this is straying quite far off the subject, but the above
> comment brought something to mind, and I wonder if anyone else recalls
> details about this: I have a vague recollection of a plan for automated
> and unmanned ocean-going *sailing* ships to haul bulk cargo which has no
> requirement for speedy delivery or is in any way perishable (like ore or
> raw materials, for example).
I saw this described in Popular Science at the height of the oil crisis.

> These would use a variety of sensors to feed data to the automated
> controller, and high-tech sail designs (like rotor types or other
> advanced concepts) to provide a method of moving quantities of material
> at very low per-ton cost, there being no fuel expense or sailors' wages
> to pay. I believe I saw drawings of proposed configurations and some
> brief description, but nothing more. Does anyone else recall this
> concept?

The Japanese made a demonstration ship or two using partial sail power.
I saw an article on them in a local (?) paper when first launched.
The idea was to use sail assist rather than 100% sail.  One does not
eliminate the whole crew, just the additional crew which would be
needed to man the sails.  Last I heard the trials were going OK, and
fuel consumption was significantly lower.  Then we entered the era of
the Oil Glut and not a peep have I heard since ...
Economics uber alles?
> As far as the safety hazards of such an unmanned device, I don't recall
> seeing any discussion of that aspect.
It was expected that there would be a small crew on board for purposes
of maintenance, crisis control, and safety.  There would still be a
captain sailing the ship.  If you have never been adrift in a sailboat
with no wind, the current pushing you toward the rocks, and the engine
being reluctant to start; you havn't been sailing!
-- 
E. Michael Smith  ...!{hplabs,ihnp4,amd,nsc}!amdahl!ems
This is the obligatory disclaimer of everything.

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

Date: 12 Dec 85 01:33:48 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Manned Mars Trip
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> (To get back to the subject line):  A Mars project may be the way to
> get Americans as excited as they were for the Apollo project.  If this
> happens then we may just get the funding we need.  Funding for a Mars
> project may necessarily include many of the programs that we feel
> are necessary.
Unfortunately, the analogy to Apollo may be all too apt.  What happens
after the First Mars Expedition returns?  How long before the budget
starts getting cut back, back, back, on the grounds that "you've finished
your job"?  Take a tour of KSC, and be sure you look at the Saturn V lying
on its side rusting:  that was FLIGHT-READY HARDWARE, scheduled to launch
Apollo 18 or 19.  Or visit the Air & Space Museum in Washington:  that's a
real Skylab, intended to fly as a followon to the original; that's a real
Lunar Module, meant for Apollo 18 I believe; that's a real Viking lander
and orbiter, which many people wanted to fly as Viking 3.  The people who
are pushing for a Mars mission are setting us up for the same thing, on
a much more massive scale.
Yes, a Mars mission would require building many capabilities that would
be useful for other things.  And they might well get thrown away afterward.
The US had *no* man-rated launch system in the half-decade between
Apollo-Soyuz and STS-1!  In 1970, the US could put a man on the moon; it
can't today.  We are *farther* from the moon now, in most ways, than we
were in 1961:  all the specialized hardware is gone, the tools and plans
for building it are gone, and NASA has gotten older and more bureaucratized.
(Does anyone really believe that today's NASA could mount a lunar mission
within 8 years of being told to do it?  The Space Station is a much simpler
job, if you carefully avoid adding unnecessary frills like AI and other
high-tech fads, and last I heard NASA had given up on having it operational
within TEN years.)  It's been pointed out recently that putting cargo into
orbit with the shuttle is no cheaper, per kilo, than doing it with the
Saturn V... and the Saturn V prices were based on a total production run
of 15!  How much cheaper would a modernized, volume-production Saturn be?
We'll never know; that capability was thrown away.  Apollo/Saturn technology
could have sent a small manned expedition to an Earth-approaching asteroid
at closest approach, given minor improvements in power and life-support to
permit a longer stay in space.  When Apollos 18 and 19 were scrubbed, all
the major hardware needed for such a mission was *on* *hand*.  Anybody want
to guess when we get even an *unmanned* sample-return mission to an asteroid?
Probably not in this century.  The capability was thrown away.  If you want
a more modern example, a year or two ago it would have been relatively cheap
to commit to assembling a backup Galileo, with an eye on sending it to Saturn
if the original's Jupiter mission succeeded.  This option is getting steadily
more expensive as Galileo work teams disperse; the opportunity has probably
been lost.  Thrown away.
Given the realities of funding, a major Mars mission is the last thing we
need.  Effort and funding *must* go towards building ongoing capabilities
that will outlast individual projects.  It is important to aim high when
conceiving those capabilities, so that they will be *useful* for mounting
exciting projects, but the capabilities must be justified on their own
merits so we don't lose them afterwards!
What capabilities do we need?
First and most important, we need cheaper transport to low Earth orbit.
Shuttle launch costs will dominate the operational price tag of almost
everything else we do right now.  Launch costs must come down, if only
by the order of magnitude that the Shuttle was originally aimed at.
(Many people think that a pretty unambitious goal; we could do better.)
Second, we need an orbital staging point, where missions can be assembled.
Life gets much simpler if an assembled system doesn't have to survive a
noisy, bouncy Shuttle launch, or fold to fit the Shuttle cargo bay.  The
Space Station is a good approximation to this, although it could be done
a good deal sooner and more cheaply than it actually will.
Third, we need cryogenic propellant storage in orbit.  This lets us mount
high-energy missions without tight time constraints, and lets us use high-
energy upper stages for space-assembled missions.  We also need some minor
related items of technology, like free-fall fuel transfer and a Centaur
variant that can be fueled in space.  The Centaur already has engine-restart
capability, so in-space fueling at the Station gives us a good approximation
to a reusable OTV.  A hefty one.  (Who cares if it's unnecessarily big for
some missions?  It can still fly them, and it doesn't have to be developed
from scratch!)  In the longer run, we should re-engine the Centaur, and
examine larger Centaur variants with bigger tanks and/or more engines.
Fourth, we need aerobraking technology.  It's decidedly useful even for
advanced OTVs working to GEO, and it's very important for lunar and planetary
missions.  Furthermore, it doesn't look that hard.
It would be moderately useful to have partially-recycling life-support
systems, to reduce the cost of manned operations in orbit, although Skylab
demonstrated consumables-per-man-day figures low enough that the complexity
may be hard to justify.
Given the above, mounting a Mars mission, or an asteroid mission, or a
lunar mission, or any number of other interesting things, becomes vastly
easier.  And all of these things are justifiable on their own (although
aerobraking may be a marginal case), and will survive the success (!) of
any particular mission.

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

Posted-Date: Fri 13 Dec 1985 06:54:59 EST
Date: Fri 13 Dec 1985 06:54:59 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Martian Rope Tricks
To: space@mit-mc.arpa, dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa

On recovering material from Martian moons with tethers:

Deimos is farther out than Phobos, so less energy is required to
lift mass.  However, Deimos has less angular velocity, so a longer
cable would be needed to sling rocks to the same velocity.

Phobos is about 2.8 radii from Mars-center, and goes about 2.2 km/sec.
Deimos is about 7 radii out, and goes about 1.4 km/sec.  Material
at Phobos has to be accelerated by .9 km/sec to escape Mars; material
from Deimos by about .6 km/sec.

The length of a cable needed to sling a payload to escape velocity is
2^(1/3) - 1 times the radius of the moon's orbit (assuming the orbit
to be circular); about 26%.  This is around 2300 km for Phobos.
At Phobos the acceleration due to martian gravity is about .5 m/sec^2,
so the acceleration of a mass on the end of this cable (centripetal
acceleration minus gravitational acceleration) is about .3 m/sec^2.
A 1000 tonne payload will exert a force equal to that of a 30 tonne
mass on Earth's surface.  (Question: how thick does a kevlar cable
have to be to withstand this tension?)  I've ignored cable mass.

Just accelerating a mass to escape velocity is not terribly useful.
If the cable length equals the radius of Phobos's orbit, it will leave
the payload with a velocity (relative to Mars, at infinity) of 3.7
km/sec.  The cable will have to be stronger in this case.

We don't necessarily need to supply all the velocity change needed to
get to Earth just with the tether.  It might be possible to sling
a payload into a Mars-crossing orbit that encounters Mars again on the
next revolution, subtracting more momentum.  Similar encounters with
Venus and Earth could be used to bring the payload to Earth on a more
nearly circular orbit.  The payload may take years to get to earth
but only limited reaction mass is needed.  (Question: what is the
velocity change needed to get from a circular orbit at Mars to
an elliptical orbit with apohelion at Mars and perihelion at Earth,
ignoring the planets' gravity?)  This strategem substitutes computing
power and precise tracking for brute force, but takes longer.

Payloads would be carried in shells made on earth or in earth orbit.
The shells would be equiped with limited maneuvering capabilities and
would serve as aerodynamic bodies for the final aerobraking maneuver
at Earth.  The shells could be ferried to Mars (by solar sail?), or sent
under their own power.  Fuel should be made at Mars; an important
question is whether non-cryogenic chemical fuel can be processed from
the Martian moons (do they contain nitrogen, for hydrazine, say).
If the moons contain nitrogen and carbon then it may be possible to
manufacture the cable at Mars.  Kevlar might be hard to make; nylon
should be easier (what is the tensile strength of nylon?).

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

Date: 13 Dec 85 07:32:45 GMT
From: decvax!bellcore!petrus!karn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Phil R. Karn)
Subject: Re: Manned Mars Trip
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

I keep hearing that the cost of launching something on the shuttle is
$X/kg, and further that this cost is N times launching it on the Saturn
V had we kept the production lines open. The exact values of X and N
keep changing, but the argument is the same.
Can someone present a DETAILED breakdown of the actual costs (not prices)
for the two launchers? These figures should be broken down into three
categories:
1. Up-front launcher development costs (research, development, testing).
2. Continuing operational costs that are relatively independent of the
launch rate (JSC and KSC salaries, computer system maintenance contracts,
electric bills, janitorial and landscaping services, that kind of thing).
3. Actual per-mission costs that are directly attributable to things
consumed during each mission (fuel and other consumables, SRB refurbishment,
ET and other one-shot components, short-term contract labor, etc).
I think we have to present the costs broken down this way if we're to
come up with a useful result. A single figure of $X/kg is bound to be
misleading.
Phil

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

Date: 12 Dec 85 16:30:04 GMT
From: amdcad!cae780!ubvax!skip@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Skip Addison Jr)
Subject: Re: Shuttle sonic booms
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <600@riccb.UUCP> rjnoe@riccb.UUCP (Roger J. Noe) writes:
>> Why are there two sonic booms from the shuttle?
>
>It's because there are two "sonic cones" formed by the shuttle.  (There is
>very likely a more scientific term for this, but I don't know what it is.)
>With most supersonic aircraft, a cone-shaped shock wave expands from the
>nose of the craft outward.  Where and when this cone intersects the surface
>of the Earth determines who hears the sonic boom.  This cone usually expands
>at a wide enough angle to engulf the rest of the aircraft.  But the shuttle
>has a pretty unusual shape.  I think the vertical stabilizer (tail) rises
>above the cone-shaped shock wave formed by the nose.  This causes the tail
>to slam into the surrounding air the same way the nose does, and a second
>shock wave, also shaped like a cone, forms at the edge of the tail.  This
>is the explanation I have heard, anyway.  I don't think the two sonic booms
> ...
>--
>	Roger Noe			ihnp4!riccb!rjnoe
Sonic booms are created by major displacements of air or air rushing in to
fill a void.  A sonic boom is generated by the tail of the shuttle as a 
result of the drastic change in the shuttle cross-section there.  As the
shuttle moves it leaves behind a void which the surrounding air fills.
In fact, every exterior part of a super-sonic aircraft creates its own little
"boom" (shock-wave), but the only noticeable ones are usually generated by
the sudden intrusion of the nose and sudden abscense of the tail.  A more
streamlined aircraft has less of a boom.
Notice the two wakes left by some boats at high speeds.  Same principles.
-- Skip Addison
   {amdcad, amd, cae780}!ubvax!skip

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

X-Sent: to SU-AI.ARPA by IMSSS.FRONSTAD.EDU via ETHERNET with PUPFTP; 1985-Dec-14 05:13:53 PST (=GMT-8hr)
X-Mailer: EMACS -> PSL (FORMAT+SEND-ALL) -> PUPFTP
Date: 1985 December 14 04:41:42 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM@imsss.stanford.edu>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: ExtTank venting, need for space platform
Sender: REM%IMSSS@su-score.arpa (for undeliverable-mail notifications)
Reply-To: REM%IMSSS@SU-SCORE.ARPA (temporary until IMSSS.STANFORD.EDU registered)

| Date: 7 Dec 85 14:59:32 EST
| From: Hank.Walker@unh.cs.cmu.edu
| Why do people keep talking about venting the leftover LH2 and LO2 from the
| ET once in orbit?  This is now very expensive fuel or water we're talking
| about, perhaps more useful than the tank itself.  I'd try hard not to waste
| any.
Hmmm, somebody should study whether instead of venting to space by
introducing some gas to mix with it and distribute warm temperature
around to evaporate it and help distribute it away, we might instead
vent it in the same way to a chemical separator which can recover both
the fuel (as you state, valuable) and the mixing fluid (for re-use in
the venting process). I suggest helium as mixing fluid since it's
light and inert, or else hydrogen because it can be generated from
water. Somebody else can probably come up with the right mixing fluid.
In any case, is it cost effective?

| Date: 8 Dec 85 02:31:33 GMT
| From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
| Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
| > Yes.  You'll also need a place to store & service the OTV in low orbit,
| > perhaps an unmanned or intermittently manned platform of some kind.
| No.  Parking your car does not imply a parking garage.  Nobody is going
| to run off with the OTV.  Having a space station to park the OTV at is a
| convenience, not a requirement.
I disagree. There are a lot of things up there, and fastening them
together on a platform or beam or pyramid or whatever will prevent
them from colliding with one another or just getting lost. When we go
up there to re-furbish a hundred OTVs, it's a lot easier for the STS
to rendezvous with one daisy chain of equipment and have the five
EVA-astronauts go around working on each, rather than have the STS
rendezvous with one at a time in different orbits where they have
drifted. It's also easier to maintain a bunch of linked OTVs than to
individually have each one fire its rockets or whatever to maintain
orbits near each other for a year or two while waiting for service. Of
course an OTV that has failed or run out of fuel may be totally lost
if not attached to something.

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

End of SPACE Digest V6 #46
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA28541; Thu, 19 Dec 85 03:00:47 PST
	id AA28541; Thu, 19 Dec 85 03:00:47 PST
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 85 03:00:47 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8512191100.AA28541@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #47

*** EOOH ***
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 85 03:00:47 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #47

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 6 : Issue 47

Today's Topics:
	       Not Mars yet, lots of other things first
	       Not Mars yet, lots of other things first
			 Stages to Saturn #5
		  Re: "Shadowing" geosync satellites
		     shadowing GEO/Earth signals
		     Re: A High Tech Maginot Line
----------------------------------------------------------------------

X-Sent: to SU-AI.ARPA by IMSSS.FRONSTAD.EDU via ETHERNET with PUPFTP; 1985-Dec-14 05:15:32 PST (=GMT-8hr)
X-Mailer: EMACS -> PSL (FORMAT+SEND-ALL) -> PUPFTP
Date: 1985 December 14 05:15:08 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM@imsss.stanford.edu>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Cc: "dietz%slb-doll.csnet"@csnet-relay.arpa
Subject: Not Mars yet, lots of other things first
Sender: REM%IMSSS@su-score.arpa (for undeliverable-mail notifications)
Reply-To: REM%IMSSS@SU-SCORE.ARPA (temporary until IMSSS.STANFORD.EDU registered)

| Date: Sat 7 Dec 1985 10:13:13 EST
| From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
| Subject: Re: Manned Mars Trip
| A manned Mars trip should have low priority.
I agree.
| The following items are more important:
   (1) Cheaper transport to low earth orbit
Better is the enemy of good enough. I think we've spent enough effort
on getting to LEO and we need to spend some effort on other things
now. If we continue to work on cheaper Earth-to-LEO we won't have time
or money for the rest. We have Arianne, USSR boosters, private
boosters, for bulk materials that are expendable if the rocket fails.
We have STS for irreplacable things like trained humans and expensive
or one of a kind equipment. If somebody happens to make a new way to
get to orbit, fine, but let's not spend our money on it now. (I'm not
very practical, I might be wrong.)

   (2) Reusable OTV's (robotic or remote controlled)
Does OTV mean Orbital Transfer Vehicle (i.e. "Space Tugboat")?
Whatever happened to the Interim Upper Stage that was in the works
about 5 years ago but didn't get funding? Is it still a good thing we
need, or is there a newer plan for the same goal that is better? Space
tugs, remote controlled with some AI where it is known to work, is
urgently needed for repair of GEO stuff and lunar mining and asteroid
grabbing etc.

   (3) Storage areas in LEO and GEO for parts & fuel for OTV's
ok.
   (4) A LEO space station
Too much effort in doing it "right" in 1995 while we all sit twiddling
our thumbs waiting. How about a simple platform to which we keep
adding new parts as we find needs, which grows into a giant
interlocked bunch of features and serves as a prototype for the space
station, instead of trying to design the perfect LEO station the first
time without any experience except the USSR stations? Maybe if we
demonstrate we can put up a useful bunch of things linked together,
the USSR will contribute one of their manned space-station modules to
link with it, so they can use our bunch of useful things and we can
house our astronauts in their habitat-module?

   (5) A GEO space station
Wait until after LEO station done, then see if GEO station needed, or
remote-control from LEO will be totally sufficient.

   (6) Visits to asteroids co-orbital with earth, if any exist
Yes! Also, see below re comets.

   (7) A lunar base
Unmanned, remote controlled, at first, for mining and tossing to L2 or L4/L5.

   (8) Visits to some Apollo/Amor asteroids
Yes! Also, see next re comets.

If we had a fleet of little scientific/tugboat spacecraft in lots of
various orbits around the Sun around Earth/Mars orbit, when a new
minor comet is discovered we could pick the nearest craft and
rendezvous with the comet. After the missions to p/Halley in 1986 we
should have a better idea what comets are like and be able to design a
fleet of comet-rendezvousers. After the rendezvous, if the comet isn't
very active, so we can see what we are doing (eyeball of comet from
craft together with radio link with Earth not obscurred by dense
outgassing from comet), we might try grabbing ahold of the comet and
see whether it breaks apart or not. If not, a little nudge at
perihelion will greatly change aphelion, causing a parabolic one-shot
comet to become a shortterm periodic comet. We may even be able to
nudge it by some planet to give the comet a giant gravity assist to
swing it into Earth orbit where it can be mined immediately. Even if
not, getting it into shortterm periodic orbit will allow mining in a
few years when we can send another tug out to it to nudge it toward
Earth. If it does break apart, we can grab a chunk and bring it all
the way home to Earth/Moon looping orbit where another tug can take
over to bring it to LEO for processing.

| It really makes little sense to visit Mars until we can do so
| economically.
Hear! Hear!
Let's not squander all our money on one big show at the expense of
tens of other major tasks that are immensely cheaper and more useful.

(Compared to Mars trip...)
| The payback from asteroid visits is also likely to be higher,
| if large amounts of mass can be returned to earth orbit.
| Of course, there will be scientific benefits from a Mars mission,
| but the results would be expensive, and more science could be done
| on earth (in other fields) for the same money.
I agree.

| Of the eight points I listed above, (1) is the most important for
| making a Mars mission practical.  A Mars ship will be heavy.  In
| proposed Mars missions I've seen, the major cost has been bringing
| the Mars ship and its fuel into orbit.
Let's wait until lunar or asteroid/comet mining has been tried. We may
find there's no need to lift tons of bulk material from Earth when
it's available from our mining ventures.

| The first missions to Mars will probably establish bases on or near
| Phobos and/or Deimos.  These moons are likely to contain water
| and carbon compounds, and could be processed into air, food and fuel.
I think a remote-controlled local-servo rover on Mars such as HPM
designed ten years ago is still the next thing to do on Mars, before
sending people there. You can get an awful lot of science done by
robotics. Really, why send people except as a publicity stunt??

| Probably the cheapest way to get to Mars in the near term ...
| ... ET materials might be useful 
Good argument for waiting until we have ET mining before really
starting work on the Mars mission, assuming we want the Mars mission at al.

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

Posted-Date: Sat 14 Dec 1985 10:39:57 EST
Date: Sat 14 Dec 1985 10:39:57 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Not Mars yet, lots of other things first
To: "temporary until IMSSS.STANFORD.EDU registered" <REM%IMSSS@su-score.arpa>
Cc: space@mit-mc.arpa, dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
In-Reply-To: "temporary until IMSSS.STANFORD.EDU registered"'s message of 1985 December 14 05:15:08 PST (=GMT-8hr)

>| The following items are more important:
>|   (1) Cheaper transport to low earth orbit
>Better is the enemy of good enough. I think we've spent enough effort
>on getting to LEO and we need to spend some effort on other things
>now. If we continue to work on cheaper Earth-to-LEO we won't have time
>or money for the rest. We have Arianne, USSR boosters, private
>boosters, for bulk materials that are expendable if the rocket fails.
>We have STS for irreplacable things like trained humans and expensive
>or one of a kind equipment. If somebody happens to make a new way to
>get to orbit, fine, but let's not spend our money on it now. (I'm not
>very practical, I might be wrong.)

I disagree.  The shuttle and all other launchers are unacceptably
expensive.  As my previous message said, there appear to be many
new airbreathing engine ideas that could get us to orbit much more
cheaply.

>Whatever happened to the Interim Upper Stage that was in the works
>about 5 years ago but didn't get funding?

You mean the booster used to lift the TDRS to GEO?  It's not
reusable.

I've had a change of heart about reusable OTV's.  Their main use would
be lifting satellites to GEO, and that can be done more cheaply with
a tether-type launcher in low orbit and an expendable apogee kick motor
on the satellite.  Satellite repair is a second-order market, and is not
likely to be large for some time to come.  Asteroid visits would need
a different vehicle, as would moon landings, and so cannot justify
an OTV.

>   (5) A GEO space station
> Wait until after LEO station done, then see if GEO station needed, or
> remote-control from LEO will be totally sufficient.

Remote control from LEO?!  You mean remote control from the ground,
don't you?

Comet rendevous is not likely to be done soon, because there
is no market for it, and because for most comets the delta-v is
prohibitive, making any resource recovery uneconomical.

>| The first missions to Mars will probably establish bases on or near
>| Phobos and/or Deimos.  These moons are likely to contain water
>| and carbon compounds, and could be processed into air, food and fuel.
>I think a remote-controlled local-servo rover on Mars such as HPM
>designed ten years ago is still the next thing to do on Mars, before
>sending people there. You can get an awful lot of science done by
>robotics. Really, why send people except as a publicity stunt??

While remote controlled robots will work fine on the moon, they will
have severe problems on Mars because of communication lag.  I don't
believe AI will advance sufficiently in the near term to allow much
autonomous operation.  I agree, however, that dropping people to
the Martian surface is not likely to be economical for some time.

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

Date: 13 Dec 85 23:42:40 GMT
From: ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dave Newkirk)
Subject: Stages to Saturn #5
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Early in the S-IV program, a stage enroute from Huntington Beach to
Santa Monica for transfer to a barge collided with one of nature's
denizens.  H.E. Bauer, then a senior S-IV manager with Douglas, easily
recalled the novel circumstances.  It happened early in the morning,
with the loaded transporter creeping at 6.4 kilometers per hour.
"At that speed nothing much should happen," Bauer reminisced, "but,
incredible as it may sound, we did run right over a very mature and
ripe skunk."  By a stroke of luck, the stage itself escaped unscathed,
but the transporter remained a large, odoriferous problem - "we had
a 23 1/2 ft. wide, 46 1/2 ft. long, 22,000 lb. skunk on our hands."
With other missions pending for the one-of-a-kind transporter, the
Douglas Aircraft Company chemists who devised an effective deodorizer
ranked high on the list of unsung heroes of the Saturn program.
From "Stages to Saturn - A Technological History of the Apollo/Saturn
Launch Vehicles", available from the "Superindendant of Documents", U.S.
Gov't Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402. Order NASA SP-4206, $12.00.
-- 
				Dave Newkirk, ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn

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

Date: 12 Dec 85 16:26:33 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!utcsri!hogg@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (John Hogg)
Subject: Re: "Shadowing" geosync satellites
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

A poster has raised the possibility that space station owners may be liable
for damages due to shadowing communications satellites in geosynchronous
orbits.  Another poster correctly pointed out that this will not happen 
every time around - not by a long shot, since a station would not be put
into equatorial orbit.  Now allow me to finish pointing out the obvious.
An object in LEO moves on the order of 10**4 m/sec.  Assume a
one-KILOmetre diameter space station - that's a kilometre of material with
shadowing properties.  It will cause a 1/10 second glitch in your signal,
assuming no beam-spreading and atmospheric diffraction effects allow the
beam to "bend" back far enough to reach your receiver.  A smaller station
or one which is less than opaque to a radio signal will of course have a
smaller effect.
Now for the key question: do you call your lawyer when a 747 flies
overhead?  Do you KNOW?
-- 
John Hogg
Computer Systems Research Institute, UofT
...utzoo!utcsri!hogg
Disclaimer: the above may or may not contain sarcasm, and doesn't contain
smiley-faces.  If you can't read, don't flame me.

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

X-Sent: to SU-AI.ARPA by IMSSS.FRONSTAD.EDU via ETHERNET with PUPFTP; 1985-Dec-14 18:18:35 PST (=GMT-8hr)
X-Mailer: EMACS -> PSL (FORMAT+SEND-ALL) -> PUPFTP
Date: 1985 December 14 07:21:06 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM@imsss.stanford.edu>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: shadowing GEO/Earth signals
Sender: REM%IMSSS@su-score.arpa (for undeliverable-mail notifications)
Reply-To: REM%IMSSS@SU-SCORE.ARPA (temporary until IMSSS.STANFORD.EDU registered)

| Date: 9 Dec 85 18:42:57 GMT
| From: <73-CHARACTER UUCP PATH>  (Will Martin )
| Subject: "Shadowing" geosync satellites
| Is the Space Shuttle large enough to "shadow" or interfere with the
| transmissions between the surface and a geosync satellite? What about
| the proposed Space Station? If so, won't it interfere on a regular
| basis? ... If the Space Station scrambles the transmissions
| that are picked up by some cable system earth station every ninety
| minutes, I would think that an interesting court case might result...
Airplanes regularily fly around and screw up TV reception. I doubt
anybody could win a court case. A single-user dish wouldn't be
important enough to warrant protection from momentary interruption,
while a network would have the technical capability of switching
between multiple dishes and thus avoid the problem.

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

Date: 12 Dec 85 18:03:25 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: A High Tech Maginot Line
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> > [SDI has a clear field, uncluttered with legitimate traffic]
> >
> Yeah, like Ariane launchers carrying communication satellites insured
> for $350 million by Western insurance carriers, or manned Soviet missions,
> or any other form of space commerce and recreation.
This brings up an interesting side issue, a reason why it is *important* for
the US to have operational antisatellite capability (!).  The main problem
with SDI is simply that it has to be able to cope with thousands of targets
simultaneously, spread over a wide area.  Opinions differ (to put it mildly!)
on whether it is possible to build a system capable of stopping a mass ICBM
launch completely, but everyone agrees that it's hard.  The problem gets a
lot simpler if the things come at you one at a time.  It would, at the very
least, take a lot of hardware to shield against ICBMs.  It would be much,
much easier to blockade a nation's spaceports.  So...
"The gangsters who rule America are bent on threatening the rest of the
Earth with their [insert dirty words as desired] 'Star Wars'.  Accordingly,
the peace-loving peoples of the Soviet Union have acted to prevent this
abomination.  The fiendish schemes of the imperialists rely heavily on placing
gigantic weapons in space.  To prevent this intolerable militarization of the
very heavens, the Soviet Union has constructed a network of 'PeaceShield'
satellites to police American space launches.  Henceforth no launch will
be permitted unless its payload has been inspected by Soviet experts.
Treacherous attempts at secret launches will be destroyed.
"No bar will be placed on peaceful launches which advance the interests of
all mankind.  The saber-rattling, death-dealing US Air Force will of course
be forbidden to launch any military payload.  The spy satellites used by the
CIA to eavesdrop on the world will not be allowed.  Fatuous claims that
certain payloads must not be inspected because of 'proprietary processes'
will be recognized as the imperialist lies that they are; inspection will
be thorough and complete.  In doubtful cases, a Soviet observer will ride
aboard the Shuttle to ensure the world's safety.
"The American 'Space Station', obviously intended for servicing space weapons,
will of course be discontinued as an unnecessary drain on the world's
resources.  Capitalist industrial activity in space will subject to strict
supervision to ensure that it complies with the 'Moon Treaty', guaranteeing
that the resources of space will not be monopolized by the fortunate few
for their private profit.
"To ensure that the Americans do not simply continue their warmongering ways
through their lackeys elsewhere, these rules will be extended to cover
European and Japanese space launches as soon as the necessary equipment
can be installed."
I'm not saying this is likely to happen, but it is just plausible enough to
be a little disturbing.
> And if you modify
> your system to spare what appears to be a manned Soviet launch, the
> Soviets will simply make all their ICBMs indistinguishable from manned
> launchers....
Uh, do let us know when the Soviets start launching manned missions several
hundred at a time...

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

End of SPACE Digest V6 #47
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA02264; Fri, 20 Dec 85 03:00:56 PST
	id AA02264; Fri, 20 Dec 85 03:00:56 PST
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 85 03:00:56 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8512201100.AA02264@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #48

*** EOOH ***
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 85 03:00:56 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #48

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 6 : Issue 48

Today's Topics:
		  Re: "Shadowing" geosync satellites
		     Re: A High Tech Maginot Line
		       transatmospheric vehicle
		       Re: RE: Mars Expeditiion
			      rail guns
			     geosyn orbs
			  left-handed sugar
		  Re: "Shadowing" geosync satellites
		      Tensile Strength of Kevlar
		   Terminology (satellite variety)
		      Orbital Mechanics Question
		     Numerous net.space messages
			 Re: shuttle vs. R&D
	Big lie re Planetary-Society program on Halley's comet
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 13 Dec 85 18:21:16 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: "Shadowing" geosync satellites
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> Now for the key question: do you call your lawyer when a 747 flies
> overhead?  Do you KNOW?
There is at least one case on record in which a small jet's crew were
thoroughly alarmed for a moment because their radar altimeter suddenly
showed a much lower altitude than the barometric altimeter.  Then suddenly
things were back to normal.  Then they realized there was a 747 a few
thousand feet underneath, slowly pulling ahead of them...

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

Date: 14 Dec 85 21:53:54 GMT
From: decvax!bellcore!petrus!karn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Phil R. Karn)
Subject: Re: A High Tech Maginot Line
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> This brings up an interesting side issue, a reason why it is *important* for
> the US to have operational antisatellite capability (!).
I've got a better solution. Let's establish a treaty that bans all further
tests of anti-satellite weapons by either side. That'll effectively keep
the Soviets from developing the "space blockade" capability of which you
speak.
Phil

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

Date: Mon, 16 Dec 85 09:06:13 pst
From: David Smith <dsmith@hplabsc>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: transatmospheric vehicle

> Question: what's there to be gained using airbreathing engines to get
> you as high and fast as possible first?

Rockets have to carry all of their reaction mass to the point of use;
airbreathing engines get most of their reaction mass at the point of use.
Therefore, the airbreathing vehicle can be a lot smaller.

An aerodynamic lift vehicle would probably have a lift-to-drag ratio
of 3 to 6 (wild guess, but an article I once saw in Astronautics and
Aeronautics estimated L/D at 3-4 for a spacecraft maneuvering at orbital
speed in the upper atmosphere).  The lift would reduce the burden carried
by the engine.

> On the thumbnail, if an aircraft can reach 100,000 ft that's only 18.9
> miles (out of 175?). I can't find a copy of the "Rubber book" and thus
> don't know what part of escape speed mach 8 is.

If I recall right, the Saturn V first stage burned out at an altitude of
25 miles (out of 230,000) and a speed of 3,500 mph (out of 24,500).
Yet it was a huge chunk of the vehicle.

			David Smith
			hplabs!dsmith
			dsmith%hp-labs@csnet-relay.arpa

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

Date: 16 Dec 85 14:02:02 GMT
From: decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-oblio!earle@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Mr. SPPR)
Subject: Re: RE: Mars Expeditiion
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

 
> Unfortunately, the analogy to Apollo may be all too apt.  What happens
> after the First Mars Expedition returns?  How long before the budget
> starts getting cut back, back, back, on the grounds that "you've finished
> your job"?  Take a tour of KSC, and be sure you look at the Saturn V lying
> on its side rusting:  that was FLIGHT-READY HARDWARE, scheduled to launch
> Apollo 18 or 19.  Or visit the Air & Space Museum in Washington:  that's a
> real Skylab, intended to fly as a followon to the original; that's a real
> Lunar Module, meant for Apollo 18 I believe; that's a real Viking lander
> and orbiter, which many people wanted to fly as Viking 3.  The people who
> are pushing for a Mars mission are setting us up for the same thing, on
> a much more massive scale.
 
 Yes, but think of all the great MUSEUMS we'll have!!
	
	. .
         -
	\_/                                     George Earle
 						DECVAX!DECWRL!RHEA!OBLIO!EARLE
						Digital Equip. Co.
Disclaim?! Well, why not.

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

Date: 16 Dec 1985 23:38-EST
From: Nicholas.Spies@h.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: rail guns
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

(Forgive if a partial duplicate: machine went down during
composition of first try.)

Perhaps rail guns (like Tom Swift's Electric Gun) could be used to
shoot materials into space both as obstacles to missiles and to rake
up as material with which to build space stations, etc. My
understanding is that with a long enough rail under computer control
magnetic attraction/repulsion can accelerate objects to a very high
velocity by being able to impart acceleration at every point along the
rail (unlike a gun, where explosive force of gas diminishes after
initial burst). [Is air friction too much to allow orbital
velocities?]

If 1 lb shells were fired into orbit at the rate of 1 per second
(perhaps from a 2 mile rail on Mt McKinley), this would lift 43.2 tons
a day of material into orbit for whatever purpose.  Given a source of
electrical power equal to the task, this would seem a fairly reliable
way to get a large mass into a pretty precise orbit over time.
Frictional losses for such a large number of small particles might be
compensated by having a ready source of power on the ground (perhaps a
reasonable use for nuclear power?) with little additional expense.

"Harvesting" the matter so shot might be a problem, but in the
meantime it might negate ICBM's (whose orbital parameters are unknown
to me). But, as stated, matter in orbit is like money in the bank [if
it stays there long enough to make use of].

This is all doubtless old hat, but I would be interested in knowing
some of the numbers and reasons...

	 --Nick

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

Date: 16 Dec 85 21:19:43 GMT
From: decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-tle!crimmin@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (DTN 1-2015)
Subject: geosyn orbs
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Many folks have mentioned geosynchronous orbits of late.
May I assume these are stationary geosynchronous orbits?
If I recall correctly, all you need is one revolution around 
the planet in the same time that it takes the planet to spin
once. It is not important that the orbiting object remain stationary
relative to a given point on the surface of the planet. 
Given this, an object with a longitudinal orbit (relative to the
earth's axis) would appear to have a very odd flight pattern. In
some instances, it could seem to draw huge figure eights in the
sky. (Due to the combo of earth rotation and object's orbit.)
Piter (New Hampshire)

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

Date:  Tue, 17 Dec 85 09:15 CST
From: Slocum@hi-multics.arpa
Subject:  left-handed sugar
To: space@s1-b.arpa

Left-handed sugars cannot be metabolized because the enzyme that
metabolizes sugar (Sucrase) is right-handed and won't fit into
left-handed sucrose (Sinister sucrose??  :-) .  The taste buds are not
chemically asymetrical, so either left- or right- handed sugars taste
sweet.  Enzymes are like putting gloves on the wrong hand, whereas taste
buds are like putting socks on the "wrong" foot.

    Brett Slocum
    Slocum@HI-MULTICS.ARPA

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

Date: 16 Dec 85 14:51:31 GMT
From: ihnp4!poseidon!brent@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Brent P. Callaghan)
Subject: Re: "Shadowing" geosync satellites
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>> Now for the key question: do you call your lawyer when a 747 flies
>> overhead?  Do you KNOW?
>
>There is at least one case on record in which a small jet's crew were
>thoroughly alarmed for a moment because their radar altimeter suddenly
>showed a much lower altitude than the barometric altimeter.  Then suddenly
>things were back to normal.  Then they realized there was a 747 a few
>thousand feet underneath, slowly pulling ahead of them...
I guess this is getting the discussion a bit off the point, 
but it reminded me of the testimony of an Air New Zealand
DC10 captain at the inquiry into the Mount Erebus disaster
in 1980:
He was giving evidence regarding the accuracy of the "AINS"
(Area Inertial Navigation System).  Air New Zealand has
a 5,000 mile route to Honolulu.  At the same time, two DC10's
would depart Auckland and Honolulu on reciprocal courses.
Several hours out over the Pacific the aircraft would pass
each other at different altitudes.
The crew on the high aircraft could see the low aircraft
pass on their radar altimeter !
-- 
				
Made in New Zealand -->		Brent Callaghan
				AT&T Information Systems, Lincroft, NJ
				{ihnp4|mtuxo|pegasus}!poseidon!brent
				(201) 576-3475

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

Posted-Date: Tue 17 Dec 1985 10:18:30 EST
Date: Tue 17 Dec 1985 10:18:30 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Tensile Strength of Kevlar
To: space@mit-mc.arpa

I need to know the density and tensile strength of Kevlar fiber.  
Does anyone out there know what these are?

				Paul Dietz

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

Date: 17 Dec 85 15:00:54 GMT
From: decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-pen!kallis@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Terminology (satellite variety)
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> ... (Question: earth's moon is to lonar
>as a martian moon is to ???).
"Lunar" is derived from "Luna," a proper name for our largest satellite;
on that basis, the Martian equivalents would be "Phobor" or "Deimor"
--- depending upon which moon was involved.
Steve Kallis, Jr.

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

Posted-Date: Tue 17 Dec 1985 19:44:06 EST
Date: Tue 17 Dec 1985 19:44:06 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Orbital Mechanics Question
To: space@mit-mc.arpa

The minimum velocity change needed to get from Mars orbit to an ellipse
with perihelion at earth orbit is about 2.7 km/sec.  Launched from Mars,
however, this orbit will reach Earth only once every year or so
(if launched at other times it will miss).  My question is: what is the
minimum velocity change needed to get from Mars orbit to an orbit that
intersects Earth, independent of the planets' relative positions?  Ignore
velocity needed to escape from Mars, and assume the vehicle must intersect
the Earth within one orbit.

I don't know the answer to this one; I would really appreciate a
solution or a pointer to a solution.

Paul Dietz
dietz%slb-doll@csnet-relay

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

Date: 16 Dec 85 18:59:59 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!hao!ames!eugene@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Eugene Miya)
Subject: Numerous net.space messages
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

The machine which I normally read news on (aurora) is going thru
a disk crunch, so I have to resort to an old 11/70 (ames).  There
have been many good postings to net.space and let me try to answer
them a briefly as possible.
1) Yes, there are lots of idea within NASA about the use of the external
tank in orbit.  Some of the problems have been mentioned, but these
applications and ideas have existed over 5 years and probably earlier,
getting money is the hard part.
2) No the space station will not present a significant cross-section
as the planes of the various orbits do not intersect as a plane
and the times of intersections are not significant.  Space junk
however presents a major problem at all altitudes.
3) No the space station has nothing to do with SDI.  It's a sitting
duck, for one thing.  The plan is to make it another NASA Center
like the other earth-based NASA Centers: interesting network domain
problems for address: person@site.EARTH ..... :-)
4) Neither the USSR nor the US nor the other space nations make much about
flying over each other's airspace.  Yes it is a problem, and these issues
were brought up in the early days of "legal space," but these nations
choose to be quiet over the matter for a mixture of reasons: spying:
both military and economic, diplomatic relations: arms control and the
fact that your neighbor cannot easily choose flight paths, and so forth.
You can obtain Landsat images of the Soviet Union and the USSR does buy
them.
Hopefully, I will be able news on aurora again shortly as reading
news on an ARPA mail interface is stupid. Be seeing you.
From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  {hplabs,ihnp4,dual,hao,decwrl,allegra}!ames!aurora!eugene
  emiya@ames-vmsb.ARPA

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

Date: 11 Dec 85 20:24:00 GMT
From: hplabs!hpfcdc!hpfcla!ajs@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: shuttle vs. R&D
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Irony indeed:
> In the long run, wouldn't we be better off if NASA had spent [shuttle
> launch] money on R&D?  ...  a drawback of reusable spacecraft:  once
> you build one, you're stuck with it.
Can I deduce from this that, the more and sooner shuttles crash, the
better off we'll be in the long run?  Less launch costs, and some
freedom to go work on the next generation.  Well, only if Uncle doesn't
cut the budget as "attrition" cuts the fleet.  Maybe it would be better
if the shuttles didn't crash, but were shot down by terrorists.
Which just goes to show, there are many ways of looking at any complex
subject.  Perhaps this particular rationale will make us feel just a
little better if one ever does auger in (for whatever reason).
Alan "ad astra anyway" Silverstein

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

Date: 18 Dec 1985 2005-PST
From: Rem@imsss
Subject: Big lie re Planetary-Society program on Halley's comet
To: SPACE%MIT-MC@su-score.arpa

Tonight channel 60 (KCSM-TV) will have a Planetary-Society program
regarding Halley's comet. In the promo for this program, they said
the flotilla of spacecraft visiting Halley's comet will be mankind's
first close encounter with a comet. Have they forgotten ICE's passthru
of Giacobini-Zinner a few months ago? Whom are they trying to kid?
Are they telling the "big lie" because most people won't know it's a lie
and the "big lie" will draw in more viewers than the truth would?

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

End of SPACE Digest V6 #48
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA02554; Sat, 21 Dec 85 03:00:48 PST
	id AA02554; Sat, 21 Dec 85 03:00:48 PST
Date: Sat, 21 Dec 85 03:00:48 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8512211100.AA02554@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #49

*** EOOH ***
Date: Sat, 21 Dec 85 03:00:48 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #49

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 6 : Issue 49

Today's Topics:
		       Re: SPACE Digest V6 #47
		     shadowing GEO/Earth signals
			     Tenth planet
			   Where to go...?
			      rail guns
		      Tensile strength of kevlar
		 Re: Terminology (satellite variety)
		    Re: Orbital Mechanics Question
			  Re:  Tenth planet
	       Pioneer 6, still working after 20 years
		     Re: A High Tech Maginot Line
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:           Thu, 19 Dec 85 09:50:24 PST
From: "Niket K. Patwardhan" <bilbo.niket@locus.ucla.edu>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Subject:        Re: SPACE Digest V6 #47
In-Reply-To:    Message of Thu, 19 Dec 85 03:10:26 PST
                    from "Ted Anderson <ota@s1-b.arpa>"
                    <8512191110.AA28717@s1-b.arpa>

Re:
   ...do you call a lawyer when a 747 flies overhead?.....

No. You shoot it down!

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

Date: Thu, 19 Dec 85 17:01:12 PST
From: Murray.pa@xerox.arpa
Subject: shadowing GEO/Earth signals
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Cc: Murray.pa@xerox.arpa

We have a box that gets the time from a satellite. The fine print in the
documenation mentions that it will fade out for a few minutes each
midnight during a week or two each spring and fall. The problem is that
the satellite is solar powered, and that's when it's in the Earth's
shadow.

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

Date: Thu, 19 Dec 85 22:05:49 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@mit-mc.arpa>
Subject: Tenth planet
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Cc: KFL@mit-mc.arpa

  I recall that the reason a ninth planet was looked for was because
one was necessary to explain perurbations in the orbits of Uranus and
Neptune.  Pluto was found.  But it appeared to be too small to expalin
the perturbations unless it had an unbelievably high density or unless
the disk we were seeing was not the whole planet but just a bright
spot, a reflection of the Sun on the shiny sphere.
  A few years ago, a moon on Pluto was discovered.  Study of its orbit
has proven that Pluto is small, that we have seen the whole disk,
which is not shiny, and that its density is low.
  Nobody seems to have mentioned that that puts us back in where we
were before Pluto was discovered.  What IS causing those
perturbations?  Is there a tenth planet?  Could it have gone
undiscovered for this long?
  Does anyone know what the explanation is?  Is anyone looking for
a tenth planet, or am I missing something?
  If the perturbations are still unexplained, where can I get data on
where Uranus and Neptune have been?  I would like to use such data to
try figuring out the mass and location of the tenth planet myself.

								...Keith

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

Date: Fri 20 Dec 85 09:07:55-EST
From: DINGMAN@radc-tops20.arpa
Subject: Where to go...?
To: space@s1-b.arpa


   I just happened to be going to Orlando on Jan 3rd, and now the
Columbia is scheduled for Jan 4th.  Yippee!

   I know this has come up before, but I never saved the old msgs,
so please allow me to ask those of great knowledge...Where should I
go to see the lift off?  I've never been to Florida before, so I
don't know where things are and what routes are good, etc.  Should I
just head out to Cocoa Beach, as I've heard before, or is there some
better place.  How close can I get? 

   Any info would be muchly apprec.  Mail direct or post.  THanks.

  -- jd    (DINGMAN@RADC-20.ARPA)
-------

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

Posted-Date: Fri 20 Dec 1985 09:01:25 EST
Date: Fri 20 Dec 1985 09:01:25 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: rail guns
To: Nicholas.Spies@h.cs.cmu.edu
In-Reply-To: Nicholas.Spies's message of 16 Dec 1985 23:38-EST
Cc: space@mit-mc.arpa

A problem with shooting matter into orbit with ground-based guns
is that the orbit will either escape from earth completely or will
intersect the ground.  There is no way to get into a stable elliptical
orbit without some additional acceleration in space.

I suggested some months ago that larger payloads (hundreds of kg) be
sent to the moon by electric gun; this could provide a cheap
way of sending rare volatiles into space.  Harvesting would be
simplified if the payloads were made to crash in a small area
on the moon's surface.  The large payloads are needed to make on-board
maneuvering rockets practical; these rockets are needed to correct
for velocity errors introduced by the passage throught the atmosphere.

To get matter into low earth orbit one would shoot it into a very elongated
elliptical orbit (with perigee beneath the earth's surface); at apogee
a rocket would fire to bring the perigee above the atmosphere.  The
farther out the apogee is the less of a burn is needed, since more
angular momentum will be supplied.  After the orbit is stable
aerobraking could be used to lower the apogee.  This again requires
projectiles of substantial mass to be practical.

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

Date: 20 Dec 1985  13:28 EST (Fri)
From: "Leonard N. Foner" <FONER%MIT-OZ@mit-mc.arpa>
To: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Tensile strength of kevlar
Cc: Space@s1-b.arpa, Foner%MIT-OZ@mit-mc.arpa

This is from memory, but I'm pretty sure it's right.  Ordinary kevlar
fiber, used as rope, has a strength roughly five times as strong as an
equal mass of steel (I don't know which kind of steel, but this gives
you the ballpark).  Its specific gravity is fairly close to one
(making it ideal for building underwater structures, where it's pretty
close to neutrally bouyant).  Thus (since steel's density is around
five or so---clearly dependent on just what sort of steel we're
talking about), an equal volume of kevlar is about as strong as an
equal volume of steel, but that volume will weigh a fifth as much.

Note that this makes it still weaker than spiderwebs (which are more
than seven times as strong as steel for their weight), and that
various glassy fibers are also extremely strong.  However, kevlar can
be made in large quantities, cheaply.  It will cut itself, though, so
using it around pulleys etc is a bad idea.  As a skyhook it should do
okay, but it's not strong enough to be used for an Earth-based hook.
(I don't remember where I read the calculations talking about
skyhooks, but I do remember computing that kevlar wouldn't cut it.  On
the other hand, the requirements in materials strength for Earth-based
skyhooks are nowhere near the theoretical limits on material strength,
which are based on things like the strength of a single crystal.)

						<LNF>

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

Date: Fri, 20 Dec 85 10:49:10 pst
From: David Smith <dsmith@hplabsc>
To: space%s1-b@csnet-relay.arpa
Subject: Re: Terminology (satellite variety)


>> ... (Question: earth's moon is to lonar
>>as a martian moon is to ???).
>"Lunar" is derived from "Luna," a proper name for our largest satellite;
>on that basis, the Martian equivalents would be "Phobor" or "Deimor"
>--- depending upon which moon was involved.

Nahh, the Martian equivalents are "Phobic" and "Demonic."  :-) :-)

			David Smith

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

Date: Fri, 20 Dec 85 10:51:46 pst
From: David Smith <dsmith@hplabsc>
To: space%s1-b@csnet-relay.arpa
Subject: Re: Orbital Mechanics Question


> The minimum velocity change needed to get from Mars orbit to an ellipse
> with perihelion at earth orbit is about 2.7 km/sec.

This could probably be reduced if you're willing to spend more time in
transit.  I believe the Galileo project had a history like this:  funding
was slow in coming, slipping the projected launch date past the favorable
conditions necessary to launch Galileo directly to Jupiter with an IUS.*
So, it was decided to launch the craft into an Earth-crossing orbit, so
that ~12-18 months later (I'm fuzzy on the figure), it would get a
gravitational slingshot to Jupiter.  Unfortunately, that meant an
additional 2 years in space between launch and arrival for something to
fail.  Luckily, DOD decided it needed a higher energy upper stage, and set
about to build the wide-body Centaur.  So Galileo will ride a Centaur.

*IUS = Interim Upper Stage, originally.  But since the space tug did not
get funded, the "I" now stands for Inertial (whatever that means).

<Basenote drift on: switch over to discussion on cheaper launchers>
We may get another such help from the military.  In AW&ST, Dec.16,1985,
p.16 (quoted without permission, and omitting large chunks):

    Cost to transport materials to Earth orbit using the shuttle is about
    $1,500/lb., and this cost must be reduced to $150-200/lb. if a
    ballistic missile defense systems [sic] employing space-based assets is
    to become affordable, Lt. Gen. James A. Abrahamson, SDIO director, has
    said.

    If this cost reduction can be achieved, commercial activities that
    require access to space will realize long-term benefits from the
    program even though the primary purpose of near-term vehicles remains
    military.  Recent Air Force studies have concluded that the nation
    requires short notice, on-call access to space to service and replenish
    the increasing number of military space systems.

    Research in hypersonic propulsion, advanced materials and computational
    fluid dynamics has created a consensus in the scientific community that
    the vehicle may be be feasible even though there is a high degree of
    risk in the program.

    Recent breakthroughs in ramjet/scramjet technology, materials and
    structural cooling techniques, the availability of supercomputers for
    design and simulation, and solid oxide fuel cells with unprecedented
    power-to-weight ratios have contributed to this consensus.

    The present concept envisions a hydrogen-powered aircraft capable of
    horizontal takeoff and landing from conventional runways, thus reducing
    the large support crews now required for shuttle launches.  The
    aerospace plane would operate at Mach 12-25 and altitudes of
    100,000-350,000 ft.

			David Smith

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

Date: Fri, 20 Dec 85 10:43:40 PST
From: mcgeer@ji (Rick McGeer)
To: KFL@mit-mc.arpa, Space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Re:  Tenth planet
Cc: mcgeer@ji

	As I recall, the existence of a 10th planet is pretty much taken
for granted in the astronomical community.  But it's unlikely we're going to
find it, for two reasons:

(1) It will be dim.  Isn't it true that Pluto has a very high albedo?  Assuming
that the 10th planet is a gas giant, it will have a much lower albedo than
Pluto and will also be further away from the Sun -- hence much dimmer than
Pluto, and Pluto is something like 10th magnitude anyway.

(2) It will have a very low angular velocity, so much that it will be extremely
difficult to pick out from among the fixed stars.  Assume Bode's Law holds
(I know, most people think it's an interesting bit of numerology, nothing more.
But it's the only assumption I have, and, anyway, you can make a quasi-case
for it by talking about the distribution of particles in the gas cloud that
became the solar system).  Anyway, under that assumption, planet X is at 77.2
AU, way out in the boonies.  By Kepler's Harmonic law, that makes its period
77.2^3/2, or:
678 years, which works out to an angular velocity of about 32 minutes of arc
(about half a degree) per year.  Pluto, by contrast, has about a degree and a
half of arc per year, or about three times as much -- and it took years of
Tombaugh's time on a flicker machine to spot Pluto.

There's one other objection, too -- previous planet hunts took place in and
about the ecliptic, in a pretty narrow band of sky.  I've heard speculation
that eccentricity increases with distance from the sun, so you'd have to search
a wider sky band, too.

					-- Rick.

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

Date: 18 Dec 85 02:47:21 GMT
From: trwrb!trwspp!spp3!brahms@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Bradley S. Brahms)
Subject: Pioneer 6, still working after 20 years
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

[}{]
Yesterday, Dec 16, 1985, mark the 20th anniversary of the launching of
Pioneer 6.  After 20 years in space, Pioneer 6 is still working and
sending useful data back to earth.
			-- Brad Brahms
			   usenet: {decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!trwrb!trwspp!brahms
			   arpa:   Brahms@usc-eclc

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

Date: 16 Dec 85 19:45:41 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: A High Tech Maginot Line
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> I've got a better solution. Let's establish a treaty that bans all further
> tests of anti-satellite weapons by either side. That'll effectively keep
> the Soviets from developing the "space blockade" capability of which you
> speak.
Only if it also bans development of boost-phase missile interception, which
is much closer to the problem at hand.  And only if it is completely
verifiable, which I fear I have no confidence in.  Bear in mind that such
a treaty will *most* *assuredly* remove the West's ability to *break* such
a blockade, which means we would be relying 100% on the treaty with no backup.
When I hear someone say "of course it will work 100%", I want to see the
backup system that will handle the remaining "0%".
I'd want to be very sure that the treaty was airtight and that development
of a blockade system would detectably and unambiguously violate it with
plenty of lead time.  Consider the debates now current about things like
the size of Soviet underground tests and the alleged SALT II violations.
It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that a blockade system could be
operational before Congress could be fully convinced it was under development!
Improbable, maybe; impossible, no.
Bear in mind that the Soviets seem to be copying a good many US attitudes
to weapons procurement; can the "of course it will work, no need to test
it thoroughly" attitude be far behind?  Note that a blockade system does
not need to be highly reliable -- the ability to shoot down 1 out of every
5 unauthorized launches is probably sufficient.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

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

End of SPACE Digest V6 #49
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA05020; Sun, 22 Dec 85 10:45:45 PST
	id AA05020; Sun, 22 Dec 85 10:45:45 PST
Date: Sun, 22 Dec 85 10:45:45 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8512221845.AA05020@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #50

*** EOOH ***
Date: Sun, 22 Dec 85 10:45:45 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #50

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 6 : Issue 50

Today's Topics:
			 Shooting into orbit
			 Electromagnetic guns
			    Kevlar, cables
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 20 Dec 85 22:25:29 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@mit-mc.arpa>
Subject: Shooting into orbit
To: Nicholas.Spies@h.cs.cmu.edu
Cc: KFL@mit-mc.arpa, Space@s1-b.arpa

    From: Nicholas.Spies@h.cs.cmu.edu

    Perhaps rail guns (like Tom Swift's Electric Gun) could be used to
    shoot materials into space ... [Is air friction too much to allow orbital
    velocities?]

  You cannot shoot things into orbit from the Earth's surface.  An
orbit is always an ellipse, a closed curve.  The projectile would try
to return to its starting point -- from underneath!
  You could, I think, cause the projectile to fly by the Moon in such
a way as to go into a very high Earth orbit.  But this probably
wouldn't be stable since it would eventually get close to the Moon
again.  Besides, that's really too high to be useful (for the near
term).
  A more interesting possibilty is for the projectile to be 'caught'
and decelerated by a railgun in Earth orbit.  This railgun in space
need not really be in orbit.  It could be relatively stationary over
one point (a low altitude 'geosynchronous' 'sattelite') since it would
be getting frequent boosts from catching the projectiles.  It would
use the energy gained by decelerating the projectiles to boost them
horizontally, into orbit (equal numbers in each direction, to prevent
the railgun from drifting horizontally).
								...Keith

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

Date: Fri, 20 Dec 85 23:02:50 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@mit-mc.arpa>
Subject: Electromagnetic guns
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Cc: KFL@mit-mc.arpa

  Note that not all electromagnetic guns are railguns.  One problem
with railguns is they have to be in contact with the projectile at all
times.  This is not practical at velocities of several miles per
second.
  It's not just for launching things that electromagnetic guns are
useful.  They are equally good at catching things.  You just have to
make sure things are lined up right.
  It takes relatively little energy to get into space.  It's just that
to stay in space, you have to have orbital velocity, 5 miles per
second.  If you go straight up from Earth at just 1.5 miles per
second, which only takes 9 percent as much energy as going into orbit,
you will reach an altitude of 194 miles before falling back to Earth.
  Lets say that there is a satellite with an electromagnetic gun
orbitting 194 miles above the Earth.  The projectile can be
accelerated to orbital velocity by passing through this gun.  Since it
is in space, the gun could be very long, which means the accelerations
could be low enough for people to make the trip.  A 200 mile long gun
would be necessary if people are to endure no more than 10 Gs.
Alternatively, two 50 mile long guns in different orbits could also
work.  Or four 12.5 mile long guns.
  One problem with this is that the satellite with the gun would tend
to fall out of orbit after transfering its momentum to the projectile.
It might be able to do several before this happens if it is much more
massive than the projectile, but that doesn't gain you anything since
you had to use proportionately more energy to launch the more massive
gun satellite in the first place.
  The solution is to run the gun in reverse as often as forward.
Whenever a satellite wants to reenter, instead of using atmospheric
braking, it would decelerate using the gun satellite, and drop
straight down to Earth at a relatively gentle 1.5 miles per second.
Much smaller heat shields would be needed.  Possibly no heat shields
at all.
  If not enough satellites want to reenter, pieces of asteroids and
comets could be gradually maneuvered into low Earth orbit, perhaps
with light sails.  They could then be dropped into the ocean by the
gun satellite.
  Note that the savings are actaully much greater than that 9% figure
would suggest.  The main reason rockets are so large is that they must
lift so much of their own fuel so far.  The ratio between the rocket
exhaust velocity and the desired velocity is the natural log of the
ratio between the payload mass and the total (payload plus fuel) mass.
Since the exhaust velocity of a hydrogen-oxygen rocket is at most
about 1.8 miles per second, the mass of the fuel must be at least 15
times the mass of the payload in order for the payload to reach 5
miles per second (orbital velocity).  If only 1.5 miles per second are
needed, you only need 1.3 times more fuel than payload.  It is only 
improvements of THIS magnitude that can make space travel no more
expensive than air travel is today.
								...Keith

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

Date: 22 Dec 85 04:17:07 EST
From: Hans.Moravec@rover.ri.cmu.edu
Subject: Kevlar, cables
To: BBoard.Maintainer@a.cs.cmu.edu

Skyhooks again, eh?  The following two old but barely published papers
may be of interest. The second one has a value for the strength of Kevlar
buried in it, the first one talks about delta-v from cables rotating
in free space.

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

			FREE SPACE SKYHOOKS


	A non-planetary Kevlar skyhook with tip velocity wrt its center of
1/4 earth escape velocity, which is just enough to catch a Venus-Earth
Hohmann and accelerate it to Earth-Mars Hohmann is able to support 1/425 of
its mass at each end, building in a safety factor of two.  If the skyhook
masses 21x10^6 Kg., it can support 50,000 Kg (about the mass of Skylab), at
each end.

	Considering different lengths (mass ratio is unaffected by
geometry):

Skyhook        Rotational     Acceleration     Area of cable   Area of cable
 radius          period         at ends            ends           middle

100 Km          3.74 min         8 g             28 cm^2          1700 cm^2 
1000 Km          37  min        0.8 g            2.8 cm^2         170 cm^2 
2000 Km         1.25 hrs        0.4 g            1.4 cm^2          84 cm^2 
5000 Km          3 hrs          0.16 g          0.56 cm^2          34 cm^2 
10,000 Km       6.25 hrs        0.08 g          0.28 cm^2          17 cm^2 
20,000 Km       12.5 hrs        0.04 g          0.14 cm^2         8.4 cm^2 

	The cable cross section as a function of radius is a perfect
EXP(-r^2) normal curve. Macsyma was able to integrate it symbolically, to
get an expression for the mass ratio. The integral naturally contains the
error function. The taper ratio and the mass ratio go up exponentially as
the square of the tip velocity (and simply exponentially with the
weight/strength ratio).

	A Hohmann catch/Hohmann boost removes or adds orbital energy to
the cable, but does not affect its rotation.

	The formula for cable cross section:

		    M v^2 EXP(D/T v^2/2 (1-(r/r[e])^2))
	Area(r)  =  -----------------------------------
				T r[e]

r	is distance from cable center
r[e]	is cable radius (i.e. 1/2 its length)
v	is tip velocity wrt. center
D	density of cable material
T	design tensile strength of cable
M	mass to be supported at each end

this, integrated and multiplied by two and by density, divided by M
gives the mass ratio:

let    dtv2 = D/T v^2/2

Mass Ratio  =  2 SQRT(P dtv2) EXP(dtv2)  ERF(sqrt(dtv2))

Hans Moravec
November, 1978

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

    NON-SYNCHRONOUS ORBITAL SKYHOOKS FOR THE MOON AND MARS
		WITH CONVENTIONAL MATERIALS


Abstract.	A satellite in low circular orbit has two huge tapered
cables extending outwards and rotating in the orbital plane, touching the
planet each rotation. The tip velocity cancels the orbital velocity at the
contacts, as in a rolling wheel.  It can gently lift loads from the surface
and accelerate them to escape velocity, and capture and lower speeding
masses.  Taper is minimized when the satellite's radius is one third the
planet's, and for Mars and the moon is reasonable with existing materials
such as fiberglass and Kevlar.

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

	The idea of a planet to orbit transportation system involving an
enormous tapered cable extending from a synchronous satellite to the ground
has been in the literature for almost two decades (1, 2, 3). It has hitherto
been considered applicable only in the distant future, when materials
stronger than any now available come into existence.

	This report points out that the combination of a new material,
Kevlar (4) and a new, less expensive, satellite skyhook configuration (5, 6)
makes skyhook transportation feasible now on bodies as large as Mars. On the
moon, in particular, a Kevlar skyhook has enormous advantages over rockets
for the supply and crew rotation missions envisioned for space
industrialization efforts (7).

	A synchronous skyhook is made by lowering a cable from a synchronous
satellite to the surface, balanced by an even longer cable extending
outwards from synchronous orbit.  Anchored to the ground and put into
tension by a ballast at its far end, it would be a cosmic elevator cable,
able to deliver mass to high orbit with extreme efficiency, also providing a
means for extracting the rotational energy of the planet.  Such a structure
cannot reasonably be built on Earth given existing structural materials. It
would be possible if a cable with 10 times the strength/weight ratio of
steel, or 1/8 the theoretical strength/weight ratio of crystalline graphite
could be fabricated. A graphite cable with a density of 2.2 gram/cm^3 and a
tensile strength of 2.1x10^11 dyne/cm^2 could be fashioned into a
synchronous terrestrial skyhook which had only 100 times ground level cross
section at synchronous orbital height.  At any one time it could support one
powered elevator massing 1/6000 of the cable mass (6).

	Mars has a much shallower gravity well, and a synchronous skyhook
for it is almost reasonable with conventional materials. Kevlar is a new
superstrong synthetic from the DuPont Co.  With a density of 1.44 gram/cm^3
and a tensile strength of 2.76x10^10 dyne/cm^2 it has about 5 times the
strength/weight of steel.  Stressed to half this, to build in a safety
factor of two, Kevlar can be used to construct a synchronous martian skyhook
with a taper of 16,000:1, able to support 10^-6 of its own weight at a time.
The numbers for the moon, which has little gravity, but rotates very slowly,
are 17.5:1 and 1/13,000.

	In very high orbits the forces on the cable must be integrated over
long distances, resulting in large tapers.  For very low orbits, the
satellite must spin rapidly to keep the contact points stationary, and the
quadratic dependence of centrifugal force on rate of spin results in a large
taper in the limit. The taper is minimized between these extremes, when the
radius of the skyhook is about 1/3 the radius of the planet.

	An optimum size skyhook of this kind touches down six times per
orbit. It is much smaller than the synchronous variety for the earth, moon
and Mars, but its length is still enormous by conventional standards.
Because of its scale, its motion near the ground during a touchdown is
purely vertical.  It appears to descend with a constant upward acceleration,
coming to a gentle momentary stop, then ascending again.  This acceleration
is 1.4 gravities on Earth, 0.28 g on the moon and 0.5 g on Mars.

	A load attached to the bottom end of such a skyhook during a
touchdown will be accelerated to a maximum of 1.6 times escape velocity at
the highest point of the cable end's trajectory.  Launching a mass in this
manner extracts rotational and orbital energy from the skyhook, and lowers
the orbit. Conversely, a high velocity craft which rendezvous with and
attaches itself to the upper end of the cable, and is then decelerated and
lowered to the ground, injects a similar amount of energy.  Simultaneous
docking of equal masses at both ends of a skyhook would leave the orbit
essentially unchanged.  The most plausible way to operate a device like this
may be to have the cable ends merely approach the surface at a safe
distance.  A small rocket could be used to match the relatively tiny
velocity and position differences between the cable tip and the ground. It
would then be possible to borrow and deposit small amounts of orbital energy
without risking collisions of the cable and surface.

TABLE I. Parameters for Optimally Sized Skyhooks

          Orbital      Liftoff       Fiberglass           Kevlar
Body	Period (hr.)  Accel (g)    Taper     Mass     Taper      Mass

Mercury      2.37       0.57        2200    23000        49       350
Venus        2.37       1.39    1.2x10^20  3.0x10^21  1.3x10^10  2.3x10^11
Earth        2.16       1.40    7.2x10^21  1.9x10^23  1.0x10^11  1.9x10^12
 Moon        2.78       0.28         13       72         3.6       13
Mars         2.62       0.49      17,000    200,000      136      1100
 Ganymede    3.41       0.26         35      240         6.0       28
 Titan       3.39       0.26         29      190         5.4       24

	Table I lists parameters for optimum size fiberglass and Kevlar
skyhooks for some solar system bodies. Fiberglass is assumed to have a
density of 2.5 gram/cm^3 and a tensile strength of 2.41x10^10 dyne/cm^2.
Kevlar has a density of 1.44 gram/cm^3 and a tensile strength of 2.76x10^10
dyne/cm^2.  Orbital period is how long it takes the skyhook to make a full
circuit of the body. The liftoff acceleration is the vertical acceleration
experienced by a skyhook payload near the ground, not including the surface
gravity of the planet. It gives an indication of how long the touchdown
lasts. Taper is the ratio in cross sectional area between the center of the
skyhook, where it is thickest, and the tips, where it is thinnest. The Mass
columns give the ratio between the mass of the skyhook and the largest
payload that it can support at one time at each end. Thus a lunar Kevlar
skyhook can lift 1/13 of its own mass. The numbers assume the skyhooks are
stressed to at most half the tensile strength of the material of which they
are made, thus incorporating a safety factor of two.

	Evidently Earth and Venus are too large for Kevlar skyhooks.  Kevlar
is strong enough for Mars, Mercury and all the moons of the solar system.

	Some current plans for space industrialization call for transport of
large quantities of equipment and people to and from the moon. The proposed
linear accelerator mass driver (7) is ideal for launching ore from the moon.
It provides no way of bringing payloads down to the surface, and with its
1000 g accelerations and small mass unit is unsuitable for launching bulkier
and more delicate loads.

	A Kevlar lunar skyhook is able to lift and deposit 1/13 of its own
mass every 20 minutes, and subjects payloads to a maximum 0.45 g of
acceleration. It would seem to be a desirable alternative to expensively
fuelled rockets for routine supply and crew rotation missions to the moon's
surface.

	The tapers for non-synchronous skyhooks used in this report
were obtained by integrating the forces on the cable between ground
level and satellite center, at the instant of a touchdown. This is
when the stress is at its highest (8).

Define
r[p]	the radius of the planet
m[p]	the mass of the planet
w[p]	the rotation rate of the planet (in radians per unit time)
r[o]	the radius of the orbit
w[o]	the orbital rate of the satellite's mass center
w[s]	the rotation rate of the satellite
D	the density of the cable material
T	the tensile strength of the cable material
A(r)	cable cross section at distance r from the planet center
G	the universal gravitational constant

	to make contact point stationary,

           r[o] W[o] - r[p] W[p]
W[s]   =   ---------------------
               r[o] - r[p]

	and for a circular orbit

W[o]   =   SQRT(G m[p] / r[o]^3)

	this last substitution is only an approximation, since the extended
satellite does not orbit and rotate exactly like a point at its mass center.

	The stresses in the  cables are caused by their weight in the
planet's gravitational field and the accelerations due to the  orbital
motion and spin of satellite. They are maximum in the downward hanging
cable. Both cables must be built to take this stress and the satellite is
thus symmetric about its center.  If the cables are constructed so as to
make the tension per unit area constant, the cross section of the downward
hanging cable at distance r from the planet center is given by

A(r)   =   A(r[p]) EXP{ D/T (r-r[p]) 
                (Gm[p]/(r r[p]) - r[o]W[o]^2 + (r[o]-(r+r[p])/2) W[s]^2) }

	The mass ratios were found by numerically integrating this
expression over r.  Some confidence in the general stability of skyhooks of
this kind has been obtained by observing computer simulations of optimum
size terrestrial graphite versions (6). The only serious problems revealed
were caused by launches not complemented by captures. These lowered the
satellite's orbit and caused collisions with the ground.

              Hans P. Moravec, 1977

References and Notes

1. Y. Artsutanov, Komsomolskaya Pravda, July 31, 1960
   (contents described in Lvov, Science 158 946 (1967)).

2. J.D. Isaacs, A.C. Vine, H. Bradner, G.E. Bachus,
   Science 151 682 (1966) and 152 800 (1966) and 158 946 (1967).

3. J. Pearson, Acta Astronautica 2 785 (1975).

4. J.H. Ross, Astronautics & Aeronautics, 15-12 44 (1977).

5. The central idea in this paper, of a satellite that rolls like a wheel,
   was originated and suggested to me by John McCarthy of Stanford.

6. H.P. Moravec, Advances in the Astronautical Sciences, 1977, also
J. Astronautical Sciences 25 (1977).

7. G.K. O'Neill, The High Frontier, Human Colonies in Space
   (William Morrow & Co., New York, 1976).

8. The derivations were done using the MACSYMA symbolic mathematics computer
   system at MIT.

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

End of SPACE Digest V6 #50
*******************


0,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA06709; Mon, 23 Dec 85 03:00:51 PST
	id AA06709; Mon, 23 Dec 85 03:00:51 PST
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 85 03:00:51 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8512231100.AA06709@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #51

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 6 : Issue 51

Today's Topics:
			Re: left-handed sugar
		   Re: Kevlar density and strength
		  Re: "Shadowing" geosync satellites
	    Re: Shuttle External Tanks and Space Stations
			   Re: L-5 Society
			 Re: Manned Mars Trip
	      Re: Shuttle Articles in Discover Magazine
		  Re: "Shadowing" geosync satellites
	    Re: Shuttle External Tanks and Space Stations
		 Re: Terminology (satellite variety)
			 Electromagnetic guns
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 18 Dec 85 05:50:23 GMT
From: Shasta!rsf@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: left-handed sugar
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

OK, my big question now is: does left-handed sucrose promote tooth decay?
(I'm sorry that this has nothing to do with "space" anymore, but "enquiring
minds want to know".)
Ross Finlayson
Stanford CS Dept.
ARPA: rsf@su-pescadero.ARPA
UUCP: ...!{decwrl,ucbvax}!Glacier!Shasta!rsf

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

Date: 21 Dec 85 00:28:00 PST
From: Emilio Calius <calius@su-star.arpa>
Subject: Re: Kevlar density and strength
To: "space%mit-mc" <space%mit-mc@su-score.arpa>
Reply-To: Emilio Calius <calius@su-star>

  I am responding here because I don't know if I can mail to CSNET nodes.
      
  There are 2 main varieties of Kevlar fiber. Kevlar 49 is the most
commonly used as reinforcement in composites, its most popular
application in aerospace presently being pressure vessels.

      Specific Gravity: 1.45 --> Density = 0.053 lb/cu. in.

      Tensile Strength       Breaking Strain    (in the fiber direction)
       2740 E 6 Pascal           2.3 %         (4560 denier fiber bundle)
       2940 E 6 Pascal           2.31 %         (380 denier fiber bundle)

for untwisted 10 in. long filaments. Note that twisting the fiber
bundle results in significant strength losses. You also should take
into consideration the  fiber's level of exposure to humidity and UV
radiation. The effects of loading rate and temperature are usually
less important, unless you're operating at or over, say, 100 deg. C
and/or 1000 %/sec. strain rate.

      Also, as for graphite fibers, the properties of Kevlar fibers
are much lower in the transverse than in the longitudinal direction of
the fibers. I don't have information on their transverse strength, but
would guess that it's in the region of 5 % of the longitudinal
strength.

WARNING: the main source for this information is the "Kevlar 49 Data
Manual", DuPont Chemical Co., Wilmington, Delaware, 1974. I don't have
a more recent reference at hand for the fibers themselves. It is
entirely possible that their performance has improved. However, a
recent (1984) paper cites Kevlar fiber bundle longitudinal strength as
being 2760 E 6 Pascal.  Call you DuPont representative.

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

Date: 18 Dec 85 12:49:38 GMT
From: decvax!mcnc!unccvax!dsi@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dataspan Inc)
Subject: Re: "Shadowing" geosync satellites
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> >> Now for the key question: do you call your lawyer when a 747 flies
> >> overhead?  Do you KNOW?
     Is it necessary?  Back in the dark ages (when satellite antennas cost
$2000 and there was no such thing as a 120 degree LNA) we were installing a
satellite system on Interstate-85 in Charlotte, NC.  This earth station turns
out to be right at the end of R/W 5-23 at Douglas Field. I don't know what
the horizontal distance is exactly to the end of 23 but the aircraft on
approach are sufficiently low enough to see small mechanical parts. They
are the usual short-haul stuff (727/737/DC-9/BAC 1-11) flying over (directly)
and cause no problems for TASO Grade 1 downlinking of television.
     However, you can see the effects of the radar altimeter for about 5 sec
after flyby...at the output of the LNA.  It was not visible at the first IF
and has caused our client no problems.
     In the transmit case, I don't know if the high EIRP (typically 5000 w)
would cause the aircraft any problems, or for that matter, the occupants
inside.  However, I believe (and am going to check the dreaded cookie company
rules and regulations) that you would have no standing if you were stupid
enough to put your earth station at the end of a runway, or, for that matter,
between the outer marker and the runway and 10000 feet on either side.
Outside the controlled area (I'm not a pilot, and know very little from doing
numerous broadcast applications) the "footprint" of a 747 wouldn't affect
anything...
     If you can afford an uplink, you can afford a consulting engineer whose
job is to plan for contingencies like this.  The Commission common carrier
bureau is a whole 'nother world from Mass Media, and they can be picky to
the point of trivia.  Has a 747-flyby actually screwed up someone's uplink?
David Anthony
Chief Development Engineer
DataSpan, Inc.

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

Date: 16 Dec 85 17:07:00 GMT
From: hplabs!hpfcdc!hpfcla!ajs@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Shuttle External Tanks and Space Stations
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> ...arrange for all future ETs to be carried up to LEO and then put into
> some higher "parking" orbit...
I agree, and offer this food for thought.  How do you suppose the design
work on the space station might be affected if at this moment we already
had 20+ external tanks waiting for us in some parking orbit?
I've heard rational arguments both for and against additional orbiter
vehicles, even against having a space station (e.g.  see this month's
Scientific American).  Given that we're already in the shuttle launching
business, and the low incremental cost to save those ETs for future use,
maybe the activists among us should focus on that as a safe, NON-
CONTROVERSIAL short-term goal for NASA.
Used to be a space station fanatic but now I'm not so sure...
Alan Silverstein

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

From: sdcsvax!dcdwest!ittatc!decvax!seismo!riacs!ames!al@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Return-Path: <ittatc!decvax!seismo!riacs!ames!al>
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 85 18:02:05 pst
To: decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!ucla-cs!ucbvax!
Subject: Re: L-5 Society

I recently resigned my life membership in the L5 society.  They
are somewhat effective as lobbyists (sp?).  The publication is
boring.  But mostly I got fed up with their 'I hate the Russians'
line.  Not that the Russian leadership is a bunch of nice guys, but
they have made significant contributions to space development and
the Russian people ARE nice guys.

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

Date: 18 Dec 85 23:49:33 GMT
From: decvax!mcnc!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Frank Adams)
Subject: Re: Manned Mars Trip
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <6218@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
>> (To get back to the subject line):  A Mars project may be the way to
>> get Americans as excited as they were for the Apollo project.  If this
>> happens then we may just get the funding we need.  Funding for a Mars
>> project may necessarily include many of the programs that we feel
>> are necessary.
>
>Unfortunately, the analogy to Apollo may be all too apt.  What happens
>after the First Mars Expedition returns?  How long before the budget
>starts getting cut back, back, back, on the grounds that "you've finished
>your job"?
>
>Yes, a Mars mission would require building many capabilities that would
>be useful for other things.  And they might well get thrown away afterward.

The question is, would a Mars mission develop *enough* capabilities to
make commercial use of space practical?  If so, they wouldn't be thrown
away; part of the problem after Apollo was that there wasn't any economic
use for the hardware.

I haven't seen any attempt to determine whether the Mars mission would
produce sufficient technology.  Part of the problem here is the imponder-
ables.  It is hard to estimate what an as-yet-undeveloped launch system
will cost in actual operation -- particularly since cost/development time
trade-offs are possible.  One can do little more than guess at the
economics of proposed space industries, so it is hard to tell what launch
cost is required to make them profitable.

One of the reasons I support the space station is that it changes the
way subsequent missions get planned.  Once you have a permanent operational
facility in orbit, it makes sense to use it for such things.  This leads to
the development of space capabilities, not just launch capabilities.

Frank Adams                           ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
Multimate International    52 Oakland Ave North    E. Hartford, CT 06108

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

Date: 19 Dec 85 23:01:12 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Shuttle Articles in Discover Magazine
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

[Having let the last-referenced article sit for a while so I could cool off
before replying to it, I've decided that most of it isn't worth rehashing.
However, one point deserves comment.]

>>...Probably nobody on Earth could have kept [the Shuttle promises] --
>>although there are some people I'd have given better odds than I'd
>>have given NASA on the job...
> ...So who could have done better?  Who HAS done better?...

If I had to use the US aerospace establishment to build a Space Shuttle,
I think I'd give the contract to Kelly Johnson's "Skunk Works" at Lockheed,
and tell him to call me when he was ready for flight tests -- and not before.
Or I'd give it to Ed Heinemann at Douglas (if I'm allowed to juggle time
scales a bit so he'd still be there), with the same instructions.  That is,
to people who have a track record of doing difficult aerospace jobs quickly
and cheaply.  A rare distinction, alas.

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

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

Date: 21 Dec 85 01:01:10 GMT
From: sun!amdahl!ems@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (ems)
Subject: Re: "Shadowing" geosync satellites
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> If a space station is  NOT in geosync orbit, I think that a larger
> problem would come when it entered Soviet airspace.
Uh, the biggest problem from a space station entering Soviet
*AIR*space would be the fireball ...
-- 
E. Michael Smith  ...!{hplabs,ihnp4,amd,nsc}!amdahl!ems
This is the obligatory disclaimer of everything.

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

Date: 21 Dec 85 02:58:21 GMT
From: amdcad!mike@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Mike Parker)
Subject: Re: Shuttle External Tanks and Space Stations
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <22000012@hpfcla.UUCP> ajs@hpfcla.UUCP writes:
>I agree, and offer this food for thought.  How do you suppose the design
>work on the space station might be affected if at this moment we already
>had 20+ external tanks waiting for us in some parking orbit?
>
I don't know how it would affect space station design, but if
they went back to painting them white and tied all of them into
a big bundle, it'd be a hell of a sight just after sunset.
Mike

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

Date: 20 Dec 85 17:54:34 GMT
From: decwrl!pyramid!ut-sally!seismo!ll-xn!roger@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Roger Hale)
Subject: Re: Terminology (satellite variety)
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> on that basis, the Martian equivalents would be "Phobor" or "Deimor"
> --- depending upon which moon was involved.
> 
> Steve Kallis, Jr.
Being a purist at heart, I like the sound of "phobic" and "deimic" better...
Roger Hale
(roger@ll-sst.arpa)

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

Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1985  23:28 EST
From: PGS@oz.ai.mit.edu
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Electromagnetic guns
In-Reply-To: Msg of 20 Dec 1985  23:02-EST from Keith F. Lynch <KFL at mit-mc.arpa>

    Date: Friday, 20 December 1985  23:02-EST
    From: Keith F. Lynch <KFL at mit-mc.arpa>

    ...One problem with this is that the satellite with the gun would tend
    to fall out of orbit after transfering its momentum to the projectile.
    It might be able to do several before this happens if it is much more
    massive than the projectile, but that doesn't gain you anything since
    you had to use proportionately more energy to launch the more massive
    gun satellite in the first place.
      The solution is to run the gun in reverse as often as forward.

The other solution that comes to mind is to accelerate the gun back into
orbit at low thrust constantly, which makes one think of ion rockets (they
also don't involve carrying fuel up into orbit).  But I don't know enough
about that technology to know if its use on such a large scale would be
economical.

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

End of SPACE Digest V6 #51
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA11278; Tue, 24 Dec 85 03:00:53 PST
	id AA11278; Tue, 24 Dec 85 03:00:53 PST
Date: Tue, 24 Dec 85 03:00:53 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8512241100.AA11278@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #52

*** EOOH ***
Date: Tue, 24 Dec 85 03:00:53 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #52

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 6 : Issue 52

Today's Topics:
			 Orbit from rail guns
		      Kevlar, cables: correction
	      Re: Shuttle Articles in Discover Magazine
      Re: Big lie re Planetary-Society program on Halley's comet
		       Re: Spinoffs from space
			Re: Orphaned Response
		       Re: Electromagnetic guns
			   Re: L-5 Society
		       Re:  Shooting into orbit
			electric launch again
			    Martian Moons
		       Re:  Shooting into orbit
		  Recovering ET residual propellants
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 22 Dec 85 22:23:04 PST
From: Murray.pa@xerox.arpa
Subject: Orbit from rail guns
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Cc: Murray.pa@xerox.arpa

Could you get something that couldn't maneuver into a stable orbit by
swinging around the moon? (I don't care about the economics.)

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

Date: 23 Dec 85 03:10:58 EST
From: Hans.Moravec@rover.ri.cmu.edu
Subject: Kevlar, cables: correction
To: BBoard.Maintainer@a.cs.cmu.edu

The following key paragraph was inadvertently omitted from yesterday's
post. It should be inserted in the second paper just in front of the
paragraph beginning "In very high orbits the forces ...". Sorry about
having to omit the figure.

-------------------------
	(6) introduced the concept of a non-synchronous skyhook.  Figure 1
illustrates the idea. A satellite in low circular orbit is elongated enough
to just touch the surface in certain positions.  It spins so that, like a
rolling wheel, its rotation cancels its tangential velocity during the
contacts with the surface.  Such a structure can be constructed to orbit at
any height, and a synchronous skyhook is a special case.

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

Date: 20 Dec 85 17:44:46 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Shuttle Articles in Discover Magazine
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> [I'd give the Shuttle contract]
> to people who have a track record of doing difficult aerospace jobs quickly
> and cheaply.  A rare distinction, alas.
A further interesting note on this...  One of the many interesting facts
brought out in Norman Augustine's fascinating book "Augustine's Laws"
($19.97 postpaid from the AIAA, 1633 Broadway, NYC 10019) is that the
Defence Department has no memory.  A simple scatter plot of contract awards
vs. past performance demonstrates clearly that cost overruns (or underruns!)
on previous contracts don't make any difference in whether you get the next
contract.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

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

Date: 20 Dec 85 17:56:00 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Big lie re Planetary-Society program on Halley's comet
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> ... In the promo for this program, they said
> the flotilla of spacecraft visiting Halley's comet will be mankind's
> first close encounter with a comet. Have they forgotten ICE's passthru
> of Giacobini-Zinner a few months ago? ...
Probably they knew about it but considered it a joke by comparison.
Which it was.  "International Comet Explorer", indeed.  Better than nothing,
yes, useful scientific return, yes, but a poor excuse for a comet probe.
Anyone reading this who has strong religious beliefs:  if you are in a mood
to thank your Deity (-ies) for good things happening in the last year, spend
a moment thanking him (her) (them) for making the Ariane third stage work
perfectly for Giotto, and fail on the *next* launch.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

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

Date: 20 Dec 85 16:41:00 GMT
From: pur-ee!uiucdcsb!kenny@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Spinoffs from space
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Anything with approximately the right electric dipole moment will taste
sweet.  This includes some inorganic compounds like lead sulphate, which
was once called "sugar of lead" (and thought to be organic).  BTW, DON'T
go tasting lead sulphate to verify this claim; it's a deadly poison.
k**2
UUCP: {ihnp4, pur-ee, convex}!uiucdcs!kenny
ARPA: Kenny@UIUC.ARPA (or in the new world) Kenny@CS.UIUC.EDU
CSNET: Kenny@UIUC.CSNET

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

Date: 20 Dec 85 04:27:00 GMT
From: hplabs!hpfcdc!hpfcla!rjn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Orphaned Response
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

re: "shadowing" of satellites in GEO ...
Earth  station  operators  (like the plant I work at) already have to put up
with  such  interference.  A few  (predictable)  times  a year,  the  SUN is
directly behind the satellite we use for video conferencing.  The sun, being
a prodigious radio source, wipes out the signal for about ten minutes.
I imagine passing aircraft can also glitch the signal.
Regards,                                              Hewlett-Packard
Bob "so we take a coffee break" Niland                3404 East Harmony Road
[ihnp4|hplabs]!hpfcla!rjn                             Fort Collins CO  80525

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

Date: 22 Dec 85 05:46:34 GMT
From: cbosgd!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Electromagnetic guns
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>   Note that not all electromagnetic guns are railguns.  One problem
> with railguns is they have to be in contact with the projectile at all
> times.  This is not practical at velocities of several miles per
> second.
As I recall, the problem is not that *physical* contac* is required, but
that *electrical* contact is required.  The two are not necessarily the same.
There have been serious studies of using electric arcs as conductive paths
for electrically-powered trains!  Not as silly as it sounds -- arc plasma
is a far better conductor than any metal.  Maintaining the arc does involve
losses, though.  And an arc might behave strangely in the intense magnetic
fields of a railgun.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

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

Date: 23 Dec 85 08:50:20 GMT
From: decvax!bellcore!petrus!karn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Phil R. Karn)
Subject: Re: L-5 Society
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> I recently resigned my life membership in the L5 society.  They
> are somewhat effective as lobbyists (sp?).  The publication is
> boring.  But mostly I got fed up with their 'I hate the Russians'
> line.  Not that the Russian leadership is a bunch of nice guys, but
> they have made significant contributions to space development and
> the Russian people ARE nice guys.
Indeed, many L-5'ers see SDI as the ticket for moving people into space, and
that blinds them to its other consequences. It almost seems that to them,
ANY space project is automatically a GOOD space project.
Seems to me that Werner von Braun once had a problem like that.
Phil Karn
(L-5 society member, but wondering)

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

Date: Mon, 23 Dec 85 15:51:43 PST
From: mcgeer@ji (Rick McGeer)
To: KFL@mit-mc.arpa, Nicholas.Spies@h.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: Re:  Shooting into orbit
Cc: Space@s1-b.arpa

	I thought of something related to the "catcher" idea, and I'm not sure
it would work.  This involves a transfer station in LEO, a two-way rail gun.
Each shot is in pairs -- one side goes to GEO or moon-transfer orbit, the
second is an earth entry orbit.  It seems to me (no calculations, sadly) that
one could, in principle, ship very large amounts of mass to HEO and beyond
in this manner.  In effect, each of the two payloads uses the other as reaction
mass.  The efficacy of the method is dependent upon how often you want to ship
material both ways from LEO.

					-- Rick.

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

Date: 23 Dec 1985 19:22-EST
From: Nicholas.Spies@h.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: electric launch again
To: space@mit-mc.arpa

	 Thanks for the basic physics indicating a surface ballistic
	 launch cannot reach stable orbit. Here are a couple of other
	 suggestions.

	 If the masses lauched were shaped to fly in the air (changing
	 their orbital path) would the same objections still pertain?
	 Or if each projectile had an on-board solid-fuel rocket to
	 boost it out of a simple ballistic orbit at a critical point
	 would the idea seem more practical? Even if rail guns seem practical
	 for moon ore it would seem mandatory to have the means of
	 delivering many thousands of tons of Earth material into orbit
	 before much use might be made of the Moon ore.

	 The other idea, suggested by Hans' orbiting propeller, is
	 whether a solid ring, under gravitational compression, much
	 like a bicycle wheel surrounding the Earth, might in
	 principle be built in geosynchronous orbit as the ultimate way
	 of jacking stuff out of the gravity well. Perhaps it could be
	 built along the lines of Fuller's Tensegrity structures and
	 articulated to bend enough to respond to perturbations caused
	 by Lunar and other gravitational irregularities yet stiff
	 enough to allow elevators... It might take a while to build
	 this 154,000 mile structure but why think small! (And, who
	 knows, perhaps such a structure in much lower orbit, if it
	 were sufficiently stiff, could be slowed to rotate to be
	 geosychronized because, after all, where would it fall?)

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

Date: Mon 23 Dec 85 21:47:35-EST
From: FIRTH@tl-20b.arpa
Subject: Martian Moons
To: space@mit-mc.arpa


In case anyone cares, the proper Greek forms are "phobic" and "demotic".
However, I propose we follow the trend of English development and simply
use the noun in apposition:

	Moon Rock => Demos Rock
	Moon Base => Phobos Base

Hence, "the Lunar surface" => "the surface of Phobos", or "the Phobos surface"

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

Date: Mon, 23 Dec 85 22:14:01 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@mit-mc.arpa>
Subject: Re:  Shooting into orbit
To: "MCGEER@JI"@mit-mc.arpa
Cc: KFL@mit-mc.arpa, Space@s1-b.arpa

    Date: Mon, 23 Dec 85 15:51:43 PST
    From: mcgeer@ji (Rick McGeer)

    	I thought of something related to the "catcher" idea, and I'm not sure
    it would work.  This involves a transfer station in LEO, a two-way rail
    gun.  Each shot is in pairs -- one side goes to GEO or moon-transfer
    orbit, the second is an earth entry orbit.  It seems to me (no
    calculations, sadly) that one could, in principle, ship very large amounts
    of mass to HEO and beyond in this manner.  In effect, each of the two
    payloads uses the other as reaction mass. ...

  Ya, this should work.  Please note that the orbit the projectile is shot
into would be an elliptical orbit whose perigee is at the same altitude as
the transfer station.  Possibly a second transfer station could be set up in
GEO.
  Also note that although the momentum could be made to balance (which is
important or the transfer station will fall out of the sky) but that you
still need lots of energy.
  A way that does NOT need extra energy is the 'skyhook' idea propounded by
Hans Moravec among others.  The skyhook does not need to be fastened to the
Earth, but could be freely rotating in Earth orbit.  The latter is MUCH
easier.  Spacecrafts can dock to one end of this rotating cable and undock
at the other end, having gotten 'free' delta-vee.  This is possible because
of the remarkable property that all rotating objects have, namely that all
of the object (except the axis) is continually undergoing acceleration
without consuming any energy or reaction mass.
								...Keith

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

Date: 23 Dec 85 19:26:00 PST
From: Emilio Calius <calius@su-star.arpa>
Subject: Recovering ET residual propellants
To: "space%mit-mc" <space%mit-mc@su-score.arpa>
Reply-To: Emilio Calius <calius@su-star>


	The idea of venting away the residual fluids in the ET is an almost
criminal waste of what may be (in the near-term) a precious resource.
Fortunately, Martin Marietta, which is responsible of the ET, has a NASA
contract to study ways of reclaiming the unused propellants.

	From SPACEFLIGHT, Nov. 85, p. 391:
	"... capable of reclaiming up to 11,400 kg of propellant per mission
depending upon the Orbiter's payload. Unused propellant on missions to date
has ranged from 4300 kg to 12,800 kg of the total 726,000 kg carried aloft
by each tank. Under current estimates, the Space Station would require about
114,000 kg of LH2 and LO2 per year". That means that recovering the fluids
from 10 launches/year (out of the 14 planned) would be enough.

	"The system includes 2 to 4 propellant collecting tanks in an aft
cargo carrier that would be attached to the rear of the ET. After the Shuttle's
main engines cut off, residual liquid oxygen and hydrogen would drain from the
ET into the collection tanks with the help of a thrust system designed for the
weightlessness of orbit.
	Once filled, the scavenging tank assembly would separate from the aft
cargo carrier as a self-contained, remote-controlled vehicle with it own
propulsion system. Once this fuel-laden vehicle has moved into position along-
side the Space Station, technicians aboard the station would send an Orbital
Maneuvering Vehicle to shepherd it to the station's fuel depot for transfer
of the reclaimed propellant to permanent tanks.
	The scavenger vehicle would return to Earth in the cargo bay of the
Shuttle for reuse on later missions. The ET and the aft cargo carrier would
reenter the atmosphere to break apart and fall harmlessly into an ocean orea,
as is the case for the tank on current Shuttle flights."

	Well, I don't like the last part of their plans, but it is at least
a hopeful sign. However, it
's a long way from flight hardware.

	Emilio P. Calius
	Aero/Astro Dept.
	Stanford Univ.

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

End of SPACE Digest V6 #52
*******************


0,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA13510; Wed, 25 Dec 85 03:00:44 PST
	id AA13510; Wed, 25 Dec 85 03:00:44 PST
Date: Wed, 25 Dec 85 03:00:44 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8512251100.AA13510@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #53

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 6 : Issue 53

Today's Topics:
	    Proposal: net.sdi, sdi@sdio, sdi-request@sdio
		     Re: A High Tech Maginot Line
		 Re: Terminology (satellite variety)
			   Re: Tenth planet
			   Re: Beamed Power
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 23 Dec 85 18:38:52 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!seismo!hao!ames!eugene@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Eugene Miya)
Subject: Proposal: net.sdi, sdi@sdio, sdi-request@sdio
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Re: medin's posting
Isn't there a news group specifically devoted to Star Wars? (net.movies.sw?)
Let me propose that there is so much news on SDI, and that a lot
of it is spilling into other newsgroups: net.politics, net.research,
and it seems to all pervasive, that surely it belongs to a separate
newsgroup.  Since net.space is gatewayed to the ARPAnet, I am certain
a similar group could be formed there, and it would give an excuse to
put the SDI Office onto the ARPAnet where it could take criticism.
NASA cannot take credit for this stuff as we are the civilian space
agency, it's in our charter.
The SDI people can share technical discussions, argue techniques,
flame about feasibility.  Here's a vote for net.sdi!
From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  {hplabs,ihnp4,dual,hao,decwrl,allegra}!ames!aurora!eugene
  emiya@ames-vmsb.ARPA

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

Date: Mon, 23 Dec 85 11:03:06 est
From: Joe Nunes <utai!ulysses!clyde!watmath!utcsri!nunes@ucbvax.berkeley.edu>
To: space@utcsri.arpa
Subject: Re: A High Tech Maginot Line

I have a camera that can take pictures of golf balls on greens, too. :-)

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

Date: 23 Dec 85 00:26:15 GMT
From: sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!oberon!smeagol!jplgodo!steve@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Steve Schlaifer x3171 156/224)
Subject: Re: Terminology (satellite variety)
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> 
> >> ... (Question: earth's moon is to lonar
> >>as a martian moon is to ???).
> >"Lunar" is derived from "Luna," a proper name for our largest satellite;
> >on that basis, the Martian equivalents would be "Phobor" or "Deimor"
> >--- depending upon which moon was involved.
> 
> Nahh, the Martian equivalents are "Phobic" and "Demonic."  :-) :-)
> 
Actually, Phobic is probably correct--the word roots are at least right.
Maybe Lunar should be replaced with Lunatic (then the "beads" seen during
an eclipse could be referred to as the Lunatic fringe :-) (sorry but I couldn't
resist).
	Steve Schlaifer (jplgodo!steve)

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

Date: 24 Dec 85 11:29:19 PST (Tuesday)
From: Lynn.es@xerox.arpa
Subject: Re: Tenth planet
In-Reply-To: your message of Thu, 19 Dec 85 22:05:49 EST
To: KFL@mit-mc.arpa
Cc: Lynn.es@xerox.arpa, Space@s1-b.arpa

Soon after Tombaugh found Pluto, it was fairly evident to him that he
had not found the perturbation cause.  During the 30's and 40's he
completed a photographic survey of a wide band about the ecliptic
without finding anything.  So either the wandering ways of Uranus and
Neptune are 1) errors in measurement, 2) caused by another effect (dust
disks, Oort cloud, whatever), 3) caused by a planet that was very far
from the ecliptic when Tombaugh photographed, or 4) caused by a planet
too dim to show up in Tombaugh's survey.  Pluto runs about magnitude 13
to 14, and if I remember right, Tombaugh's survey should have found
anything brighter than 16 or so.  You can check the details by reading
Tombaugh's recent book, titled something like "Out of the Darkness".

I have heard of a few astronomers (Charles Kowal at Palomar is the only
name I can remember right now) interested in the tenth planet, but no
results.  It seems the data are inconsistent, so they have to decide
whose observations to consider too unreliable to use.  Also, the effect
is only a little larger than the expected errors of measurement.  

One idea is to look for the planet in the IRAS satellite IR sky survey.
It is said to be far more sensitive to a planet-type object than
Tombaugh's survey.  All you have to do is weed out the several hundred
thousand objects found by IRAS that are not planets!  Even among moving
objects in the IRAS data, thousands of asteroids clutter up the search.
There are also some pessimists that claim we will eventually find the
tenth planet in the 1% of the sky that IRAS missed photographing.

/Don Lynn

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

Posted-Date: Tue, 24 Dec 85 16:22:54 PST
Date: Tue, 24 Dec 85 16:22:54 PST
From: Jordan Kare <ucdavis!lll-crg!mordor!jtk@ucbvax.berkeley.edu>
To: ucdavis!space
Subject: Re: Beamed Power
Newsgroups: net.space
In-Reply-To: <8512121426.AA10051@ucbvax.berkeley.edu>

	A free electron laser does not emit free electrons,
it uses free electrons to generate light (or microwaves,
in which case it's a "microwave laser" like the original
lasers were "optical masers" :-)) which can be beamed using
big mirrors.

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

End of SPACE Digest V6 #53
*******************


0,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA15452; Thu, 26 Dec 85 03:00:41 PST
	id AA15452; Thu, 26 Dec 85 03:00:41 PST
Date: Thu, 26 Dec 85 03:00:41 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8512261100.AA15452@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #54

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 6 : Issue 54

Today's Topics:
	  Re: Proposal: net.sdi, sdi@sdio, sdi-request@sdio
			 Re: Manned Mars Trip
			   Re: L-5 Society
		       Re: Shuttle sonic booms
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 24 Dec 85 13:50:05 GMT
From: decwrl!pyramid!ut-sally!seismo!rlgvax!bdmrrr!rudy@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Scott W. Rudy III)
Subject: Re: Proposal: net.sdi, sdi@sdio, sdi-request@sdio
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> Re: medin's posting
> 
> The SDI people can share technical discussions, argue techniques,
> flame about feasibility.  Here's a vote for net.sdi!
I agree! 
-- 
                                           Scott W. Rudy III
                                           The BDM Corporation WB5A
	                                   7915 Jones Branch Drive
                                           McLean, VA  22102-3396
                                           UUCP: {seismo,rlgvax}!bdmrrr!rudy

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

Date: 23 Dec 85 00:04:03 GMT
From: tektronix!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!eder@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dani Eder)
Subject: Re: Manned Mars Trip
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> I keep hearing that the cost of launching something on the shuttle is
> $X/kg, and further that this cost is N times launching it on the Saturn
> V had we kept the production lines open. The exact values of X and N
> keep changing, but the argument is the same.
> 
> Can someone present a DETAILED breakdown of the actual costs (not prices)
> for the two launchers? These figures should be broken down into three
> categories:
> 
> 1. Up-front launcher development costs (research, development, testing).
     According to figures I got from the NASA History Office, the three
stages of the Saturn V launch vehicle cost $5 billion each in today's (1986)
dollars to develop.  This excludes launch facility costs.  The Space Shuttle
program cost a total of $15 billion in total through the end of the 4th flight
test, but that figure does not include inhertiance from the Saturn program.
As an example, the Vehicle Assembly Building was modified for the Shuttle, but
the modifications cost much less than building a new facility from scratch.> 
> 2. Continuing operational costs that are relatively independent of the
> launch rate (JSC and KSC salaries, computer system maintenance contracts,
> electric bills, janitorial and landscaping services, that kind of thing).
> 
     According to figures given to us by the Air Force for use in our current
Space Transportation Architecture study, the Kennedy Space Center and Vanden-
berg Air Force Base launch sites cost about $420 million per year each to
operate, independant of launch rate.  One Orbiter costs $2.4 billion dollars
if ordered today.  If you wait till next year to order one, the cost goes up,
because all the subcontractors will have gone on to other things than making
shuttles.  
> 3. Actual per-mission costs that are directly attributable to things
> consumed during each mission (fuel and other consumables, SRB refurbishment,
> ET and other one-shot components, short-term contract labor, etc).
     The cost of External Tanks depends on the production rate, as does many
other components.  An approximation for flight dependant costs is
     $1570 million for 24 flights/year +- 25 million per flight /year above
and below 24 per year.  As an aside, the liquid propellants cost $1.4
million per flight.  According to my boss, who once was in charge of Saturn
improvements at Boeing, the cost per flight of the Saturn was running $750
million at the height of the Apollo program.  Since the payload of the Saturn
V to low earth orbit is 240,000 lb, the marginal cost per lb was a little
over $3000.  When the Shuttle reaches 24 flights per year, the operating
costs will be about $100 million per flight.  Allowing for Orbiter life o
f 100 flights, $24 million in vehicle depreciation should be added.  Hence
the true COST of the Shuttle per flight will be $125 million, or about
$2000/lb.> 
> I think we have to present the costs broken down this way if we're to
> come up with a useful result. A single figure of $X/kg is bound to be
> misleading.
     Very true.  One useful way to look at the comparison between Shuttle
and Saturn is cost breakeven from development.  The Shuttle costs $1000/lb
less to operate than Saturn.  To recoup the development cost of $15 billion
requires the launch of 15 million pounds of payload, or about 225 flights.
> 
> Phil
Dani Eder/Advanced Space Transportation/Boeing/ssc-vax!eder

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

Date: 25 Dec 85 05:29:21 GMT
From: sdcsvax!davidson@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Greg Davidson)
Subject: Re: L-5 Society
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

I would like to make clear the L5 Society's position on SDI:  It has
none.  L5 was formed to support and expedite space development so that
people can live and work there.  Whether SDI may further this goal is
debatable.  Some L5 members support SDI.  Others strongly oppose it.
Thus I was surprised to just read of someone leaving the society over
this issue.
There is occasional  discussion of SDI issues in the L5 News.  I would
say the topic comes up infrequently, no more than it does in this
mailing list (newsgroup).  I think it would be an overreaction to
cancel one's membership in L5 or stop reading this mailing list for
this reason.
I am neither for nor against SDI.  What I would like to see is a strong
committment to space development.  I see this as worthwhile for its own
sake, but note that the USSR would have to reciprocate.  The more resources
that are put into space development, the harder it is to run an arms race.
If you think that people should be moving out into the Solar System,
making use of the resources there, building homes there, etc., then
join the L5 Society.  L5 News articles discuss tethers, light sails,
space colony design, lunar and asteroidal materials, closed ecosystems,
etc.  We also discuss the US, Japanese, European and Soviet space programs.
Come join us!
J. Greg Davidson                          Virtual Infinity Systems
(619) 452-8059               6231 Branting St; San Diego, CA 92122 
 
greg@vis.uucp                           ucbvax--| telesoft--|
davidson@sdcsvax.uucp                   decvax--+--sdcsvax--+--vis
davidson@ucsd.arpa                       ihnp4--|  noscvax--|

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

Date: 24 Dec 85 17:56:30 GMT
From: ucla-cs!scw@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Shuttle sonic booms
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <386@ubvax.UUCP> skip@ubvax.UUCP (Skip Addison) writes:
>In article <600@riccb.UUCP> rjnoe@riccb.UUCP (Roger J. Noe) writes:
>>> Why are there two sonic booms from the shuttle?
>>
>>It's because there are [...] anyway.  I don't think the two sonic booms
>> ...
>>--
>>	Roger Noe			ihnp4!riccb!rjnoe
>
>Sonic booms are created by major displacements of air or air rushing in to
>fill a void.  A sonic boom is[...] and sudden abscense of the tail.  A more
>streamlined aircraft has less of a boom.
>
>Notice the two wakes left by some boats at high speeds.  Same principles.
Excuse me, right idea but wrong cause, The shock wave is formed when the air-
flow velocity passes through the speed of sound. If you look at the upper
surface of the wing of any aircraft flying near Mach 1 (Mach .6~~ < v <Mach 1.0)
You'll see 2 'lines' running spanwise, these are 'shock waves' where the airflow
over the wing transistions the speed of sound (increasing veloicity produces
a stronger wave than decreasing veloicity so the forward 'line' will be much
sharper and clearer that the trailing one. The 'lines' will appear to move
forward and backwards on the wing as the airspeed and angle of attack change.
They also move farther apart with increasing Mach number. At Mach 1 the will
be at the leading and trailing edges. If the leading and trailing edges are far
enough apart you'll hear 2 sonic 'booms' as the aircraft passes. Note that the
primary sound energy is produced by the wings (or in the case of the space
shuttle the whole aircraft (being all wing). Now the distance from the nose
to the tail of the space shuttle is what? (150 feet??) so assuming
(20000 feet & Standard Atm. and getting out my trusty pro-star.
Mach 1 = 621 KTAS = 1048 FPS= ~.14 sec between the first boom and the
second, but at 50000 Feet & SA Mach 5= 2743 KTAS = 4629 FPS = .03 seconds
so it sounds like 1 (longer) boom).
<scw>

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

End of SPACE Digest V6 #54
*******************


0,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA00705; Fri, 27 Dec 85 03:00:47 PST
	id AA00705; Fri, 27 Dec 85 03:00:47 PST
Date: Fri, 27 Dec 85 03:00:47 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8512271100.AA00705@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #55

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 6 : Issue 55

Today's Topics:
		       Re: L-5 Society and SDI
		       Getting stuff into Orbit
			   Closed ecosystem
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Return-Path: <rohn@rand-unix.ARPA>
From: Laurinda Rohn <rohn@rand-unix.arpa>
Date: 26 Dec 85 09:51:39 PST (Thu)
To: Space-incoming@s1-b.arpa
Cc: rohn@rand-unix.arpa
Subject: Re: L-5 Society and SDI


>> I recently resigned my life membership in the L5 society.  They
>> are somewhat effective as lobbyists (sp?).  The publication is
>> boring.  But mostly I got fed up with their 'I hate the Russians'
>> line.  Not that the Russian leadership is a bunch of nice guys, but
>> they have made significant contributions to space development and
>> the Russian people ARE nice guys.
>Indeed, many L-5'ers see SDI as the ticket for moving people into space, and
>that blinds them to its other consequences. It almost seems that to them,
>ANY space project is automatically a GOOD space project.
>Seems to me that Werner von Braun once had a problem like that.
>Phil Karn
>(L-5 society member, but wondering)

First off, the L-5 Society intentionally has *NO* position on SDI.
There have been requests from members to endorse the program officially,
and there have been other requests to renounce the program officially.
Most of the members do not want the Society to take a position on the
issue at all.  The reigning sentiment, at least what I've heard of it
and what has been published as letters to the editor in the L-5 News,
is that it really isn't L-5's place to have a position on SDI.  L-5
is primarily an educational organization, though it is involved in some
political activities.

I also wouldn't say that many L-5'ers see *ANY* space project as good.
A few months ago, there was an article in the L-5 News called "The Case
Against Mars" where the author (K. Eric Drexler, I think) presented
some very good arguments against going to Mars in the near future.
There are ongoing arguments within the Society about the worth of
unmanned probes, whether there should be a fifth Shuttle, whether there
should be a lunar base, and whether humans should be involved in space
missions at all.

I'd really like to know where anyone has seen L-5 *as an organization*
spouting the "We hate the Russians" line.  That is just plain wrong.
There are undoubtedly some small number of our members (vocal ones, to
be sure) who feel that way and don't hesitate to say so.  However, I'm
certain that the vast majority of the members don't feel that way at
all.  As a matter of fact, a motion was entertained at the most recent
L-5 Board of Directors meeting to install a Soviet on the Board of
Governors or Board of Advisors (one or the other, I don't recall which
offhand).  Such a proposal would not even have been brought up if there
was not a great deal of member support for it.

In summary, I don't want people getting the impression that L-5 is a
Russian-hating, pro-SDI group that thinks any space mission is a good
one.  Go to an L-5 chapter meeting or the Annual Conference next year
in Seattle if you doubt this.  I think you'll change your mind if you
do.


Lauri Rohn                 rohn@rand-unix.ARPA
			   ..decvax!randvax!rohn

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

Date: Thu 26 Dec 85 13:26:02-EST
From: FIRTH@tl-20b.arpa
Subject: Getting stuff into Orbit
To: space@mit-mc.arpa

There has been some discussion recently about how to get mass into
stable Earth orbit, using some form of ground-based accelerator.

If we consider only one mass at a time, then of course it isn't possible.
When the mass leaves the accelerator, it is in free fall, and so its
trajectory must return to that point - which presumably is quite close
to the ground and so well within the atmosphere.  Lagrange strikes again!

One could also consider a mass that had aerodynamic lift, but again the
answer is the same: it will return to the point where ballistic motion
began; and if that was deep enough in the atmosphere to provide some lift
on the way out, it will surely introduce drag on the way back in.

The only way is to give the body some more impulse once it is outside the
atmosphere, by means of rockets, an orbiting grabber, or whatever.

However, the trick is possible if you consider TWO masses at a time.  Suppose
we launch a mass into orbit from a ground-based accelerator.  Just to play with
some numbers, suppose the orbit is an ellipse with major axis 20000 miles
and minor axis 16000 miles.  Perigee is then 4000 miles from the center of
the Earth, ie grazing contact, and apogee is of course 16000 miles from the
center or 12000 miles above the surface.

Now launch TWO such masses, so that their orbits are in the same plane, but
pointing away from the Earth in opposite directions.  That is, the two
ellipses share a common focus (the earth's center) and all three foci are
in a straight line.  These orbits intersect at a distance of ~6400 miles out,
ie an altitude of ~2400 miles.

Launch the two masses so that they meet at the point of intersection, one
inbound and one outbound (and they had both better be on their first orbits,
of course).  Let the masses be equal.  Then, they meet when travelling at
the same speed (but in different directions), and with the same energy.
Somehow, get then to join into one bigger mass.  The combined mass will
then be travelling in a new orbit, whose major axis is perpendicular to
the major axes of the old orbits, and with perigee the same 6400 miles.
Apogee of course will be ~13600 miles.  The new mass is comfortably outside
the atmosphere, and all propulsion was done on the ground.

[Here follows the boring math.  Given an ellipse with semimajor axis a and
 semiminor axis b, then the interfocal distance 2f is given by

	f = sqrt(a^2-b^2)

 and the peri- and ap- distances by a-f and a+f.

 Two such ellipses with a common focus, and the three foci in a straight
 line, intersect twice; the points of intersection being symmetrically
 placed about the common focus so that the line joining them passes through
 the common focus and is perpendicular to the major axes. The triangle formed
 by the common focus, either other focus, and either point of intersection is
 a right triangle.  If the intersection point is at distance x from the common
 focus and y (>x) from the other focus, then

	x^2 + 4f^2 = y^2	(recall that 2f is interfocal distance)
 and
	x + y = 2a		(the ellipse invariant)

 whence we may calculate x and y.

 Finally, recall that the energy of an elliptic orbit is -1/2a, independent
 of the minor axis (multiplied by GMm, of course, but we can ignore all that)
]

Robert Firth
-------

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

Date: 26 Dec 1985 22:14-EST
From: Nicholas.Spies@h.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: Closed ecosystem
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

	 Somewhat related to space habitation.... does anyone know of a
	 fishbowl-sized closed ecosystem that is presumably being
	 marketed? It is supposed to live forever if kept at the
	 proper temperature in the right amount of light. It would seem
	 the ideal pet... --Nick (ns@h.cs.cmu.edu)

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

End of SPACE Digest V6 #55
*******************


0,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA03522; Sat, 28 Dec 85 03:00:41 PST
	id AA03522; Sat, 28 Dec 85 03:00:41 PST
Date: Sat, 28 Dec 85 03:00:41 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8512281100.AA03522@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #56

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 6 : Issue 56

Today's Topics:
		     Re: Getting stuff into Orbit
			     Tenth planet
		      More on closed ecosystems
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:           Fri, 27 Dec 85 10:02:27 PST
From: Bob English <lcc.bob@locus.ucla.edu>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Subject:        Re: Getting stuff into Orbit
In-Reply-To:    Message of Fri, 27 Dec 85 03:07:35 PST
                    from "Ted Anderson <ota@s1-b.arpa>"
                    <8512271107.AA00878@s1-b.arpa>

> Date: Thu 26 Dec 85 13:26:02-EST
> From: FIRTH@tl-20b.arpa
> Subject: Getting stuff into Orbit

> Launch the two masses so that they meet at the point of intersection, one
> inbound and one outbound (and they had both better be on their first orbits,
> of course).  Let the masses be equal.  Then, they meet when travelling at
> the same speed (but in different directions), and with the same energy.
> Somehow, get then to join into one bigger mass.  The combined mass will
> then be travelling in a new orbit, whose major axis is perpendicular to
> the major axes of the old orbits, and with perigee the same 6400 miles.
> Apogee of course will be ~13600 miles.  The new mass is comfortably outside
> the atmosphere, and all propulsion was done on the ground.

If the major axis is perpendicular to the original major axes,
then the point of intersection will become the apogee of the new
orbit, not the perigee.  Most of the orbital energy will be lost
in the collision between the objects, and there won't be much
left to keep them up there.  I suspect this is a dead end.

--bob--

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

Date: Fri, 27 Dec 85 11:42 PST
From: Dave Platt <Dave-Platt%LADC@cisl-service-multics.arpa>
To: Space <Space@s1-b.arpa>
Subject: Tenth planet
Random-Quote: Chemistry is applied theology.
              OWSLEY

Well, I'm working strictly from memory... but here's what I recall about
some work done on the "tenth planet" problem in the past few years...

About five years back (I think), someone did a fairly extensive analysis
of the orbits of Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto, using the best-available
estimates on the masses of these planets.  The results indicated that
there might be a tenth planet located roughly twice as far from the sun
as Pluto is, on the average;  its mass was estimated to be approx.
10 Earth-masses, and its current position was far outside of the
orbital plane of the known planets (I don't recall the figure for
certain, but I'm pretty sure it was at least 40 degrees and may have
been as much as 60 degrees).  The researcher who announced the results
of the calculations claimed to have narrowed the probable location
of the "new" planet down to a fairly small portion of the sky (10
degrees square?).

As I remember it, several observatories did an extensive
blink-comparison scan of that portion of the sky, comparing some old
file negatives with current photos... and didn't find anything.

So... several possibilities come to mind.

1- There is something in that portion of the sky, but it's too dim
   to be seen with standard optical instruments... possibly a planet
   with an *extremely* low albedo (would have to be *very* low for
   a planet with a ten-earth mass to be invisible), a black hole (where
   are the gammas?), or something small/massive/dim at a greater
   distance than was calculated (an old neutron star, or a very cold
   burnt-out dwarf star?).

2- There's nothing in that portion of the sky... the orbits of the
   outer planets are indeed being perturbed, but there's not a single
   object doing the perturbing;  instead, we're seeing the net effect
   of a large number of smaller objects, whose vector sum happens to
   point in the direction indicated by the orbital calculations.
   Perhaps there's a lot of old, cold matter (comet precursors?)
   floating around outside the orbit of Pluto;  the Oort cloud (or
   something related to it) may come in a lot closer than we had
   thought, or be much denser than previous calculations had
   indicated.

3- Something else is going on.  Possibly there's some exotic thingie
   floating around not far from our solar system... a cosmic "string",
   a dense clump of photinos or axons (sp?), or some other strange
   form of "dark matter".  Cosmologists are still trying to figure out
   how much dark matter exists in our galaxy (and in the universe), and
   what forms that dark matter takes... neutrinos with a nonzero mass,
   supersymmetric particle partners, etc. etc. and so on.  Possibly
   this dark matter occasionally forms into clumps, sufficiently
   coherent and massive to tweak the orbits of the outer gas giants in
   our solar system, but sufficiently isolated to be invisible (except
   by its gravitational interaction with our system).  Maybe the "shadow
   world" is actually out there!

Take your pick.  The jury is still out, of course... we can't yet say
that there is no tenth planet, only that we haven't unambiguously
detected the presence of one.  I rather like the third alternative;  if
it's true, it would once again bring home the realization that the
universe is stranger than we have yet imagined.

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

Date:       Fri, 27 Dec 85 18:16:42 EST
From: "Martin R. Lyons" <991@NJIT-EIES.MAILNET>
To: "nicholas.spies"@h.cs.cmu.edu
Cc: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa
Subject:    More on closed ecosystems


     For a description of the Ecosphere, a closed ecosystem, see the Whole
Earth Review, Number 46, May 1985.

     A portion of the article:

     "The Ecosphere is a totally sealed, transparent glass globe about the
size of a Civil War cannonball.  Inside dwell four to six shrimp, a 'twig' of
burnt umber coal, a free-form mass of feathery green algae, and an invisible
world of aquatic microbial life."

     Ordering info: $250. postpaid from Engineering and Research Associates,
Inc., 500 North Tucson Blvd., Tucson, AZ, 85716.

     Also, for those experimenting with their own closed ecosystems this
address: Amateur Closed Systems Network, c/o Joe Henson, Jet Propulsion
Laboratory, 4800 Oak Grove Drive, Pasadena, CA, 91009.

-----
MAILNET: Marty@njit-eies.mailnet   BITNET: Marty@njitcccc.Bitnet [Pending]
ARPANET: Marty%njit-eies.mailnet@mit-multics.arpa        USENET: [Pending]
USPS:    Marty Lyons,  EIES @ CCCC, New  Jersey  Institute  of  Technology
         323 High St., Newark, NJ  USA   (201) 596-2932 (desk) or 596-EIES
                   "You're in the fast lane....so go fast."

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

End of SPACE Digest V6 #56
*******************


0,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA06055; Sun, 29 Dec 85 03:00:45 PST
	id AA06055; Sun, 29 Dec 85 03:00:45 PST
Date: Sun, 29 Dec 85 03:00:45 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8512291100.AA06055@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #57

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 6 : Issue 57

Today's Topics:
	    Re: Getting stuff into Orbit (skipping stones)
		  Re: Skyhooks, tethers, and kites.
		     Re: transatmospheric vehicle
		    Re: Aviation Week on Star Wars
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 28 Dec 85 00:41:02 GMT
From: sun!amdahl!ems@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (ems)
Subject: Re: Getting stuff into Orbit (skipping stones)
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> There has been some discussion recently about how to get mass into
> stable Earth orbit, using some form of ground-based accelerator.
> 
> If we consider only one mass at a time, then of course it isn't possible.
> When the mass leaves the accelerator, it is in free fall, and so its
> trajectory must return to that point - which presumably is quite close
> to the ground and so well within the atmosphere.  Lagrange strikes again!
> 
> One could also consider a mass that had aerodynamic lift, but again the
> answer is the same: it will return to the point where ballistic motion
> began; and if that was deep enough in the atmosphere to provide some lift
> on the way out, it will surely introduce drag on the way back in.
>
> The only way is to give the body some more impulse once it is outside the
> atmosphere, by means of rockets, an orbiting grabber, or whatever.
> 
Would it be possible to 'skip on the surface'?  If one
re-enters on a rough tangent, cannot some form of 'aerobraking' be
used to modify the orbit?  I must admit that the physics of it is
well beyond me, but it seems intuitive that some combination of
airfoil interactions on the way out and back would result in an orbit
not impacting the ground.  After all, we only need to change the
orbit by about 100 miles out of 8000 ... (Then again, intuition and
physics are often at odds, anyone can see feathers fall slower :-)
BTW the discussion on two masses was marvelous, what happens if one
mass is sent up, but divides in two at apogee?  I know that this
could be used to keep one mass in orbit.  Is there a way to keep
both masses in orbit by having them blasted in different directions?
Can this be done with minimal delta V and fuel?  (Yes, this is an
invitation to the soap box...)
-- 
E. Michael Smith  ...!{hplabs,ihnp4,amd,nsc}!amdahl!ems
This is the obligatory disclaimer of everything.

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

Date: 27 Dec 85 21:36:45 GMT
From: amdcad!cae780!weitek!mmm@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Mark Thorson)
Subject: Re: Skyhooks, tethers, and kites.
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

With all the interest in skyhooks and tethers, I'm inspired to ask "How about
a kite?"  Is there enough gas streaming off the earth or the sun to catch in
a kite?  Of course, you'd have to attach the string to a point on the earth
that doesn't move -- either the north pole or the south.
Are there any obvious reasons this would be a dumb idea?  I can see some
advantages.  If you had a rope into space, you'd have to CLIMB up it (unless
it's HM's rotating skyhook).  But the kite string would be tangent to the
earth, hence you could WALK into space (its only a hundred miles to LEO, any
good athlete should be able to make it in a few days).
I can see some disadvantages for the ground crew.  You're stuck at the north
pole, for one.  You spend the day watching the kite through the crosshairs
of a scope.  If it dips toward the equator you reel in the Kevlar cable,
if it swings east to west you let some out.  Worst duty in the navy (doesn't
this sound like a navy operation).
Mark Thorson   (...!cae780!weitek!mmm)

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

Date: 28 Dec 85 01:22:31 GMT
From: unmvax!nmtvax!wildstar@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: transatmospheric vehicle
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Has anyone ever thought about the environmental impact that an air-breathing
x-atmos vehicle is likely to cause?  It is true that most of the oxidizer
mass could easily be save by relying on atmosphere.  However, what would 
happen to the atmosphere if it is relied on as oxidizer? If launches are
made as frequently as the lack of predicted expense permits, there will be
DEFINITE side effects:
Since N is a major component of the atmosphere, and S, C, and H appear in
higher than trace amounts, we can wind up with lots more nitrous oxide,
nitric oxide, nitric acid, sulfuric acid, ammonia, various hydrocarbons, 
and worst of all, free radicals, not to mention freon-like molecules.
What happens? We increase the amount of acid rain, reduce the ozone layer,
reduce the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere, and generate more petro-chemical
byproducts.
Chew on that!
Andrew Jonathan Fine

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

Date: 28 Dec 85 18:26:34 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!teddy!lkk@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Aviation Week on Star Wars
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <1149@lll-crg.ARpA> medin@lll-crg.ARpA (Milo Medin) writes:
>First off, if you speak with people who work in the SDIO, they
>make no claims other than that this system is being built to
>protect our military assets primarily, and damage limitation
>to the population on a secondary basis.  The hype that some people
>(not the SDIO) are using to sell the system as a total inpenetrable
>defense is misleading.  
That "hype" is being spread by none other than the President of the
United States, Mr. R. Reagan.  He has stated on a number of occaisons his
vision of SDI eliminating the need for strategic nuclear weapons.  It 
was this view of Reagan's which was the reason for SDI being started in the
first place, and it is this vision which fuels political support for it.
Sounds to me the the various scientifically minded people who do have a
vested interested in the continuance of SDI have invented a new purpose for
it so that they can defend it to the scientific community, even though
THAT purpose is indefensable strategically or politically.
>				medin@ames.ARPA
				      ^^^^
Not surprising.
-- 
Sport Death,       (USENET) ...{decvax | ihnp4!mit-eddie}!genrad!panda!lkk
Larry Kolodney     (INTERNET) lkk@mit-mc.arpa
--------
Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing.
- Helen Keller

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

End of SPACE Digest V6 #57
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA08469; Mon, 30 Dec 85 03:00:42 PST
	id AA08469; Mon, 30 Dec 85 03:00:42 PST
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 85 03:00:42 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8512301100.AA08469@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #58

*** EOOH ***
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 85 03:00:42 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #58

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 6 : Issue 58

Today's Topics:
		     Re: transatmospheric vehicle
			  Re:  Tenth planet
			  Getting into space
				Kites
		      Trans-atmospheric vehicle
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted-Date: Sun 29 Dec 1985 10:25:16 EST
Date: Sun 29 Dec 1985 10:25:16 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Re: transatmospheric vehicle
To: unmvax!nmtvax!wildstar@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
In-Reply-To: unmvax!nmtvax!wildstar's message of 28 Dec 85 01:22:31 GMT
Cc: space@mit-mc.arpa

>Has anyone ever thought about the environmental impact that an air-breathing
>x-atmos vehicle is likely to cause?  It is true that most of the oxidizer
>mass could easily be save by relying on atmosphere.  However, what would 
>happen to the atmosphere if it is relied on as oxidizer? If launches are
>made as frequently as the lack of predicted expense permits, there will be
>DEFINITE side effects:
>Since N is a major component of the atmosphere, and S, C, and H appear in
>higher than trace amounts, we can wind up with lots more nitrous oxide,
>nitric oxide, nitric acid, sulfuric acid, ammonia, various hydrocarbons, 
>and worst of all, free radicals, not to mention freon-like molecules.
>What happens? We increase the amount of acid rain, reduce the ozone layer,
>reduce the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere, and generate more petro-
>chemical byproducts.

Since a scramjet would burn hydrogen, negligible hydrocarbons, sulfur
compounds or "freon-like molecules" would be produced (if anything, a
very small quantity of freon could be destroyed).  Free radicals are
probably generated much more by solar ultraviolet light and cosmic rays,
and are unstable anyway.  Compared to ground-based combustion the effect on
acid rain is negligible.  The concern about reducing the amount of
oxygen in the atmosphere is too silly to criticize further.

The significant pollutants would be oxides of nitrogen generated in
the hot combustion gases, ammonia and water.  Ammonia in trace amounts
is not harmful, and destroys NOx.  Water in large quantities could
conceivably produce high altitude clouds, cooling the earth's surface
(but the air is very dry at high altitudes, I think).

This harks back to the anti-SST argument concerning NOx emissions
destroying the ozonosphere (which was vastly overblown).  In the near
term, I suspect that we could launch orders of magnitude more
payload than the shuttle and not have a significant effect.  This will
not be an important problem in our lifetimes.

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

Date: 29 Dec 85 02:37:41 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!lsuc!msb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Mark Brader)
Subject: Re:  Tenth planet
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Rick McGeer (mcgeer@JI) writes:
> It will have a very low angular velocity, so much that it will be extremely
> difficult to pick out from among the fixed stars.  Assume Bode's Law holds
> (...it's the only assumption I have...) ... its period [will be about]
> 678 years, which works out to an angular velocity of about 32 minutes of arc
> (about half a degree) per year.  Pluto, by contrast, has about a degree and a
> half of arc per year, or about three times as much -- and it took years of
> Tombaugh's time on a flicker machine to spot Pluto.
Like Don Lynn, whose article did a nice job of answering all the other
points that have been raised, I reference the book "Out of the Darkness",
written in 1978 by Clyde Tombaugh and (for the historical matter) Patrick
Moore.  The truth is that it took only a few months for Pluto to be
detected on the Blink-Comparator.
The computation of 32 minutes of arc per year is irrelevant.  The trick is
to use the motion of the Earth: instead of detecting the planet's orbital
motion, you detect its parallax, which is much larger.
For simplicity assume a direct circular orbit coplanar with ours, with 81 AU
radius.  Then at opposition, Sun, Earth, and planet will be in a straight
line, and the Earth-planet distance will be 80 AU.  Figure the Earth's
orbital angular velocity around the sun as 1 degree per day.  Then Earth
will be moving with respect to the planet at 1/80 degree per day, or 3/4
minute of arc per day.  Note, PER DAY.  The planet's net apparent motion
will be the difference of this and its much smaller orbital motion.
What Tombaugh did, under the direction* of Slipher and Slipher of the
Lowell Observatory, was to photograph the sections of the sky that were
near to being directly opposite the sun, and to compare (with the Blink-
Comparator) pictures taken, usually, 2 days apart.  In the case of the
actual discovery the pictures were taken 6 days apart because of weather
or something, and the two blinking images of Pluto were far enough apart that
he had to search (briefly) to find the second one after finding the first.
So it should be clear that the slow motion is no obstacle to a Blink-
Comparator search.  Even if it was, the searcher could simply use plates
with a long time interval between them.  The dimness, of course, is another
matter.  Tombaugh said that he could have detected an object 2-3 magnitudes
fainter than Pluto, but his eyesight was apparently exceptional.
*Tombaugh had no university education at the time -- he was hired
 as an assistant because he was felt to have potential.  Correctly!
Mark Brader
Usenet readers will see this in net.astro, the proper group by their
standards, and net.space.  The three earlier articles are in net.space
alone, because they originated from the ARPA side, and there's no ARPA
gateway to net.astro.

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

Date: Sun, 29 Dec 85 16:55:06 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@mit-mc.arpa>
Subject: Getting into space
To: sun!amdahl!ems@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Cc: KFL@mit-mc.arpa, Space@s1-b.arpa

    From: sun!amdahl!ems@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (ems)

    Would it be possible to 'skip on the surface'?  If one
    re-enters on a rough tangent, cannot some form of 'aerobraking' be
    used to modify the orbit?

  No.  If part of the orbit is in the atmosphere, the projectile will
keep returning to the atmosphere.  In order to get it into a stable
orbit outside the atmosphere, thrust must be applied when outside the
atmosphere.  The projectile will in any case keep returning to the
point at which thrust was last applied, whether that is on the ground,
in the atmosphere, or in space.

    BTW the discussion on two masses was marvelous, what happens if one
    mass is sent up, but divides in two at apogee?

  That is what rockets do.  The second mass is the expended fuel.
Certainly this will work, but requires a lot of energy.  Which is one
of the main reasons why space travel is so expensive.
  In theory you could launch a projectile from the ground with an
electromagnetic (or other) gun, and have it fire its rockets to get
into a stable orbit when it reaches a good altitude outside the
atmosphere.  The only problems are that the G forces inside the gun
would be very high (enough to kill any astronaut and probably to set
off the onboard rockets prematurely) and the air resistance on the way
up would burn up much of the projectile, take away much of its kinetic
energy, and subject it to high G forces again.  Hopefully a gentler
inexpensive way to get into space can be developed.
								...Keith

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

Date: Sun, 29 Dec 85 16:55:38 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@mit-mc.arpa>
Subject: Kites
To: amdcad!cae780!weitek!mmm@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Cc: KFL@mit-mc.arpa, Space@s1-b.arpa

    From: amdcad!cae780!weitek!mmm@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Mark Thorson)

    With all the interest in skyhooks and tethers, I'm inspired to ask "How
    about a kite?"  Is there enough gas streaming off the earth or the sun to
    catch in a kite?
  
  I don't think there is hardly any gas streaming off the Earth.  As
for the solar wind, that is only at great alititudes.  If you could
build a kite that high, you would do better to build an equatorial
skyhook.
								...Keith

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

Date: Sun, 29 Dec 85 16:56:18 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@mit-mc.arpa>
Subject: Trans-atmospheric vehicle
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Cc: KFL@mit-mc.arpa

    From: unmvax!nmtvax!wildstar@ucbvax.berkeley.edu

    Has anyone ever thought about the environmental impact that an air-
    breathing x-atmos vehicle is likely to cause?  ...what would 
    happen to the atmosphere if it is relied on as oxidizer?

  Not much.  The amount of oxygen in the atmosphere is enormous.
Since the fuel would probably be hydrogen, the only combustion product
would be water vapor.  Since the hydrogen for the fuel was gotten from
water in the first place, there is really no net change to the
environment.
  The great heat of the combustion could cause some nitrogen and
oxygen in the atmosphere to combine to form trace amounts of nitrogen
oxides.  This is the same thing that happens whenever there is
lightning.  And the energy in one fair-sized thunderstorm is far more
than the energy of a shuttle launch.
  The fuel needs of the trans-atmospheric vehicle would be far less
than that of a vehicle which has its oxidizer on board.  And every
space vehicle, to date, has burned the most and the fastest, when
closest to the ground.  And I have never heard of any adverse effects
from the combustion, except for temporary heating of the ground (along
with any unfortunate small animals) within a mile or two of the launch
pad.  In particular, I have never heard of any acid rain problem in
southern Florida, or any pollution problem there that has anything to
do with the space program.
  If you are concerned about acid rain, it is better to worry about
the billions of tons of sulfur-rich coal that are burned every year in
the midwest than to worry about the thousands of tons (millions of
times less) of clean rocket fuel burned each year.
  The Orion program was cancelled largely due to environmental
concerns.  The Orion program proposed launches to be made by
detonating hundreds of nuclear bombs.  Had this program continued, we
would probably have the solar system in our grasp today.  We would
also have several thousand extra fatal cancers.  It was decided that
it was not worth it.  I agree with that decision.  Though it should be
pointed out that smoking causes about 100 times the deaths that Orion
would have.
  Environmentalists did us all a service by forcing Orion to be
cancelled.  But if environmentalists object to everything, they
quickly lose their credibility.  Expansion into space is necessary for
the future of our species.  Without space, we are all doomed.  Blind
opposition to all forms of space travel is counter-survival.
  If environmentalists wish to improve our environment, they should
concern themselves primarily with smoking.  Automobiles and alcohol
would be tied for a distant second.  And burning coal would be a very
distant third.  Nothing else is even in the running.
								...Keith

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

End of SPACE Digest V6 #58
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA10879; Mon, 30 Dec 85 15:17:42 PST
	id AA10879; Mon, 30 Dec 85 15:17:42 PST
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 85 15:17:42 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8512302317.AA10879@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #59

*** EOOH ***
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 85 15:17:42 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #59

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 6 : Issue 59

Today's Topics:
	     Administrivia: Old messages off the subject
		     Re: A High Tech Maginot Line
		     Re: A High Tech Maginot Line
		 Maginot line, Historical correction
		     Re: A High Tech Maginot Line
		     Re: A High Tech Maginot Line
		     Re: A High Tech Maginot Line
			     Beamed Power
		   Catching up with the Russians...
			    Re: Star-Wars
			   Re: Beamed Power
		   Re: Star Wars and other nonsense
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon 30 Dec 1985 08:21:00 PST
From: The Moderator <ota@Angband>
Subject: Administrivia: Old messages off the subject

I'm going to be sending out several issues of old Space Digest
submissions.  They are on the subject of SDI and the Maginot Line.
These topics have thankfully died down and were pretty much off the
subject in the first place.  So I urge you NOT to submit a whole host
of replys to these messages.  I'm sending them out for completeness
and to clear my backlog.
	Thanks,
	Ted Anderson

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

Date: 10 Dec 85 01:13:03 GMT
From: decvax!bellcore!petrus!karn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Phil R. Karn)
Subject: Re: A High Tech Maginot Line
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> ...The
> DEA, Coast Guard, and other agencies don't have the luxury of saying
> "this is war, any vehicle moving through the Caribbean shall be
> destroyed." If they did, smuggling would soon cease.  So would all other
> commerce and recreation.
> . . .
> The SDI on the other hand has exactly this luxury.  It will probably be
> implemented in such a way that any space-going vehicle that is not part
> of SDI would be a target for destruction if a war starts.  This would be
> kind of rough on any civilian spacecraft (if SDI works).
Yeah, like Ariane launchers carrying communication satellites insured
for $350 million by Western insurance carriers, or manned Soviet missions,
or any other form of space commerce and recreation. And if you modify
your system to spare what appears to be a manned Soviet launch, the
Soviets will simply make all their ICBMs indistinguishable from manned
launchers. Then when we shoot down one of their cosmonauts by mistake they'll
have the perfect pretext for blowing up all the space mines parked next to
our SDI components...
> The feasibility of SDI is still seriously in question, but the failure
> to stop drug smuggling in not a counter-example.  These are two different
> tasks with two completely different objectives.
The comparison is perfectly appropriate. Someone else already answered
this point, so I won't bother to repeat their comments.
Phil

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

From: dual!lll-crg!seismo!harvard!mit-eddie!mck-csc!bmg@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 85 14:57:27 est
To: mit-eddie!space
Subject: Re: A High Tech Maginot Line
In-Reply-To: your article <8512020718.AA15110@s1-b.arpa>

The Germans did run right through the Maginot Line.  They went around it.
The French did learn from WWI that the Germans might not respect the rights
of the Benelux Region.  They did not have the line wide enough to cover the
rest of their borders.

Bernie Gunther

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

Date: 10 Dec 85 18:49:21 EST
From: Dale.Amon@fas.ri.cmu.edu
Subject: Maginot line, Historical correction
To: BBoard.Maintainer@a.cs.cmu.edu

Just thought I would note that the reason the maginot line didn't work is
that it was never attacked. The german armies came through Belgium and
Netherlands in a blitzkreig that caught the frence flat footed and cut off
their troops, quite a few of which were were the front was 'supposed' to be.
The French just did not expect the Nazis to attack through neutrals; they
expected an assault across the German/French border (near the Saar I
believe?)

It was not a defensive mentality that did the french in, it was a lack of
creative thinking, and an inabilibity to understand that their foe was not
at all gentlemanly. The lesson learned was that modern war has no rules.

I do not think SDI is quite the same unless we get fat and happy over it.

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

Date: 11 Dec 85 00:38:09 GMT
From: ucbholden!c8p-bd@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Adam J. Richter)
Subject: Re: A High Tech Maginot Line
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> = Phil R. Karn (karn@petrus.UUCP)
>> = Someone else, paraphrased.
>> [Summary: SDI/drug-smuggling comparison is invalid b/c DEA isn't
>> allowed to just shoot down everything, while SDI, if used, can.]
> [Summary: Yeah, like {list of innocent civilian targets}.  This would
> give the USSR the perfect excuse to blow up SDI.]
>Phil
Yes, in the event of nuke-war.  Those poor cosmonauts and ESA satalites
might be destroyed.  At such a time, do you seriously think that
an excuse will be needed to knock out SDI?
		Have a really really nice day...
	+		+		+		+
+		+	Adam	+		+		+
	+		+		+		+

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

Date: 10 Dec 85 18:01:11 GMT
From: decvax!bellcore!petrus!karn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Phil R. Karn)
Subject: Re: A High Tech Maginot Line
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> When the Soviets start to use this as a delivery method, I think I'll start
> to worry.
Start worrying. Ever heard of cruise missiles? They are simply automated
smuggling devices with warheads in place of drugs.
> Drug smuggling is still not a counter-example against SDI.  SDI is a
> specific defense against a specific form of attack - ie. that form of
> attack that our potential enemy currently places emphasis upon.
The parallels to the Maginot Line are even closer than I thought. In both
cases, the advocates of the defense wave(d) their hands and claim(ed) that the
enemy would never dream of exploiting the Achilles Heel of the system.
The Soviets may currently place their emphasis on long-range land-based
ICBMs, but deploying SDI would simply guarantee that they shift their
emphasis to cruise missiles, short-range sub-missiles and perhaps even
diplomatic pouch smuggling (the Soviets regularly label entire tractor-
trailers as "diplomatic pouches").
Phil

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

Date: 11 Dec 85 22:44:31 GMT
From: decwrl!pyramid!nsc!amdahl!ems@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (ems)
Subject: Re: A High Tech Maginot Line
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> In article <34395@lanl.ARPA> jlg@a.UUCP (Jim Giles) writes:
> >The feasibility of SDI is still seriously in question, but the failure
> >to stop drug smuggling in not a counter-example.  These are two different
> >tasks with two completely different objectives.
> 
> I recall that the war-head in a cruise missile weighs about 350 pounds.
I talked with a friend in the warhead business (about 7 *YEARS* ago).
At that time they were working on a cannon shell nuclear warhead.
About 8 *INCHES* in diameter and not very long.  I am sure the state of
the art has impoved since then.  He thought 4 inch shells were possible.
I wonder how much of that 350 pounds is not involved in the act of
explosion?
It would be relatively easy to *MAIL* packages to various cities all
timed to go off at the same time.  So a few of them are sitting in
customs at the time, and some are still in the air over the city,
and others are on trucks in downtown traffic.  The effect would be
spectacular.
(Will we start xraying every incoming package?  What about those
containing Lead Crystal?  Lead weights?  Refrigerators? ...)
-- 
E. Michael Smith  ...!{hplabs,ihnp4,amd,nsc}!amdahl!ems
This is the obligatory disclaimer of everything.

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

Posted-Date: Mon 9 Dec 1985 18:36:23 EST
Date: Mon 9 Dec 1985 18:36:23 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Beamed Power
To: space@mit-mc.arpa, dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa

AWST (Dec. 9, page 18) reports that SDIO is claiming "incredible
progress" in developing free-electron lasers at Livermore.  The
laser is large (100 meters long) but tunable and highly efficient
(the article does not state the efficiency, but I've seen figures
of 50% elsewhere).  Recent tests in Hawaii have used automatic
compensation for atmospheric turbulence to focus a low power
laser on a missile in flight.  The intention is to use this
technology to direct a free electron laser beam to orbiting mirrors.
According to the article, competing technologies, excimer and
chemical lasers, are being deemphasized (I suppose because these
would be less efficient, more massive and space based).

While the utility of free-electron lasers for BMD is debatable,
and the actual results obtained at Livermore unknown, FEL's
are an ideal technology for more peaceful beamed power
applications, such as powering electric engines in OTV's, supplying
power to a lunar colony (or colonies) during the lunar night, or
beaming power back from powersats.  It is conceivable that we
can use a ground-based FEL to deliver a continuous beam of light
orders of magnitude more powerful than sunlight anywhere in
cislunar space.

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

Posted-Date: Mon 9 Dec 1985 19:02:31 EST
Date: Mon 9 Dec 1985 19:02:31 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Catching up with the Russians...
To: arms-d@mit-mc.arpa, space@mit-mc.arpa,
        dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa

In the Dec. 9 AWST:  Abrahamson (head of SDIO) said that:

  "SDIO is using newly designed capacitors with the ability to store
  100-200 times the amount of energy that can be stored with present
  tachnology."

It's good to see the US catching up with the Russians.  For years
they've had a huge lead in dielectrical materialism.

  (Never mind...)

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

Date: 25 Nov 85 17:00:33 GMT
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!randvax!kovacs!rivero@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Michael Foster Rivero)
Subject: Re: Star-Wars
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

	  Regarding the Soviets potential SDI capability.
	  Yes, the USSR  has  test  fired  an  anti-satallite  weapon.
	There is still some speculation that Seasat 1 was knocked  out
	by  such a weapon.  In any case, all of these rumors and tests
	can be grouped under the heading "rattling the spears", i.e. a
	show  of  potential  force.  They rattle, then we rattle, then
	they rattle, then we rattle.  This is  called,  "Strengthening
	our bargaining position".
	  The main reason certain strategic weapons are bargained away
	at the conferance table is that neither side wants the weapons
	to be developed, usually for ecenomic reasons.  The idea  is,"
	If  you  do not deploy weapon X, and I do not deploy weapon Y,
	then both sides can build hydroelectric dams instead."
	  With the exception of the actual contractors involved,  most
	people,in  both  governments would rather spend their military
	budgets on civilian programs  instead;  Hospitals,  Utilities,
	Colleges, Better health services, and the Space Programs, etc.
	  Ultimatly, at some point, the U.S.  and  the  U.S.S.R.  will
	probably  ally with each other, if for no other reason than to
	jointly police  the  third  worlds  use  of  nuclear  weapons.
	Unfortunatly.  it  will probably take a limited nuclear war to
	make both countries see the light.
	  But, like the Krupps and the  Colts  discovered  during  the
	last two World Wars, there is a lot more money to be made from
	war than from peace!  Hence, SDI.

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

Date: 11 Dec 85 17:56:22 GMT
From: decvax!bellcore!petrus!karn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Phil R. Karn)
Subject: Re: Beamed Power
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> AWST (Dec. 9, page 18) reports that SDIO is claiming "incredible
> progress" in developing free-electron lasers at Livermore.  The
I'm glad SDIO is able to make "incredible progress". That way they'll soon
run out of toys to play with and run headlong into the fundamental issues,
like the speed of light and the optical diffraction limit.
Next thing we know, Abrahamson and Weinberger will announce an intensive
research program into circumventing these two minor inconveniences.  After
all, they'll claim, nobody gave Einstein, who wasn't even an American for
chrissake, the right to pass laws that true-blue Americans have to obey.
"If we can land a man on the moon, why can't we travel faster than the speed
of light?" I can hear it now.
Phil

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

Date: 9 Dec 85 22:35:10 GMT
From: tektronix!tekig5!tekigm!timothym@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Timothy D Margeson)
Subject: Re: Star Wars and other nonsense
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Hi,
To add my pennies worth to this discussion:
 This paragraph - total nonsense - unrelated to topic at hand, included to
 defend the possibility the Russians have indeed made some breakthrough.
Some years back, in 1967 I believe, I read an article in one of the science
rags about a weapon the ruskies had built. It was described as a large, heavy
weight ultra low frequency sound wave generator. It was tested on living some
small living creatures, dogs?. The outcome of the tests were several puddles
of a jelly-like substance, with a few bones showing. 
I don't remember if the article mentioned range or power requirements, but
if they discovered and had tested the item back then, I would suspect they
have worked out some of the problems, if not all. 
 This paragraph is also unrelated, but indicates the open minded attitute the
 Russian scientists have when questing for knowledge. This open mindedness may
 enable them to see possible areas interest closed to discussion within our
 scientific community.
Another thing the Russians have been working on, more of a concern to me is
the efforts to utilize or tap the power of the human brain (no flames please).
If they do develop, or have developed a method of communication, or control
via telepathy or other thought processes, what good will any space based 
weapon system be.
  ** My real comment on the subject **
It is my opinion that neither the US or USSR will push the first button, that
some small insignificant country (or passion group) will detonate a device 
delivered by hand, in a location prime to cause suspicion between us and the
ENEMY (read others like us who really don't care to die by radiation poisoning
or burns). The resulting escalation will be the downfall of us all, and any
weapons, or anti-weapons in space will just make for a faster or more prolonged
death for "US", the humans of planet EARTH, depending on their nature, be it
offensive or defensive.
And, with that I'll close with a question, given one terrorist, and one nuclear
device, and one city......
You don't deal with insanities - and you can't prevent them.
If you doubt my closing statement, do yourself a favor and ask for a tour of 
any facility for the insane. You'll be in for an eye opener! And if you don't 
think insanity is a problem, try telling a Morman his 'BOOK' is nothing more
than an account of an early Egyptian marriage ceremony.
-- 
Tim Margeson (206)253-5240
tektronix!tekigm2!timothym                   @@   'Who said that?'  
tektronix!tekigm!timothym                   @@   'Who said that?'  
PO Box 3500  d/s C1-465
Vancouver, WA. 98665

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

End of SPACE Digest V6 #59
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA13510; Tue, 31 Dec 85 03:00:41 PST
	id AA13510; Tue, 31 Dec 85 03:00:41 PST
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 85 03:00:41 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8512311100.AA13510@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #60

*** EOOH ***
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 85 03:00:41 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #60

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 6 : Issue 60

Today's Topics:
		      Trans-atmospheric vehicle
		     Re: Getting stuff into Orbit
		     Re: Getting stuff into Orbit
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted-Date: Mon 30 Dec 1985 08:17:48 EST
Date: Mon 30 Dec 1985 08:17:48 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Trans-atmospheric vehicle
To: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@mit-mc.arpa>
In-Reply-To: "Keith F. Lynch"'s message of Sun, 29 Dec 85 16:56:18 EST
Cc: space@mit-mc.arpa

It should be pointed out that while a fair-sized thunderstorm
has more energy than a shuttle launch, a scramjet powered launcher
will be doing most of its combustion in the upper atmosphere, right
in the ozone layer.  The thunderstorm's NOx gets produced
in the troposphere and washes out quickly, so the comparison is not
entirely fair.

			Paul Dietz

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

Date: 29 Dec 85 21:07:04 GMT
From: decvax!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Wayne Throop)
Subject: Re: Getting stuff into Orbit

> Launch the two masses so that they meet at the point of intersection, one
> inbound and one outbound (and they had both better be on their first orbits,
> of course).  Let the masses be equal.  Then, they meet when travelling at
> the same speed (but in different directions), and with the same energy.
> Somehow, get then to join into one bigger mass.
That's one *hell* of a "somehow", I expect!  First, you are going to
have to store or dissipate the energy of a few kilometers-per-second
velocity difference in order to acomplish the "join".  Then, if you
haven't vaporized the cargo yet, you have to consider the accelerations
that the cargo will experience during the "join".  Can you say
"pancake"?  I knew you could.
-- 
Wayne Throop at Data General, RTP, NC
<the-known-world>!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw

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

Date: 28 Dec 85 19:18:14 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!cmcl2!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Frank Adams)
Subject: Re: Getting stuff into Orbit
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

[Not food]
I'm not going to do the math, but it seems to me there's another way to
get two objects into orbit from ground-based launch.  Tether them, and
arrange the launch so that there is considerable spin around the center
of gravity.  Then when you get to orbit, release the tether.  I think it
is possible to for both objects to be in a stable orbit at this point.
Frank Adams                           ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
Multimate International    52 Oakland Ave North    E. Hartford, CT 06108

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

End of SPACE Digest V6 #60
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA14582; Tue, 31 Dec 85 08:30:54 PST
	id AA14582; Tue, 31 Dec 85 08:30:54 PST
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 85 08:30:54 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8512311630.AA14582@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #61

*** EOOH ***
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 85 08:30:54 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #61

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 6 : Issue 61

Today's Topics:
	   Administrivia: More old messages off the subject
		     Re: A High Tech Maginot Line
		     Re: A High Tech Maginot Line
		     Re: A High Tech Maginot Line
	     Re: Pioneer 6, still working after 20 years
		     Re: A High Tech Maginot Line
		     Re: A High Tech Maginot Line
		      Aviation Week on Star Wars
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon 30 Dec 1985 08:21:00 PST
From: The Moderator <ota@Angband>
Subject: Administrivia: More old messages off the subject

I'm going to be sending out several issues of old Space Digest
submissions.  They are on the subject of SDI and the Maginot Line.
These topics have thankfully died down and were pretty much off the
subject in the first place.  So I urge you NOT to submit a whole host
of replys to these messages.  I'm sending them out for completeness
and to clear my backlog.
	Thanks,
	Ted Anderson

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

Date: Sun, 15 Dec 85 15:04:06 mst
From: ihnp4!noao!ace@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Monet/Goddard/General Purpose)
To: ihnp4!space
Subject: Re: A High Tech Maginot Line
In-Reply-To: your article <8512020718.AA15110@s1-b.arpa>
News-Path: noao!hao!seismo!lll-crg!ucdavis!ucbvax!space

 While I can't say I disagree with your assessment of the possible failings
of SDI as a defensive system, it isn't really true that the Germans went
"right through the Maginot line;" as a matter of fact, they went around it,
through the Ardennes forest of Luxembourg and Belgium, which wasn't
supposed to be "tank country." So much for the accuracy of military
experts in forecasting the course of the "next war."
 Some of us, in fact, think that, had the Maginot line been extended all
the way to the Channel, the Panzers never would have gotten through. But
that's not space....

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

Date: 15 Dec 85 00:10:24 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: A High Tech Maginot Line
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> > I recall that the war-head in a cruise missile weighs about 350 pounds.
> 
> I talked with a friend in the warhead business (about 7 *YEARS* ago).
> At that time they were working on a cannon shell nuclear warhead.
> About 8 *INCHES* in diameter and not very long.  I am sure the state of
> the art has impoved since then.  He thought 4 inch shells were possible.
> I wonder how much of that 350 pounds is not involved in the act of
> explosion?
You should have asked your friend how *heavy* those warheads were.  6-inch
nuclear shells do exist; I don't think anyone has done a 4-inch one, but it
could probably be built if one tried hard enough.  But nuclear warheads are
very dense.  Still, man-portable ones do exist -- the cruise-missile
warhead is not particularly small or light as nuclear explosives go.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

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

Date: 14 Dec 85 07:10:16 GMT
From: decvax!mcnc!philabs!aecom!werner@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Craig Werner)
Subject: Re: A High Tech Maginot Line
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> 
> One concern I have about SDI is the situation France was in at the
> start of WWII.  The French had built an "impregnable" defensive system
> along the German border called the Maginot Line.  But the German Panzer
> Army was a development in warfare technology that the Maginot Line was
> not prepared for and the German Armies ran right through it.  If we
	Actually, the German armies went through Belgium and hence around, not
through the Maginot line.  They came up to the line eventually from behind,
and the fixed fortifications, being pointed towards Germany, were useless.
The lesson, however, is the same.
	Personally, I think the best way to find and win a war was described
in some detail by Asimov in Foundation (1950).
-- 
				Craig Werner
				!philabs!aecom!werner
                        "It doesn't even have to be a Pelvis."

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

Date: 16 Dec 85 23:37:38 GMT
From: ucdavis!deneb!ccs025@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Martin Van Ryswyk)
Subject: Re: A High Tech Maginot Line
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> > This brings up an interesting side issue, a reason why it is *important* for
> > the US to have operational antisatellite capability (!).
> 
> I've got a better solution. Let's establish a treaty that bans all further
> tests of anti-satellite weapons by either side. That'll effectively keep
> the Soviets from developing the "space blockade" capability of which you
> speak.
> 
> Phil
    Sure it will, just like the ABM Treaty of 1972 kept the Soviets
from implementing ABM devices.  They have violated it several times.
Perhaps I am overly pesimistic of my fellow human beings, but I do not
trust the Soviets.  They are our undeclared enemy at this point in a
very cold 'Cold War'.  While the recent talks in Geneva have promised a
change, however so slight, in attitudes...we still have ICBM's aimed at
all their big cities.  Why should they adhere to a treaty with us if
it is not beneficial to them?  I do not think that treaties of any kind
with the Soviet Union can be a cure. We will end up without and they
will end up with.  I see it as the gun control laws on a large scale.
If you outlaw guns, only the criminals will have them.  I realize there
are to ways of looking at this, I just happen to advocate one.  Please
correct my logic if you see a flaw.
  One last note, I do not think verification clauses are worth didly.
We have undeniably verified a phased array radar in Siberia that is
contrary to the '72 Treaty, yet nothing has been done.
 
                -Searching for an answer-
-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Martin Van Ryswyk
	 ..!{dual,lll-crg,ucbvax}!ucdavis!deneb!ccs025
       "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."
                                                   -Spock
--------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 19 Dec 85 16:03:35 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!cmcl2!lanl!jkw@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Pioneer 6, still working after 20 years
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> Yesterday, Dec 16, 1985, mark the 20th anniversary of the launching of
> Pioneer 6.  After 20 years in space, Pioneer 6 is still working and
> sending useful data back to earth.
> 
Sounds like an excellent target for the next ASAT test.  :-(
       ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
       ~ 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: 18 Dec 85 21:29:10 GMT
From: pur-ee!ecn-pc!mdm@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Mike D McEvoy)
Subject: Re: A High Tech Maginot Line
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>You should have asked your friend how *heavy* those warheads were.(350lb)
>Still, man-portable ones do exist -- the cruise-missile
>warhead is not particularly small or light as nuclear explosives go.
>				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
Now we know why the Soviet Union has made such an investment in their
wieght lifting program, so they can backpack in their 500 lb warheads
over the pole to our silos.  Now that is what I call a delivery system.
(Everyone knows that a Russian warhead would weigh 50% more than one of ours.)
Merry XMAS netlanders..................................

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

Posted-Date:  21 Dec 85 16:32 CST
Acknowledge-To:  Jerry Bakin <Bakin@HI-MULTICS.ARPA>
Date:  Sat, 21 Dec 85 16:31 CST
From: Jerry Bakin <Bakin@hi-multics.arpa>
Subject:  Re: A High Tech Maginot Line
To: space@mit-mc.arpa

From:  ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Henry
Spencer) Subject:  Re:  A High Tech Maginot Line Sender:
usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu To:  space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

(In which I open my mouth, a decision I think I already regret).

 > I've got a better solution.  Let's establish a treaty that bans all further
 > tests of anti-satellite weapons by either side.  That'll effectively keep
 > the Soviets from developing the "space blockade" capability of which you
 > speak.

 >> Only if it also bans development of boost-phase missile interception,
 >> which is much closer to the problem at hand.  And only if it is
 >> completely verifiable, which I fear I have no confidence in.

Henry, I think you've missed the point; however, most people do.

There are two points to make:

A 100% test ban is much more verifiable than any sort of limited treaty
of any kind (either limiting test or capabilities).

There is always a possibility that any side will violate any treaty, the
question becomes how often can they expect to be able to violate it, and
get away with it because they weren't caught.

This turns into a question about the sensors we might deploy.

What kind of accuracy can we expect from our sensors?  Are you willing
to agree that our sensors would have a 50% chance of catching one test?
That means that if any country were to have even two tests of any
system, we would have a 75% chance of finding out that they have had
even one test.  And we would protest, because with a 100% test ban, even
one test is a violation.  A country that has to use a system that has
only been tested once may think twice about it.  Are our sensors only
thirty percent effective?  Than after two tests, we still have a 51%
chance of figuring out they have tested a weapon.  After three such
tests, our chance becomes 65%.  One out of three tests are caught.  A
country might be able to test their system twice (if they are lucky).

How accurate are our sensors?  I dunno, the air force museum will show
you a camera (and an old one at that) that can take pictures of golf
balls on greens.  I think we can develop sensors which are at least
thirty percent effective.

Oh you don't think so?  Well look at limited bans then, if a sensor
which has only to distinguish between existence or not (a 100% ban) is
only thirty percent effective, how effective can sensors be which have
to discriminate between shades of treaty compliance?  A limited treaty
is one that relies on faith.

Sensors which can verify a limited treaty can of course verify a 100%
test ban.

A slogan:  a 100% test ban is needed because we don't trust the Soviets,
not because we do.

Should development of boost-phase missile interception be banned?  Of
course.  There is a fundamental difference however, between ASATs and
boost-phase missile interceptions:  boost-phase missile interceptions
(almost by definition) involve firing weapons into the territorial land
of the country!

  From previous discussions in space-digest, the legal issuses of whom
owns space seem fuzzy.  Shooting a satellite is something that ``could''
be gotten away with.  Developing and testing an ASAT system is something
which might even be acceptable to another side (although it is foolish
of course by any side -- especially ours -- the value of satellites is
information -- who will lose most if recon satellites are killed?).

Any sort of boost phase interception development program is clearly an
offensive weapon.  SDI aside, any system which seeks to shoot elementary
particles, rocks, VW sized shells, or even propaganda into another
country is clearly an offensive weapon.

Shore batteries shooting into the ocean are defensive, ASATs might be,
the New Jersey is an offensive weapon, boost-phase missile interception
(and those aspects of SDI) are too.

With that in mind, of course we should ban development of boost-phase
missile interception capabilities as well as ASAT capabilities.  And
since the former is obviously an offensive weapon while the latter is
only most assuredly an offensive weapon, we should probably ban the
former first.  Except that, contrary to your message, ASATS are much
closer than boost-phase missile interception weapons.

But come on, do you think SDI has been pushed this far only to allow
treaties on boost-phase missile interception weapons to be negotiated?

Jerry Bakin

Replies to this digest only please.

Disclaimer:  nah, I've spoken to Ed Spencer, Thomas Watson, Alexander
Graham Bell, Ken Olsen, R.J.  Reynolds, J.  Beggs, and H.  Packard :).
They all agree.

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

Date: 20 Dec 85 02:19:35 GMT
From: decwrl!pyramid!ut-sally!seismo!hao!ames!al@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Al Globus)
Subject: Aviation Week on Star Wars
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

The latest Aviation Week had some interesting stuff about star wars 
(a.k.a. SDI).
First, Britain joined up.  Interestingly, the memorandum of understanding
stated that SDI is meant to suppliment deterrance (sp?), not replace it.  I.e.,
was still get mutual assured destruction (MAD), just at a much higher
price.
Second, there was an extremely interesting chart that looked like
is was developed for some high level briefings.  It list four
kinds of targets that must be protected.  Strategic Offensive Forces
were at the top of the list and  cities at the bottom.  In addition,
there was a region on the graph labeled 'Completely Effective Defense'
corresponding to 0-5% 'leakage' in SDI systems.  Since there were
3,500 target in the four categories, I figure 1,000-2,000 of those
must be cities.  5% leakage corresponds to 50-100 nuclear explosions
in U.S. cities.  Assuming 200,000 casualties per explosion (fairly
conservative I'd say) that gives us 10-20 million dead Americans
in the first few hours of a nuclear exchange  - after we built a
'Completely Effective Defense' at great expense.
Gives you a nice warm feeling, doesn't it?

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

End of SPACE Digest V6 #61
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA15938; Tue, 31 Dec 85 13:16:10 PST
	id AA15938; Tue, 31 Dec 85 13:16:10 PST
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 85 13:16:10 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8512312116.AA15938@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #62

*** EOOH ***
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 85 13:16:10 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #62

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 6 : Issue 62

Today's Topics:
	   Administrivia: More old messages off the subject
		    Re: Star-Wars/Space Telescopes
		    Re: Aviation Week on Star Wars
		    Re: Aviation Week on Star Wars
		    Re: Aviation Week on Star Wars
			    Re: Star-Wars
		 Re: HIGH TECH MAGINOT LINE: indeed?
		    Re: Aviation Week on Star Wars
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon 30 Dec 1985 08:21:00 PST
From: The Moderator <ota@Angband>
Subject: Administrivia: More old messages off the subject

I'm going to be sending out several issues of old Space Digest
submissions.  They are on the subject of SDI and the Maginot Line.
These topics have thankfully died down and were pretty much off the
subject in the first place.  So I urge you NOT to submit a whole host
of replys to these messages.  I'm sending them out for completeness
and to clear my backlog.
	Thanks,
	Ted Anderson

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

Date: 20 Dec 85 01:40:24 GMT
From: decwrl!pyramid!ut-sally!seismo!hao!ames!al@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Al Globus)
Subject: Re: Star-Wars/Space Telescopes
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> One thing that has bothered me about the debate on Star Wars
> research is the idea that one can afford to stop work in
> some area of weapons research. The classical theory of war
> includes the application of new weapons and tactics on a
> massive scale as a fundamental principle. The easiest way
> to win a war is to develop some new weapon that is unknown
> to the other side and use it on a massive scale in a lightning
> surprise attack, thereby destroying the enemy before he has
> a chance to develop countermeasures. One can never predict
> for certain that some new weapon cannot be created which
> will upset the balance of power ...

The development of weapon systems that can destroy all of society,
of which the present nuclear weapons is only the first, has made this
concept and other war making concepts obsolete if we are to survive.
The effect of weapons research is to reduce the time it takes
to destroy organized society from days in the fifties, to hours
now, to seconds for third or fourth generation star wars systems with
planet killing capabilities.  If we continue to have enemies and fight
wars, sooner or later we will be utterly destroyed.  We (both sides) must
realize that Russia and America are completed
dependent on each other and act accordingly; or our fate is sealed.

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

Date: 20 Dec 85 22:45:55 GMT
From: decvax!bellcore!petrus!karn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Phil R. Karn)
Subject: Re: Aviation Week on Star Wars
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> First, Britain joined up.  Interestingly, the memorandum of understanding
> stated that SDI is meant to suppliment deterrance (sp?), not replace it.
Indeed. Given that SDI is being sold to the American public as a way to
"render nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete", I think we're seeing the
biggest hand-waving con game of all time. UCS points out that there are
really TWO very different forms of ballistic missile defense, which they
call "Type One Star Wars" and "Type Two Star Wars". The first is an
inpenetrable shield that protects cities and makes offensive weapons
obsolete. The second is a "hard point" defense that protects only our
retaliatory capability.  The only people who still profess to believe in
Type 1 Star Wars are Ronald Reagan and Caspar Weinberger. In comparison,
Type 2 Star Wars is more feasible, but still extremely unwise strategically.
If we hadn't led the way in developing and deploying MIRVs as the answer to
a Soviet ABM system that never materialized, we woudn't now "need" a defense
to protect our deterrent.
> ..that gives us 10-20 million dead Americans
> in the first few hours of a nuclear exchange  - after we built a
> 'Completely Effective Defense' at great expense.
"Ten million!  Twenty million, tops!"
--General Buck Turgidson (George C. Scott).
Phil

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

Date: 22 Dec 85 02:25:10 GMT
From: cbosgd!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Aviation Week on Star Wars
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> > First, Britain joined up.  Interestingly, the memorandum of understanding
> > stated that SDI is meant to suppliment deterrance (sp?), not replace it.
> 
> Indeed. Given that SDI is being sold to the American public as a way to
> "render nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete", I think we're seeing the
> biggest hand-waving con game of all time...
Given that the current British government is firmly committed to really
enormous expenditures (by their standards) in the near future for upgrading
their SLBM forces to Trident, it would be political suicide for them to
openly commit to making deterrence obsolete.  Somebody is conning somebody,
definitely, but the memorandum in question is heavily political and should
not be interpreted as a case of "the truth comes out".
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

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

Date: 23 Dec 85 01:27:06 GMT
From: decwrl!pyramid!pyrnj!topaz!lll-crg!medin@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Milo Medin)
Subject: Re: Aviation Week on Star Wars
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

First off, if you speak with people who work in the SDIO, they
make no claims other than that this system is being built to
protect our military assets primarily, and damage limitation
to the population on a secondary basis.  The hype that some people
(not the SDIO) are using to sell the system as a total inpenetrable
defense is misleading.  
With regards to having 10-20 million dead, contrast that to 150
million dead.  That is a big difference.  At a recent SDI
debate at Stanford, a story was told about a recent picnic between
US and Soviet arms negotiators in which the weather got
worse all of a sudden, and people started to take cover under some
nearby trees.  The rain started getting harder, and leaking through
the trees.  At this point one of the Soviet negotiators said,
"You see, just like your SDI, it leaks!".  At which point one
of the US state dept. people pointed outside at the torrential
rains and retorted, "Ah, but would you rather be out there?"
To me, that exemplifies the case for damage limitation.
I agree the emphasis should be placed on not waging a war in
the first place, but what happens if deterrance fails?
I also brought up a point about building and deploying a conventially
built ABM system immediately to defend ICBM sites.  Such a system
that would get 80% of the incoming warheads would not have to
be space based and would not necessarily have to be all that
expensive.  The guy from the SDIO didn't like that idea
because it wouldn't be able to counter Soviet countermeasures
that could be used in the next 10 yrs.  The other guy (Dick Garwin)
said it'd be easy to build a system like that one, but there
isn't any need for it because our ICBM's aren't vulnerable.
So I guess my position falls in the middle for a change.  I think
the reply about countermeasures is extremely shortsighted
since a system like that wouldn't have to be space based and
could be quite robust.  Even a 50% kill rate would greatly
complicate the Soviet's targeting plans, and such a system
could still be built without violating the ABM treaty.  And
it certainly wouldn't be destabilizing, since a retaliatory
strike by the Soviets wouldn't be directed at empty ICBM silos
which cant be reloaded, but at cities typically far away from
the ICBM silos.
Phil, as for the case about MIRV's, I'm not terribly happy about having
MIRV's around either, but they are here and no amount of wishing
can wish them away.
It's been awhile since I contributed to this net, but I thought
I'd jump now that I had a little spare time.  
				Milo Medin
				medin@ames.ARPA
				...{lll-crg,seismo,riacs}!nike!medin

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

Date: 31 Dec 85 01:09:20 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!hao!ames!al@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Al Globus)
Subject: Re: Star-Wars
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> 	  Regarding the Soviets potential SDI capability.
> 
> 	  Yes, the USSR  has  test  fired  an  anti-satallite  weapon.
> 	There is still some speculation that Seasat 1 was knocked  out
> 	by  such a weapon.  In any case, all of these rumors and tests
> 	can be grouped under the heading "rattling the spears", i.e. a
> 	show  of  potential  force.  They rattle, then we rattle, then
> 	they rattle, then we rattle.  This is  called,  "Strengthening
> 	our bargaining position".
A similar contest in the early part of this century resulted in
world war 1.

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

Date: 31 Dec 85 00:23:52 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!hao!ames!al@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Al Globus)
Subject: Re: HIGH TECH MAGINOT LINE: indeed?
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> 
> This is in response to a posting in net.space called 'HIGH TECH MAGINOT LINE'
> The author claimed that the 'Germans smashed right through the line'
> in a comparison of the Maginot line with SDI.  Whatever the value of
> defensive fortifications, the Germans did not, repeat NOT NOT NOT,
> smash trough the Maginot line.
> The reason the Gerrmans were able to outflank
> the line is that the French only built their defenses along the GERMAN
> border.  The Germans entered France through Belgium and Luxemburg.
> Hopefully, similar error will be avoided with SDI.
The line was not completed because the French ran out of money, something that
could easily happen to SDI.  They extended the line somewhat after the
war started and the Germans DID penetrate a portion of the extended line.
> It is a very interesting
> question as to what the outcome of the Spring campaign in the West in 1940
> would have been if the French had fortified all their borders.  Most
> people who have studied the situation consider the Maginot line to 
> have been impregnable frontal attack.
> 
> Incidentally, if you want examples of successful use of fortifications,
> look at WWI.  The French forts DID prevent the Germans from conquering 
> France.
Actually, in the final three German offensives of WWI new infantry tactics
allowed the Germans to penetrate the massive defenses developed during
three years of war.  They were stopped by exhaustion and, in part, by
the first American troops to arrive in France.

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

Date: 30 Dec 85 16:26:22 GMT
From: ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!hjuxa!petsd!pedsgd!bob@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Robert A. Weiler)
Subject: Re: Aviation Week on Star Wars
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa
Organization : CONCURRENT Computer Corp, Tinton Falls NJ

In article <1149@lll-crg.ARpA> medin@lll-crg.ARpA (Milo Medin) writes:
>First off, if you speak with people who work in the SDIO, they
>make no claims other than that this system is being built to
>protect our military assets primarily, and damage limitation
>to the population on a secondary basis.  The hype that some people
>(not the SDIO) are using to sell the system as a total inpenetrable
>defense is misleading.  
>
>With regards to having 10-20 million dead, contrast that to 150
>million dead.  That is a big difference.  At a recent SDI

It is the difference between believing a nuclear war is acceptable
and the absolute conviction that it is not. You sound an awful
lot like General Buck Turgidson here. Also I would point out that
10-20 million is the most optimistic estimate based on no real
life experience. We in the software business know 2 things about
such estimates - everybody likes to believe them, and they are
rarely (never?) achieved.

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

End of SPACE Digest V6 #62
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA18058; Wed, 1 Jan 86 03:00:48 PST
	id AA18058; Wed, 1 Jan 86 03:00:48 PST
Date: Wed, 1 Jan 86 03:00:48 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8601011100.AA18058@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #63

*** EOOH ***
Date: Wed, 1 Jan 86 03:00:48 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #63

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 6 : Issue 63

Today's Topics:
		     Re: transatmospheric vehicle
		  Re: "Shadowing" geosync satellites
	    Re: Shuttle External Tanks and Space Stations
			   Re: Tenth planet
	      Re: Shuttle Articles in Discover Magazine
		     Infinitely Variable Mirrors
			 Stages to Saturn #6
			 those two masses...
		    Re: Aviation Week on Star Wars
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 30 Dec 85 23:47:50 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!hao!ames!eugene@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Eugene Miya)
Subject: Re: transatmospheric vehicle
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> >Has anyone ever thought about the environmental impact that an air-breathing
> >x-atmos vehicle is likely to cause?
> 
> This harks back to the anti-SST argument concerning NOx emissions
> destroying the ozonosphere (which was vastly overblown).
I think you raise a valid point and the Office of Technological Accessment
(OTA) should probably start such a study.  We certainly have people here
and at NCAR who could probably do it.  Linking this to SST hysteria
(both pro and con) would do this no end of harm.  We are a ways
from building this type of vehicle ( >5 years, at least).  Since Skylab
fell on Australia, NASA has tended to think about environmental "impacts."
This includes the Space Station.  One must not be blinded by technological
wonders.
--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  {hplabs,ihnp4,dual,hao,decwrl,allegra}!ames!aurora!eugene
  emiya@ames-vmsb.ARPA

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

Date: 31 Dec 85 01:38:13 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!hao!ames!al@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Al Globus)
Subject: Re: "Shadowing" geosync satellites
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> I would think that a space station would also be in geosync orbit?
> 
> If a space station is  NOT in geosync orbit, I think that a larger
> problem would come when it entered Soviet airspace.
> -- 
With Sputnik, the Soviet's established a tradition that spacecraft may
overfly national territories.  'Airspace' therefor ends at some undefined
altitude.  National control, of course, is limited by physical ability.  If
you can't destroy it, you can't control it.  Since the ability to destroy
satellites was non-existant in the late 50s and is very limited now, territorial
control does not extend to space craft.  If ASAT's become common, this could
easily change - a fact those who support ASAT's and like (politically) free
access to space should consider.  For example, when the equitorial countries
tried to claim control over geosynchronous satellites they failed.  If they
had access to ASAT's capable of reaching communication satellites the
results might well have been quite different.

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

Date: 31 Dec 85 00:56:52 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!hao!ames!al@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Al Globus)
Subject: Re: Shuttle External Tanks and Space Stations
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> *
>    While it maight be insuperably difficult to
> make a shuttle's external tank into a functioning
> space station (requiring all sorts of extra thermal
> control, attitude and orbit control, power supply
> and conditioning equipment, etc.), I don't believe
> that it'd be too difficult (or expensive) to carry
> one into orbit to be a >>part<< of a space station.
> Provided with (a) an airlock at the top,
> (b) a hatch between the oxygen and hydrogen tanks, and
Taylor and Associates designed a aft compartment that sits at
the end of the tank during launch.  It is habitable and manned.
When you get to orbit, you can work on the tank in a shirt sleeve
environment.
> (maybe a total of 1 ton, or two?), a >>vast<< amount
> of habitable volume would be added to the station!
> While this volume would not initially contain any useful
> equipment, I'm sure that uses would soon be found for it, 
One use: televised sports.
Another: a place for trash (a major problem on shuttle)
Another: a source of raw materials for manufacture
Another: a movie set for true 0-g space movies
Another: mounting area for space exposure experiments
Another: satellite repair hangers (possibly unpressurized

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

Date: 30 Dec 85 20:05:42 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!harvard!talcott!cfa!mink@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Doug Mink)
Subject: Re: Tenth planet
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

As someone with a professional interest in the positions of the outer
planets (I predict occultations), I have followed recent searches for a
tenth planet with great interest.  In fact, positions of Uranus obtained
from observations of occultations of stars by its rings (star-planet to
about a milliarcsecond) have helped narrow down the search region for
the supposed Planet X.  Unhappily, the best solar system ephemeris I
have available, JPL's DE-125, produced for the Voyage Uranus encounter
(see there IS a net.space connection), still fails to match Neptune's
observed position.  As I've been trying to predict occultations by
Neptune's satellite, Triton, so its size can be determined before
Voyager encounters Neptune in 1989, I need Neptune positions better than
any current solar system models can produce.  If Planet X is found, I
hope it cleans up the orbits of the outer planets.
A sidelight on Pluto's discovery:  A few years ago a friend of mine with
an intimate knowledge of the Harvard College Observatory photographic
plate stacks enlisted me in a quest for prediscovery Pluto positions.
He checked plates from 1870 to 1910 because no positions in that period
had been published despite numerous plates of the proper part of the
sky.  It turns out that Pluto was fainter than the plates exposed for
the average patrol exposure duration could detect until 1920 or so, though
a couple of long exposure plates after 1910 showed it.  Since Pluto is so
faint that it could only be detected photographically, it's no surprise
that Percival Lowell didn't find it and that discovery took until 1931.
			-Doug Mink
			 {harvard|genrad|allegra|ihnp4}!wjh12!cfa!mink
			 Center for Astrophysics
			 60 Garden St.
			 Cambridge, MA 02138

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

Date: 31 Dec 85 00:13:46 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!hao!ames!al@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Al Globus)
Subject: Re: Shuttle Articles in Discover Magazine
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> I see no evidence that launching people with a satellite increases
> the launch reliability.
> It is at this stage that three failures
> have occured (the two PAM failures and the IUS failure with the TDRS
> satellite).
It should be noted that NONE of these has resulted in a complete loss
of the satellite.  The PAM failures were followed by recovery of
the satellites and TDRS eventually got to its final orbit.  Also, the
LEASAT failure not mentioned here was followed by a repair mission which
resulted in a fully operational satellite in the proper orbit.  Although
not launched by the shuttle, the Solar Max mission was saved by a 
shuttle repair.  By contrast, all Ariane failures have resulted in 
complete loss of the entire payload.  And there have been a lot of failures.

> There is a difference between the reliability needed for carrying people
> and the reliability needed for economic launchers.  For example,
> launching a $100 million satellite on a booster with a 5% chance of
> catastrophic failure is acceptable; the insurance costs will be a small
> fraction of launch costs.
Failure rates for the Ariane are more like 20% (top of the head, please
check the figure) and insurance rates are hitting about 20% too.  In one
case this led to an uninsured launch (on the shuttle).

> launch high-energy upper stages using LH/LOX fuel is causing
> big headaches.  The Centaur upper stage used with Gallileo is
> having safety problems and may delay that mission for a while.
Any time you do something new you have headaches.  So what?  Let's
just wait and see if it works.

> But... I suspect that if the shuttle hadn't been developed the aerospace
> companies would have gone to work improving their expendable boosters,
Most of the aerospace industries business is military.  NASA work is
a drop in the bucket.  They probably would simply have built more
killing machines.

> DOD apparently isn't constrained to justify the shuttle.  In fact, there
> have been reports (in Science last year, for example) that
> the DOD was concerned about the shuttle's poor reliability and
> potential for catastrophic failure, and wanted to develop an interim
> expendable booster (NASA was horrified; I don't know if the idea has
> died).
The idea is alive and kicking.  NASA was molified by an agreement whereby
DOD pays for shuttle use regardless of whether it actually uses the
shuttle or not.  With Abrahamson (sp?) running SDI (he used to run
shuttle) though, I suspect DOD will get a lot of use out of the shuttle.

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

Date: 30 Dec 85 20:28:20 GMT
From: ihnp4!inuxc!inuxn!druid@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Larry Marcus)
Subject: Infinitely Variable Mirrors
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

There was some discussion last month in this newsgroup about variable
mirrors.  To prove that there's nothing new under the sun, see pg. 20
of the December 16th issue of Design News.  Profs. Waddell and King
of teh University of Strathclyde have developed such an animal,
although the novelty is in the mounting and control of the curvature
of the plastic film, not in the basic principal.

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

Date: 30 Dec 85 21:48:03 GMT
From: ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dave Newkirk)
Subject: Stages to Saturn #6
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

The flight of Apollo 12 was electrifying, to say the least.  Before
it got away on 14 November 1969, the vehicle had been delayed by a
liquid hydrogen fuel tank leak, threatening to scrub the mission.
When that problem was finally whipped, stormy weather on the morning
of the launch portended additional delays.  With a long string of
successful flights behind them, however, NASA officials decided to
go ahead and commit Apollo 12 in the midst of a heavy downpour.  As
it climbed away from the launch pad, AS-507 was lost to sight almost
immediately as it vanished in to the low-hanging cloud layer.  Within
seconds, spectators on the ground were startled to see parallel
streaks of lightning flash out of the sloud back to the launch pad.
Inside the spacecraft, Conrad exclaimed, "I don't know what happened
here.  We had everything in the world drop out."  Astronauts Pete
Conrad, Richard Gordon, and Alan Bean, inside the spacecraft, had seen
a brilliant flash of light inside the spacecraft, and instantaneously,
read and yellow warning lights all over the command module panels light
up like a Christmas tree.  Fuel cells stopped working, circuits went
dead, and the electrically operated gyroscopic platform wnen tumbling
out of control.  The spacecraft and rocket had experienced a massive
power failure.  Fortunately, the emergency lasted only a few seconds,
as backup power systems took over and the instrument unit of the Saturn
V launch vehicle kept the rocket operating.  As the huge Saturn
continued to climb, technicians on the ground help the astonauts weed
out their problems, resetting circuits and making sure that operating
systems had not been harmed by the sudden, unexplained electrical
phenomenon. Apollo 12 went on to complete a successful mission, and
NASA scientists explained later that Apollo had created its own
lightning.  During the rocket's passage through the rain clouds, static
electricity built up during its ascent through the cloud cover had
suddenly discharged and knocked out the spacecraft's electrical systems
in the process.
From "Stages to Saturn - A Technological History of the Apollo/Saturn
Launch Vehicles", available from the "Superindendant of Documents", U.S.
Gov't Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402. Order NASA SP-4206, $12.00.
P.S.  This is my last installment in the `Tales of Saturn'.  NASA
      histories also cover the Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, and unmanned
      Mars programs, among other subjects.
-- 
				Dave Newkirk, ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn

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

Date: Tue 31 Dec 85 15:12:04-EST
From: FIRTH@tl-20b.arpa
Subject: those two masses...
To: space@mit-mc.arpa

Mr Throop wonders how to get my two masses to join up.
Frankly, so do I, but the situation isn't quite as bad as he
indicates.  At the intersection point the masses are moving
with a relative velocity of ~6000 mph (~2.7 kps).  A deceleration
of 5g for 1 minute will bring them to relative rest - which doesn't
seem too hairy.

A far more serious problem is accelerating them on the ground to the
22000+ mph necessary to inject them into the orbit in the first place
(the size of the "+" depends on air resistance).  For example, a thrust
of 10g for 100" will do it, but that implies an accelerator 300 miles
long!!  More likely would be a thrust of 50g for 20", and an accelerator
therefore 60 miles long (and a height difference of 3200 feet between
the ends).  That already rules out any human cargo - but the purpose is
simply to get MASS up there, to be assembled &c later.  Even bricks will
withstand 50g, after all.
-------

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

Date: 31 Dec 85 00:15:51 GMT
From: hplabs!ames!eugene@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Eugene Miya)
Subject: Re: Aviation Week on Star Wars
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> In article <1149@lll-crg.ARpA> medin@lll-crg.ARpA (Milo Medin) writes:
> >The hype that some people ...
> 
> Sounds to me the various scientifically minded . . .
> vested interested
> 
> >				medin@ames.ARPA
> 				      ^^^^
> Not surprising.
> 
> Sport Death,       (USENET) ...{decvax | ihnp4!mit-eddie}!genrad!panda!lkk
> Larry Kolodney     (INTERNET) lkk@mit-mc.arpa
This is neither science, nor hype.
1) the host ames.ARPA and the host I post from (ames.UUCP) are not one
and the same machine.
2) Mr. Medin does not speak for the Space Agency as he is a contractor.
NASA has not endorsed the SDI which is a military project.  NASA is
the CIVILIAN space and aeronautics agency.  If you believe in
<paranoid, pardon my french> conspiracy theories, then there is nothing
I can do to convince you otherwise, because your mind is already made up.
Certainly people from both Agencies have crossed in different directions:
most noteably former Lt. Gen. Abrahamson, former Shuttle Project head.
We certainly have joint projects with some military cooperation, but
these are highly limited: just as MIT has joint projects with the military.
SDI will not be a NASA related project.  We may have contractors bidding
on SDI, but the Agency is specifically staying out of the SDI
ball game.  If you are concern about secondary and teritary effects,
then you should not be reading this as computers are very much a military
spinoff.
3) Many people within the Agency do not agree with Mr. Medin's viewpoint.
The discussion up to this point has been a political and not a "scientific"
discussion.  The proper host where Mr. Medin should post his note is
either lll or lanl.
4) Check the affiliations of O.B. Toon, J.B. Pollock, and T. Ackerman
from the original Nuclear Winter study (coauthored with C. Sagan and R.
Turco). Consider the possible military uses of pictures of Uranus and
Neptune: better understanding of the weather for fallout purposes,
any other?
5) Lastly, the Agency apologizes for other information which Mr. Medin
posted which violated the trust we had with another contractor about
internal projects.
--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  {hplabs,ihnp4,dual,hao,decwrl,allegra}!ames!aurora!eugene
  emiya@ames-vmsb.ARPA
It has to go without saying:
The views expressed above, with the exception of 5), are not entirely the
opinions of NASA or its contractors.  We must do not endorse any
any products or services.

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

End of SPACE Digest V6 #63
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA20859; Thu, 2 Jan 86 03:00:40 PST
	id AA20859; Thu, 2 Jan 86 03:00:40 PST
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 86 03:00:40 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8601021100.AA20859@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #64

*** EOOH ***
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 86 03:00:40 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #64

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 6 : Issue 64

Today's Topics:
		    Re: Aviation Week on Star Wars
			Re: left-handed sugar
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 31 Dec 85 19:17:59 GMT
From: nike!medin@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Milo S. Medin)
Subject: Re: Aviation Week on Star Wars
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Calling an ABM system indefensible is ridiculous.  Both the Soviets
and the US primarily target counterforce style.  There are options
for countervalue in both countries SIOP's, but if war breaks out,
counterforce targeting will probably be used.  It does the US little
good to incinerate a few million civilians when its the military
forces that you really want to take out.  I'm not going to argue
the counterforce vs. countervalue argument here.  If you are
a hardcore MAD person who thinks people still use that doctrine
operationally, I'd recommend you take a look at some of the
policy and doctrinal statements issued by both nations.
I have never been sold on a population defense system.  If its possible,
and it may be (I'm not prepared to rule out things before detailed
research has been performed), then maybe its a good thing.  If its
not, protecting out land based ICBM's is a very good thing for
us to do, because it increases stability.  And that is the name
of the game for keeping peace in a deterrent role.  
If you don't think that our ICBM's are vulnerable, then I suggest
you look up Soviet ICBM's CEP and megatonnage, and run through
the survival calculations yourself.  I won't even talk about
vulnerability of our C^3 systems.
Lastly, what is so interesting about me working at Ames?  I
work on networking here, which is my field of interest, and
NASA isn't working on any SDI projects. 
Of course, these opinions are my own and not necessarily of
my employer, but you knew that already...
					Milo
					medin@ames.arpa
					{seismo,riacs,sunybcs}!nike!medin

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

Date: 1 Jan 86 00:21:58 GMT
From: decwrl!glacier!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Michael McNeil)
Subject: Re: left-handed sugar
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <1598@Shasta.ARPA> rsf@Shasta.UUCP (Ross Finlayson) writes:
>OK, my big question now is: does left-handed sucrose promote tooth decay?
>(I'm sorry that this has nothing to do with "space" anymore, but "enquiring
>minds want to know".)
>
>Ross Finlayson
>Stanford CS Dept.
>ARPA: rsf@su-pescadero.ARPA
>UUCP: ...!{decwrl,ucbvax}!Glacier!Shasta!rsf
I read recently (sorry, I don't remember where) that tooth decay
results from particular species of bacteria which consume sugar
in the mouth and then secrete an acid which attacks the teeth.  
Other species of bacteria eat sugar without secreting this acid.  
A proclivity towards tooth decay results from which species of
bacteria one is infected with (usually from the mother) early in
life.  Tooth decay is therefore a kind of "ecological" disease.  
This being the case, presumably bacteria as well as humans use
enzymes which are specific to the handedness of sugar.  Bacteria
which tried to eat left-handed sugar would starve or at least
wouldn't have the energy to secrete acid which attacks the teeth.  
-- 
Michael McNeil
3Com Corporation     "All disclaimers including this one apply"
(415) 960-9367
..!ucbvax!hplabs!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm
	And with an awful, dreadful list
	Towards other galaxies unknown
	Ponderously turns the Milky Way ...
		Boris Pasternak

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

End of SPACE Digest V6 #64
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA24936; Fri, 3 Jan 86 03:00:56 PST
	id AA24936; Fri, 3 Jan 86 03:00:56 PST
Date: Fri, 3 Jan 86 03:00:56 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8601031100.AA24936@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #65

*** EOOH ***
Date: Fri, 3 Jan 86 03:00:56 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #65

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 6 : Issue 65

Today's Topics:
			  Re:  Tenth planet
			Re: left-handed sugar
		    Re: Trans-atmospheric vehicle
			   Orion and Risks
			 Spacecraft emissions
		      Mass launching from Earth
			     L-5 Society
		    Re: Tensile Strength of Kevlar
	      Electromagnetic Accelerators (old article)
		      Private Space Telescope...
			    Re: Star-Wars
		    Re: Aviation Week on Star Wars
		   Re: Re: transatmospheric vehicle
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 1 Jan 86 23:50:20 GMT
From: unmvax!nmtvax!wildstar@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re:  Tenth planet
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Andrew Jonathan FineOrganization: New Mexico Tech, Socorro
Keywords: 
     Perhaps the "tenth planet" is not actually a planet, but perhaps a weak
stellar companion to Sol, already known as "Nemesis".

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

Date: 1 Jan 86 04:51:33 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!ut-sally!pyramid!pesnta!hplabsb!bl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: left-handed sugar
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> Left-handed sugars cannot be metabolized because the enzyme that
> metabolizes sugar (Sucrase) is right-handed and won't fit into
> left-handed sucrose (Sinister sucrose??  :-) .  The taste buds are not
> chemically asymetrical, so either left- or right- handed sugars taste
> sweet.  Enzymes are like putting gloves on the wrong hand, whereas taste
> buds are like putting socks on the "wrong" foot.
Are you sure about this?  The sense of smell can detect the difference
between optical (i.e., left and right handed) isomers.  While a left and
right handed sugar may both taste sweet, do they taste the same?  Probably,
since taste can only detect sweet, sour, bitter, and salty.

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

Date: Thu, 2 Jan 86 09:57:38 est
From: Richard Newman-Wolfe  <ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!rochester!nemo@ucbvax.berkeley.edu>
To: ucdavis!space
Subject: Re: Trans-atmospheric vehicle
Newsgroups: net.space
In-Reply-To: <[MC.LCS.MIT.EDU].768142.851229.KFL>

In article <[MC.LCS.MIT.EDU].768142.851229.KFL> you write:
>  If environmentalists wish to improve our environment, they should
>concern themselves primarily with smoking.  Automobiles and alcohol
>would be tied for a distant second.  And burning coal would be a very
>distant third.  Nothing else is even in the running.
>								...Keith
I think you are equating improving the environment with reducing the
death rate of humans.  This is not the main thrust of the environmental
movement.  Improving the quality of human life and maintaining a balanced
ecosystem are closer to the goals as I see them.  Automobiles are 
certainly a problem here, but tobacco, autos and alcohol are primarily
human health risks.  If you really want something to worry about in the
realm of both environmental quality and human health, consider the future
of the water resources of the planet.  
Nemo

-- 
Internet:	nemo@rochester.arpa
UUCP:		{decvax, allegra, seismo, cmcl2}!rochester!nemo
Phone:		[USA] (716) 275-5766 school 232-4690 home
USMail:		104 Tremont Circle; Rochester, NY  14608
School:		Department of Computer Science; University of Rochester;
		Rochester, NY  14627

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

Date: Thu 2 Jan 86 21:40:38-EST
From: "Jim McGrath" <MCGRATH@oz.ai.mit.edu>
Subject: Orion and Risks
To: space@mit-mc.arpa
Reply-To: mcgrath%mit-oz@mit-mc.arpa


> From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@mit-mc.arpa>

> The Orion program was canceled largely due to environmental concerns.
> The Orion program proposed launches to be made by detonating hundreds
> of nuclear bombs.  Had this program continued, we would probably have
> the solar system in our grasp today.  We would also have several
> thousand extra fatal cancers.  It was decided that it was not worth
> it.  I agree with that decision.  Though it should be pointed out that
> smoking causes about 100 times the deaths that Orion would have.

Why do you agree?  In 1981 Diabetes Mellitus killed 34,750 Americans;
heart disease 758,100; Atherosclerosis 28,750; Pneumonia 51,230;
automobiles 52,300.  The Korean War killed over 54,000 Americans, the
Vietnam War over 57,000.  While some of this data is useful only for
comparison purposes (auto deaths), others give some indication of how
many lives could have been saved if space had been developed in the
70's, resulting in massive advances in medicine (such as large scale
orbital vaccine production, research on heart disease in zero-g,
etc...), while the rest indicates that we placed more importance on
two indecisive small wars than the exploration and exploitation of
space.

A more concrete example, over 6,000 American deaths every year are
attributable to the burning of coal (mining, lung disease,
etc...).  A significant reliance on Solar Power Satellites would save
thousands of lives a year and result in massive environmental wins.

While some may have died from the development of Orion, many more
would have been saved.  People simply have to realize that NOTHING in
the world is safe.  Every act entails some risk, which can ultimately
be expressed in expected deaths.  You HAVE to look at cost/benefit
ratios to decide anything.  Orion clearly had a very low ratio, but
only if you took space development seriously - which people were
apparently not able to do 25 years ago.

> But if environmentalists object to everything, they quickly lose their
> credibility.  Expansion into space is necessary for the future of our
> species.  Without space, we are all doomed.  Blind opposition to all
> forms of space travel is counter-survival.

Total agreement here.  But in light of my previous comment, how many
deaths WOULD you accept for space?


Jim
-------

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

Date: Thu 2 Jan 86 21:41:26-EST
From: "Jim McGrath" <MCGRATH@oz.ai.mit.edu>
Subject: Spacecraft emissions
To: space@mit-mc.arpa
Reply-To: mcgrath%mit-oz@mit-mc.arpa


Staring in Space Digest, Volume 6 : Issue 58:

> From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
> Has anyone ever thought about the environmental impact that an
> air-breathing x-atmos vehicle is likely to cause? ... we can wind up
> with lots more nitrous oxide, nitric oxide, nitric acid,.. What
> happens? We... reduce the ozone layer...

I think it is fairly clear from other submission that this is the only
real concern - the others seem to have been disposed of convincingly.

> From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@mit-mc.arpa>
> This harks back to the anti-SST argument concerning NOx emissions
> destroying the ozonosphere (which was vastly overblown).  

I agree - it is almost exactly the same argument.  Since the
scientific community has spent a huge amount of effort studying the
upper atmosphere and devising various models of chemical
transformations, the precise answer should be relatively easy to
obtain.  As I remember the latest reports on such research, the ozone
layer is much more resilent that originally thought, so that there
should be little difficulty.

Moreover, existing SSTs are polluting the air far more than any space
transportation system envisioned possibly could (exhausts weighted by
frequency of flights).  Clearly we are not suffering from ill effects
(or they would have been reported by this time).

> From: ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!hao!ames!eugene@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
> (Eugene Miya)
> I think you raise a valid point and the Office of Technological
> Accessment (OTA) should probably start such a study. ...  Linking 
> this to SST hysteria (both pro and con) would do this no end of harm.

First, I see no reason not to use previous relevant research.  Second,
given that the OTA seems to hate anything with the work "space" in it,
I would strongly oppose getting them involved.  

> One must not be blinded by technological wonders.

Nor by rabid environmentalism.  It is this type of "problem making"
that gives environmentalists (as opposed to conservationists) such a
bad name.  The space program is already suffering from inertia and
lack of political support.  While it is only prudent to take
reasonable steps to minimize environmental impacts, it is silly to
make a federal case (literally) out of something with such a low
probability of being a fatal defect and such a high probability of
being used to try and derail or delay any work on these programs for
the indefinite future.


Jim
-------

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

Date: Thu 2 Jan 86 21:47:13-EST
From: "Jim McGrath" <MCGRATH@oz.ai.mit.edu>
Subject: Mass launching from Earth
To: space@mit-mc.arpa
Reply-To: mcgrath%mit-oz@mit-mc.arpa


>From: Bob English <lcc.bob@locus.ucla.edu>
>> From: FIRTH@tl-20b.arpa
>> Launch the two masses so that they meet at the point of intersection, one
>> inbound and one outbound (and they had both better be on their first orbits,
>> of course).  Let the masses be equal.  Then, they meet when traveling at
>> the same speed (but in different directions), and with the same energy.
>> Somehow, get then to join into one bigger mass.  The combined mass will
>> then be traveling in a new orbit...
> ...Most of the orbital energy will be lost in the collision between 
> the objects, and there won't be much left to keep them up there.  I
> suspect this is a dead end.

Maybe not.  This conversation has concentrated on having EQUAL masses
collide.  While that simplifies the math, it is by no means necessary.
I expect that you could have two UNEQUAL masses collide, with the
smaller one being just large enough to force the larger into a stable
orbit.  Of course, you may lose the smaller mass, but if the mass
ratios are large this will be an acceptable loss.  Numbers anyone?

Jim

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

Date: Thu 2 Jan 86 21:47:47-EST
From: "Jim McGrath" <MCGRATH@oz.ai.mit.edu>
Subject: L-5 Society
To: space@mit-mc.arpa
Reply-To: mcgrath%mit-oz@mit-mc.arpa

I am also a life member of the L-5 Society, although I am not actively
involved in any of the chapters.  My major contact with the Society
has been through the L-5 News and periodic mailgrams concerning
specific lobbying efforts on the behalf of NASA.

 From my limited exposure I feel that the L-5 Society is NOT supporting
SDI as much as it should be, given that it may be the only politically
feasible way to realize the Society's goals.  The Society is strictly
neutral, and much of the comments in the News from members is
anti-SDI.  Thus I simply cannot understand why anyone would possibly
resign from the Society for its PRO-SDI bias.

Perhaps the problem is that the American public supports SDI
(depending upon the poll and the time, anywhere from 50% to 70%
consider it an excellent of good program, as opposed to a fair or a
poor one).  Thus it is quite possible that a majority of the
membership of the Society does support it - clearly it would be
statistically odd if a substantial minority did not do so.

Moreover, I get the distinct impression that there has been
substantial polarization on this topic.  Thus, to an anti-SDI person,
the fact that the Society "tolerates" pro-SDI talk is taken as a sign
of support for SDI.  The Society is simply allowing its members to
freely express themselves on perhaps the most important program
involving space since Apollo.


Jim
-------

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

Return-Path: <sbcs!bnl!allard>
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 86 03:30:48 est
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!topaz!harvard!cmcl2!philabs!sbcs!bnl!allard@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (rick allard)
To: ucdavis!space
Subject: Re: Tensile Strength of Kevlar

call Fiberite, (507) 454-3611.  Jon Weispfenning there, at x206 should
be good help.
Rick

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

Date: Thu 2 Jan 86 23:25:45-EST
From: "Jim McGrath" <MCGRATH@oz.ai.mit.edu>
Subject: Electromagnetic Accelerators (old article)
To: space@oz.ai.mit.edu
Reply-To: mcgrath%mit-oz@mit-mc.arpa


 2-Jan-86 23:11:31-EST,2057;000000000000
Received: from MC.LCS.MIT.EDU by OZ.AI.MIT.EDU via Chaosnet; 2 Jan 86 23:11-EST
Received: from SU-SUSHI.ARPA by MC.LCS.MIT.EDU  2 Jan 86 23:11:28 EST
Received: from LOTS-A by Sushi with Pup; Thu 2 Jan 86 20:07:31-PST
Date: 23 Apr 1982 1514-PST
From: Paul Dietz <DIETZ at USC-ECL>
Subject: Electromagnetic Accelerator Article
ReSent-Date: Thu 2 Jan 86 20:10:05-PST
ReSent-From: Jim McGrath <J.JPM@LOTS-A>
ReSent-To: "mcgrath%oz@mc"@Sushi
ReSent-Message-ID: <12172177878.202.J.JPM@LOTS-A>

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 168

The April 82 IEEE Spectrum has an interesting article on electromagnetic
accelerators.  Of interest is a proposed hybrid mass driver/chemical
rocket system for launching payloads into low earth orbit.

Launched Vehicle:
	Two-stage solid-fuel rocket
	Mass: 15000 Kg
	Length: 10 m
	Diameter: 1 m
	Payload to LEO: 1000 Kg

Launcher:
	Velocity:	2 Km/sec
	Acceleration:	20 g
	Length:		10 Km
	Launch time:	10 sec
	Launch Energy:	30 Gigajoules
	Force:		3.0E6 Newtons
	Average Power:  6 Gigawatts
	Peak power:	6 GW

Thge system stores 50 Gj of energy for 200 seconds in a massive aluminum
coil 40 meters in diameter weighing over 8000 tons.  Energy input to the
coil would be from the Pacific Intertie, an existing dc power line running
down through California.  Total cost would be $200 M to $400 M.  Under
reasonable assumptions about usage the cost to LEO is $3000 per kg of
payload.  After amortization of the launcher the cost drops to $1400 per kg.

Also of interest is a single coil accelerator.  Placed next to the coil
is a conducting ring.  When a high current pulse is sent through the coil
the induction ring is accelerated to 1 km/sec in just 1 cm, an acceleration
of 20 million g's.  A russian has proposed accelerators capable of 
100 million g accelerations.  These acclerators would be as reaction
engines, the induction rings being made from asteroidal material.
-------

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

Date: Tue Apr 20 07:03:07 1982
-------

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

Date: 2 Jan 86 21:18:48 GMT
From: decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-tle!maxwell@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Private Space Telescope...
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Several months  ago  I  received an announcement/solicitation from a private
group  planning  to  build,  and  have  placed  in  orbit,  a telescope. The
'membership' would be involved in determining how the 'scope spent its time,
and (wow!) the images produced by the 'scope would be generally available to
the public with relatively inexpensive HAM-radio-like equipment.
At the time, I thought it was a super idea, one that I wanted to participate
in, but for which I had no money to donate.
Well, I  might now be able to afford something, but I seem to have misplaced
my  copy of the announcement. Is there anyone else out there who recieved it
also,  that  has  it  handy,  any  would  be  willing  to  respond  with the
particulars?  Perhaps  even  the  complete  text?  I  think that it would be
generally  interesting  enough  to go to this newsgroup, but I'd like to get
the information again personally....
-+- Sid Maxwell, DEC @ Spit Brook Rd, Nashua NH

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

Date: 1 Jan 86 09:25:16 GMT
From: decvax!bellcore!petrus!karn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Phil R. Karn)
Subject: Re: Star-Wars
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> > 	  Yes, the USSR  has  test  fired  an  anti-satallite  weapon.
> > 	There is still some speculation that Seasat 1 was knocked  out
> > 	by  such a weapon....
> 
> A similar contest in the early part of this century resulted in
> world war 1.
Very true. Depending on which rumor mill you listen to, an alternative
explanation for the failure of Seasat 1 is that somebody discovered it was
able to detect the slight disturbances of the ocean surface caused by
missile-carrying submarines underneath.
Has anyone set up a Star Wars (aka SDI) newsgroup yet?
Phil

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

Date: 2 Jan 86 18:46:44 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!teddy!lkk@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Aviation Week on Star Wars
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <1299@ames.UUCP> eugene@ames.UUCP (Eugene Miya) writes:
>> In article <1149@lll-crg.ARpA> medin@lll-crg.ARpA (Milo Medin) writes:
>> >The hype that some people ...
>> 
>> Sounds to me the various scientifically minded . . .
>> vested interested
>> 
>> >				medin@ames.ARPA
>> 				      ^^^^
>> Not surprising.
>> 
>> Larry Kolodney     (INTERNET) lkk@mit-mc.arpa
>
> [Long flame defending the good name of NASA.]
I appologize.  The implication I made was unfounded.
-- 
Sport Death,       (USENET) ...{decvax | ihnp4!mit-eddie}!genrad!panda!lkk
Larry Kolodney     (INTERNET) lkk@mit-mc.arpa
--------
Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing.
- Helen Keller

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

Date: 31 Dec 85 16:47:10 GMT
From: cbosgd!osu-eddie!julian@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Julian Gomez)
Subject: Re: Re: transatmospheric vehicle
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> ...
> term, I suspect that we could launch orders of magnitude more
> payload than the shuttle and not have a significant effect.  This will
> not be an important problem in our lifetimes.
This is just the attitude that our descendants will curse us for
a hundred years from now.
-- 
"If Chaos himself sat umpire, what better could he do?"
	Julian "a tribble took it" Gomez
	Computer Graphics Research Group, The Ohio State University
	{ucbvax,decvax}!cbosg!osu-eddie!julian

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

End of SPACE Digest V6 #65
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA29767; Sat, 4 Jan 86 03:01:10 PST
	id AA29767; Sat, 4 Jan 86 03:01:10 PST
Date: Sat, 4 Jan 86 03:01:10 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8601041101.AA29767@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #66

*** EOOH ***
Date: Sat, 4 Jan 86 03:01:10 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #66

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 6 : Issue 66

Today's Topics:
		       Improved Planet Program
		       Re: Shuttle sonic booms
	 Asynchronous orbital skyhooks (those two masses...)
	    Re: Shuttle External Tanks and Space Stations
		       Re: Shuttle sonic booms
		    Re: Aviation Week on Star Wars
	  Re: Proposal: net.sdi, sdi@sdio, sdi-request@sdio
		    Re: Aviation Week on Star Wars
		     Re: A High Tech Maginot Line
		       Re: SPACE Digest V6 #65
		  Re: Skyhooks, tethers, and kites.
		      relative launch economics
			Re: Getting into space
		 "shadowing" of satellites in GEO ...
			   Re: L-5 Society
		Growing Plants with Concentrated Light
			      SDI again
			Shuttle launch delays
		     Re: A High Tech Maginot Line
		   space station in serious danger
		     Re: A High Tech Maginot Line
		     Re: A High Tech Maginot Line
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 2 Jan 86 19:40:50 GMT
From: ihnp4!inuxc!inuxe!fred@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Fred Mendenhall)
Subject: Improved Planet Program
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

I've just completed adding the outer planets to my program
and have posted it on net.sources as planet2.c. I've cleaned up
some bugs from the first version as well as making the input
pattern easier for people not living in North America. I have also
posted a copy of the following info file on net.sources.
******************************************************************
Planet2.c is the c source for a program that determines the
Right Ascension and Declination for the Sun and the planets Mercury 
through Neptune as viewed from the center of the Earth given the time,
date and time zone correction for UT.
The results are for the epoch of the date, hence if the date is
Jan 1, 1985 the coordinates are for epoch 1985.0 and not
for the standard 1950 or 2000 dates of most star atlases.
Accuracy? No promises, but the results should be accurate to
.01 Degrees for Nep and Ura and to tens of arc seconds for the
rest of the planets. ( I've only checked the program against two dates
from a set of 1981 and 1983 Astronomy magazines) These results are 
not good enough to predict occultations but should be good enough to use 
for finding the planets using the setting circles on a telescope.
The effects of nutation, aberration and parallax are not considered.
This program runs on our VAX's 11/780's under UNIX system V.
				Clear Skies,
				
				inuxe!fred

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

Date: 2 Jan 86 14:36:20 GMT
From: trwrb!trwspp!spp1!ritter@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Phillip A. Ritter)
Subject: Re: Shuttle sonic booms
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <8173@ucla-cs.ARPA> scw@ucla-cs.UUCP (Stephen C. Woods) writes:
>...Discussion of airflow dynamics deleted...  Now the distance from the nose
>to the tail of the space shuttle is what? (150 feet??) so assuming
>(20000 feet & Standard Atm. and getting out my trusty pro-star.
>Mach 1 = 621 KTAS = 1048 FPS= ~.14 sec between the first boom and the
>second, but at 50000 Feet & SA Mach 5= 2743 KTAS = 4629 FPS = .03 seconds
>so it sounds like 1 (longer) boom).
>  <scw>

The math may be perfect, but I have to disagree with the last statement.  The
shuttle sonic boom does NOT sound like one long boom.  There are two
DISTICT booms, easily detected by the human ear.  This is from simple
experiance - I have heard them several times as the shuttle passes almost
directly overhead on its way into Edwards.
  Phillip A. Ritter

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

Date: 2 Jan 86 20:30:52 GMT
From: decvax!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Wayne Throop)
Subject: Asynchronous orbital skyhooks (those two masses...)
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> At the intersection point the masses are moving
> with a relative velocity of ~6000 mph (~2.7 kps).  A deceleration
> of 5g for 1 minute will bring them to relative rest - which doesn't
> seem too hairy.

I was assuming that the join must happen in a few dozens of meters
distance, or at most a few hundred meters.  To happen over many tens of
kilometers as proposed above is much more reasonable.  But about the
only reasonable thing I can think of that would provide that kind of
interaction between two masses over that kind of distance is a skyhook
variant of some sort.  Can a currently-designable skyhook provide ~2.7
KPS of delta-v?  I suspect so.
I'm not sure how to position and maintain the skyhook (or any other
"joiner" device) in the two masses scenario, but this is much more
reasonable than what I read into the proposal at first. (I was led to
imagine an inelastic colision of two relativly small, dense, balls of
silly-putty.  Splat!  :-)

But what is wrong with the more "traditional" scenario of an
asynchronous skyhook in medium-high orbit?  Once constructed, it could
provide the couple-of-KPS-delta-v needed to modify a long eliptical
orbit (or suborbital arc) into a more nearly circular orbit, and could
be kept on station by performing the reverse delta-v on ballast masses.
(Note that these ballast masses could be provided from a ground
catapult, or from high orbit.  Providing the ballast from the ground is
quite similar to the two-masses scenario, but the "join" strictly
speaking never happens, and the interaction between the cargo mass and
the ballast mass (which in this scheme might also be a cargo mass!) can
be time-delayed.)

Question: Is a (ground-catapult / orbital injection skyhook) system more
economical than a (ground-catapult / traditional injection via a
reaction motor) system?  Even with the orbital skyhook, the injection
would probably have to be modified by a "trim" reaction burn to get
really good and precise orbits, and the station-keeping activities for
the skyhook are probably not trivial.
Answer: I don't know.  I expect there is some volume of traffic at which
        a skyhook would be more economical, but not at the low volumes
        we now have.

Question:  since synchronous orbital skyhooks are considered feasible
for Mars and the Moon, why isn't more attention given to asynchronous
orbital skyhooks for providing various delta-vs in orbital injection
scenarios near Earth?  Is the idea intrinsically non-feasible, or what?
Answer: I don't know, but I suspect they are most useful if the ground
        catapult problem is solved, and ground catapults aren't too
        terribly feasible yet.

Question: Why wouldn't an asynchronous skyhook allow a high-flying
air-breather (or detachable part thereof) to be injected into LEO?
Answer: I don't know that either, but it may have something to do with
        "drag".  Also, feeding such a skyhook ballast wouldn't be
        cheap.  Sigh.
-- 
Wayne Throop at Data General, RTP, NC
<the-known-world>!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw

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

Date: 3 Jan 86 00:31:43 GMT
From: decwrl!glacier!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Michael McNeil)
Subject: Re: Shuttle External Tanks and Space Stations
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <22000012@hpfcla.UUCP> ajs@hpfcla.UUCP writes:
>I've heard rational arguments both for and against additional orbiter
>vehicles, even against having a space station (e.g.  see this month's
>Scientific American).  Given that we're already in the shuttle launching
>business, and the low incremental cost to save those ETs for future use,
>maybe the activists among us should focus on that as a safe, NON-
>CONTROVERSIAL short-term goal for NASA.
>
>Used to be a space station fanatic but now I'm not so sure...
>Alan Silverstein

I doubt very much that this goal is actually noncontroversial, and I
also suspect that if a noncontroversial goal for NASA could be found,
that it, whatever it is, would not be worth doing.  
-- 
Michael McNeil
3Com Corporation     "All disclaimers including this one apply"
(415) 960-9367
..!ucbvax!hplabs!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm

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

Date: 2 Jan 86 20:26:44 GMT
From: sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!oberon!smeagol!jplgodo!steve@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Steve Schlaifer x3171 156/224)
Subject: Re: Shuttle sonic booms
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> In article <8173@ucla-cs.ARPA> scw@ucla-cs.UUCP (Stephen C. Woods) writes:
> >...Discussion of airflow dynamics deleted...  Now the distance from the nose
> >to the tail of the space shuttle is what? (150 feet??) so assuming
> >(20000 feet & Standard Atm. and getting out my trusty pro-star.
> >Mach 1 = 621 KTAS = 1048 FPS= ~.14 sec between the first boom and the
> >second, but at 50000 Feet & SA Mach 5= 2743 KTAS = 4629 FPS = .03 seconds
> >so it sounds like 1 (longer) boom).
> >
> ><scw>
> 
> The math may be perfect, but I have to disagree with the last statement.  The
> shuttle sonic boom does NOT sound like one long boom.  There are two
> DISTICT booms, easily detected by the human ear.  This is from simple
> experiance - I have heard them several times as the shuttle passes almost
> directly overhead on its way into Edwards.
>   Phillip A. Ritter

It has always seemed to me, in fact, that the booms were seperated by at
least .5 seconds (although I have never actually timed them).  The 
two booms are quite distinct.
...smeagol\			Steve Schlaifer
           >!jplgodo!steve	Advance Projects Group, Jet Propulsion Labs
....group3/			4800 Oak Grove Drive, M/S 156/204
				Pasadena, California, 91109
					+1 818 354 3171

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

Date: 3 Jan 86 04:35:01 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!rochester!ritcv!moscom!jens@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Jens Fiederer)
Subject: Re: Aviation Week on Star Wars
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Putting cities at bottom priority seems sensible from the psychological
standpoint -- an enemy would prefer destroying our weapons and leaving
our cities productive (for him) to destroying our cities and leaving our
weapons vengeful.

What these charts suggest to me is a GRADUATED approach to SDI.  Assuming
economically feasible SDI defenses, one begins by using them to protect
our missiles (currently our main protections are SHEER NUMBER, one of
the less heartwarming aspects of the arms race, and variety (ICBM, bomber,
submarine), which is very vulnerable to the vagaries of progress in
such fields as submarine detection).  A 50% effective SDI protecting
our missiles would mean that we need 50% fewer missiles for "defensive"
purposes.

The inspirational dream is that we can implement the lower priority SDI
objectives, and obviate the need for nuclear missiles altogether.  Of
course, as powerful a system as SDI would have to be can hardly exist
without having some OFFENSIVE capabilities as well.
Azhrarn

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

Date: 3 Jan 86 01:32:13 GMT
From: hplabs!hao!ames!al@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Al Globus)
Subject: Re: Proposal: net.sdi, sdi@sdio, sdi-request@sdio
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> Here's a vote for net.sdi!
> 
Make that two.

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

Date: 3 Jan 86 01:29:53 GMT
From: hplabs!hao!ames!al@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Al Globus)
Subject: Re: Aviation Week on Star Wars
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> 
> With regards to having 10-20 million dead, contrast that to 150
> million dead.  That is a big difference.  
The 10-20 million dead assumes that SDI meets its program goals (personal
opinion: unlikely) and that the Soviets take no counter measures (not
credible).  In addition, that's only the first few hours of the conflict.
Finnally, since a limited SDI system may be very useful in support of a first
strike, it could easily start the war we're all trying to avoid.

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

Date: 3 Jan 86 01:01:39 GMT
From: hplabs!hao!ames!al@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Al Globus)
Subject: Re: A High Tech Maginot Line
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> 
>     Sure it will, just like the ABM Treaty of 1972 kept the Soviets
> from implementing ABM devices.  
The ABM treaty allowed both sides two ABM systems, one around a missle
base and another around the capital.  I think the Soviets built the one
around their capital.  We abandoned ours for some reason.
> They have violated it several times.
The only violation that I am aware of that has not been resolved by the
board specifically set up to resolve such issues is the phased array
radar being constructed.  Although this may be a violation, it should
be noted that Reagan has NOT submitted the issue to the board.  Perhaps
he's more interested in propoganda than resolution?
> Perhaps I am overly pesimistic of my fellow human beings, but I do not
> trust the Soviets.  They are our undeclared enemy at this point in a
> very cold 'Cold War'.  
Although the Soviets are considered our enemy, it should be noted that the
armed forces of the Soviet Union have never attacked the United States,
Russia and America have never fought a war (except a small invasion of
Russia by US troops during the Russian Civil War), and in the two major
conflicts of this century Russia was our ally.
> Why should they adhere to a treaty with us if
> it is not beneficial to them?  
They shouldn't and won't.  However there are several issues, such as ASAT's and
nuclear testing where the Soviet's feel a treaty is in their best interest,
and I feel are in our best interest.  It should be noted that the Soviets
have implemented UNILATERAL bans on nuclear and ASAT tesing.  Also, the 
Soviets have a new leader from a different generation.  They have also made
indications that they might accept on site verification and even withdraw
from Afganistan.  Hmmmmm.
> I do not think that treaties of any kind
> with the Soviet Union can be a cure.
No.  But they could help.  And they are cheap financially.
> I see it as the gun control laws on a large scale.
> If you outlaw guns, only the criminals will have them.
During one portion of it's history, Japan SUCCESSFULLY banned guns completely.
>   One last note, I do not think verification clauses are worth didly.
> We have undeniably verified a phased array radar in Siberia that is
> contrary to the '72 Treaty, yet nothing has been done.
Perhaps if we submitted the issue to the board that has resolved these
things in the past something would get done.

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

Date:           Fri, 3 Jan 86 11:44:53 PST
From: "Niket K. Patwardhan" <bilbo.niket@locus.ucla.edu>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Cc: ota@s1-b.arpa
Subject:        Re: SPACE Digest V6 #65
In-Reply-To:    Message of Fri, 3 Jan 86 03:12:13 PST
                    from "Ted Anderson <ota@s1-b.arpa>"
                    <8601031112.AA25119@s1-b.arpa>

I suspect the real reason Orion died was the nuclear test ban treaty. It would
have polluted the air just as much as the tests would have and then there would
have been no logical reason for banning the tests......

As for how many deaths one would accept, a priori, to achieve a goal, the
answer should be NONE! The only time you accept death as necessary is when you
fight a war. But after the fact, when you evaluate whether a task was worth
the effort, you can count the deaths and the benefits and say "Yes.. it was
worth it" or "No, it wasn't".

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

Date: 2 Jan 86 19:19:25 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Skyhooks, tethers, and kites.
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> With all the interest in skyhooks and tethers, I'm inspired to ask "How about
> a kite?"  Is there enough gas streaming off the earth or the sun to catch in
> a kite? ...
Alas, it won't work.  There is little gas emission from Earth's atmosphere,
and the solar wind is much too thin to be useful for this.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

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

Date: 2 Jan 86 19:16:57 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: relative launch economics
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> ...The Shuttle costs $1000/lb less to operate than Saturn...
Don't forget that Saturn was operated as a "fifteen shots and that's it"
operation, since volume production was cancelled quite early, whereas the
shuttle is a continuing system.  One would expect that an ongoing Saturn
operation would have been cheaper than the Apollo prices (although it's
hard to say by how much).
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

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

Date: 2 Jan 86 19:22:12 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Getting into space
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> ... The only problems are that the G forces inside the gun
> would be very high (enough to kill any astronaut and probably to set
> off the onboard rockets prematurely) ...
Building rockets to stand it should not be an insuperable problem, given
that similar hardware can be (and is) shot from ordinary guns without
significant trouble.  Building astronauts to stand it is a different matter...
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

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

Date: 2 Jan 86 18:55:49 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: "shadowing" of satellites in GEO ...
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> Earth  station  operators  (like the plant I work at) already have to put up
> with  such  interference.  A few  (predictable)  times  a year,  the  SUN is
> directly behind the satellite we use for video conferencing.  The sun, being
> a prodigious radio source, wipes out the signal for about ten minutes.
Point of curiosity:  given that your receiver (okay, picky picky, your LNA)
is at the focus of a roughly parabolic antenna, how do you avoid having the
Sun fry the receiver?  I assume that you aren't moving the antenna to dodge
the sun, since antennas for geosynch satellites generally aren't fitted with
that flexible a mount.  Does it suffice to be careful about the infrared
reflectivity of the dish surface?
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

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

Date: 2 Jan 86 19:09:57 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: L-5 Society
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Other people have pointed out that the L5 Society as a whole has *no*
position on SDI, although certain L5ers do, so I won't belabor that.
> ...It almost seems that to them [L5ers],
> ANY space project is automatically a GOOD space project.
> 
> Seems to me that Werner von Braun once had a problem like that.
And he did us all a favor, too.  Bainbridge's "The Spaceflight Revolution"
makes a convincing case for the effort Nazi Germany spent on the V-2 being
a near-total waste.  It simply was not a cost-effective weapon, compared to
alternatives like V-1s, jet fighters, etc.  Its later contribution to space
development was far more significant than its effect on WW2.  Even the more
conventional bombing raids on London accomplished nothing militarily useful,
and they were rather more accurate than the V-2.
(There is some speculation that when Churchill ordered a raid on Berlin in
retaliation for a couple of off-course bombers dropping a few bombs on the
outskirts of London, he may have been specifically hoping that Hitler would
get angry enough to divert German bombers away from British fighter airfields
and onto city attacks.  The attacks on the fighter bases were a major threat,
while attacks on the cities would accomplish little.  It worked.)
Incidentally, von Braun was once arrested by the Gestapo on the charge that
he cared more about spaceflight than about winning the war.  Dornberger, his
boss, got him loose, basically by pulling rank -- no attempt was made to
dispute the accuracy of the charge.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

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

Posted-Date: Fri 3 Jan 1986 17:13:22 EST
Date: Fri 3 Jan 1986 17:13:22 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Growing Plants with Concentrated Light
To: space@mit-mc.arpa

The 1/13/86 issue of Business Week mentions (page 125) a Japanese company,
La Foret Engineering & Information Service Co., that is building light
pipes to transmit light from the top of skyscrapers to plants inside.
The light pipes filter out UV and IR light, so the usable frequencies
can be concentrated above normal levels without frying the plants.
According to the note, La Foret has been able to grow algae cultures
to concentrations 100 times higher than is possible with normal sunlight.

This technology may have significant applications to closed
environmental systems in spacecraft and space stations.  It should
permit great reductions in the mass of tanks and water needed to
produce oxygen from algae, at the cost of using filter windows and
light reflectors.

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

Date: Fri 3 Jan 86 22:17:39-EST
From: "Jim McGrath" <MCGRATH@oz.ai.mit.edu>
Subject: SDI again
To: space@oz.ai.mit.edu
Reply-To: mcgrath%mit-oz@mit-mc.arpa



> From: decvax!bellcore!petrus!karn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Phil R. Karn)

> > > 	  Yes, the USSR  has  test  fired  an  anti-satallite  weapon.
> > > 	There is still some speculation that Seasat 1 was knocked  out
> > > 	by  such a weapon....
> 
> > A similar contest in the early part of this century resulted in
> > world war 1.
>
> Very true....

Not to defend arms races per se, but I do feel compelled to point out
that the Anglo-German arms race wound down a couple of years before
the outbreak of war.  While the "causes" of WWI in any deep sense will
be debated forever, it is clear that they have more to do with a
breakdown of the balance of power, fossilized alliance systems, and
military doctrine that called for extensive national mobilization AND
some form of preemption or quick war.  Ultimately the rise of Germany
can be said to have caused the war in some deeper sense.

The upshot is that wars are not technologically impelled.  No war has
ever occurred due to pure accident or as the pure result of an arms
race.

(This, and all policy oriented SDI messages, should probably move to
ARMS-D.)


Jim
-------

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

Date: 3 Jan 86 19:47:20 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!brl-tgr!wmartin@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Will Martin )
Subject: Shuttle launch delays
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

I've been wondering just what determines the length of a delay or
postponement of a shuttle launch when some defect is discovered
while the assembled craft is already fueled and there is only a short
time remaining in the countdown. Sometimes things are slipped a few
hours, other times until the next day, and then there will be abrupt
jumps to much longer delays, like several weeks.
Could someone in the know post a short summary of what sorts of delays
what kinds of discovered problems will cause? Something like:
Shuttle computer software bug    .....   1 day for patching & reloading
SRB Engine Safety-related failure  ...   3 weeks for return to vehicle
					 assembly building & replacement
and so on...
Also, how long does removing the liquid fuel & oxidizers take? How long can
the fueled shuttle sit on the pad while still fueled-up?
Thanks!
Will Martin
UUCP/USENET: seismo!brl-bmd!wmartin   or   ARPA/MILNET: wmartin@almsa-1.ARPA

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

Date: 3 Jan 86 14:25:00 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!watnot!watdcsu!broehl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Bernie Roehl)
Subject: Re: A High Tech Maginot Line
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <2138@aecom.UUCP> werner@aecom.UUCP (Craig Werner) writes:
>
>	Personally, I think the best way to find and win a war was described
                                            ^^^^
>in some detail by Asimov in Foundation (1950).
> 
*finding* a war is usually not the problem; all too often, the war finds you.

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

Date: 3 Jan 86 02:20:28 GMT
From: decwrl!pyramid!ut-sally!seismo!hao!ames!al@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Al Globus)
Subject: space station in serious danger
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

The office of management and budget (OMB) wants NASA to cut next years
space station budget to $100 million.  The budget is about $230 million
this year and needs around $600-800 million next year to stay on track.
If the budget is cut to the $100 million level, it will effectively
kill the project.  Send your letters.

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

Date: 3 Jan 86 20:43:52 GMT
From: sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Stanley Friesen)
Subject: Re: A High Tech Maginot Line
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <851221223119.997886@HI-MULTICS.ARPA> Bakin@HI-MULTICS.ARPA (Jerry Bakin) writes:
>
>Henry, I think you've missed the point; however, most people do.
>
>There are two points to make:
>
>A 100% test ban is much more verifiable than any sort of limited treaty
>of any kind (either limiting test or capabilities).
>
>There is always a possibility that any side will violate any treaty, the
>question becomes how often can they expect to be able to violate it, and
>get away with it because they weren't caught.
>
	Actually, there is an even *more* important question. What do
we(or they) do if a violation is detected? We cannot really threaten
to go to war over a violation, that would be over-reacting. Could we
make any violation void the whole treaty and make it cause for the
other side to resume nuclear developement? I am not sure that is
practical. And why should we expect the US government to take any
strong positive action obout such a violation, given that we have been
simply ignoring numerous violations of existing treaties(that is
except for meaningless diplomatic hand-slapping)? In other words the
question is how is the treaty to be *enforced*?
-- 
				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)
UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen
ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa

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

Date: 3 Jan 86 20:57:46 GMT
From: sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Stanley Friesen)
Subject: Re: A High Tech Maginot Line
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <1309@ames.UUCP> al@ames.UUCP (Al Globus) writes:
>
>The only violation that I am aware of that has not been resolved by the
>board specifically set up to resolve such issues is the phased array
>radar being constructed.  Although this may be a violation, it should
>be noted that Reagan has NOT submitted the issue to the board.  Perhaps
>he's more interested in propoganda than resolution?
	But why did they submit to the arbitration? Did they do it
because the treaty is *currently* in thier best interests? Or does the
board have some sort of powers beyond saying "naughty, naughty, you
shouldn't do that"? What will happen if we ever get into a real
conflict with them, or they get into a real conflict with Red China?
Will the board be able to achieve compliance when they feel they need
these weapon systems? If so how?
>
>They shouldn't and won't.  However there are several issues, such as ASAT's and
>nuclear testing where the Soviet's feel a treaty is in their best interest,
>and I feel are in our best interest.  It should be noted that the Soviets
>have implemented UNILATERAL bans on nuclear and ASAT tesing.  Also, the 
>Soviets have a new leader from a different generation.  They have also made
>indications that they might accept on site verification and even withdraw
>from Afganistan.  Hmmmmm.
	Alright, but what happens when keeping the treaty is no longer
in thier best interests? Or alternatively, how do we ensure that
keeping the treaty is *always* in thier best interests?
	Certainly, on-site verification and withdrawal from
Afghanistan are worthy goals, and we should certainly be engaged in
dialog with them, but I do feel we must be *very* careful no to sell
ourselves down the river. (Actually, I suspect the withdrawal from
Afghanistan is a political ploy - they want out, but they do not want
to look like they have been defeated by the Afghans, thus making it a
treaty concession gives them a good excuse for getting out).
>
>> I do not think that treaties of any kind
>> with the Soviet Union can be a cure.
>
>No.  But they could help.  And they are cheap financially.
>
	As long as we have  some sort of "back-up" capability in case
they decide to violate the treaty and ignore our diplomatic scolding.
>During one portion of it's history, Japan SUCCESSFULLY banned guns completely.
	Yeah, because they could really get tough with the violators,
a government is *far* more powerful than a individual. US and Russia
are very close in power, there is little we can do to Russia to enforce
compliance if they don't want to.(That is short of declaring war, and
that would have to be very *early* in the game or they would simply
nuke us to oblivion).
>
>Perhaps if we submitted the issue to the board that has resolved these
>things in the past something would get done.
	Again, what enforcement powers does this board have?
-- 
				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)
UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen
ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa

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

End of SPACE Digest V6 #66
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA03043; Sun, 5 Jan 86 03:00:45 PST
	id AA03043; Sun, 5 Jan 86 03:00:45 PST
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 86 03:00:45 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8601051100.AA03043@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #67

*** EOOH ***
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 86 03:00:45 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #67

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 6 : Issue 67

Today's Topics:
		   Re: shadowing GEO/Earth signals
			Re: Re:  Tenth planet
			  Re:  Tenth planet
			   Re: Tenth planet
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 3 Jan 86 23:09:00 GMT
From: allegra!princeton!rocksvax!dave@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dave Sewhuk)
Subject: Re: shadowing GEO/Earth signals
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Of course don't forget the converse problem, when the antenna points at the
sun.  The sun makes lots of noise and that is bound to interfere with the
signal a bit!!
Dave
arpa: Sewhuk.HENR@Xerox.ARPA
uucp: {ihnp4,rochester,amd,sunybcs}!rocksvax!dave
ns: "Sewhuk:HENR801G:Xerox".ns@Xerox.ARPA

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

Date: 4 Jan 86 03:03:06 GMT
From: decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!cmcl2!rna!rocky2!cucard!aecom!werner@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Re:  Tenth planet
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> Andrew Jonathan FineOrganization: New Mexico Tech, Socorro
> Keywords: 
> 
>      Perhaps the "tenth planet" is not actually a planet, but perhaps a weak
> stellar companion to Sol, already known as "Nemesis".
	Named (or so claimed by the author of the paper) such because if such
a companion is not found, the publication will prove to be HIS nemesis.
-- 
				Craig Werner
				!philabs!aecom!werner
      "Illness strips away superficiality to reveal reality in etched detail."

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

Date: 3 Jan 86 16:37:30 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re:  Tenth planet
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>      Perhaps the "tenth planet" is not actually a planet, but perhaps a weak
> stellar companion to Sol, already known as "Nemesis".
Alas, Nemesis has met its fate :-).
(Quick digression:  the theory alluded to here is the notion that periodic
extinctions are caused by near approaches of a companion star, which is in a
*very* long-period orbit [30MY or so], stirring up the Oort cloud and causing
a rain of comets into the inner Solar System.)
The problem with making the Sun a binary star is that Nemesis has to be a
godawful long way out to have such a long orbital period, and it appears
that such an orbit simply is not very stable over geological time scales.
It is not consistent with extinctions at clockwork-regular intervals, at
the very least.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

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

Date: 3 Jan 86 10:23:21 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!cmcl2!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Frank Adams)
Subject: Re: Tenth planet
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

I have for some time suspected that there are a fair number of sub-stellar
objects in the galaxy, which are not associated with any star system.
I have seen estimates that a mass of .07 times that of the sun is the
minimum required to ignite fusion.  Proxima Centauri seems to be near this
lower limit.  Although there may be a lower limit to the size of the objects
produced by the processes which produce stars, it seems unlikely that this
point coincides with the ignition point.
How many such objects are there likely to be?  For stars, there is a clear
relationship between size and frequency: the smaller the size, the more
stars there are at that scale.  There is no reason to believe this does not
hold down to near the lower limit for the process.  Thus if objects
appreciably smaller than .07 solar mass can be created in this way, one
expects them to considerably outnumber the stars.  There is reason to think
that objects as small as .0001 solar mass are possible, since this is the
approximate size of the outer giant planets (Uranus and Neptune), which
seem to have been formed in a similar fashion (although as part of the
formation of the sun, not as independent events).
The question is, could such objects be responsible for the observed
perturbations of the orbits of the outer planets?  A quick calculation
reveals that an object of .05 solar mass would have to be at a distance
of about 300 AU to produce an effect comparable to a giant planet at
Pluto's orbit.  This is still only 1/2000 of a light year; it doesn't
seem likely that there could be enough objects of this size that one
would expect an object this close, but we could be dealing with an
unusually close approach.
The other possibility is that objects on the order of .0001 solar mass
are freqent enough that one would expect the nearest to be no more than
100 AU or so away.  I don't have access to a size/frequency comparison
for stars, so I don't know how reasonable such a frequency is.  This
would still, I think, be low enough that one would not expect an
observably close encounter of such an object with the sun in the time
in which we have been making observations.  The uniformity of the orbits
of most of the planets puts an upper limit on the frequency of such
encounters; however I suspect that the strangeness of Pluto's orbit
can be explained as the result of such an encounter.  (Perhaps also
Uranus's rotational tilt?  I don't know how likely it would be for a
close encounter to change the rotational axis while leaving the orbit
roughly circular.)
Disclaimer: I have no professional training in Astronomy, and have not
attempted to really rigorously work out the consequences of this hypothesis.
Frank Adams                           ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
Multimate International    52 Oakland Ave North    E. Hartford, CT 06108

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

End of SPACE Digest V6 #67
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA08409; Mon, 6 Jan 86 03:00:50 PST
	id AA08409; Mon, 6 Jan 86 03:00:50 PST
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 86 03:00:50 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8601061100.AA08409@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #68

*** EOOH ***
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 86 03:00:50 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #68

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 6 : Issue 68

Today's Topics:
       Re: Asynchronous orbital skyhooks (those two masses...)
		       Re: SPACE Digest V6 #65
			   Kicking Up Dust
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 5 Jan 86 00:52:26 GMT
From: sdcsvax!davidson@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (J. Greg Davidson)
Subject: Re: Asynchronous orbital skyhooks (those two masses...)
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Wayne Throop's recent article on skyhooks asked a series of very good
questions in regard to applying skyhooks in conjunction with catapults
and guessed at some answers.  I will repeat his questions with another
set of (equally speculative) answers.
	From: throopw@dg_rtp.UUCP (Wayne Throop)
	Newsgroups: net.space
	Subject: Asynchronous orbital skyhooks (those two masses...)
	Date: 2 Jan 86 20:30:52 GMT
	Question: Is a (ground-catapult / orbital injection skyhook)
	system more economical than a (ground-catapult / traditional
	injection via a reaction motor) system?  Even with the orbital
	skyhook, the injection would probably have to be modified by a
	"trim" reaction burn to get really good and precise orbits, and
	the station-keeping activities for the skyhook are probably not
	trivial.
Answer: One would expect the operating costs of a skyhook to be much
lower than that of a reaction motor.  However, the development costs
and system costs (targeting, orbit correction, etc.) need to be
considered.  Note that if orbital correction is needed, there is no
hurry about it since the orbit will not decay quickly.  As an example,
a solar pwered ion rocket tug would be sufficient.  Also note that this
analysis will need to take into consideration the increased traffic
that lower costs should generate.
There are several technologies available for station keeping: (1)
balancing the mass transfers, (2) electrical interaction with the
Earth's magnetic field, (3) continuous boost from an efficient,
electrically powered, low thrust reaction motor.  Method (1) could
include catching mass sent up by the ground catapult into different
trajectories.  Methods (2) and (3) might be powered by an on-site solar
electric plant.  Possibilities for (3) include ion rockets and mass
driver thrusters.
	Question:  since synchronous orbital skyhooks are considered
	feasible for Mars and the Moon, why isn't more attention given
	to asynchronous orbital skyhooks for providing various delta-vs
	in orbital injection scenarios near Earth?  Is the idea
	intrinsically non-feasible, or what?
Answer: NASA seems politically unable to devote visible resources to
any unproven propulsion technologies, including tethers, light sails,
ion rockets, etc., regardless of their technical merit.  The major
contractors mostly follow NASA's lead.  However, other organizations,
e.g., CALSPACE, the World Space Foundation, SSI, and many independent
researchers are concentrating their research on these unproven, but
much more promising technologies.
	Question: Why wouldn't an asynchronous skyhook allow a
	high-flying air-breather (or detachable part thereof) to be
	injected into LEO?
Answer: A familiar scenario from previous articles on asynchronous skyhooks
is a rendezvous between a 747 carrying a cargo module piggyback, and
a tether.  In addition to the slight savings in work for the tether, this
keeps the tether comfortably away from the ground and reduces its penetration
into the bulk of the atmosphere.  I doubt that significant savings would
result from getting any higher in the atmosphere.  I suspect that its
more cheaper to have the tether do all of the velocity change, than to
develop a hypersonic aircraft for the rendezvous.
_Greg
J. Greg Davidson                          Virtual Infinity Systems
(619) 452-8059               6231 Branting St; San Diego, CA 92122
greg@vis.uucp                           ucbvax--| telesoft--|
davidson@sdcsvax.uucp                   decvax--+--sdcsvax--+--vis
davidson@ucsd.arpa                       ihnp4--|  noscvax--|
~

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

Date: 5 Jan 86 01:13:40 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V6 #65
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> As for how many deaths one would accept, a priori, to achieve a goal, the
> answer should be NONE! The only time you accept death as necessary is when you
> fight a war...
Then there is virtually no acceptable human goal.  Even building a large
building involves a statistically-predictable number of deaths, from
accidents in construction and in supporting industries.  I don't know the
death toll in workers involved in building facilities for Project Apollo,
for example, but I'm sure it was non-trivial.  Deaths are inevitable in
any large-scale human activity.  Private planning estimates often include
estimates of the number of deaths involved, although for obvious reasons
such numbers are seldom publicized!
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

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

Posted-Date: Sun 5 Jan 1986 22:14:41 EST
Date: Sun 5 Jan 1986 22:14:41 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Kicking Up Dust
To: space@mit-mc.arpa

Here's an extension of the dust accelerator idea I proposed several
months back (I learned recently that the idea of using electrostatically
accelerated dust as reaction mass is an old one; Arthur Clark used in
his novel "Earthlight").

The new idea is to use such an electrostatic accelerator to lift mass
off the moon.  This scheme as some attractive features: (1) no
superconducting buckets are needed, so nothing needs be recirculated,
(2) very much smaller payloads may be accelerated, allowing the catcher
to be miniaturized, and (3) peak power in the electrical supply may be
lower.  I envision accelerating positively charged microgram to milligram
sized particles in a linear accelerator driven at several kilohertz.
The particles would be neutralized after acceleration with a low energy
electron beam.

It is likely that the velocity dispersion of the dust particles will
be much higher than that of a mass driver.  However, because the
particles are so small, we can afford to position a large number of
small dust catchers in lunar orbit.  The catchers would be sticky
disks or spheres several meters across, placed in a low orbit passing over
the accelerator site.  As the catchers go downrange of the accelerator the
dust beam would be directed against them for several minutes.  This will
eventually propel the catchers into higher orbits, where they can be
cleaned and recycled.  The transit time from accelerator to catcher
will be a few minutes, so we can tolerate velocity dispersions of
up to a few centimeters per second.

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

End of SPACE Digest V6 #68
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA13265; Tue, 7 Jan 86 03:00:50 PST
	id AA13265; Tue, 7 Jan 86 03:00:50 PST
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 86 03:00:50 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8601071100.AA13265@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #69

*** EOOH ***
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 86 03:00:50 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #69

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 6 : Issue 69

Today's Topics:
		 Re: space station in serious danger
		       Re: SPACE Digest V6 #68
		       Re: SPACE Digest V6 #67
			  Galactic Soapsuds
		       Re: Spacecraft emissions
			The Bootstrap Problem
		  Orbital Accelerator Momentum loss
	       Re: "shadowing" of satellites in GEO ...
       Re: Asynchronous orbital skyhooks (those two masses...)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 5 Jan 86 23:36:44 GMT
From: amdcad!cae780!weitek!mmm@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Mark Thorson)
Subject: Re: space station in serious danger
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <1312@ames.UUCP>, al@ames.UUCP (Al Globus) writes:
> The office of management and budget (OMB) wants NASA to cut next years
> space station budget to $100 million.  The budget is about $230 million
> this year and needs around $600-800 million next year to stay on track.
> If the budget is cut to the $100 million level, it will effectively
> kill the project.  Send your letters.
Send them where?  After reading last month's Sci. Amer., I feel inclined to
write.  $100 million spent is $100 million wasted.
Mark Thorson  (...!cae780!weitek!mmm)
ps Okay, maybe $80 or $90 million wasted.  It's hard to spend $100 million
   without coming up with something.

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

Date:           Mon, 6 Jan 86 09:34:29 PST
From: "Niket K. Patwardhan" <bilbo.niket@locus.ucla.edu>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Subject:        Re: SPACE Digest V6 #68
In-Reply-To:    Message of Mon, 6 Jan 86 03:07:51 PST
                    from "Ted Anderson <ota@s1-b.arpa>"
                    <8601061107.AA08597@s1-b.arpa>

Statistical predictions seem to me to be equivalent to after the fact counting.
That is, no death along the route was actually necessary, and none would have
occurred if no mistakes were made. I guess I was thinking of something else...
(would "sacrifice" be the word?).

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

Date:           Mon, 6 Jan 86 09:13:55 PST
From: "Niket K. Patwardhan" <bilbo.niket@locus.ucla.edu>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Subject:        Re: SPACE Digest V6 #67
In-Reply-To:    Message of Sun, 5 Jan 86 03:07:12 PST
                    from "Ted Anderson <ota@s1-b.arpa>"
                    <8601051107.AA03226@s1-b.arpa>

What is the extinction cycle time period?  If it is in the millions of years,
that could be enough time for life and civilization to reform,
and for the evidence of radioactivity to disappear. We could be looking at
regular nuclear holocausts!

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

Date: 6 Jan 86 16:48:00 PST
From: <art@acc.arpa>
Subject: Galactic Soapsuds
To: "space" <space@mit-mc.arpa>
Reply-To: <art@acc.arpa>


I read an interesting article in our local newspaper and was wondering
if anyone has a pointer to the original scientific paper.

A recent 3-D map of the distribution of the galaxies in the universe
has given evidence that the mass is distibuted roughly on the surface
of large bubble shaped regions of space.  The interiors of these regions
are largely devoid of galaxies.  The effect is a "Soapsuds" distribution
of galaxies.  This all seems to indicate that some very explosive events
and the resultant shock waves very early in the history of the universe
had a profound effect on the evolution of the galaxies.

It will be interesting to see what the Hubble Space Telescope turns up.

					<Art@ACC.ARPA>

------

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

Date: 7 Jan 86 00:07:23 GMT
From: vger!al@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  ( Informatix)
Subject: Re: Spacecraft emissions
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> Since the
> scientific community has spent a huge amount of effort studying the
> upper atmosphere and devising various models of chemical
> transformations, the precise answer should be relatively easy to
> obtain.  
You have a lot more faith in those models and research than I do.  The accuracy
of weather prediction should give you an idea of how good such models really
are - not very (maybe in a few decades ...).

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

Date: Mon 6 Jan 86 17:22:49-PST
From: Jim McGrath <J.JPM@lots-b>
Subject: The Bootstrap Problem
To: "space@mc"@su-sushi.arpa


As much as I like to play with concepts such as 200 km long
accelerators in orbit to boost sub-orbital payloads to low earth
orbit, these proposals have usually left me with an empty feeling.
The problem is that in order to construct such a large structure in
space, you already have to have a good space transportation system. In
other words, how do we get there from here?

What do people think of the prospects of placing a SMALL accelerator
into orbit, and using it to give a velocity boost to payloads coming
from earth?  This would still require some form of earth based
accelerator system or the like, but over time you could, by building
more orbital accelerators, reduce the velocity that needs to be
imparted on earth.  This would allow you to build more, cheaper earth
based accelerators, and thus a positive feedback would begin.

The question is, what is the maximum size (in length and acceleration)
of an orbital accelerator that we could reasonaby construct using
Shuttle or immediate post-Shuttle systems?  And what is the biggest
earth based accelerator/launch system that we could construct?
Finally, can the first impart enough velocity to the second to make
orbital velocity?


Jim
-------

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

Date: Mon 6 Jan 86 17:26:50-PST
From: Jim McGrath <J.JPM@lots-b>
Subject: Orbital Accelerator Momentum loss
To: "space@mc"@su-sushi.arpa


I remember reading an article that stated that such a loss would not
be a problem.  Basically, instead of using mass from higher orbits to
accelerator the accelerator (which is not practical in the short
term), one would probably use either reaction motors or a dymano
effect (as the accelerator passes through the earth's magnetic field,
it acts as a generator/motor - you can increase momentum by putting
power into the field, get energy by losing momentum).

However, I forget the numbers involved (i.e. how much reaction mass,
or how much power (that is, solar cells) would be required).


Jim
-------

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

Date: 6 Jan 86 03:26:39 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!cmcl2!philabs!nyit!bp@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Bruce Perens)
Subject: Re: "shadowing" of satellites in GEO ...
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> how do you avoid having the
> Sun fry the receiver?
> 				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
Infrared, having a shorter wavelength than microwave radio, is
DIFFUSED by the finish on most dishes. If you polished an unpainted
aluminum dish, this would become a problem. I would think the usual coat
of white paint is enough to eliminate the possibility of having your
radio dish act as a solar power plant.
				Bruce Perens
				decvax!philabs!nyit!bp

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

Date: 7 Jan 86 00:57:49 GMT
From: dual!ames!eugene@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Eugene Miya)
Subject: Re: Asynchronous orbital skyhooks (those two masses...)
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> 
> Answer: NASA seems politically unable to devote visible resources to
> any unproven propulsion technologies, including tethers, light sails,
> ion rockets, etc., regardless of their technical merit.  The major
> contractors mostly follow NASA's lead.  However, other organizations,
> e.g., CALSPACE, the World Space Foundation, SSI, and many independent
> researchers are concentrating their research on these unproven, but
> much more promising technologies.
"promising" is a value judgment.  Some of these areas have had
"visible resources" depending at what budget level you looked.
An ion engine was the only way to seriously consider
a Halley mission, but then the President cut this, Ed Meese even came
to talk to Goldberger at Caltech about this and other directions for
JPL.  We need more of these technologies.  Question: how do you balance
these new technologies with the "research" which flies on the craft?
You have to argue with the geologist and the planetary scientist
who want results: tried and true.  It's not just NASA, we're just caught in the
middle.
> 	Question: Why wouldn't an asynchronous skyhook allow a
> 	high-flying air-breather (or detachable part thereof) to be
> 	injected into LEO?
> 
> Answer: A familiar scenario from previous articles on asynchronous skyhooks
> is a rendezvous between a 747 carrying a cargo module piggyback, and
> a tether. . . . 
> than to develop a hypersonic aircraft for the rendezvous.
> 
> _Greg
Can't wait till the test Tethered Satellite goes up eh?  Yes we are
looking at Mach 27 vehicles, and yes we are looking at cables.
We can use the bucks, however.
From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  {hplabs,ihnp4,dual,hao,decwrl,allegra}!ames!aurora!eugene
  emiya@ames-vmsb.ARPA
General disclaimer: the above are the opinions of the author and not
the Center or Agency.  Any mention of commerical products does not
constitute an endorsement and is only mentioned as a point of reference.

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

End of SPACE Digest V6 #69
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA18074; Wed, 8 Jan 86 03:01:04 PST
	id AA18074; Wed, 8 Jan 86 03:01:04 PST
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 86 03:01:04 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8601081101.AA18074@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #70

*** EOOH ***
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 86 03:01:04 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #70

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 6 : Issue 70

Today's Topics:
			  Re:  Tenth planet
			   Re: Tenth planet
		     Re: A High Tech Maginot Line
		      Re: The Bootstrap Problem
		     Phobos to Earth Via Skyhook
		       Re: Spacecraft emissions
			  Tuesday N.Y. Times
		  Re:  Skyhooks, Tethers, and Kites.
		      Re:  The Bootstrap Problem
			    Re: Star-Wars
		     Re: A High Tech Maginot Line
			   pulling heavy Gs
			     Re: Seasat 1
		       What happened to NOAA-8?
			    Guns in Japan
			   number of deaths
		   Rail guns, using the atmosphere
			      Van Allen
			   Re: L-5 Society
			Re: Re:  Tenth planet
			  Re:  Tenth planet
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 6 Jan 86 16:47:18 GMT
From: sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Stanley Friesen)
Subject: Re:  Tenth planet
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <6258@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
>
>Alas, Nemesis has met its fate :-).
>
>(Quick digression:  the theory alluded to here is the notion that periodic
>extinctions are caused by near approaches of a companion star, which is in a
>*very* long-period orbit [30MY or so], stirring up the Oort cloud and causing
>a rain of comets into the inner Solar System.)
>
>The problem with making the Sun a binary star is that Nemesis has to be a
>godawful long way out to have such a long orbital period, and it appears
>that such an orbit simply is not very stable over geological time scales.
	Another nail in the coffin. A recent re-analysis of the
original study(a statistical analysis of extinction rates) has
strongly suggested that the periodicity (actually 26MY) is wholely an
*artifact* of the statistical methodology used, in particular the
sampling method. The later study used a Monte-Carlo simulation of
uniform random extinctions and found that the method used by the
original study *still* showed a 26MY periodicity!
-- 
				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)
UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen
ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa

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

Date: 6 Jan 86 16:29:34 GMT
From: sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Stanley Friesen)
Subject: Re: Tenth planet
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <971@mmintl.UUCP> franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) writes:
>
>I have for some time suspected that there are a fair number of sub-stellar
>objects in the galaxy, which are not associated with any star system.
>....  Although there may be a lower limit to the size of the objects
>produced by the processes which produce stars, it seems unlikely that this
>point coincides with the ignition point.
>
>How many such objects are there likely to be?  For stars, there is a clear
>relationship between size and frequency: the smaller the size, the more
>stars there are at that scale.  There is no reason to believe this does not
>hold down to near the lower limit for the process.  Thus if objects
>appreciably smaller than .07 solar mass can be created in this way, one
>expects them to considerably outnumber the stars.  There is reason to think
>that objects as small as .0001 solar mass are possible, since this is the
>approximate size of the outer giant planets (Uranus and Neptune), which
>seem to have been formed in a similar fashion (although as part of the
>formation of the sun, not as independent events).
>
	As far as I know the mode of formation of the outer planets is
*very* close to that for stars. In fact a number of simulations
suggest that a very small change in initial conditions would have left
a small (type M or K) star where the Jovian planets are now. Given the
large number of binary(and larger) star systems, this seems quite
reasonable. Thus I see no reason at all why Uranus sized object could
not form independently also. Actually, I would expect the distribution
of sizes to peak at some point and taper off, thus the smallest
objects would likely be quite rare. But this would still leave quite a
few Jupiter/Saturn sized objects running around.
-- 
				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)
UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen
ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa

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

Date: 6 Jan 86 14:55:15 GMT
From: ihnp4!poseidon!brent@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Brent P. Callaghan)
Subject: Re: A High Tech Maginot Line
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>	Actually, there is an even *more* important question. What do
>we(or they) do if a violation is detected? We cannot really threaten
>to go to war over a violation, that would be over-reacting. Could we
>make any violation void the whole treaty and make it cause for the
>other side to resume nuclear developement? I am not sure that is
>practical. And why should we expect the US government to take any
>strong positive action obout such a violation, given that we have been
>simply ignoring numerous violations of existing treaties(that is
>except for meaningless diplomatic hand-slapping)? In other words the
>question is how is the treaty to be *enforced*?
At the next summit, the leader of the violating country gets
cream pied by the other leader.
With the world press invited of course.  :-)
-- 
				
Made in New Zealand -->		Brent Callaghan
				AT&T Information Systems, Lincroft, NJ
				{ihnp4|mtuxo|pegasus}!poseidon!brent
				(201) 576-3475

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

Date: Tue, 7 Jan 86 06:22:08 PST
From: ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: ihnp4!space
Subject: Re: The Bootstrap Problem
In-Reply-To: your article <12173196004.103.J.JPM@LOTS-B>

There was a spaceport similar to your idea described in Analog a couple
of years ago.  Boosters are use to lift cargo up to orbital heights
but without orbital velocity.  Then the spaceport grabs it and accelerates
it to matching velocity.  When it's cargo is discharged, load it up with
finished products (using garbage to top it off) and accelerate it out the
end of the spaceport (maintaining the spaceport's orbit) and dropping the
cargo gently in to the atmosphere.

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

Posted-Date: Tue 7 Jan 1986 08:56:40 EST
Date: Tue 7 Jan 1986 08:56:40 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Phobos to Earth Via Skyhook
To: space@mit-mc.arpa
Cc: Hans.Moravec@rover.ri.cmu.edu, dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa

Using the data on Kevlar and on Phobos's orbit, I got the following
numbers:  a 3000 km long kevlar cable stretched out from Phobos will
accelerate payloads to ~ 1 km/sec after escape from Mars's gravity
well.  Even with a safety factor of 2, the cable will have a taper
of less than 2:1.  A cable 7500 km long will accelerate payloads
to 3.1 km/sec after escape, and will have a taper of 25:1 with a
safety factor of two.  Injection into a Hohmann orbit from Mars to
Earth would require 2.63 km/sec velocity change if Mars and Earth
were in circular orbits and in the correct positions (they aren't, but
I'll ignore that).  However, such an injection would require a velocity
change nearly parallel to the ecliptic; Phobos's orbit is inclined
25 degrees.  The direction of the orbit can be modified by throwing
the payload into a Mars intersecting orbit and using the subsequent
encounter to fix the orbit's inclination.

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

Posted-Date: Tue 7 Jan 1986 11:15:30 EST
Date: Tue 7 Jan 1986 11:15:30 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Re: Spacecraft emissions
To: Informatix <vger!al@ucbvax.berkeley.edu>
In-Reply-To: vger!al's message of 7 Jan 86 00:07:23 GMT
Cc: space@mit-mc.arpa, dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa

>> Since the
>> scientific community has spent a huge amount of effort studying the
>> upper atmosphere and devising various models of chemical
>> transformations, the precise answer should be relatively easy to
>> obtain.  
>You have a lot more faith in those models and research than I do. The accuracy
>of weather prediction should give you an idea of how good such models really
>are - not very (maybe in a few decades ...).

Actually, atmospheric chemical models and weather forecasting are not
closely related.  Current chemical models have proven inaccurate
for this reason: there are thousands of chemical reactions going
on in the atmosphere at various rates, and not all are well understood.
In contrast, the physical processes in weather are reasonably well
understood, but lack of fine grained measurements cripples forecasting.

The January issue of Science 86 has an interesting article on new
weather forecasting tools, primarily new sensing technologies.  The most
interesting uses two polar-orbiting satellites with CO2-laser radar
to get global wind measurements.  Meteorologists think these satellites
alone will make 7-10 day forecasts as accurate as current 24-hour
forecasts.  Currently, wind measurements come from weather balloons.

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

Posted-Date: Tue 7 Jan 1986 12:42:18 EST
Date: Tue 7 Jan 1986 12:42:18 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Tuesday N.Y. Times
To: space@mit-mc.arpa
Cc: dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa

The Tuesday NY Times's (1/7/86) Science News section's feasture article
is on novel launchers, primarily concentrating on tethers and skyhooks.
The illustration shows a nonsynchronous skyhook.  Launch Loops and other
systems are mentioned.

Separately, the paper reports that NOAA-8 has been lost in polar orbit.
NORAD reports detecting debris in its orbit -- a victim of collision with
space junk?

The paper also has an anti-space station editorial ("Adrift in Space",
first editorial page).  It supports automated probes instead.

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

Date: 6 Jan 86 03:59:29 GMT
From: amdcad!cae780!weitek!mmm@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Mark Thorson)
Subject: Re:  Skyhooks, Tethers, and Kites.
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Henry Spencer says the gases evaporating off the sun and
earth are way too thin for the purpose of a space kite.
How about the light from the sun itself?  People
have proposed using the light pressure to propel
spacecaft.  Of course, I could be talking about a BIG
kite.  There's plenty of room up there.  That's why they
call it space :-)
Someone else said if you could build the kite, you
should build the equatorial skyhook instead.  I agree,
but the skyhook won't have a low synchronous orbit over
the pole.  You might want to hang the SDI from it.
If you can do both, you just might want to.
Mark Thorson  (...!cae780!weitek!mmm)

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

Date: Tue, 7 Jan 86 11:09:20 PST
From: mcgeer@ji (Rick McGeer)
To: J.JPM@lots-b
Subject: Re:  The Bootstrap Problem
Cc: space@mit-mc.arpa

>
>As much as I like to play with concepts such as 200 km long
>accelerators in orbit to boost sub-orbital payloads to low earth
>orbit, these proposals have usually left me with an empty feeling.
>The problem is that in order to construct such a large structure in
>space, you already have to have a good space transportation system. In
>other words, how do we get there from here?
>
>What do people think of the prospects of placing a SMALL accelerator
>into orbit, and using it to give a velocity boost to payloads coming
>from earth?  This would still require some form of earth based
>accelerator system or the like, but over time you could, by building
>more orbital accelerators, reduce the velocity that needs to be
>imparted on earth.  This would allow you to build more, cheaper earth
>based accelerators, and thus a positive feedback would begin.
>
>The question is, what is the maximum size (in length and acceleration)
>of an orbital accelerator that we could reasonaby construct using
>Shuttle or immediate post-Shuttle systems?  And what is the biggest
>earth based accelerator/launch system that we could construct?
>Finally, can the first impart enough velocity to the second to make
>orbital velocity?
>
>
>Jim
>-------
>
>

That's not really the problem.  The problem is that mv = mv; in other words,
any momentum change that you impart to the payload is also imparted to the
accelerator and whatever it's anchored to.  If the accelerator is earth-based,
it's not a problem, since the momentum change is imparted to the earth, which
is highly massive, and so the resulting velocity change is negligible.

For a space-based accelerator, things are very different.  With each
outbound (inbound) launch, the accelerator's orbital velocity is reduced 
(increased) by an amount equal to dv (payload) * m (payload) / m (accelerator).

One way of getting around this is to have the space-based accelerator fire off
two payloads with every shot, with equal momenta changes in exactly opposite
directions.  In this way, the accelerator's orbit is kept constant.  The
two shots could be shuttle re-entry and lunar orbit transfer, for example.

				Rick.

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

Date: 8 Jan 86 01:47:45 GMT
From: ernie!rimey@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Ken &)
Subject: Re: Star-Wars
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> Has anyone set up a Star Wars (aka SDI) newsgroup yet?
Try mod.politics.arms-d
					Ken Rimey

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

Date: 7 Jan 86 05:42:45 GMT
From: bellcore!petrus!karn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Phil R. Karn)
Subject: Re: A High Tech Maginot Line
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Everyone opposed to treaties with the Russkies seems to think that we're
forever locked into them, no matter what the other side does.
All of the arms treaties I've seen, however, contain clauses stating that
either side can, if its "supreme interests" are jepardized by
"extraordinary" circumstances related to the subject of the treaty, give
notice and formally withdraw from the treaty. Neither side ever has, though.
Has net.sdi been created yet?
Phil

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

Date: Tue 7 Jan 86 23:35:50-EST
From: LINDSAY@tl-20b.arpa
Subject: pulling heavy Gs
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa
Cc: LINDSAY@tl-20b.arpa

There were comments recently about whether a payload could contain a rocket
and still survive a pretty rugged launch.

In the late 1960's, McGill University was shooting instrument packages into
the upper atmosphere. Note I said "shooting", not "launching" ! They had
actually talked the U.S. Navy out of a battleship gun that had been
mothballed since the first world war. They moved it to Jamaica and went into
business as "Project HARP". Each shot involved packing the gun with wood
pieces, and placing the payload in a hollow in the middle. Then you packed
explosives in back of that, closed the breech, pointed the gun straight up,
and blammo ! There was serious discussion at the time about putting a rocket
motor into the payload, and going all the way to orbit.

Even more impressive is the "proximity fuze" of 1943. It was a one-vacuum-tube
radar, built to be installed in the noses of anti-aircraft shells. 

There was talk a few years ago about developing an anti-aircraft missile that
would bank to turn, and that would be a lifting body rather than have wings.
The stated advantage was that it would pull 100 or 200 Gs going around corners.

  From all the above, I conclude that rugged equipment really can be made.

At Bell Northern Research, they have a ditty which is about the best advice I 
ever heard:

     "Build it strong
      and build it stout
      out of things
      you know about."


Don Lindsay
-------

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

Date: 7 Jan 86 00:06:51 GMT
From: amdcad!cae780!leadsv!morse@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Terry Morse)
Subject: Re: Seasat 1
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> Very true. Depending on which rumor mill you listen to, an alternative
> explanation for the failure of Seasat 1 is that somebody discovered it was
> able to detect the slight disturbances of the ocean surface caused by
> missile-carrying submarines underneath.
> 
I have always heard that Seasat died due to a single point of failure in
its linkage from the solar panels to the batteries.  I think that is called
a design flaw in aerospace jargon.  Translated, that means to start looking for
another line of work.
Of course, this is my opinion only and not that of my employer.
-- 
Terry Morse  (408)743-1487
{ ihnp4!amdcad!cae780 } | { allegra!sun!sunncal } !leadsv!morse

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

Date: 8 Jan 1986  03:25 EST (Wed)
From: "Leonard N. Foner" <FONER%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@mit-mc.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: What happened to NOAA-8?
Cc: Foner%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@mit-mc.arpa
Reply-To: Foner%MIT-OZ@MIT-XX

Earlier today I read (in the NYT Sci-Tech section) that NOAA-8 was no
longer operational, and that pieces of it were being tracked in orbit.
Unfortunately, the one-paragraph squib said very little else, and I
don't even have that to refer to any more.

Does anyone know more about this?  Tnx.

						<LNF>

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

Date: 8 Jan 86 04:05:20 EST
From: Dale.Amon@fas.ri.cmu.edu
Subject: Guns in Japan
To: BBoard.Maintainer@a.cs.cmu.edu

Just to keep the history straight, guns were indeed banned in Japan, and I
believe the enforcement was via the death penalty. It was quite succesful.

Of course, the REASON that they were banned was so that the highly trained
Samurai could continue to keep the Japanese peasantry from becoming uppity,
since a peasant with a gun was the equal to any wealthy noble. Had we had a
similary perspicuity in the European nobility, we might well still be living
under feudalism. (Although that is, of course, somewhat of a simplification)

This has little to do with space, but when historical references are bandied
as 'proofs' of something, I feel it is important to look a little deeper
than simple bald statements.

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

Date: 8 Jan 86 04:20:24 EST
From: Dale.Amon@fas.ri.cmu.edu
Subject: number of deaths
To: BBoard.Maintainer@a.cs.cmu.edu

The logic just doesn't hold. COntractors on large projects use statistica
factors to calculate the number of deaths expected on each large gbuilding,
bridge or dam. We can predict quite accurately the number who will die each
year from auto accidents, from aircraft. So would you imply that we should
not build a bridge because we know that two workers WILL die from fatal
accidents before it is completed?

There is no course of action that cannot be counted in fatalities. The only
course possible is to compare cost and benefit and choose the course which
will cost fewer lives. If getting orbiting power stations up with Orion
would cost us 1000 lives per year of excess cancer 20 years from now, while
coal fired plants cost us 6000 per year (to use an unverified figure posted
somewhat earlier) then the choice is crystal clear. I do not know if the
numbers are that well known. I do not even know if the cancer projections
are wind out the bunghole, because they may be based on 'no minimum dose'
instead of 'threshold dose', and thus highly inflated from what will occur
in reality.

Going into space is going to cost lives, but that will not stop us. It never
stopped human's before. The bottom line will be that whoever risks the high
stakes game first will dominate the solar system as thoroughly as Britain
did in the age of exploration. And the future 'superpower' need not even be
the US or the USSR. It could just as easily be Japan or Europe or India:
whoever takes the big risks will take it all. And that is as it should be.
The meek will inherit the earth, because the rest of us will have left for
the stars.

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

Date: 8 Jan 86 04:33:19 EST
From: Dale.Amon@fas.ri.cmu.edu
Subject: Rail guns, using the atmosphere
To: BBoard.Maintainer@a.cs.cmu.edu

I will not go into great detail, but people have certainly considered using
railguns and such from the surface of the earth, and I seem to remember a
factor like 5% or 10% ablation loss. The acceleration can be any number you
like, it needn't be at the maximum. The only limiting factor is the length
of the rail. High mountains at the equator are preferable.

Since you can keep acceleration down a bit, you needn't worry about
destroying transfer and insertion engines.

I would also like to note on the use of the atmosphere. The atmosphere, in
conjunction with much smaller burns than required otherwise, is very useful
for making aerodynamic orbital plane changes. Such maneuvers are critical
for a near term military TAV or a cheap equatorial to polar OTV.

Aerodynamic braking is also useful for discarding excess energy from
interplanetary flights. Remember the movie 2010? Remember the worries about
returning Apollo CM's skipping too shallowly and going into solar orbit?

Old fashioned rocket delta vee is still needed, but not nearly as much. In
one case you use wings to change your orbital vector by actually banking,
then you add back the slight dv used to dip into the edge of the atmosphere
plus the dv lost to heat, plus a recircularization burn.

IN the other case, you use the energy loss in the atmosphere to replace
retroburns, and then simply circularize.

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

Date: 8 Jan 86 04:56:06 EST
From: Dale.Amon@fas.ri.cmu.edu
Subject: Van Allen
To: BBoard.Maintainer@a.cs.cmu.edu

A few mentions have been made about the Van Allen article in Scientific
American, so I have decided to post here the letter I have sent to that
magazine:


          Dear sirs:

               If  nothing  else,  one  must  give Dr. Van Allen credit for
          consistancy; he has been taking pot shots at manned space  flight
          for 25 years.

               Even  if  I  were  to agree with his many points (which I do
          not), it would matter little. There is a great  deal  of  support
          for  building  a  civilization that is not dependant on one small
          and  resource  limited  planet,  and  this  support  goes  beyond
          arguments based on such short term thinking.

               For all too long, those of us who share the dream have tried
          to  couch it in terms of 'spinoffs' and immediate returns. I have
          no doubt that the returns will be there and  that  they  will  be
          large. But the real motivation for going is that we are human and
          we are inquisitive, adventurous creatures. We need frontiers, and
          I  do  not mean frontiers for a few of us who are highly educated
          scientists. The vicarious thrill of a Star Wars  movie  will  not
          succeed as bread and circuses to keep the masses occupied while a
          few  members  of  an  elite  pore  over  their data. The frontier
          belongs to all who are willing to go.

               Space is a place, not a mission. There is room for  Dr.  Van
          Allen's  research,  and  there  is  also room for the generations
          which follow us to live, work and play.

               From my childhood on, I have always considered manned  space
          flight  the  main  event. We send probes not just for the sake of
          sending probes, but as scouts  in  the  advance  guard  of  HUMAN
          exploration.  The  primary  motivation  of the people who support
          space exploration is NOT "I want to watch". It is "I want to GO!"

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

Date: 7 Jan 86 20:55:46 GMT
From: ihnp4!houxm!mtuxo!mtgzz!dls@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (d.l.skran)
Subject: Re: L-5 Society
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

=> 
=> > I recently resigned my life membership in the L5 society.  They
=> > are somewhat effective as lobbyists (sp?).  The publication is
=> > boring.  But mostly I got fed up with their 'I hate the Russians'
For an all volunteer publication with NO paid articles it's pretty
damn good - and getting better under Greg Barr's leadership.
=> > line.  Not that the Russian leadership is a bunch of nice guys, but
=> > they have made significant contributions to space development and
=> > the Russian people ARE nice guys.
I am astounded and confused by this. Where did you ever get these ideas?
The L5 Society is not anti-Russian and insofar as I know(I've been
a member since 1979)I've never seen an anti-Russian(per se) article
in the L5 news. Yes, there are members(Jerry Pournelle et al) who
are strongly anti-communist, but the society has never expressed
a position or taken any anti-Russian stands. Please be specific
in making such accusations so that others can see where you
are coming from.
=> 
=> Indeed, many L-5'ers see SDI as the ticket for moving people into space, and
=> that blinds them to its other consequences. It almost seems that to them,
=> ANY space project is automatically a GOOD space project.
Some L5 members may hold this position. The Society is
neutral, and the leadership is well aware of the dangers of being
pro or anti SDI.
=> 
=> Seems to me that Werner von Braun once had a problem like that.
=> 
I think you are selling both von Braun and those L5 members who advocate
SDI short. Supporting military efforts entails enormous risk, but
the risk of doing nothing is also enormous.
I think both groups were(and are) aware of the risks. They have just
weighed them up differently than you have.
It's easy to pick on von Braun, but I strongly suspect that without him
we would not yet have made it to the moon.
It is nothing less than a national tragedy that the only way money can
be broken loose for many projects(eg AI for many years) is by claiming
that it is in the interests of national defense.
=> Phil Karn
=> (L-5 society member, but wondering)
=> 
To be perfectly clear: L5 supports peaceful civilian uses of
space as far as I know, and is neutral on SDI.
Dale Skran
(L5 member dedicated to making L5 better rather than complaining
about its admitted shortcomings)
=>

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

Date: 8 Jan 86 05:11:13 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!mordor!jtk@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Jordan Kare)
Subject: Re: Re:  Tenth planet
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>> 
>>      Perhaps the "tenth planet" is not actually a planet, but perhaps a weak
>> stellar companion to Sol, already known as "Nemesis".
>
>	Named (or so claimed by the author of the paper) such because if such
>a companion is not found, the publication will prove to be HIS nemesis.
>
	Nemesis can't be the "tenth planet" affecting Neptune's 
orbit, as it would be too far away (and would move both Neptune 
and the rest of the solar system including the sun by the same amount).
	There is a theory that Planet X (either "ex" or
"ten" depending on how much you like Roman numerals :-) exists, and
has a peculiar orbit that precesses in such a way as to disturb
the cometary cloud and cause comet showers (and extinctions)
every thirty or so million years.  This is an alternative to the
Nemesis theory, but it doesn't work, on various (rather complicated) 
celestial mechanics grounds, leaving Nemesis as the leading hypothesis.  
	Also, "Nemesis" was not the first choice for the name
of the companion star.  Since (if it exists) it was responsible
for killing off the dinosaurs, first choice was to name it after the
most famous mythological dragon killer and call it "George".
		-- A Muller Group Nemesis Hunter

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

Date: 8 Jan 86 05:29:56 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!mordor!jtk@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Jordan Kare)
Subject: Re:  Tenth planet
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Sorry I didn't catch this before my preceeding posting
>>      Perhaps the "tenth planet" is not actually a planet, but perhaps a weak
>> stellar companion to Sol, already known as "Nemesis".
>
>Alas, Nemesis has met its fate :-).
>
>(Quick digression:  the theory alluded to here is the notion that periodic
>extinctions are caused by near approaches of a companion star, which is in a
>*very* long-period orbit [30MY or so], stirring up the Oort cloud and causing
>a rain of comets into the inner Solar System.)
>
>The problem with making the Sun a binary star is that Nemesis has to be a
>godawful long way out to have such a long orbital period, and it appears
>that such an orbit simply is not very stable over geological time scales.
>It is not consistent with extinctions at clockwork-regular intervals, at
>the very least.
>-- 
>				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
>				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
This is not correct.  Extensive simulations (Notably by Piet Hut
of the Princeton Institute for Advanced Studies) have shown that
the mean lifetime of Nemesis's orbit is roughly a billion years.
The orbit is disturbed by passing stars, dust clouds, etc. but
can easily remain stable enough to explain the few data we have,
which only cover the last 250 million years (a mere moment... :-))
If Nemesis was formed with the solar system, then it probably started
in a closer orbit and has been perturbed out to its present
distance; in another couple of billion years it might be gone
(so we need to find it quick :-)).
The evidence for periodic extinctions and periodic cratering, which
the Nemesis theory was created to explain, is subject to dispute.
(The evidence for catastrophic impacts associated with extinctions
is very strong; only the periodicity is speculative).
But IF periodic extinctions do occur, the Nemesis theory DOES 
explain them, and is still the ONLY theory which does so successfully.
Despite what you may read in the New York Times editorial pages, 
Nemesis lives on....
				Jordin Kare
				Formerly of UC Berkeley/LBL Astrophysics
				Home of Nemesis and much, much more....

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

End of SPACE Digest V6 #70
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA04945; Thu, 9 Jan 86 03:00:57 PST
	id AA04945; Thu, 9 Jan 86 03:00:57 PST
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 86 03:00:57 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8601091100.AA04945@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #71

*** EOOH ***
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 86 03:00:57 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #71

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 6 : Issue 71

Today's Topics:
       Re: Asynchronous orbital skyhooks (those two masses...)
   If you don't climb straight up it's a much longer trip to orbit
			      use for ET
 Re:  If you don't climb straight up it's a much longer trip to orbit
	      The soap-bubble theory of galaxy formation
			   Asymmetric Sugar
		       Re: Shuttle sonic booms
			   Re: tenth planet
		     Aquiring a charge in Space ?
			    Re: rail guns
		     Aquiring a charge in Space ?
		    Re: Aviation Week on Star Wars
			Re: Galactic Soapsuds
		  Re: Asynchronous orbital skyhooks
			    Re: Star-Wars
			"Innerstellar" probes
       Space Station, SDI, L5, and the Militarization of Space
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 6 Jan 86 22:52:14 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!harvard!bbnccv!bbncca!linus!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Asynchronous orbital skyhooks (those two masses...)
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> if things go wrong, skyhooks fall DOWN.  Remember the Skylab hysteria?  If
> a skyhook breaks at almost any point in its rotation, one part goes up, and
> the other hits the atmosphere FAST.  Kevlar cable will burn up in short
> order...
As somebody (Clarke?) pointed out, a falling skyhook cable hitting
atmosphere would be incredibly spectacular:  a *sheet* of flame across
the sky!  Might be worth doing just so you could sell tickets... :-)
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

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

X-Sent: to SU-AI.ARPA by IMSSS.FRONSTAD.EDU via ETHERNET with PUPFTP; 1986-Jan-08 06:32:19 PST (=GMT-8hr)
X-Mailer: EMACS -> PSL (FORMAT+SEND-ALL) -> PUPFTP
Date: 1986 January 08 06:27:39 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM@imsss.stanford.edu>
To: amdcad!cae780!weitek!mmm@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Cc: SPACE@mit-mc.arpa
Subject: If you don't climb straight up it's a much longer trip to orbit
Sender: REM%IMSSS@su-score.arpa (for undeliverable-mail notifications)
Reply-To: REM%IMSSS@SU-SCORE.ARPA (temporary until IMSSS.STANFORD.EDU registered)

MT: Date: 27 Dec 85 21:36:45 GMT
MT: From: amdcad!cae780!weitek!mmm@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Mark Thorson)
MT: Subject: Re: Skyhooks, tethers, and kites.
MT: Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
MT: To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa
MT: With all the interest in skyhooks and tethers, I'm inspired to ask "How
MT: about a kite?" ... But the kite string would be tangent to the
MT: earth, hence you could WALK into space (its only a hundred miles to LEO,
MT: any good athlete should be able to make it in a few days).

I beg to differ. It's 100 miles up, but going out tangentially (on one
leg of a right triangle whose hypotenuse goes from the center of the
Earth to the orbital point, with the right angle at the tether-launch
point = north pole) it's about SQRT(4100**2 - 4000**2) = SQRT(810000)
= 900 miles. Some athletes indeed may be capable of walking 900 miles
with all the food and water and air they need on their back, but not
many. Your statement above "YOU could walk ..." is probably untrue for
any reader of this list except possibly Gene Salamin. (Hey Gene, care
to respond, could you or anyone you know?)

(Pardon tardy reply but IMSSS has been down almost continuously from
 Dec 30 thru Jan 06 and I'm just now catching up on replying to mail.)

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

X-Sent: to SU-AI.ARPA by IMSSS.FRONSTAD.EDU via ETHERNET with PUPFTP; 1986-Jan-08 07:17:28 PST (=GMT-8hr)
X-Mailer: EMACS -> PSL (FORMAT+SEND-ALL) -> PUPFTP
Date: 1986 January 08 06:53:42 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM@imsss.stanford.edu>
To: ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!hao!ames!al@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Cc: SPACE@mit-mc.arpa
Subject: use for ET
Sender: REM%IMSSS@su-score.arpa (for undeliverable-mail notifications)
Reply-To: REM%IMSSS@SU-SCORE.ARPA (temporary until IMSSS.STANFORD.EDU registered)

AG: Date: 31 Dec 85 00:56:52 GMT
AG: From: ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!hao!ames!al@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Al Globus)
AG: Subject: Re: Shuttle External Tanks and Space Stations
AG: Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
AG: To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa
    (Re carrying ET into space, what additional uses we could find for it)
AG: Another: a place for trash (a major problem on shuttle)

Good idea. Lots of stuff that we consider trash one one flight may
come in handy on another later flight. Often something of a particular
shape or material or flexibility or size or somesuch is needed to get
around some unanticipated problem (random example, you need to prop
something open and a used wad of paper or a dirty cup is just the
right size to do the job, or you need a way to shock-absorb some piece
of equipment that keeps failing every time somebody bumps the side of
the cabin, and some old styrofoam cups torn into strips and tied
together with bent pieces of wire are just right for floating the
equipment in the middle of the cabin where it doesn't receive
vibrations from the walls). Let's make a habit of dumping everything
not needed for descent into the ET just in case some part of it is
urgently needed on a later flight.

AG: Another: a source of raw materials for manufacture

This has already been mentionned (aluminum etc.)

AG: Another: mounting area for space exposure experiments

Good idea. All we need is a hand-crank drill for making holes in the
side of the ET and something to stick in the hole that won't come out
easily. In zero-gee, a T-shaped piece of flexible material (styrofoam
cup?) could be stuck into the hole and remain gently wedged in there
forever. The other end could be fastened to the exposure experiment.
To remove it, just hank hard enough to unwedge it from the hole. For
just hanging things together in zero-gee so they don't gradually drift
into different orbits, incredibly crude and weak fasteners will suffice.

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

Date: Wed, 8 Jan 86 12:09:31 PST
From: mcgeer@ji (Rick McGeer)
To: REM%IMSSS@su-score.arpa
Subject: Re:  If you don't climb straight up it's a much longer trip to orbit
Cc: space@mit-mc.arpa

>Date: 1986 January 08 06:27:39 PST (=GMT-8hr)
>Message-Id: SU-IMSSS.REM.A132546146163.G0365
>From: Robert Elton Maas <REM@imsss.stanford.edu>
>To: amdcad!cae780!weitek!mmm@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
>Cc: SPACE@mit-mc.arpa
>Subject: If you don't climb straight up it's a much longer trip to orbit
>
>MT: Date: 27 Dec 85 21:36:45 GMT
>MT: From: amdcad!cae780!weitek!mmm@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Mark Thorson)
>MT: Subject: Re: Skyhooks, tethers, and kites.
>MT: Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
>MT: To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa
>MT: With all the interest in skyhooks and tethers, I'm inspired to ask "How
>MT: about a kite?" ... But the kite string would be tangent to the
>MT: earth, hence you could WALK into space (its only a hundred miles to LEO,
>MT: any good athlete should be able to make it in a few days).
>
>I beg to differ. It's 100 miles up, but going out tangentially (on one
>leg of a right triangle whose hypotenuse goes from the center of the
>Earth to the orbital point, with the right angle at the tether-launch
>point = north pole) it's about SQRT(4100**2 - 4000**2) = SQRT(810000)
>= 900 miles. Some athletes indeed may be capable of walking 900 miles
>with all the food and water and air they need on their back, but not
>many. Your statement above "YOU could walk ..." is probably untrue for
>any reader of this list except possibly Gene Salamin. (Hey Gene, care
>to respond, could you or anyone you know?)
>
>(Pardon tardy reply but IMSSS has been down almost continuously from
> Dec 30 thru Jan 06 and I'm just now catching up on replying to mail.)


Well, all of this started me wondering just how hard a climb it would be.
Like all good physics calculations, we ignore atmospheric resistance, storms,
etc, and think of only gravity...

If we assume the centre of the earth is 6500 KM from the pole, we have the
distance from the centre of the earth to the traveller out on the kite string
is sqrt(6500^2 + x^2), where x is the distance from the north pole along the
string.  The force on the traveller = cos(mu) * GMeM/(6500^2+x^2), where mu is
the angle between the kite string and the radius vector to the centre of the
earth.  If x = 0, mu = pi/2; otherwise mu = arctan(6500/x); at 160 KM out,
mu ~= 1.34. (about 78 degrees).

dF/dx is then (-K sin (mu) mu' (x^2+6500^2) - K cos (mu) 2x) /( x^2 + 6500^2).

mu' turns out to be -6500/(6500^2+x^2), so dF/dx turns out to be:

K/(x^2 + 6500^2) * (6500 sin(mu) - 2x cos(mu)).  Since I'm interested in the
maximum of F, we look for the 0, and hence get to cancel out inconvenient
factors., we get:

2x cos(mu) - 6500 sin(mu) = 0, or 2x = 6500 tan(mu) = 6500^2/x =>

2x^2 = 6500^2, or x ~= 5000 KM, or about 3000 miles.  This is comfortably
outside the x = 1500 KM distance of the kite, so the maximum occurs at the kite
itself, where the force is equal to .22 * G * Me* M /(6500^2+1500^2).  At this
point, the force is 1.97 M.

How much is that?  It turns out to be the equivalent of climbing a 77 degree
hill on earth.  Not much help from gravity here, and I doubt if even Gene
Saliman could climb that hill.

						Rick

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

Date: 8 Jan 86 14:26:35 GMT
From: decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-amber!dipirro@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (GENERIC PERSONAL_NAME STRING)
Subject: The soap-bubble theory of galaxy formation
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>A recent 3-D map of the distribution of the galaxies in the universe
>has given evidence that the mass is distibuted roughly on the surface
>of large bubble shaped regions of space.  The interiors of these regions
>are largely devoid of galaxies.  The effect is a "Soapsuds" distribution
>of galaxies.  This all seems to indicate that some very explosive events
>and the resultant shock waves very early in the history of the universe
>had a profound effect on the evolution of the galaxies.
I also read this study. The 3D map is currently of one quarter of the
northern hemisphere of the universe (a 3D map of the universe would be
quite an accomplishment, but which way is north in the universe?). They expect
to find the same "bubble" effect in the other parts of the universe. Does this
mean we should stop talking about the big bang and start talking about the
big bangs? This seems to imply that *all* galaxies are not moving away from
each other but away from the center of their bubble. Are the bubbles themselves
moving or will some bubbles eventually collide (the bubbles do seem to be
expanding)? In the latter case, we should be able to discover some galaxies
actually moving towards the milky way. I just hope that some omnipotent being
doesn't accidently pop our bubble.
Steve DiPirro
Digital Equipment Corp.

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

Date:  Wed, 8 Jan 86 11:12 CST
From: Slocum@hi-multics.arpa
Subject:  Asymmetric Sugar
Cc: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

What would be better is shoes and socks, rather than gloves and mittens.
At least the mittens I've worn are also right- and left-handed.  That
was why I used socks.
    Brett Slocum

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

Date: 8 Jan 86 14:37:15 PST (Wednesday)
From: swigdor.es@xerox.arpa
Subject: Re: Shuttle sonic booms
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Cc: swigdor.es@xerox.arpa

Speaking of the sonic booms from the shuttle any news on when it will
start booming again down at the Cape.  The only thing I can say about
those twin sonic booms is that in a way I am both happy and sad at every
shuttle landing at EAB.  I live in Canyon Country about 50 miles
south-west of Edwards and each landing does a number on my house.  The
house shakes and the window rattles and I now know what is like to live
next to the only active space runway.  Well at least I know when to turn
on the TV to watch the landings without having to put up with too much
bull from the networks.  Gee I guess that its only a matter of time
before somebody sues NASA for lowering their home values because of the
shuttle sonic boom (it will most likely be some body in Kansas). :-)

Sheldon Wigdor

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

Date:  Wed, 8 Jan 86 11:14 CST
From: Slocum@hi-multics.arpa
Subject:  Re: tenth planet
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

As I recall, Voyager (I or II) detected the tenth planet.  It lies
between Saturn and Uranus, and is rather small.  It has been named
Charon, (Roman god that paddles the boat across the River Styx, I
think).  This planet probably doesn't account for all of the
perturbations of Uranus and Neptune, either.

(Interesting sidelight:  Astrologers have already begun arguing about
the possible astrological significance of Charon.  )

   Brett Slocum
   (Slocum@HI-MULTICS.ARPA)

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

Date: 8 Jan 86 18:12 EST
From: Emanuel.henr@xerox.arpa
Subject: Aquiring a charge in Space ?
In-Reply-To: Ted Anderson <ota@s1-b.arpa>'s message of Wed, 8 Jan 86
 03:01:52 PST
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Cc: Emanuel.henr@xerox.arpa

	If a body is in low Earth orbit, will the surfaces of the object become
charged by triboelectric effect from collisions with molecules that are
present, albiet present though few in number compared to the atmosphere,
in the space it passes through.  Is there a reasonable guess as to the
charge level that might result.  I expect there might be an equilibrium
level that is reached, but that is just a guess.

	(triboelectric generation is generation of charge due to rubbing
dissimilar materials together.  Fur and hard rubber, or dragging your
feet on a wool carpet. )

							Keith Emanuel
							Human Factors
							Xerox Corp.

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

Date:  Wed, 8 Jan 86 11:23 CST
From: Slocum@hi-multics.arpa
Subject:  Re: rail guns
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In regards to the energy involved in electromagnetic acceleration, much
of the energy needed to accelerate an object can be recovered in the
deceleration process.  Using electricity to induce a magnetic field, and
thereby generate kinetic energy, can be turned around to use a moving
object to generate a magnetic field that generates electricity.  This is
the motor/generator effect.  If you apply current to a motor, it moves
the shaft.  If you move the shaft, you generate current.

The major losses would be atmospheric drag, and all the friction of the
tubes or whatever you are using for "rail guns".

    Brett Slocum
    (Slocum@HI-MULTICS.ARPA)
Pp.>S.  Been off the ARPANET for about two weeks. Hope this is still
relevant.

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

Date: 8 Jan 86 18:12 EST
From: Emanuel.henr@xerox.arpa
Subject: Aquiring a charge in Space ?
In-Reply-To: Ted Anderson <ota@s1-b.arpa>'s message of Wed, 8 Jan 86
 03:01:52 PST
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Cc: Emanuel.henr@xerox.arpa

	If a body is in low Earth orbit, will the surfaces of the object become
charged by triboelectric effect from collisions with molecules that are
present, albiet present though few in number compared to the atmosphere,
in the space it passes through.  Is there a reasonable guess as to the
charge level that might result.  I expect there might be an equilibrium
level that is reached, but that is just a guess.

	(triboelectric generation is generation of charge due to rubbing
dissimilar materials together.  Fur and hard rubber, or dragging your
feet on a wool carpet. )

							Keith Emanuel
							Human Factors
							Xerox Corp.

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

Date: 8 Jan 86 18:50:33 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!caip!topaz!nike!medin@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Milo S. Medin)
Subject: Re: Aviation Week on Star Wars
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Al, you seem to think that nuclear war is to be avoided at any cost.
Clearly, if this were the case, we wouldn't be pursuing current
defense goals.  The fact is, we in the US would prefer to
start a nuclear war than to relinquish our national sovereignty.
Also, taking a position like that would erode deterrence and increase
the risk of war.  One element of deterrence is will.  If you have
capabilities, even if the other side is confident in those capabilities,
if you are not willing to use them they are not an effective deterrent.
					Milo

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

Date: 8 Jan 86 05:52:30 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!harvard!talcott!cfa!wyatt@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Bill Wyatt)
Subject: Re: Galactic Soapsuds
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> 
> I read an interesting article in our local newspaper and was wondering
> if anyone has a pointer to the original scientific paper.
> 
> A recent 3-D map of the distribution of the galaxies in the universe
> has given evidence that the mass is distibuted roughly on the surface
> of large bubble shaped regions of space.  The interiors of these regions
> are largely devoid of galaxies.  The effect is a "Soapsuds" distribution
> of galaxies.  This all seems to indicate that some very explosive events
> and the resultant shock waves very early in the history of the universe
> had a profound effect on the evolution of the galaxies.
> ...
> 					<Art@ACC.ARPA>
The article you want hasn't been published yet, but will be in the
Astrophysical Journal Letters to the Editor (abbreviated Ap.J.Let. I
think).  The authors are Huchra, Geller, and De L'Apparent, all here at
the Center for Astrophysics.
These results were just presented to the scientific community at large
at the Winter Meeting of the AAS (American Astronomical Society) this
morning in Houston (Tues., Jan 7th). They were supposed to not be made
public until then, but the N.Y. Times and, I think, the A.P., picked it
up. As usual, the article (at least in the NYT) had a few distortions
and confusions, but was basically pretty good.
I've seen the 3D galaxy plots, in the form of a computer-generated film
rotating the map through all sorts of orientations, and they really do
strongly suggest bubbles.  While this is very important stuff, I think
we were a little suprised at the level of media interest.
If you *ABSOLUTELY* need a preprint or something, e-mail me, and I'll
tell you who you need to write to get a copy.
-- 
Bill    UUCP:  {harvard,genrad,allegra,ihnp4}!wjh12!cfa!wyatt
Wyatt   ARPA:  wyatt%cfa.UUCP@harvard.ARPA

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

Date: 7 Jan 86 17:19:45 GMT
From: decvax!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Wayne Throop)
Subject: Re: Asynchronous orbital skyhooks
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>	Question: Why wouldn't an asynchronous skyhook allow a
>	high-flying air-breather (or detachable part thereof) to be
>	injected into LEO?
> Answer: A familiar scenario from previous articles on asynchronous skyhooks
> is a rendezvous between a 747 carrying a cargo module piggyback, and
> a tether.
I think the tether/skyhook in the subsonic scenario would have to be
beyond current engineering practice.  My intent here was to ask if it
was feasible with an asynchronous currently-designable skyhook (say, of
Kevlar) to boost a cargo into LEO without using a ground catapult or any
non-reusable reaction thrusters.  This seems to imply a hypersonic
transport of some sort, since the best delta-v from the skyhook won't
boost from the near-standstill of a 747 to orbit.
Note also that the investment in the hypersonic transport development
would be swamped by the skyhook development costs (or so I suppose).  I
agree that it would be less costly to use the skyhook for the entire
delta-v, but this (as far as I know) just can't be done yet.  I was
proposing a hybrid system to "get our feet wet" with skyhook technology.
So let me rephrase.  Is it possible with 198x technology to get to LEO
using a totally reusable booster and an asynchronous skyhook, and would
this be cheaper than using disposable or partly disposable reaction
boosters.  In essence this question rests on three issues:
    Can enough delta-v be supplied by a skyhook to make a
    nearly-off-the-shelf (and completely reusable) transport workable?
    Can some plausible and nearly-off-the-shelf station-keeping
    mechanism for this skyhook deal with atmospheric drag, at reasonable
    traffic densities?
    Will the money needed to get the skyhook in orbit and the transport
    designed and built be plausibly fundable, either governmentally or
    privately?
These questions are left as an excersize for the interested reader :-).
-- 
Wayne Throop at Data General, RTP, NC
<the-known-world>!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw

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

Date: 8 Jan 86 15:36:59 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!cmcl2!lanl!crs@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Star-Wars
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> > Has anyone set up a Star Wars (aka SDI) newsgroup yet?
> 
> Try mod.politics.arms-d
See also current discussions in mod.risks.
-- 
The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of my employer,
the government or your favorite deity.
Charlie Sorsby
...!{cmcl2,ihnp4,...}!lanl!crs
crs@lanl.arpa

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

Posted-Date: Wed 8 Jan 1986 21:15:10 EST
Date: Wed 8 Jan 1986 21:15:10 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: "Innerstellar" probes
To: space@mit-mc.arpa

Lew Allen, the head of JPL, said in an interview in OMNI magazine that
some folks at JPL have a plan for a "innerstellar" probe: a vehicle
that will travel 1000 AU out from the sun in 50 years (at about 100
km/sec).  The purpose of the probe is to observe the solar system from
the outside to obtain reference data for observations of other stellar
systems, and to greatly extend the baseline for parallax measurements.

I was wondering if anyone knew what propulsion system they were
considering.  Two that come to mind are nuclear powered ion engines
or solar sails.

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

Date: Wed 8 Jan 86 23:10:35-EST
From: Richard A. Cowan <COWAN@mit-xx.arpa>
Subject: Space Station, SDI, L5, and the Militarization of Space
To: space@mit-mc.arpa, emiya@ames-vmsb.arpa
Cc: cowan@mit-xx.arpa

In Space digest #48, Eugene Miya states:
> 3) No the space station has nothing to do with SDI.  It's a sitting
> duck, for one thing.  The plan is to make it another NASA Center
> like the other earth-based NASA Centers: interesting network domain
> problems for address: person@site.EARTH ..... :-)

When the space shuttle was developed, it also had "nothing to do with
SDI."  But it's used for SDI today.  Similarly, though the main
technical purpose of the space station is not SDI, it's naive to
assume that the space station won't be used for SDI in some fashion.
(This is not a reason to oppose the space station, but a reason to
fear the militarization of its use.)

It should be pointed out that the space station project does serve an
important political purpose that is related to SDI.  It provides an
exciting, humane technical project that can be used by aerospace
contractors such as Rockwell to attract enthusiastic, highly-skilled
technical personnel.

I would not find fault with this, except that these contractors often gloss
over their military activities when recruiting, stressing their space
station work, which may be a very small fraction of their activities.
People headed for military careers should know what they are getting into.
When the fostering of a set of expectations that employment in a certain
field will have great non-military benefit lures engineers into military
work, these engineers are being exploited.  I'm not saying the companies do
this maliciously; their advertising is deceptive because of marketing
considerations and wishful thinking.  (See the story about Peter Hagelstein
in "Star Warriors," by William J. Broad.)

In Aero/Astro this concern is particularly germane.  In 1978, 52% of the
Aeronautical and Astronautical Engineers worked on National Defense
projects, and 26% worked in space.  [Source: Robert DeGrasse, "Military
Expansion, Economic Decline", originally from the NSF]  As Brazilian
aircraft manufacturers capture the market for small agricultural planes in
the US, and as SDI gets rolling, that civilian fraction is declining.
Plus, little of the "exotic" or "elite" research is in the civilian
fraction.  Without the space station, a situation could develop where the
aerospace industry became 90% military dominated, a development most people
in that industry would rather not happen.  It's an unfortunate fact that in
the United States space projects serve the interests of military
contractors and vice versa, contributing to increased space militarization.

For that reason, I feel that Phil Karn (Digest #51) has every reason to
"wonder" about the L5 society, for even though it may take no position on
SDI, the group owes much of its vitality -- perhaps even its existance --
to the symbiotic relationship between space enthusiasts and the military.
When the US constructs a billion $$ Unified Space Command in Colorado
Springs, and sets up three separate divisions of space bureaucracy to give
the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force all a "piece of the action," there is
more reason to be concerned.  When groups like L5 promote certain
commercial uses of space that have been outmoded by cheaper, earth-based
methods, there is even more reason to be concerned.  And when a significant
fraction of L5 members see arms control as futile, and therefore want to
develop space so that when we go ahead with SDI and post-SDI systems and
eventually blow ourselves up, the human race will survive, there's even
reason to be a bit frightened.  Nuclear annihilation should not be "thinkable."

Finally, I hope that L5 members who believe in the organization will
promote open discussion of such issues despite the tendency for such groups
to avoid controversy and ignore potential problems.

-Rich Cowan (cowan@mit-xx)

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

End of SPACE Digest V6 #71
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA11979; Fri, 10 Jan 86 03:01:00 PST
	id AA11979; Fri, 10 Jan 86 03:01:00 PST
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 86 03:01:00 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8601101101.AA11979@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #72

*** EOOH ***
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 86 03:01:00 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #72

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 6 : Issue 72

Today's Topics:
       Re: Asynchronous orbital skyhooks (those two masses...)
			    Re: rail guns
			Skyhooks in Near Term?
		   Host MIT-MC may vanish abruptly
			   Re: tenth planet
			     information
			     Extinctions
			    Robert Goddard
	    Re: The soap-bubble theory of galaxy formation
			    1000 AU probe
	  Re: Proposal: net.sdi, sdi@sdio, sdi-request@sdio
		      colliding two inert masses
		    gross or net number of deaths?
			 Too many skyhooks ?
			Re: Re:  Tenth planet
		       Re: Spacecraft emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 6 Jan 86 14:41:55 GMT
From: cbosgd!clyde!watmath!utzoo!utcsri!hogg@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (John Hogg)
Subject: Re: Asynchronous orbital skyhooks (those two masses...)
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <70@dg_rtp.UUCP> throopw@dg_rtp.UUCP (Wayne Throop) writes:
>Question:  since synchronous orbital skyhooks are considered feasible
>for Mars and the Moon, why isn't more attention given to asynchronous
>orbital skyhooks for providing various delta-vs in orbital injection
>scenarios near Earth?  Is the idea intrinsically non-feasible, or what?
I like it, you like it, and most readers of this group will too, but...
if things go wrong, skyhooks fall DOWN.  Remember the Skylab hysteria?  If
a skyhook breaks at almost any point in its rotation, one part goes up, and
the other hits the atmosphere FAST.  Kevlar cable will burn up in short
order.  Anything larger, such as payload, stands a good chance of reaching
the ground.  Again, WE all know how dangerous this is in the context of our
daily existence, but there could be real political problems in putting
something "large" up there with the tight safety margins required to make
this feasible.  Californian lawyers could have a field day out of it even
if nothing happened.
By the way, Kevlar makes fast sails, but
	1) How do you protect it from sunrot without an excessive weight
	   penalty?
	2) What about LEO free oxygen?
	3) How well does it behave at the temperature extremes to be
	   expected in space?
These aren't reasons why it "can't be done"; I'm just wondering whether
anybody has made the appropriate calculations.
-- 
John Hogg
Computer Systems Research Institute, UofT
...utzoo!utcsri!hogg
Standard disclaimer: the above may or may not contain sarcasm, satire,
irony or facetiousness.  It does not contain smiley-faces.

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

Posted-Date: Thu 9 Jan 1986 08:35:35 EST
Date: Thu 9 Jan 1986 08:35:35 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Re: rail guns
To: Slocum@hi-multics.arpa
In-Reply-To: Slocum's message of Wed, 8 Jan 86 11:23 CST
Cc: space@mit-mc.arpa

> The major losses would be atmospheric drag, and all the friction of the
> tubes or whatever you are using for "rail guns".

Actually, current rail guns are not very efficient (30%?).  Much of the
energy ends up in a residual magnetic field after the projectile leaves
the launcher.  Using distributed energy input to the gun would help
(this is equivalent to a chemical gun in which the propellant is
distributed along the barrel).

The biggest technical obstacle to rail guns and other electric launchers
is, suprisingly, not the launcher itself but rather the power source.
Launching a 100 kilogram payload to orbital velocity at 1,000 gees
requires a peak power of something like 10 gigawatts (for a brief
time).  The average power will be much less (depending on the launch
rate).  Rail guns could be useful here: an "inverse railgun" can
generate a pulse of power by using a chemical explosion (natural gas
and air, say) to push a metal armature into a magnetic field.
Several thousand such generators would be used in a launcher.

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

Posted-Date: Thu 9 Jan 1986 09:16:18 EST
Date: Thu 9 Jan 1986 09:16:18 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Skyhooks in Near Term?
To: space@mit-mc.arpa

I'll point out that skyhooks are unlikely to be practical in the near
term, even if very strong graphite is developed, because of debris
in low orbit.  This debris would have to cleaned out somehow -- a
challenging job for high power lasers, perhaps.

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

Date:     Thu, 9 Jan 86 10:02:20 CST
From: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI <wmartin@almsa-1.arpa>
To: arms-d@mit-mc.arpa, human-nets@red.rutgers.edu, sf-lovers@red.rutgers.edu,
        arpanet-bboards@mit-mc.arpa, header-people@mit-mc.arpa,
        info-terms@mit-mc.arpa, space@mit-mc.arpa
Cc: zellich@almsa-1.arpa
Subject:  Host MIT-MC may vanish abruptly

Some of you might have heard rumors or indications that the longtime
ARPANET mail-relay and list-archive storage computer, MIT-MC, is due to
be retired. These rumors are true; I append below a message from one of
the system managers confirming this. 

Therefore, if you have been relying on having MIT-MC around as a source
for archived mailing-list files, or as a mail-forwarder, be warned that
it is likely to disappear abruptly in the near future. It would be good
if all the list archives could be moved to other hosts which would also
support the traditional ARPA "anonymous FTP", and also that mailing-list
addresses should be changed to no longer rely on forwarding or list
expansion by MIT-MC. I hope that this information is disseminated as
widely as possible, so as to reach all list-maintainers and the whole
community of users and list readers and contributors.

Those of us who have been involved with the ARPANET for some years all
owe a debt of gratitude to MIT-MC and the support staff that ran it over
the past decade or so; that host was the seminal point for the entire
mailing list and Digest phenomenon. It's sad to see it go, but we all
know that hardware progress makes such changes inevitable. 

Regards, Will Martin

----- Forwarded message # 1:

Date: Wed,  8 Jan 86 19:17:46 EST
From: "Christopher C. Stacy" <CSTACY@mit-mc.ARPA>
Subject:  Future of MIT-MC?
To: wmartin@ALMSA-1.ARPA
cc: POSTMASTER@mit-mc.ARPA
Message-ID: <[MC.LCS.MIT.EDU].777682.860108.CSTACY>

Will,

I am afraid that the rumors about MIT-MC's future are true.

The maintenance contract for MIT-MC expires in a few months (at the end
of February, I think).  After that, the next time the machine breaks
badly, it will be retired from service.

There are few KS-10 (DEC2020) machines in the building now, and one of
them is actually running ITS and calling itself MIT-AI.  This tiny
machine not on the Internet yet, although it probably will be before too
long.  However, MIT-AI will not have anywhere near the capacity of MC,
and won't be able to service the world in general.  There really isn't
any machine available at MIT to take over the services MC has provided;
the structure of the community and its associated resources has changed.

People should be moving off of MIT-MC rapidly; the machine really will
be decommissioned with little warning in the near future.  Also, people
should move their data, as files may not be retrievable once it's gone.

Cheers,
Chris
----- End of forwarded messages

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

Date: Thu, 9 Jan 86 09:19:49 pst
From: David Smith <dsmith@hplabsc>
To: space%s1-b@csnet-relay.arpa
Subject: Re: tenth planet


> As I recall, Voyager (I or II) detected the tenth planet.  It lies
> between Saturn and Uranus, and is rather small.  It has been named
> Charon, (Roman god that paddles the boat across the River Styx, I
> think).  This planet probably doesn't account for all of the
> perturbations of Uranus and Neptune, either.

Charon is Pluto's moon, and was discovered by earth-based telescope.

But, the four probes in the outer solar system (or beyond, if being farther
out than Neptune constitutes being beyond) are of value in finding planet
X, because their positions are more precisely known than those of the
planets.  Gravitational perturbations in their paths are more detectable.
Also, they might get closer than Neptune to planet X.

			David Smith
			hplabs!dsmith
			dsmith%hp-labs@csnet-relay

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

Date: 9 Jan 86 11:56:00 PST
From: far.cantwell@ames-vmsb.arpa
Subject: information
To: space@mit-mc.arpa
Reply-To: far.cantwell@ames-vmsb.ARPA

If you have a standard information blurb about your uses/contributors/
typical areas of discussion etc., could you please forward it to me?
Otherwise, I would appreciate a short note to that effect. Thanks much!

Elizabeth Cantwell
NASA-Ames
FAR.CANTWELL@AMES-VMSB
------

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

Date: 9 Jan 86 16:37:01 EST
From: Dale.Amon@fas.ri.cmu.edu
Subject: Extinctions
To: BBoard.Maintainer@a.cs.cmu.edu

The most recent paper I have read indicates that the authors of the study
feel they can refute the results of the paper claiming their findings are an
artifact. Both papers appeared in Science Magazine sometime in the last year
or two. Nemesis itself is in far greater trouble than periodic extinctions,
even though periodic extinctions are far from being either proved or
disproved.

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

Date: 9 Jan 86 19:12:01 GMT
From: decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-euclid!paulhus@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (N. CHRIS PAULHUS DTN 223-6871 MLO8-3/T13)
Subject: Robert Goddard
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

	W. Von Braum vs. Robert Goddard
  The recent postings mentioning Von Braum bring to mind an anecdote my
  dad relates:  When Von Braum was debriefed by (U.S.?/Allied?) scientists,
  he was asked how Germany was able to make such incredible progress in
  rocketry in comparison to the allies.  Von Braum expressed amazement at
  the question and said that they had done nothing new, that they had just
  implemented the work of the American rocket pioneer, Robert Goddard. The
  scientists asked, who is this Goddard?!
    I took this tale with a grain of salt until I finally visited the new
  Air and Space Museum.  There, next to the familiar engine-above-fuel-
  tanks-below first rocket of Goddard's was his latest model (1938 I think).
  What an incredible achievement! Gyro inertial guidance, gimbled motor,
  turbo-pumps for propellants, and (I believe) fuel cooling of some
  components.  Look at a V-2 and it's the same level of technology, just
  a bit different (much less than an order of magnitude delta) scale.
    Goddard made his first flights in Auburn, MA.  After some problems there,
  (I think he set something on fire) he started using a launch site in
  Harvard, MA, now (then?) on Fort Devens, about a mile from where I now
  live.  (He rapidly outgrew this site and moved to [White Sands?].)  The
  Harvard site has a small monument and a tiny sign on a little used road
  on Fort Devens. I'd bet less than 100 people visit it a year.  
    I wonder if Goddard will ever get the respect that he deserves from the
  space community?
	- N. Chris Paulhus, DEC - Maynard

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

Date: 9 Jan 86 18:01:59 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!caip!im4u!ut-sally!utastro!ethan@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Ethan Vishniac)
Subject: Re: The soap-bubble theory of galaxy formation
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> Does this
> mean we should stop talking about the big bang and start talking about the
> big bangs? This seems to imply that *all* galaxies are not moving away from
> each other but away from the center of their bubble. Are the bubbles themselves
> moving or will some bubbles eventually collide (the bubbles do seem to be
> expanding)? In the latter case, we should be able to discover some galaxies
> actually moving towards the milky way
> 
> Steve DiPirro
The motion associated with each "bubble" is a small perturbation to the
general expansion of the universe.  If it weren't we would have noticed
this a long time ago.  This work in no way invalidates the theory of the
big bang.  It does give some clues as to the processes that made the
universe slightly inhomogeneous.  As to bubbles colliding, some may but
such collisions would not be exceptionally dramatic, a little like shooting
marbles at each other across the room.  A few spectacular collisions (which
in the case of galaxies means mergers and funny looking aggregates) and
a lot of misses.
-- 
"These are not the opinions    Ethan Vishniac
 of the administration of      {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan
 the University of Texas,      ethan@astro.UTEXAS.EDU
 but they are the opinions     Department of Astronomy
 of your favorite deity, who   University of Texas
 is in daily communication 
 with me on this (and every 
 other) topic.

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

Date: Thu,  9 Jan 86 21:12:46 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@mit-mc.arpa>
Subject: 1000 AU probe
To: dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
Cc: KFL@mit-mc.arpa, Space@s1-b.arpa

    From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>

    ... some folks at JPL have a plan for a "innerstellar" probe: a vehicle
    that will travel 1000 AU out from the sun in 50 years (at about 100
    km/sec) ...
    I was wondering if anyone knew what propulsion system they were
    considering.  Two that come to mind are nuclear powered ion engines
    or solar sails.

  I don't know what thye are planning, but one way to leave the solar
system quickly with today's technology involves sending a probe to
loop around Jupiter and drop into a tight loop around the Sun.  When
the probe reaches its closest point to the Sun, the probe fires its
rockets.  By using this souble slingshot effect, you can get some
truly phenomenal velocities.
								...Keith

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

Date: 9 Jan 86 01:35:03 GMT
From: ihnp4!pesnta!wjvax!mel@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Mel Tolentino)
Subject: Re: Proposal: net.sdi, sdi@sdio, sdi-request@sdio
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <1311@ames.UUCP> al@ames.UUCP (Al Globus) writes:
>> Here's a vote for net.sdi!
>> 
>
>Make that two.
Here's three . Is that enough? 
I sure hope so!
  
-- 
so now ya know
anything I say here is just
a figment of my imagination!
****************************
              Mel Tolentino (Watkins-Johnson Co.  San Jose, Calif.)
	{pesnta,twg,ios,qubix,turtlevax,tymix,vecpyr,certes,isi}!wjvax!mel

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

X-Sent: to SU-AI.ARPA by IMSSS.FRONSTAD.EDU via ETHERNET with PUPFTP; 1986-Jan-09 19:04:23 PST (=GMT-8hr)
X-Mailer: EMACS -> PSL (FORMAT+SEND-ALL) -> PUPFTP
Date: 1986 January 09 18:54:45 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM@imsss> (this host known locally only)
To: FIRTH@tl-20b.arpa
Cc: Space@s1-b.arpa, LINDSAY@tl-20b.arpa
Subject: colliding two inert masses
Sender: REM%IMSSS@su-score.arpa (for undeliverable-mail notifications)
Reply-To: REM%IMSSS@SU-SCORE.ARPA (MF for IMSSS.STANFORD.EDU)

(Sorry for tardy reply but IMSSS was down most of Dec 30 thru Jan 07
 and I am just now catching up on answering mail.)

F: Date: Tue 31 Dec 85 15:12:04-EST
F: From: FIRTH@tl-20b.arpa
F: Subject: those two masses...
F: To: space@mit-mc.arpa
F: Mr Throop wonders how to get my two masses to join up.
F: Frankly, so do I, but the situation isn't quite as bad as he
F: indicates.  At the intersection point the masses are moving
F: with a relative velocity of ~6000 mph (~2.7 kps).  A deceleration
F: of 5g for 1 minute will bring them to relative rest - which doesn't
F: seem too hairy.

If you have a rocket for accellerating them to achive common orbit,
you don't need two in the first place, firing one then using a rocket
to accellerate it into orbit. I think your answer above begs the
question about how to just toss them up without having any on-board
accelleration devices such as rockets.

F: More likely would be a thrust of 50g for 20", and an accelerator
F: therefore 60 miles long (and a height difference of 3200 feet between
F: the ends).  That already rules out any human cargo - but the purpose is
F: simply to get MASS up there, to be assembled &c later.  Even bricks will
F: withstand 50g, after all.

Do you see the problem? Do you know any bricks able to withstand 50
gee which can after such launch receive radio commands and accellerate
as you proposed earlier? Either you have bricks, which have to be just
tossed up, and you have to figure a way that such dead weight can
achieve orbit, or you have delicate rocket engines or mirrors or sails
or whatever and you have to figure a way to gently launch them in the
first place.

Probably the solution is to launch just dead weight, but have
something up there already (by earlier gentle launch) that tracks them
and rendezvouses (sp?) with them and catches them and applies thrust
to put them in orbit. What we need is an orbital transfer vehicle, a
"space tug", solar powered and controlled from Earth.

On the other hand...
L> Date: Tue 7 Jan 86 23:35:50-EST
L> From: LINDSAY@tl-20b.arpa
L> Subject: pulling heavy Gs
L> There were comments recently about whether a payload could contain a rocket
L> and still survive a pretty rugged launch.
L> ... talked the U.S. Navy out of a battleship gun that had been
L> mothballed since the first world war. ... Each shot involved
L> packing the gun with wood pieces, and placing the payload in a hollow
L> in the middle. Then you packed explosives in back of that, closed the
L> breech, pointed the gun straight up, and blammo ! There was serious
L> discussion at the time about putting a rocket motor into the payload,
L> and going all the way to orbit.
L> ...
L> There was talk a few years ago about developing an anti-aircraft
L> missile that would bank to turn, and that would be a lifting body
L> rather than have wings.  The stated advantage was that it would
L> pull 100 or 200 Gs going around corners.

Maybe you can indeed build robust rockets and use mass driver or
battleship gun to replace first-stage rocket.

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

X-Sent: to SU-AI.ARPA by IMSSS.FRONSTAD.EDU via ETHERNET with PUPFTP; 1986-Jan-09 19:05:01 PST (=GMT-8hr)
X-Mailer: EMACS -> PSL (FORMAT+SEND-ALL) -> PUPFTP
Date: 1986 January 09 18:16:35 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM@imsss> (this host known locally only)
To: bilbo.niket@locus.ucla.edu
Cc: SPACE@mit-mc.arpa
Subject: gross or net number of deaths?
Sender: REM%IMSSS@su-score.arpa (for undeliverable-mail notifications)
Reply-To: REM%IMSSS@SU-SCORE.ARPA (MF for IMSSS.STANFORD.EDU)

NKP: Date:           Fri, 3 Jan 86 11:44:53 PST
NKP: From: "Niket K. Patwardhan" <bilbo.niket@locus.ucla.edu>
NKP: To: Space@s1-b.arpa
NKP: Cc: ota@s1-b.arpa
NKP: ...
NKP: As for how many deaths one would accept, a priori, to achieve a
NKP: goal, the answer should be NONE! The only time you accept death
NKP: as necessary is when you fight a war.

Do you mean gross deaths (total number that die with your method) or
net deaths (number that die with your method minus number that would
have died without your method)? I would agree only with the latter. To
say that it's unreasonble to allow one person to die to save a hundred
million is stupid since the net death count is minus 99,999,999. To
count just the one gross death and not deduct the 100,000,000 saved is absurd.

If development of space could save 100,000,000 people and the
Orion-rocket method used to accomplish that cost 1 life would you say
it wasn't worth it because of that one who died?

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

Date: 9 Jan 86 14:30:37 GMT
From: ihnp4!poseidon!brent@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Brent P. Callaghan)
Subject: Too many skyhooks ?
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Hmmmm....skyhooks sound like a great idea to me....
But I guess there will have to be some international cooperation
and combining of resources to keep these skyhooks out of
each other's way.
I can imagine the international furore if the U.S. and
Soviet skyhooks get tangled.  Just imagine the problems
in sorting out the tangle !!
-- 
				
Made in New Zealand -->		Brent Callaghan
				AT&T Information Systems, Lincroft, NJ
				{ihnp4|mtuxo|pegasus}!poseidon!brent
				(201) 576-3475

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

Date: 6 Jan 86 22:05:59 GMT
From: decvax!mcnc!ncsu!uvacs!jlm@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Jerrold L. Marco)
Subject: Re: Re:  Tenth planet
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> extinctions are caused by near approaches of a companion star, which is in a
> *very* long-period orbit [30MY or so], stirring up the Oort cloud and causing
> a rain of comets into the inner Solar System.)
> 
Question:  Wouldn't a massive rain of comets leave evidence on all the
inner planets?  My recollection is that on the moon, which has been reasonably
well charted, evidence of recent bombardment is scarce.  Can someone with
more knowledge than I comment on the corellation between the times of
mass extinctions on earth and the estimated times of comet strikes on the
moon (or on other inner planets, to the extent that such information is
available)?
*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***

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

Date: 8 Jan 86 09:01:09 GMT
From: dual!ames!eugene@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Eugene Miya)
Subject: Re: Spacecraft emissions
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

[I tell myself that I'm going the read this group less.... oh well.]
I did not see the original posting.
> >> scientific community has spent a huge amount of effort studying the
> >> upper atmosphere and devising various models of chemical
> >> transformations, the precise answer should be relatively easy to
> >> obtain.  
The atmosphere about 70,000 feet to 250,000 feet is relatively poorly
understood.  We have a building full of physicists and chemists working
on a Cyber 205 around the clock spending $millions trying to understand the
chemistry of this regime.
> >You have a lot more faith in those models and research than I do.
> >The accuracy
> >of weather prediction should give you an idea of how good such models really
> >are - not very (maybe in a few decades ...).
> 
> Actually, atmospheric chemical models and weather forecasting are not
> closely related.
There is very little "chemical" with the weather: maybe ozone and small
things.  Weather is basically the state change of one compound (water).
Very interesting.
> Current chemical models have proven inaccurate
> for this reason: there are thousands of chemical reactions going
> on in the atmosphere at various rates, and not all are well understood.
> In contrast, the physical processes in weather are reasonably well
> understood, but lack of fine grained measurements cripples forecasting.
This is correct.  The people at NCAR could tell you better, but the
spatial resolution of the GASP [Global AtmoSPheric circulation] model
is about 2.5 degrees of latitude and longitude [over-simplication in my
figures, but close enough 100 by 100 miles, which in turn barely fits
on a Cray-1].  Consider 1 datapoint representing a 10,000 square mile area:
say 1 temperature.  Another problem is this the lack of adequate
data from satellites: consider cloud cover.  Typical weather images show
cloud patterns over the NA continent [BTW: these were unknown before
the space program].  But 70% of the world is covered by water which is
NOT watched by satellites, so there is a major sampling problem.
Nothing like running a weather program and then looking outside a window!
Several radar-based instruments for measuring wind have been sent up
on an experimental basis.
> interesting uses two polar-orbiting satellites with CO2-laser radar
> to get global wind measurements.
There is an interesting story about CO2 measurements by a fellow at Scripps
Inst. of Oceanography, but too long for this message.
From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  {hplabs,ihnp4,dual,hao,decwrl,allegra}!ames!aurora!eugene
  emiya@ames-vmsb.ARPA

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

End of SPACE Digest V6 #72
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA04944; Sat, 11 Jan 86 03:00:57 PST
	id AA04944; Sat, 11 Jan 86 03:00:57 PST
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 86 03:00:57 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8601111100.AA04944@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #73

*** EOOH ***
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 86 03:00:57 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #73

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 6 : Issue 73

Today's Topics:
     Re: Space Station, SDI, L5, and the Militarization of Space
			       Goddard
		       Another Use for Tethers
			   Re: tenth planet
			  Charon and Chiron
		       Timing of comet showers
			   Voyager 2 Update
			 Re: number of deaths
			   Re: tenth planet
			       removal
			 The effects of space
			  Re: Robert Goddard
			     Re: Seasat 1
			  Re: Robert Goddard
		  Re:  Skyhooks, Tethers, and Kites.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Jan 86 06:19:57 PST
From: ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: ihnp4!space
Subject: Re: Space Station, SDI, L5, and the Militarization of Space
In-Reply-To: your article <12173750832.41.COWAN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>

> Nuclear annihilation should be unthinkable.

I agree, but not everybody thinks that way.  Until they do, we have to
defend ourselves, either by an offensive system of deterrence, or a
defensive system like SDI.  Unfortunately, it's easier to invent new
weapons than to alter the way people think.

L5 is interested in space colonization, and some members feel the SDI
program will help get large, cheap launch systems built that can be
used for other purposes besides SDI.  Others beleive the SDI weapons
would make it too easy to destroy anything in orbit, including space
stations.  I think L5 leaders are trying to moderate the SDI debate
so that the other subjects L5 members are interested in will survive,
instead of having L5 split up into pro and con factions.

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

Date: 10 Jan 86 13:38:00 GMT
From: decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-pen!kallis@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Goddard
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>  Goddard made his first flights in Auburn, MA.  After some problems there,
>I think he set something on fire) he started using a launch site in 
>Harvard, MA, now (then?) on Fort Devens, about a mile from where I now
>live.  (He rapidly outgrew this site and moved to [White Sands?].) ...
As someone who's admored Goddard greatly, a few more facts.  He made his
first flight at his aunt's farm.  In a subsequent launch, he set a barn
on fire, which alarmed his neighbors.
His subsequent flights were done as you say in the vicinity of Ft. Devens.
He moved because he's contracted tuburculosis, and was told to move to a 
dry climate.  He moved to New Mexico to the Mescalero Ranch, a site he
purchased.  His initial work had come to the attention of Charles Lindburgh, 
and he was funded through grants from the Guggenheim Foundation.
The monument to Goddard's first liquid-rocket launch was funded by Wernher von 
Braun, and is located at the launch site, now on a golf course.
Steve Kallis, Jr.

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

Posted-Date: Fri 10 Jan 1986 11:06:31 EST
Date: Fri 10 Jan 1986 11:06:31 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Another Use for Tethers
To: space@s1-b.arpa

Even if they aren't used for launching things, tethers may be very
useful for generating angular momentum in spinning space structures.
For example, a space station could be spun up by extending two very
long cables with small reaction engines on the ends.  The cables would
be spun up and, because of the long moment arms, would acquire large
amounts of angular momentum.  An electric motor anchored to the cables
at the hub could then spin up the station, gradually slowing the cables.
When the cables are stationary they would be retracted.  This is much
more mass efficient than using reaction engines on the space station itself.

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

Date: 10 Jan 86 11:38:20 PST (Friday)
From: Lynn.es@xerox.arpa
Subject: Re: tenth planet
In-Reply-To: Slocum's message of Wed, 8 Jan 86 11:14 CST
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Cc: Lynn.es@xerox.arpa, Slocum@hi-multics.arpa

Slocum's recollection of Chiron being touted as a tenth planet is
correct, but his details have drifted a bit from how it happened.
First, the name was Chiron, not Charon the satellite of Pluto.  Chiron
was only briefly touted as a tenth planet, but soon became generally
regarded as an asteroid.  This judgment is based on its small size.  We
just had to learn to ignore our previous notion that asteroids should
not be located beyond Saturn.  In any case, its small size means it has
pretty negligible gravitational effects on the outer planets, so is not
the cause of the unexplained perturbations that lead us to believe there
is a Planet X.  Chiron was discovered from earth-based photographs taken
at Palomar by Charles Kowal.  I don't think it has ever been
photographed by a spacecraft.

/Don Lynn

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

Date: Fri, 10 Jan 86 13:23 PST
From: Dave Platt <Dave-Platt%LADC@cisl-service-multics.arpa>
To: Space <Space@s1-b.arpa>
Subject: Charon and Chiron
Randomness: He who has imagination without learning has wings but no feet.

Re the "tenth planet" discovered between Saturn and Uranus... I believe
that it is actually called Chiron, rather than Charon.  Charon, as
David Smith correctly points out, is Pluto's moon.

Chiron was discovered a few years ago, and (if my foggy memory is
correct) there was a good deal of discussion at the time as to whether
it deserves to be called a small planet, a large asteroid, or a
"planetoid" (somewhere between the two).  I believe that the latter
designation was the one generally accepted... but I'm not sure.  Does
anyone out there have any additional information?

I do recall that Chiron is far too small to cause the orbital variations
that have been detected in the outer planets... it's smaller than Pluto.

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

Date: Fri, 10 Jan 86 14:32 PST
From: Dave Platt <Dave-Platt%LADC@cisl-service-multics.arpa>
To: Space <Space@s1-b.arpa>
Subject: Timing of comet showers
Randomness: "We must all hang together, or we will surely all hang separately"
                                                    - Benjamin Franklin -

I'm no expert on the subject, but the discussions I've heard have
pointed out that it doesn't actually take all that high a comet
density to cause extinctions on Earth... given that the effect
of even one 5-mile-diameter solid comet nucleus hitting Earth
would be rather atrocious.  An impact that would leave a crater of
moderate size on Luna would probably have a far severer effect here
on Earth... most of the effects which might lead to a mass extinction
on Earth would not apply on Luna. Consider: firestorms, dust diffusing
through the atmosphere, feedback effects resulting from decreased
insolation -> greater snowfall -> higher albedo -> colder weather,
possible changes in seawater chemistry, triggering of volcanic activity
with massive releases of sulphate and acid rain, etc.

When the island of Tambora (I think it was) in Indonesia blew up back
in the late 1800's (?), it triggered a "year without a summer" across
much of the Northern hemisphere... snow in June, massive crop failures
and famine, and so forth.  Tambora's erruption was a good deal larger
than Mt. St. Helens or Krakatao, but it was probably much smaller than
the ruckus raised by (for example) the massive erruptions that occurred
in what is now Yellowstone (ash carried all the way out into the Atlantic).
I suspect that the impact of a 5-mile-diameter comet would have been at
least as impressive... especially if it happened to strike in an area
with a substantial body of magma at a shallow depth (on a mid-ocean
ridge, for example).

Also, Earth is a substantially larger target than Luna... both because
of its larger diameter and because its gravity well is deeper.  Although
it's true that Luna's surface has been mapped quite well by telescope
and orbiting satellite, very few of the craters have actually been
physically sampled in a way that permits an accurate on-the-spot
measurement of their age.  The currently-popular theories do indicate
that the majority of the cratering on Luna occurred billions of years
ago... but it's quite conceivable that the large number of old craters
conceal a smaller, but still very significant number of younger ones.

I saw a mention somewhere within the past couple of years that
there is historical evidence that people actually saw the impact
of a good-sized object on Luna.  I believe that an Arab writer
(historian, natural philosopher, or something of the sort) wrote that
he, and quite a few other people, saw a very bright light spring out
on the surface of the Moon, in the dark area between the "horns" of
the new Moon;  it faded to a dimmer glow over a period of several
minutes.  If I recall correctly, some scientists believe that this
was probably the impact of an asteroid: a member of the class known
as Apollo objects, which have orbits that cross Earth's;  they even
suggested one specific crater as being the probable point of
impact (somewhere near Tycho, I think???).

There's been another interesting speculation recently, concerning
Apollo objects of the sort that may have hit Luna.  Quite a few of
these object have been detected... a pretty good-sized one passed
within the bounds of Luna's orbit within the past five years or so,
and something not previously plotted cut a swath through the outer
layers of Earth's atmosphere during the '70s, and plowed its way
back out again (a VERY impressive fireball and trail, according to
those who saw it... photograph appeared in Astronomy magazine during
'84 or '85, I recall).

It turns out that the orbits of Apollo objects aren't all that stable,
in terms of geologic time;  they're subject to substantial alteration by
Jupiter and the inner planets (including Earth).  It seems that there
must be some mechanism for refreshing the supply of Apollo objects in
order to account for their current numbers.  Some fairly extensive
simulations of the gravitational dynamics of the asteroid belt indicates
that there are several "forbidden zones" within the belt.  If an
asteroid is ever perturbed into an orbit with an orbital period which
resonates with Jupiter's, then Jupiter's gravity will fairly quickly
perturb the asteroid out of that orbit... and one fairly common result,
it seems, is for the asteroid to drop into an orbit that crosses
Earth's.  There may be some subtle second- or third-order interactions
between Jupiter, Saturn, the asteroids, Earth, and maybe the other
planets which would lead to a periodic change in the number of
asteriods perturbed into Earth-crossing orbits.

So... Nemesis may exist, and be sitting right in front of our faces:
it's Jupiter!  This hypothesis seems to meet a number of the
requirements: the asteroids are primitive in composition and would
probably account for the heavy-metal traces that have been detected in
the clay interlayers associated with some extinctions, and there's a
good supply of them.  Jupiter has a 12-year orbit rather than a
30-million-year one, and so it's not likely to be yanked away by
a passing star (or, if that happens, the question of further comet
showers is probably going to be the least of our worries!).

Perhaps the biggest question that remains is:  how accurate and
meaningful are the calculations and statistics that indicate a strong
periodicy in the extinction (and/or impact) rate...  and is there a
mechanism that could cause the Apollo-object-insertion rate to vary in
that way?

Other note of interest... CCD imaging of the skyglow in Earth's
atmosphere has indicated something unexpected.  Apparently, something is
punching "holes" in the skyglow;  they start out small, spread to a
diameter of several miles, and slowly fade.  They're more common on the
dawn side of the planet... which seems to indicate that they're probably
associated with infalling meteors.  If the researchers who reported this
are correct, this data may indicate that meteoroids may contain far more
volatile material than had been previously believed;  the "pebbles" that
we see at ground level may be only the solid residue of a much larger
dirty-snowball-like clump that hits atmosphere.  If this is true, it
would indicate that meteors start out life as something very similar to
a miniature comet nucleus, and that the amount of matter entering
Earth's atmosphere may be much larger than previously believed.

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

Date:    Fri, 10 Jan 86 14:33:14 PST
From: tencati@jpl-vlsi.arpa
Subject: Voyager 2 Update
To: space-enthusiasts@mit-mc.arpa


The following is an extract from "JPL UNIVERSE" dated 10-Jan-1986:

              VOYAGER FINDS MOON, FEATURES AT URANUS
       Sixth Sattelite seen as Voyager Zeroes in on Far-Out Planet


A new moon orbiting the planet Uranus has been discovered in images taken by 
NASA's Voyager 2 spacecraft.

Voyager imaging team scientists at JPL found the small moon in long-exposure 
images of Uranus and its rings taken by Voyager 2's narrow-angle camera in late 
December.  Conclusive evidence of the satellite's orbit was seen in pictures
taken Dec. 31, 1985 when the spacecraft was about 31 million kilometers (19 
million miles) from Uranus.

Voyager 2 will fly by Uranus on January 24, 1986.

The new satellite (designated 1985 U1) is the sixth known to orbit Uranus.  It 
is about 75 Kilometers (35 miles) in diameter, and occupies an orbit 86,000 
kilometers (53,500 miles) from the center of the planet, between the moon 
Miranda, and the outermost of Uranus' nine known rings.  The moon orbits Uranus 
every 18 hours, 17 minutes, 9 seconds.  

The Voyager mission is conducted by JPL for NASA's office of Space Science and 
Applications (OSSA).

                               -----
A recorded message updating Voyager 2's progress may be heard by dialing
(818)354-7650.



Ron Tencati
JPL-VLSI.ARPA

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

Date: Thu, 9 Jan 86 19:46:56 est
From: Edoardo Biagioni <bellcore!decvax!mcnc!unc!biagioni@ucbvax.berkeley.edu>
To: mcnc!space
Subject: Re: number of deaths
Newsgroups: net.space
In-Reply-To: <8601080922.AA17872@s1-b.arpa>
Cc: 

In article <8601080922.AA17872@s1-b.arpa> you write:
>stopped human's before. The bottom line will be that whoever risks the high
>stakes game first will dominate the solar system as thoroughly as Britain
>did in the age of exploration. And the future 'superpower' need not even be
>the US or the USSR. It could just as easily be Japan or Europe or India:
>whoever takes the big risks will take it all. And that is as it should be.
>The meek will inherit the earth, because the rest of us will have left for
>the stars.

Just a historical note: Britain did not dominate the earth in the age of
exploration, Portugal and Spain did that. Britain dominated in what I
would call the age of colonization, though that may also be incorrect.
			Ed Biagioni
			decvax!mcnc!unc!biagioni
			seismo!mcnc!unc!biagioni

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

Date: 10 Jan 86 17:29:04 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!caip!im4u!ut-sally!utastro!ethan@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Ethan Vishniac)
Subject: Re: tenth planet
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> > As I recall, Voyager (I or II) detected the tenth planet.  It lies
> > between Saturn and Uranus, and is rather small.  It has been named
> > Charon, (Roman god that paddles the boat across the River Styx, I
> > think).  This planet probably doesn't account for all of the
> > perturbations of Uranus and Neptune, either.
> 
> Charon is Pluto's moon, and was discovered by earth-based telescope.
> 
On the other hand, Chiron is the name of a small chunk of rock and
ice orbiting between Saturn and Uranus.  Its mass is much too small
to produce detectable perturbations in the motions of any of the
major planets.  Chiron, like the asteroids, is considered a minor
planet.
-- 
"These are not the opinions    Ethan Vishniac
 of the administration of      {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan
 the University of Texas,      ethan@astro.UTEXAS.EDU
 but they are the opinions     Department of Astronomy
 of your favorite deity, who   University of Texas
 is in daily communication 
 with me on this (and every 
 other) topic.

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

Date:  Fri, 10 Jan 86 21:42 EST
From: Poulin@radc-multics.arpa
Subject:  removal
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Please remove me from the space digest mailing list.
         Thanx

--------------------------------
        Marc C. Poulin
        MicroByte Distributors
        6480 Monument Road
        Rome, NY 13440-7210

  AT&T: (315)336-7564
  ARPA: Poulin@RADC-MULTICS
   CIS:  72737,2703 --------------------------------

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

From: crash!jthario@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 86 15:25:31 PST
To: sdcsvax!space-incoming@s1-b.arpa
Subject: The effects of space

I'm doing some research for my biology class, and I'd like to
know a lot of the effects that short and long term space travel
has on the human body (space sickness, loss of strength, and
so on).

Thanks of advance!
-- jim
 
UUCP: {noscvax, sdcsvax, cbosgd, ihnp4}!crash!jthario
ARPA: crash!jthario@ucsd

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

Date: 10 Jan 86 19:59:25 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!cmcl2!lanl!ths@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Robert Goddard
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> 
> 	W. Von Braum vs. Robert Goddard
> 
>   The recent postings mentioning Von Braum bring to mind an anecdote my
>   dad relates:  When Von Braum was debriefed by (U.S.?/Allied?) scientists,
>   he was asked how Germany was able to make such incredible progress in
>   rocketry in comparison to the allies.  Von Braum expressed amazement at
>   the question and said that they had done nothing new, that they had just
>   implemented the work of the American rocket pioneer, Robert Goddard. The
>   scientists asked, who is this Goddard?!
This story has been recounted in many publications and appears to be
essentially correct.  Although virtually all of the primary features of
the V-2 (official designation was A.4) were found in Goddard's last designs
of the late 1930's, von Braun was understating the progress made by the
German rocket team.  There was a considerable technological gap between the
two efforts as reflected in such areas as aerodynamics, metallurgy and
thermodynamics.
Perhaps what is so fantastic about Dr. Goddard's progress is that it was
financed on a relative shoestring and virtually all of the work was done
by Goddard himself.  An interesting note to the financial aspect is that
Charles Lindbergh was instrumental in arranging a grant from the Guggenheim
Foundation.  Goddards work in New Mexico took place just east of Roswell
about 60 miles from the present White Sands Missile Range.
Ted Spitzmiller

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

Date: 10 Jan 86 09:13:19 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!ut-sally!im4u!nike!riacs!ames!eugene@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Eugene Miya)
Subject: Re: Seasat 1
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

This did not belong in net.research.
> > Very true.
What was true?  didn't see the original posting.  please send to me.
> > able to detect the slight disturbances of the ocean surface caused by
> > missile-carrying submarines underneath.
This was advanced years before Seasat flew and there is some basis
to believe that at some frequency you can do this, but the processing
time for the SAR (Synthetic Aperature Radar) is far from real time
(at best two weeks).
> I have always heard that Seasat died due to a single point of failure in
> its linkage from the solar panels to the batteries.  I think that is called
> a design flaw in aerospace jargon.  Translated, that means to start looking
> for another line of work.
> 
> Of course, this is my opinion only and not that of my employer.
> -- 
> 
> Terry Morse  (408)743-1487
> { ihnp4!amdcad!cae780 } | { allegra!sun!sunncal } !leadsv!morse
I left Terry's disclaimer in because that is VERY true.  Seasat was
launched on June 26, 1978 at about 6 pm.  Right after we left VAFB,
the SAR team went to celebrate the launch, and three birthdays
(mine was the 26th as a matter of fact).  99 days later the thing
died.  A Congressional investigation into the $90 million spent
turned blame to two groups of people.  The believed "cause" was the
failure of an insulating slip ring on the Agena bus which carried
the radar and 8 other instruments.  Lockheed who made the bus ($50M)
was cited for shoddy workmanship: they had "grown lax" about their
boosters.  JPL scientists were cited to be poor inspectors over the
engineers.  It was not a design flaw but a Q/A problem.  It was
around this time, I had my first lay-off from Venus Orbital Imaging Radar
[VOIR].  No Seasat-followons currently planned but the basis of the
mission was proposed in 1964.
BTW, the followon: SIR [Shuttle Imaging Radar] -[AB] can be seen
sitting in the cargo bay in the IMAX shuttle movies with "JPL" clearly
visible.  Other things: we were worried about the deployment of the
Seasat radar antenna because it never successfully deployed in earth gravity,
it was not designed to, thank God when it did deploy!
From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  {hplabs,ihnp4,dual,hao,decwrl,allegra}!ames!aurora!eugene
  emiya@ames-vmsb.ARPA

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

Date: 10 Jan 86 14:26:48 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!rochester!nemo@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Wolfe)
Subject: Re: Robert Goddard
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <354@decwrl.DEC.COM> paulhus@euclid.DEC (N. CHRIS PAULHUS DTN 223-6871 MLO8-3/T13) writes:
>	W. Von Braun vs. Robert Goddard
>  ...(von Braun) said that they had done nothing new, that they had just
>  implemented the work of the American rocket pioneer, Robert Goddard. The
>  scientists asked, who is this Goddard?!
>    I took this tale with a grain of salt until I finally visited the new
>  Air and Space Museum.  There, next to the familiar engine-above-fuel-
>  tanks-below first rocket of Goddard's was his latest model (1938 I think).
>  What an incredible achievement! Gyro inertial guidance, gimbled motor,
>  turbo-pumps for propellants, and (I believe) fuel cooling of some
>  components.  Look at a V-2 and it's the same level of technology, just
>  a bit different (much less than an order of magnitude delta) scale.
Equally amazing is that many of the components he used were "off-the-shelf".
Shows how fast development can progress on how miniscule a budget when you
go that route.  His fuel valves were fire hose valves, eg.  
>    Goddard made his first flights in Auburn, MA.  After some problems there,
>  (I think he set something on fire) he started using a launch site in
>  Harvard, MA, now (then?) on Fort Devens, about a mile from where I now
>  live.  (He rapidly outgrew this site and moved to [White Sands?].)  The
>  Harvard site has a small monument and a tiny sign on a little used road
>  on Fort Devens. I'd bet less than 100 people visit it a year.  
>    I wonder if Goddard will ever get the respect that he deserves from the
>  space community?
>	- N. Chris Paulhus, DEC - Maynard
He certainly get very little from the government.  He invented the bazooka
at the end of WWI (solid propellant rocket).  During WWII he was engaged in
research on jet-assisted take-off (JATO), the primary allied use of jets
being to get over-loaded bombers off the ground.  The government didn't
ever let him do what he really wanted.
As a child he was interested in space flight - he expressed his plan to get
to the moon by scuffing his shoes on the carpet until he built up enough 
charge to blast him there.  His mom asked him how he planned to get back,
without carpets on the moon, and he abandoned that method of attack.  I
think he was voted class nerd in high school.  But he persevered, doing
much on his own and the rest with the help of wife and dedicated friends.
Imagine what he could have done with an NSF grant!
Nemo
-- 
Internet:	nemo@rochester.arpa
UUCP:		{decvax, allegra, seismo, cmcl2}!rochester!nemo
Phone:		[USA] (716) 275-5766 school 232-4690 home
USMail:		104 Tremont Circle; Rochester, NY  14608
School:		Department of Computer Science; University of Rochester;
		Rochester, NY  14627

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

Date: 9 Jan 86 21:41:37 GMT
From: cbosgd!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re:  Skyhooks, Tethers, and Kites.
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> ...the gases evaporating off the sun and
> earth are way too thin for the purpose of a space kite.
> How about the light from the sun itself?  People
> have proposed using the light pressure to propel
> spacecaft.  Of course, I could be talking about a BIG
> kite...
You can do it with light, but your kite will be %$#$%@#* HUGE!
A lightsail ten kilometers across generates only a few pounds of thrust.
Holding up a realistic tether (one that will withstand storms in the
atmosphere, and carry a useful load) will need a truly enormous area.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

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

End of SPACE Digest V6 #73
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA10109; Sun, 12 Jan 86 03:00:49 PST
	id AA10109; Sun, 12 Jan 86 03:00:49 PST
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 86 03:00:49 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8601121100.AA10109@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #74

*** EOOH ***
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 86 03:00:49 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #74

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 6 : Issue 74

Today's Topics:
		   Re: NASA & New Space Technology
		    Re: Aviation Week on Star Wars
		   Here's the L5 Society's address
	    Re: The soap-bubble theory of galaxy formation
			  Re: Guns in Japan
			   Re: L-5 Society
		    Re: Aviation Week on Star Wars
		     Re: A High Tech Maginot Line
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 10 Jan 86 09:25:10 GMT
From: sdcsvax!davidson@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (J. Greg Davidson)
Subject: Re: NASA & New Space Technology
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

I'm sorry my last article cast NASA in a bad light.  I support NASA's
space program actively; writing letters to politicians, donating money
to SpacePac, etc.  I appreciate what research NASA has been able to do
on alternatives space technology; the conferences that the agency has
sponsored, the development the agency has been able to do on tethers
and ion rockets, etc.
Nevertheless, NASA is caught in the middle of some very nasty, short
sighted politics.  Since the space program is in its infancy, each
mission should be as committed to advancing space technology and the
space infrastructure, as it is to the immediate scientific, military
or commercial payoff.  Unfortunately, it seems to be as difficult to
explain this to scientists as it is to congressmen.
I think its very important to spread the word throughout the technical
community (and everywhere else) that there is much more to be done than
NASA is currently being allowed to do.  Chemical rockets are just not
going to get us where we want to go.  The money being spent by SSI,
the WSF and CalSpace combined are tiny compared to NASA's R&D efforts,
yet they've been very helpful in keeping ideas alive when programs have
had to be terminated at NASA.
As the space advocacy movement continues to grow, we build the grassroots
support for a more active and daring space program.  Its a long haul, but
bootstrapping is what space development is all about.  Space starts only
200 miles away; its just in an awkward direction!
_Greg

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

Date: 11 Jan 86 00:05:44 GMT
From: decwrl!spar!baba@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Baba ROM DOS)
Subject: Re: Aviation Week on Star Wars
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> Al, you seem to think that nuclear war is to be avoided at any cost.
> Clearly, if this were the case, we wouldn't be pursuing current
> defense goals.  The fact is, we in the US would prefer to
> start a nuclear war than to relinquish our national sovereignty.
> 
> 					Milo
It may well be true (though I am nowhere near so confident of it as you
seem to be) that a nuclear war of the sort we could have today would not
be the end of the world, merely a crippling mutilation of all parties
involved, with a little collateral poisoning of non-participants. It
seems to me that this is a transient state of affairs.
Technology has and will continue to improve man's ability both to build
and to destroy.  The means of destruction are and will continue to become
more varied and subtle.  Countermeasures will be ever harder to put in
place before they themselves are obsoleted.  An incredibly well conceived
and executed BMD system, deployed in secrecy that would probably require
a police state, might break the deadlock for a time, but that would be a
very temporary situation, hardly worth the cost unless one plans to get a
quick payoff by launching a surprise first strike.  A nuclear bomb is a
relatively small, rugged device, and there are many, many ways of putting
one in a specified place at a specified time.  Any given delivery system
can be countered, but there will be no *general* defense against nuclear
weapons until we find a way to locally interdict the processes of particle
physics.
And nuclear bombs are by no means the only possible weapons of mass
destruction.  Just the cheapest.
Mutual assured destruction is not just a policy that can be repudiated.
It is a state of affairs that will become progressively less escapable.
We will either learn to live with it, or not at all.
The problem is that the existence of a stalemate at the upper limit
of confrontation does not magically make the conflict between two
opposing systems go away.
The conflicts between the US and the USSR are not likely to be direct
threats to one another's *sovereignty* (for the reasons above), but
to one another's *interests*.  To the extent that a nuclear exchange
is taken seriously as a fallback position, and we fail to find means
to defend our interests short of starting a nuclear war and effectively
ending the game, we are inviting disaster.
			 Baba, back but briefly from the grave

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

Date: 10 Jan 86 09:47:11 GMT
From: sdcsvax!davidson@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (J. Greg Davidson)
Subject: Here's the L5 Society's address
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Since this discussion started, I've gotten lots of requests for the
L5 Society's address, often from people whose complex addresses are
difficult to reply to.  So here it is:
	L5 Society International Headquarters
	1060 East Elm Street
	Tucson, Arizona  85719  U.S.A.
or phone (602) 622-6351.  There are 78 local chapters in 4 countries;
if there's none near you, you can always start one.
Membership costs $25 ($15 for a student).  It includes a subscription
to the L5 News.  Articles in the L5 News are of variable quality; rather
than complain about this, I suggest writing more good articles!
BTW, I do like to hear from you, even if your address is strange!
_Greg

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

Date: 9 Jan 86 21:34:26 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!harvard!talcott!cfa!wyatt@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Bill Wyatt)
Subject: Re: The soap-bubble theory of galaxy formation
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> >A recent 3-D map of the distribution of the galaxies in the universe
> >has given evidence that the mass is distibuted roughly on the surface
> >of large bubble shaped regions of space.
> > [...]
> 
> I also read this study. The 3D map is currently of one quarter of the
> northern hemisphere of the universe [...]
> 
Just a point of detail - the CFA Redshift survey is a magnitude-limited
sample (down to 14.5) of all galaxies in the Zwicky-Nilson catalog with
galactic latitude above +40 and declination above 0 degrees, or below
galactic latitude -30 degrees and above dec of -2.5 degrees. The funny
limits arise since the galactic plane is tilted relative to the solar
system and the earth. The original survey contains 2402 galaxies. I
suspect it is to this survey you refer as being 1/4 of the sky.
The "bubble map" is the result of an extension to fainter objects
(15.5). Since this would result in an increase by a factor of about 4 in
the number of objects (and easily a factor of 5-10 in exposure time per
object, assuming same telescopes, detectors, etc.), the map was
restricted to a swath of 120 by 6 degrees, chosen to intersect the Coma
Cluster of galaxies. The additional depth clearly shows the bubble
effect even in this much smaller pie-shaped slice of the universe.
-- 
Bill    UUCP:  {harvard,genrad,allegra,ihnp4}!wjh12!cfa!wyatt
Wyatt   ARPA:  wyatt%cfa.UUCP@harvard.ARPA

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

Date: 11 Jan 86 03:55:40 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!cmcl2!philabs!aecom!werner@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Craig Werner)
Subject: Re: Guns in Japan
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> Just to keep the history straight, guns were indeed banned in Japan, and I
> believe the enforcement was via the death penalty. It was quite succesful.
> 
> Of course, the REASON that they were banned was so that the highly trained
> Samurai could continue to keep the Japanese peasantry from becoming uppity,
> since a peasant with a gun was the equal to any wealthy noble. Had we had a
> similary perspicuity in the European nobility, we might well still be living
> under feudalism. (Although that is, of course, somewhat of a simplification)
> 
> This has little to do with space, but when historical references are bandied
> as 'proofs' of something, I feel it is important to look a little deeper
> than simple bald statements.
	Actually, the cause what that wars BETWEEN Samurai armies were causing
so many casualties, and threatened the breakdown of the social order. Consider
it from the Eastern point of view.  To become a Samurai involved a high degree
of training and devotion. War was almost a religion. Using guns, which any
untrained idiot can use, ruined war as an art.
	Incidentally, at the same time as this happened, Japan stopped
doing long ocean voyages, and hence missed discovering America from the East,
which they might have done.
	Again, little to do with space - except that the latter has parallels
to Apollo vs. current policy.
	And as for your last line, re-read it, and consider your own bias.
*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
-- 
				Craig Werner
				!philabs!aecom!werner
                      "It's tough to incriminate a bread mold."

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

Date: 10 Jan 86 02:05:49 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!hao!ames!al@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Al Globus)
Subject: Re: L-5 Society
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> 
> > ...It almost seems that to them [L5ers],
> > ANY space project is automatically a GOOD space project.
> > 
> > Seems to me that Werner von Braun once had a problem like that.
> 
> And he did us all a favor, too.  Bainbridge's "The Spaceflight Revolution"
> makes a convincing case for the effort Nazi Germany spent on the V-2 being
> a near-total waste.
V2's did, however, kill a lot of people.  As Tom Lehrer put it:
    Think of all the widows and cripples in old London town,
    Who owe their large pensions to Werner von Braun

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

Date: 10 Jan 86 02:01:17 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!hao!ames!al@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Al Globus)
Subject: Re: Aviation Week on Star Wars
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> A 50% effective SDI protecting
> our missiles would mean that we need 50% fewer missiles for "defensive"
> purposes.
> 
Alternately, we could launch a first strike against the USSR, knock out
50% or more of their missles, and stop the other 50% with SDI.
The Soviet's see this comming, of course.  This is the legitimate part of their
argument against SDI.  They have no intention of allowing us to attack them,
assume that we will if we can, and will take whatever steps necessary, 
including attacking us, to avoid such a fate.  This, my friends, is how
we go about destroying civilization.

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

Date: 10 Jan 86 02:13:40 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!hao!ames!al@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Al Globus)
Subject: Re: A High Tech Maginot Line
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> 
> 	But why did they (USSR) submit to the arbitration (about treaty
> violations)? Did they do it
> because the treaty is *currently* in thier best interests? Or does the
> board have some sort of powers beyond saying "naughty, naughty, you
> shouldn't do that"? 
I don't know the details of the board's powers.  I have heard from several
sources that the board has been effective, and that's what counts.
> What will happen if we ever get into a real conflict with them?
We'll all die.
> (Actually, I suspect the withdrawal from
> Afghanistan is a political ploy - they want out, but they do not want
> to look like they have been defeated by the Afghans, thus making it a
> treaty concession gives them a good excuse for getting out).
So what?  Why not make them look as good as possible, so long as they get
out and stay out?

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

End of SPACE Digest V6 #74
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA14635; Mon, 13 Jan 86 03:00:54 PST
	id AA14635; Mon, 13 Jan 86 03:00:54 PST
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 86 03:00:54 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8601131100.AA14635@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #75

*** EOOH ***
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 86 03:00:54 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #75

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 6 : Issue 75

Today's Topics:
			   Voyager Hotline?
			   Re: tenth planet
     Re: Space Station, SDI, L5, and the Militarization of Space
			    please remove
			  Re: Robert Goddard
		     Re: Timing of comet showers
				Charon
			     soap bubbles
			  old london town...
		      Voyager 2 Uranus findings
				  L5
		    Re: Aviation Week on Star Wars
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 10 Jan 86 16:19:34 GMT
From: tektronix!reed!nsc-pdc!will@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (William Hobbs)
Subject: Voyager Hotline?
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

During previous planetary fly-bys by the Voyager spacecraft, JPL maintained
a "Voyager Hotline," a number you could call to get up-to-date information
on the state and location of the craft, new discoveries, etc. Does anyone
know if there is a Hotline for the Uranus Fly-by?
Also, congratulations to Voyager 2 for its discovery of a new moon. How
about calling it Voyager in honor of this fine machine?
					Will Hobbs
					nsc-pdc

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

Date: 10 Jan 86 18:00:08 GMT
From: cbosgd!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: tenth planet
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> > As I recall, Voyager (I or II) detected the tenth planet.  It lies
> > between Saturn and Uranus, and is rather small.  It has been named
> > Charon, (Roman god that paddles the boat across the River Styx, I
> > think)...
> 
> Charon is Pluto's moon, and was discovered by earth-based telescope.
He's thinking of Chiron, I think.  Charon is Pluto's moon.  Chiron is a,
well, an object, orbiting roughly between Saturn and Uranus.  It's too
small to qualify as a planet, really.  Nobody is entirely sure just what
it is, last I heard, although there is strong speculation that it may be
a sort of super-comet that got deflected into its present orbit.
I seem to recall that Chiron too was discovered from Earth.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

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

Date: 10 Jan 86 17:56:08 GMT
From: cbosgd!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Space Station, SDI, L5, and the Militarization of Space
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> When the space shuttle was developed, it also had "nothing to do with
> SDI."  But it's used for SDI today.  Similarly, though the main
> technical purpose of the space station is not SDI, it's naive to
> assume that the space station won't be used for SDI in some fashion...
If we're going to hesitate about things because of possible military
applications, we might as well give up on technological civilization.
*All* technology has military applications.  (Case in point: possibly
the biggest advance in medicine in this century was wide-spectrum
antibiotics like penicillin.  The techniques needed for economical mass
production of penicillin were developed because of urgent military need
for it during WW2 -- the *first* major war in which disease was not the
#1 cause of death!)
> (This is not a reason to oppose the space station, but a reason to
> fear the militarization of its use.)
Militarizing the space station will be unusually difficult because of the
international involvement, much of which is firmly tied to the peaceful
nature of its mission.
> For that reason, I feel that Phil Karn (Digest #51) has every reason to
> "wonder" about the L5 society, for even though it may take no position on
> SDI, the group owes much of its vitality -- perhaps even its existance --
> to the symbiotic relationship between space enthusiasts and the military.
It is a well-known fact that a lot of space work has ridden on the coattails
of the military, right back to the V-2.  But this is no more a reason to
"wonder" about the L-5 Society than it is a reason to "wonder" about
penicillin.  The US space program, fortunately, got separated from the
military quite early on.  What is needed now is firm support for it --
through the L-5 Society, for example! -- so that NASA doesn't have to go
back to its military forefathers begging for pennies and political support.
Which is roughly what happened on the Shuttle, with the result that the
Shuttle's design got badly bent to meet USAF requirements.  If you want the
Space Station to stay non-military, then SUPPORT IT!!!
> ... When groups like L5 promote certain
> commercial uses of space that have been outmoded by cheaper, earth-based
> methods, there is even more reason to be concerned...
Concerned about the intelligence and common sense of the specific members
of the groups who are promoting the ideas, yes.  But what has this to do
with the military aspect?
> And when a significant
> fraction of L5 members see arms control as futile, and therefore want to
> develop space so that when we go ahead with SDI and post-SDI systems and
> eventually blow ourselves up, the human race will survive, there's even
> reason to be a bit frightened.  Nuclear annihilation should not be
> "thinkable."
So we should hide our heads in the sand and ignore the possibility?!?
The possibility that exists *regardless* of whether SDI and other such
systems go ahead or not?  And *regardless* of whether near-future arms
control efforts succeed or not?  That is hysteria, not rational thinking.
When somebody buys fire insurance on his home, we don't assume that he
intends to burn it down!
The biggest threat to your life, and mine, is those thousands of missiles
which are already in place and are *not* going to vanish completely in
any realistic future (although their numbers might decline considerably
if things go well).  Putting all our eggs in one basket is folly even if you
do believe that arms control will succeed and SDI will either (a) be stopped
or (b) be successful beyond its supporters' wildest dreams.  And not just
because of nuclear weapons, either.  There are other threats to our survival,
albeit less urgent ones.  Regardless of what develops in regard to SDI and
arms control, the human race would be safer if it were more spread out.
I don't expect our machine room to explode tomorrow, but we keep offsite
backups even so.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

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

Date: Sun, 12 Jan 86 10:31:09 EST
From: Martin Lee Schoffstall <schoff%rpics.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: please remove


spencert@rpic from your distribution

marty
(postmaster)

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

Date: 12 Jan 86 00:34:42 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Robert Goddard
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>    I wonder if Goddard will ever get the respect that he deserves from the
>  space community?
One negative aspect of Goddard's work, unfortunately, is that after some
unfortunate brushes with the press he didn't publish very much.  As a result,
the people doing US rocket development re-invented many of his ideas on
their own.  The US government did belatedly recognize his contributions and
the infringement on his patents, and made a large royalty payment to his
widow.  But a lot of US rocketry does not derive all that directly from his
work, since it was so poorly known hereabouts.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

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

Date: 12 Jan 86 00:52:05 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Timing of comet showers
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> ...When the island of Tambora (I think it was) in Indonesia blew up back
> in the late 1800's (?), it triggered a "year without a summer" across
> much of the Northern hemisphere... snow in June, massive crop failures
> and famine, and so forth...
In fairness, it should be pointed out that these effects weren't quite as
universal as they are often presented.  Many areas of the world did not have
particularly unusual weather at that time (I believe it was something like
1816, although I don't have my references handy).  Unfortunately there are
few good quantitative weather records dating from that time -- even
thermometers were rare and crude then -- and it is difficult to get a clear
picture of global effects.  The weather in North America certainly was odd.
> ... probably much smaller than
> the ruckus raised by (for example) the massive erruptions that occurred
> in what is now Yellowstone...
Actually, massive volcanic activity is one of the "dark horse" theories of
massive extinctions.  There is one province of India that mostly sits on
a layer of lava *hundreds of meters* thick; that must have been one #@$%&@
of an eruption, and it has been cited as a possible cause for the Cretaceous-
Tertiary event that wiped out the dinosaurs.
> I suspect that the impact of a 5-mile-diameter comet would have been at
> least as impressive... especially if it happened to strike in an area
> with a substantial body of magma at a shallow depth (on a mid-ocean
> ridge, for example).
There was a suggestion a while ago that Iceland is the remains of the impact
that caused the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction, in fact.
> I saw a mention somewhere within the past couple of years that
> there is historical evidence that people actually saw the impact
> of a good-sized object on Luna...
I believe the event you're thinking of is the observation by English monks
in the 1100s (?) of a lunar impact that may have been the formation of the
crater Giordano Bruno.  Recently there has been a report that Bruno, the
Tunguska event early in this century, and an impact storm observed by the
Apollo seismometers early in the 70s, are all consistent with a single
swarm of debris in a specific orbit, presumably the remains of an extinct
comet.  It's been tentatively dubbed the Canterbury Swarm, after the monks'
observation.  There is some chance of observing the Swarm at close range;
it will make a near-miss on us within the next few years. (A specific date
was given, but this is all from memory and I don't remember it.)
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

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

Date: 13 Jan 86 02:37:49 EST
From: Dale.Amon@fas.ri.cmu.edu
Subject: Charon
To: BBoard.Maintainer@a.cs.cmu.edu

CHIRON is most definitely NOT a tenth planet. It is a fairly modest
asteroid, and I believe the orbit is not felt to be stable because of
resonances with the gas giants.

CHARON is the satellite of Pluto (ie the lord of the underworld and his
boatman)

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

Date: 13 Jan 86 02:47:17 EST
From: Dale.Amon@fas.ri.cmu.edu
Subject: soap bubbles
To: BBoard.Maintainer@a.cs.cmu.edu

No thoughts of multiple bangs are required. THink of the shape of smoke
tendrils from a cigarette. It starts out solid but breaks up into
intertwining tendrils with 'empty' space between. One must also not forget
that when discussing the big bang we are not discussing just the three
spatial dimensions, because the 3d are the very thing that is expanding!!!

The big ferment in this area is the which came first, the galaxies or the
superclusters? Did the tendrils form by local gravitational attraction of
galaxies or were inhomogenieties in the initial expansion responsible for
supercluster size irregularities? I fear this is oversimplifying the
arguments, but t'will serve and I'm too lazy to go pull a reference right
now...

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

Date: 13 Jan 86 03:27:41 EST
From: Dale.Amon@fas.ri.cmu.edu
Subject: old london town...
To: BBoard.Maintainer@a.cs.cmu.edu

But while we're thinking of the widows in old london town, let us not forget
by the inventors (on the winning side of course) of napalm, flame throwers,
incendiary grid bombing, the A-bomb, and similar goodies. Von Braun didn't
do a damn thing for Germany that just about any scientist in the US or
Britain wasn't trying to do: kill as many of the enemy as quickly as
possible with minimum losses on their own side.

This one sided thinking is why the British commander responsible for Dresden
didn't swing on the end of the rope he so richly deserved!!!

Please note that I am NOT commenting on the activities of the SS, Gestapo,
etc: their crimes were of an order only surpased by the Cambodians...

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

Date: 11 Jan 86 08:45:57 GMT
From: sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!oberon!smeagol!earle@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Greg Earle)
Subject: Voyager 2 Uranus findings
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

From: "JPL Universe", Friday, January 10, 1986:
-----------------------------------------------
VOYAGER FINDS MOON, FEATURES AT URANUS
- Sixth satellite seen as Voyager zeroes in on far-out planet -
	A new moon orbiting the planet Uranus has been discovered in images
taken by NASA's Voyager 2 spacecraft.
	Voyager imaging team scientists at JPL found the small moon in
long-exposure images of Uranus and its rings taken by Voyager 2's narrow-
angle camera in late December.  Conclusive evidence of the satellite's
orbit was seen in pictures taken December 31, 1985 when the spacecraft was
about 31 million kilometers (19 million miles) from Uranus.
	Voyager 2 will fly by Uranus on January 24, 1986.
	The new satellite (designated 1985 U1) is the sixth known to orbit
Uranus.  It is about 75 kilometers (35 miles) in diameter, and occupies an
orbit 86,000 kilometers (53,500 miles) from the center of the planet,
between the moon Miranda and the outermost of Uranus' nine known rings.
The moon orbits Uranus every 18 hours, 17 minutes, 9 seconds.
	Another Voyager 2 photograph is the first picture to show clear evidence
of latitudinal banding in the planet's atmosphere, and one of the first
indicating atmospheric structure of any sort.  The computer-enhanced picture
is a summation of five images returned December 31, 1985, by Voyager's
narrow angle camera.  The spacecraft was 36 million kilometers (22 million
miles) from Uranus.  The concentric patterns emanate like a bull's-eye
from the planet's pole of rotation, which in this view lies left of center.
[ PICTURE NOT INCLUDED DUE TO TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES ]
-------------------------
	Greg Earle
	JPL Spacecraft Data Systems group
	sdcrdcf!smeagol!earle	(UUCP)
	ia-sun2!smeagol!earle@cit-vax.arpa	(ARPA)
"Just because I get to see the raw Voyager pictures 5 minutes after they
are received at the JPL Deep Space Network Command Center doesn't mean
you have to be SO jealous ... (tee hee)"

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

Date: 13 Jan 86 03:47:21 EST
From: Dale.Amon@fas.ri.cmu.edu
Subject: L5
To: BBoard.Maintainer@a.cs.cmu.edu

I am getting rather tired of both SDI and attempts to link SDI stands to L5.
As a former regional board member and the chairman of the 1987 conference, I
have been in the middle of the policy making for sometime. And the official
L5 stand on SDI is to have no stand on SDI. We are for COLONIZING space.
That is our issue, and all is secondary.

Members have every shade of opinion on SDI and other topics that are
imaginable, and we have been given (at one time or another) 'threats' or
'ultimatums' to go pro or con. It is not the wish of our membership to
polarize on an issue that is of very short term interest in the total
history of the human race. Whether SDI is built or not built around one
small planet will be something known only to a few specialist scholars 1000
years from now. True, it has a great deal of short term impact, and there
are groups on both sides of the fence on this issue. So there are L5 members
who are also members of High Frontier or of STARS.

If you can't stand being around people who won't always agree with you, then
L5 is not an organization for you. Our members are opinionated and vocal
about every subject under (or over) the sun. I would say there are probably
more pro-SDI members than not, but that is also true of the general public
(when asked if they agree that we should have defense against ICBM's, rather
than being asked if they like the loaded name "STAR WARS"). But even at that,
there is a great deal of unity among those who are pro and those who are
anti that we are all basically friends with minor short range disagreements
to liven up evenings at the local pub, and that it is silly to let such
minor details get in the way of building for an infinite future among the
stars.

SO:
	A) I'm tired of the subject, I've read everything I'm going to read
	   about it and I've made up my own mind based on reams of data,
	   a small fortune in books, hundreds of magazine articles and
	   many scientific papers.
	   I also have heard absolutely NO new arguments on the subject in
	   the last 6-8 months.
	B) L5 does not, and will not take a stand on SDI. PERIOD. ENDOFLINE

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

Date: 13 Jan 86 00:06:01 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!caip!im4u!nike!medin@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Milo S. Medin)
Subject: Re: Aviation Week on Star Wars
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Technology advancing does not necessarily invalidate MAD, indeed,
just the opposite.  Technology has made counterforce possible.
Over the past 10 yrs, US nuclear throweight has dropped 40%.
We simply don't need that much bang anymore.  Weapons are not getting
larger, if anything, they're getting smaller.
You are of course right, none of this addresses the root causes
of the problem, conflicting national interests.  But since we really
can't change people, and we can easily change technology, technology
will drive nature of warfare.  Your point about technology not
providing a permananent solution, I also agree with.  This means
that this course is expensive, however, it has worked.  There
are not always nice options that fix all the problems.  Sometimes,
your options are all bad, but some not as bad as others.  I don't
claim to provide an answer to the underlying problem, and
neither should SDI expected to either.  Nuclear weapons don't kill people, people
kill people.  There, that should generate a few flames...
					Milo

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

End of SPACE Digest V6 #75
*******************

1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA04551; Tue, 14 Jan 86 03:00:47 PST
	id AA04551; Tue, 14 Jan 86 03:00:47 PST
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 86 03:00:47 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8601141100.AA04551@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #76

*** EOOH ***
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 86 03:00:47 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #76

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 6 : Issue 76

Today's Topics:
			  VOYAGER "HOT-LINE"
		     Amateur Satellite Observing
		 Administrivia: The demise of MIT-MC
		     New planet formation theory
	   Nemesis = Jupiter et al resonating the asteroids
		   Re: Re: A High Tech Maginot Line
			   Voyager Hotline
		     Chiron (aka Kowal's Object)
			    Re: Star-Wars
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:    Mon, 13 Jan 86 10:42:48 PST
From: august@jpl-vlsi.arpa
Subject: VOYAGER "HOT-LINE"
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>Date: 10 Jan 86 16:19:34 GMT
>From: tektronix!reed!nsc-pdc!will@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (William Hobbs)
>Subject: Voyager Hotline?
>To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa
> 
>... JPL maintained a "Voyager Hotline," a number you could call to get 
>up-to-date information on the state and location of the craft, new 
>discoveries, etc. Does anyone know if there is a Hotline for the 
>Uranus Fly-by?........
>
>					Will Hobbs
>					nsc-pdc


The number for current [updated ~ daily] is (818)354-3051.

Regards,
Richard

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

To: space
Subject: Amateur Satellite Observing
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 86 17:39:47 cet
From: EINAUDI%ICNUCEVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu (Alessandro Berni)

Is there between the multitude of Space users someone interested in
amateur satellite observing?  I get prediction bulletins from
NASA/GSFC and would really love to exchange experiences.

Alessandro Berni
Genoa, Italy.

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

Date: Mon, 13 Jan 86 14:36:13 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: space
Subject: Administrivia: The demise of MIT-MC

As you probably know MIT-MC will be disappearing shortly.  For many
years all Space Digest mail has been forwarded using MC as a
rendezvous.  This will have to change soon.  I have set up an
alternate address for both space digest submissions: space@angband and
for requests: space-request@angband.  These should be used in the
future to replace the corresponding mc addresses.
	-Ted Anderson

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

Date: 13 Jan 86 14:09:11 GMT
From: decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-ocala!fisher@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Burns Fisher ZKO1-1/D42 DTN 381-1466)
Subject: New planet formation theory
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

I read this weekend (Boston Globe?; possibly Space World) about a new
theory of the formation of planets which is sufficiently precise to allow
the prediction of planetary locations as well as those of their satellites.
The article said that the theorist, an Australian, had made a number of 
predictions about Uranus based on the theory.  The first of these, a prediction 
of the existance and location of a previously unknown Uranian satellite, has
been confirmed by Voyager II.  Several others will be confirmed or denied
over the next few weeks.  The article says that if this theory holds up
it will be a great shock to the scientific community.
Does anyone know anything about this?  Is it for real?  The article says
that the theory agrees with the current known planetary system.  But what
does the theory have to say about the asteroid belt, Deimos/Phobos, Pluto,
and trans-Plutonian planets?
Thanks for any info.
Burns
		...decwrl!rhea!star!fisher

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

X-Sent: to SU-AI.ARPA by IMSSS.FRONSTAD.EDU via ETHERNET with PUPFTP; 1986-Jan-13 16:56:29 PST (=GMT-8hr)
X-Mailer: EMACS -> PSL (FORMAT+SEND-ALL) -> PUPFTP
Date: 1986 January 13 10:47:14 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM@imsss> (this host known locally only)
To: SPACE@mit-mc.arpa
Cc: "Dave-Platt%LADC"@cisl-service-multics.arpa
Subject: Nemesis = Jupiter et al resonating the asteroids
Sender: REM%IMSSS@su-score.arpa (for undeliverable-mail notifications)
Reply-To: REM%IMSSS@SU-SCORE.ARPA (MF for IMSSS.STANFORD.EDU)

DP> Date: Fri, 10 Jan 86 14:32 PST
DP> From: Dave Platt <Dave-Platt%LADC@cisl-service-multics.arpa>
DP> Subject: Timing of comet showers
DP> ... for the asteroid to drop into an orbit that crosses
DP> Earth's.  There may be some subtle second- or third-order interactions
DP> between Jupiter, Saturn, the asteroids, Earth, and maybe the other
DP> planets which would lead to a periodic change in the number of
DP> asteriods perturbed into Earth-crossing orbits.
DP> So... Nemesis may exist, and be sitting right in front of our faces:
DP> it's Jupiter!  

As "Connections" host James Burke likes to point out, nobody comes up
with a new invention in vacuuo, each merely adds a little to what
existed already. Here's my little "value-added" enhancement to yours
which was an enhancement of the original Nemesis theory:

First, consider stable geometrically-fixed potential wells in two-plus
body systems, that is tiny test bodies trying to orbit in phase space
around two large orbiting bodies. I.e. consider L4 and L5 regions in
such places as Earth/Moon or Sun/Jupiter systems. With just the two
large bodies, in circular co-orbits, the potential wells are fixed in
shape and depth, so that a test body is either trapped or it isn't,
and if it is it'll stay there forever. With a third large body
(distant Sun in case of Earth/Moon, or Saturn in case of Sun/Jupiter),
the depth and shape of the wells are periodicaly purturbed according
to the phase (angle) relationship between the third body and the line
connecting the two main bodies. A test body (asteroid in our Nemesis
context) that is just barely trapped for most of the cycle could
escape when the well is shallowest if it happened to be visiting the
perimiter at that moment. After a few tens of cycles virtually all
just-barely-trapped test bodies will have escaped, leaving only deeper
trapped bodies. But now consider a fourth large distant body that
further purturbs the wells (Venus or Mars or Jupiter in case of
Earth/Moon system, Uranus in case of Sun/Jupiter system). This
produces additional sloshing of the shape/depth of the wells, with a
very long period. Perhaps test bodies that survive tens of thousands,
or even millions, of years will find every 30 million years or so the
well gets shallower than it ever was between times, and a few test
bodies will overflow the perimiter. Possibly the fourth body provides
two effects, first continually supplying knetic energy to test bodies
in the well so that if they were previously sitting at the bottom they
will now be orbiting highly, and secondly the aforementionned periodic
change of shape of the well. The result could be that for all time a
particular tiny fraction of the contents of the well are sloshed out
on a periodic basis (the tiny fraction may vary depending on the
exactitude of the phase at each major cycle, unless the four bodies
are locked in some immense rational-number relationship of orbital
periods). So, anyway, the Trojan asteroids may thus be periodically
sloshed out of their wells into random orbits including some
Earth-crossing, and over long time (4 billion years) the intensity of
"radiation" of these asteroids may follow an exponential-decay curve
with a half life perhaps 0.5 to 10 billion years.

Likewise in phase space of the two original bodies (Sun/Jupiter for
this knock-to-Earth-crossing example) there may be many more
complicated stable orbits, around each of which (in phase space) there
is a potential well. Just like the L4 and L5 (trojan) points, third
and fourth bodies (Saturn and Uranus) may cause periodic sloshing out
of the well, whose pulse period is a few million years and whose
longterm envelop is exponential decay. Note that the periodicity of
these additional wells would be exactly the same as the trojan wells,
because the phase relationships of the four bodies are the same for
all systems. The particular times that the pulse of spilling
(overflow) occurs for the various systems may all be different, or
there may be some correlation where a whole bunch of systems spill at
about the same time. In the latter case, we have periodic extinctions
from the bunch of spills occurring together. In the former case,
probably most spillage from strange stable orbital wells actually
falls into the trojan wells rather than colliding with Earth, so that
the trojan wells are resupplied from the other wells. During the
interval between trojan spills, lots of little spills from other wells
would have filld the trojan wells quite full, so that the trojan spill
when it comes is quite large. Then the major contribution to
Earth-crossing asteroids would be from the trojan wells periodially
overflowing, and again we have periodic mass extinctions with not much
bad happening between times.

So, could some expert in celestial mechanics offer a critique of my theory?

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

Date: 12 Jan 86 21:33:42 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!cvl!umd5!don@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Re: A High Tech Maginot Line
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> 
> Has net.sdi been created yet?
> 
> Phil
No, but net.politics will welcome your political arguments with open arms.
For discussion of SALTs 1 and 2, you would be welcome in net.legal.
Folks, this has gone on for quite a while in net.space -- The postings
no longer involve "space", as in "extraterrestrial space". Please move
to an appropriate news.group   ....   Thank you.
-- 
--==---==---==--
"What happened ?"
"It seems the occipital area of my head impacted with the arm of the chair."
"No, I mean, what happened to us ?"
"That has yet to be surmised."
  ARPA: umd5!don@maryland.ARPA, don%umd5@umd2.ARPA
BITNET: don%umd5@umd2
  UUCP: ..!{ seismo!umcp-cs, ihnp4!rlgvax }!cvl!umd5!don

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

Date: Mon, 13 Jan 86 21:38:46 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@mit-mc.arpa>
Subject: Voyager Hotline
To: tektronix!reed!nsc-pdc!will@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Cc: KFL@mit-mc.arpa, Space@s1-b.arpa

    Date: 10 Jan 86 16:19:34 GMT
    From: tektronix!reed!nsc-pdc!will@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (William Hobbs)

    During previous planetary fly-bys by the Voyager spacecraft, JPL maintained
    a "Voyager Hotline," a number you could call to get up-to-date information
    on the state and location of the craft, new discoveries, etc. Does anyone
    know if there is a Hotline for the Uranus Fly-by?

  I have heard that the number is (818) 354-7650.  I haven't tried it.

								...Keith

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

Date: 13 Jan 86 23:11:42 GMT
From: decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-sanfan!walkerke@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Chiron (aka Kowal's Object)
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

I seem to recall the amateur astronomy magazines covering a story a few
years ago about a possible tenth planet, planetoid or large asteroid. 
Inasmuch as it was identified by Charles Kowal it was [temporarily] named
"Kowal's Object". 
(I rather like that [pseudo]namming convention)

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

Date: 13 Jan 86 06:39:11 GMT
From: sun!idi!styx!mcb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Michael C. Berch)
Subject: Re: Star-Wars
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <787@petrus.UUCP> karn@petrus.UUCP (Phil R. Karn) writes:
> . . . 
> Has anyone set up a Star Wars (aka SDI) newsgroup yet?
> 
> Phil
Try mod.politics.arms-d, which is gatewayed from the ARPANET ARMS-D
(Arms Discussion Digest) mailing list.  About every angle about SDI
has been discussed, and probably will continue to be discussed.
Michael C. Berch
ARPA: mcb@lll-tis-b.ARPA
UUCP: {akgua,allegra,cbosgd,decwrl,dual,ihnp4,sun}!idi!styx!mcb

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

End of SPACE Digest V6 #76
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA09210; Wed, 15 Jan 86 03:00:45 PST
	id AA09210; Wed, 15 Jan 86 03:00:45 PST
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 86 03:00:45 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8601151100.AA09210@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #77

*** EOOH ***
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 86 03:00:45 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #77

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 6 : Issue 77

Today's Topics:
			    Re: rail guns
		   Re: NASA & New Space Technology
		    Phone Number for Voyager Info
			Photographing Halley's
		      1986 NASA Launch Schedule
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 14 Jan 86 02:01:19 GMT
From: amdcad!amdahl!ems@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (ems)
Subject: Re: rail guns
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> Actually, current rail guns are not very efficient (30%?).  Much of the
> energy ends up in a residual magnetic field after the projectile leaves
> the launcher.
 ...
> The biggest technical obstacle to rail guns and other electric launchers
> is, suprisingly, not the launcher itself but rather the power source.
> Launching a 100 kilogram payload to orbital velocity at 1,000 gees
> requires a peak power of something like 10 gigawatts (for a brief
> time).  The average power will be much less (depending on the launch
> rate).
Why not use capacitors or something similar to store the energy?
Charge them up over night, then POW, discharge for a launch.
The peak size of the *generator* is reduced by orders of magnetude ...
-- 
E. Michael Smith  ...!{hplabs,ihnp4,amd,nsc}!amdahl!ems
This is the obligatory disclaimer of everything.

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

Date: 14 Jan 86 02:15:58 GMT
From: amdcad!amdahl!ems@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (ems)
Subject: Re: NASA & New Space Technology
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <1287@sdcsvax.UUCP>, davidson@sdcsvax.UUCP (J. Greg Davidson) writes:
...
> As the space advocacy movement continues to grow, we build the grassroots
> support for a more active and daring space program.  Its a long haul, but
> bootstrapping is what space development is all about.  Space starts only
> 200 miles away; its just in an awkward direction!
> 
> _Greg
How far away IS space, anyway?  I thought it started at about 100 miles
but that some orbits could dip to 75 mi. or so (a few times, at least)
before reentry.
So just how far does one have to go to reach 'space'?
-- 
E. Michael Smith  ...!{hplabs,ihnp4,amd,nsc}!amdahl!ems
This is the obligatory disclaimer of everything.

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

Date:     Tue, 14 Jan 86 8:31:54 EST
From: Leslie R. Eastman <lreastma@crdc-vax2.arpa>
To: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
Subject:  Phone Number for Voyager Info

Two numbers have been given in this digest for information on Voyager
- (818) 354-3051 and (818) 354-7650 - and they both work. (They have the
same recording.)

Does anyone know if there is an Autovon or FTS number I can use?

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

From: prandt!cpc@ames-nas.arpa
To: angband!amelia!space@ames-nas.arpa
Subject: Photographing Halley's
Date: 14 Jan 86 11:12:50 PST (Tue)

I'd like to take a photo of Halley's Comet, and somehow get a reasonable
shot of the comet with my two kids in the same frame. Does anyone out there
have any ideas how to go about this? Somewhat incidentally, I plan on being
in Hawaii in April, and I understand April 11 is the closest approach. Aside
from the problem of keeping my kids still and awake on top of a Hawaiian
mountain, what are the obstacles?

I have a Canon AE-1. I've been thinking about a long exposure of the comet,
followed by a flash of the kids with the shutter open. But I have no idea
how long to expose on the comet. I have a 50mm, a 75-210 zoom, and a 2x
extender. I'm not above double exposure if I knew how to do that with the
Canon.

Please mail to me directly and I will summarize.

Chuck Collins              ...hplabs!ames!amelia!cpc              cpc@ames-nas

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

Date: 13 Jan 86 22:12:37 GMT
From: sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!oberon!smeagol!jplgodo!steve@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Steve Schlaifer x3171 156/224)
Subject: 1986 NASA Launch Schedule
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

The following is taken from Science News, vol. 129
Date	Mission			Description
Jan 6	Shuttle mission
	61-C (Columbia)
	  Satcom Ku-1		Communications satellite (RCA)
	  MSL-2			Materials Science Laboratory (NASA)
	  CHAMP			Comet Halley Active Monitoring Program
Jan 23	Shuttle mission
	51-L (Challenger)
	  Spartan-Halley	molecule-searce, UV spectral monitoring
	  TDRS-B		Tracking and Data Relay Satellite (NASA)
	  CHAMP			Comet Halley Active Monitoring Program
	  TIS			Teacher-in-Space equipment
March 6	Shuttle mission
	61-E (Columbia)
	  ASTRO-1		ultraviolet astronomy telescope
	  CHAMP			Comet Halley Active Monitoring Program
March	NOAA-G			weather and search-and-rescue satellite (NOAA)
May	GOES-G			weather satellite (NOAA)
May 15	Shuttle mission
	61-F (Challenger)
	  Ulysses		solar polar flyby (European Space Agency)
May 20	Shuttle mission
	61-G (Atlantis)
	  Galileo		Jupiter orbiter-and-probe (NASA)
June 24	Shuttle mission
	61-H (Columbia)
	  Westar VI-S		communications satellite (Western Union)
	  Palapa B-3		communications satellite (Indonesia)
	  Skynet 4A		communications satellite (U.K.)
July	FLTSATCOM-F		communications satellite (USN)
July	Navy 23			navigation satellite (USN)
July	Shuttle mission
	62-A (Discovery)	DOD mission; 1st West Coast launch;
	  Teal Ruby		polar orbit
July 22	Shuttle mission
	61-M (Challenger)
	  EOS-1			Electrophoresis Operation in Space (McD.-D.)
	  TDRS-C		Tracking and Data Relay Satellite (NASA)
August	AF-21			USAF payload
Aug 18	Shuttle mission
	61-J (Atlantis)
	  Hubble Space Telescope astronomy from earth-orbit
August	DOD-1			Defense Department mission
Sept 4	Shuttle mission
	61-N (Columbia)
	  DOD mission		classified payload
Sept 27	Shuttle mission
	61-I (Challenger)
	  LDEF-1 retrieval	Long-Duration Exposure Facility retrieval
	  INSAT 1-C		communications satellite (India)
Sept 29	Shuttle mission
	62-B (Discovery)
	  DOD mission		classified payload; polar orbit
October	San Marco DL		atmosphere-studies satellite (Italy/U.S.)
October	GOES-H			weather satellite (NOAA)
Oct 27	Shuttle mission
	61-K (Atlantis)
	  Environmental
	  Obs. Mission		solar variability studies (NASA)
Nov 6	Shuttle mission
	61-L (Columbia)
	  MSL-3			Materials Science Laboratory (NASA)
	  GSTAR-III		communications satellite (GTE)
	  Syncom IV-5		communications satellite (Hughes)
November AF-17			USAF payload
November FLTSATCOM-G		communications satellite (USN)
Dec 6	Shuttle mission
	71-B (Challenger)
	  DOD mission		classified payload
Shuttle missions are designated by a three letter code (e.g. 61-C).  The first
numeral is the last digit of the fiscal year (1986); the second the launch site
(1 is Kennedy Space Center, 2 is Vandenburg). The letter is the mission's
originally scheduled position in the sequence of launches for the fiscal year.
Where only the month is listed, specific dates have not been established.
Listed dates are subject to change as well.

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

End of SPACE Digest V6 #77
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA14424; Thu, 16 Jan 86 03:01:03 PST
	id AA14424; Thu, 16 Jan 86 03:01:03 PST
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 86 03:01:03 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8601161101.AA14424@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #78

*** EOOH ***
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 86 03:01:03 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #78

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 6 : Issue 78

Today's Topics:
		 Voyager Uranus Symposium and request
		   Re: tenth planet (Charon/Chiron)
			  Re: Robert Goddard
			   Re: L-5 Society
			   Re: L-5 Society
		     Re: Another Use for Tethers
		   Re: Amateur Satellite Observing
			 Voyager Info on FTS
	  Voyager II phone numbers and Photographing Halley
	Amateur Sattellite Observing  Reply to Alssandro Berni
			Photographing Halley's
		    Re: Aviation Week on Star Wars
			    Re: rail guns
		      Re: Photographing Halley's
			  NASA Servers/BBSs?
		     Re:  Photographing Halley's
			 Russians see angels
		  Re: Phone Number for Voyager Info
		     bright star catalogue wanted
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 15 Jan 86 01:31:01 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!harvard!talcott!cfa!mink@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Doug Mink)
Subject: Voyager Uranus Symposium and request
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

E...............J.......S........U . . . .N  .  .  . (...) *
The Planetary Society is sponsoring a symposium at Caltech on the evening of
the 24th of January as Voyager is encountering Uranus.  Entitled "Uranus:
The Voyage Continues", it will include speakers such as Carl Sagan, Edward
Stone, Freeman Dyson, and others.  This will probably be as close as the
public can get to the real thing.  Tickets are available from Ticketron,
the Planetary Society ((818)793-5100), or the Caltech Public Events Office
((818)356-4652) and cost $5.00 ($3.00 for PS members).  I'm posting this to
the whole net as sort of a follow-up to the discussion about access to JPL
during Voyager encounters that was held several months ago.  It is my under-
standing that the encounter data will be coming back on the following day.
JPL is sponsoring something they are calling `the historic Voyager 2 Uranus
Encounter Educators' Conference' to get interested people close, but not too
close, to the events of the 24th and 25th.  It is by invitation only,
apparently, but I got one and am coming out at my own expense.  The rooms
they booked were over $50 a night, which I'd like to avoid paying, so I'd
appreciate hearing from anyone in netland who lives around Pasadena and can
offer a place to crash, information on less expensive lodgings, or an
informal tour of Caltech.  I've never been to LA before, and I'll be there
from noon on Thursday, the 23rd, to noon on Sunday, the 25th.  If you can
help, please contact me as soon as possible.
				-Doug Mink
				 Center for Astrophysics
				 Cambridge, Massachusetts
	UUCP: mink@cfa.UUCP or {seismo|ihnp4|cmc12}!harvard!talcott!cfa!mink
	ARPA: mink%cfa.UUCP@harvard.ARPA
	FTS:  830-7408
	ATT:  (617)495-7408

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

Date: 13 Jan 86 15:14:25 GMT
From: ihnp4!houxm!ho95e!ran@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (RANeinast)
Subject: Re: tenth planet (Charon/Chiron)
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> 
> > As I recall, Voyager (I or II) detected the tenth planet.  It lies
> > between Saturn and Uranus, and is rather small.  It has been named
> > Charon, (Roman god that paddles the boat across the River Styx, I
> > think).  This planet probably doesn't account for all of the
> > perturbations of Uranus and Neptune, either.
> 
> Charon is Pluto's moon, and was discovered by earth-based telescope.
> 
I believe this person is referring to Chiron.  This was an asteroidal
body found around 1978(?), and indeed has a non-typical orbit
(for an asteroid--I think the original poster is correct about the orbit).
Note that despite the orbit, it still has an asteroid-type name,
that is, Trojan War people.  Chiron was the wise centaur who tutored
Achilles, Hercules, and Asclepius [Am. Her. Dict].
I'm pretty sure Voyager had nothing to do with the discovery.
It is coincidental that Charon and Chiron were discovered and named at about the
same time.
-- 
". . . and shun the frumious Bandersnatch."
Robert Neinast (ihnp4!ho95c!ran)
AT&T-Bell Labs

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

Date: 13 Jan 86 18:40:31 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Robert Goddard
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> Imagine what he could have done with an NSF grant!
Imagine how difficult it would have been for him to get one!
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

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

Date: 13 Jan 86 18:42:54 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: L-5 Society
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> V2's did, however, kill a lot of people...
Quite true.  The point was that almost any other use for von Braun's
funding would have killed more.	 The difference between "more" and "less"
is not as sharp as that between "some" and "none", but it often reflects
the real world more accurately.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

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

Date: 13 Jan 86 19:15:32 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!utcsri!ubc-vision!alberta!cadomin!andrew@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Andrew Folkins)
Subject: Re: L-5 Society
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <1326@ames.UUCP> al@ames.UUCP (Al Globus) writes:
>
>    Think of all the widows and cripples in old London town,
>    Who owe their large pensions to Werner von Braun
Anybody out there know the rest of this Tom Lehrer song?  The only other
verse I remember is : 
     I just send them up,
     Who cares where they come down?
     That's not my department
     Says Werner von Braun.
-- 
Andrew Folkins        ...ihnp4!alberta!andrew    
 
All ideas in this message are fictional.  Any resemblance, to any idea,
living or dead, is purely coincidental.

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

Date: 13 Jan 86 19:00:40 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!utcsri!ubc-vision!alberta!cadomin!andrew@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Andrew Folkins)
Subject: Re: Another Use for Tethers
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <8601101806.AA00639@s1-b.arpa> dietz@SLB-DOLL.CSNET (Paul Dietz) writes:
>Even if they aren't used for launching things, tethers may be very
>useful for generating angular momentum in spinning space structures.
>For example, a space station could be spun up by extending two very
>long cables with small reaction engines on the ends.  The cables would
>be spun up and, because of the long moment arms, would acquire large
>amounts of angular momentum.  An electric motor anchored to the cables
>at the hub could then spin up the station, gradually slowing the cables.
>When the cables are stationary they would be retracted.  This is much
>more mass efficient than using reaction engines on the space station itself.
Umm, what stops the cables from just wrapping around the station?  This
scheme would work, but you would need rigid 'towers' instead of cables, and
the mass needed for these towers might be large enough to offset any fuel
savings.  One last point, the cables will only be stationary with respect
to the station, and they will still have a considerable amount of angular
momentum. Retracting them would spin up the station even more, just like
a spinning figure skater.  
-- 
Andrew Folkins        ...ihnp4!alberta!andrew    
 
All ideas in this message are fictional.  Any resemblance, to any idea,
living or dead, is purely coincidental.

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

Date: Wed, 15 Jan 86 07:10:35 PST
From: ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: ihnp4!space
Subject: Re: Amateur Satellite Observing
In-Reply-To: your article <8601131809.AA00311@s1-b.arpa>

My brother just got the satellite report last month, but we have not
used it yet.  When the weather is good we sometimes lie outside to
watch satellites pass by.  I finally saw the Orbiter last year on one
of its infrequent high-inclination orbits.  We are trying to figure
out if we can see Salyut 6 someday.  I'm near Chicago now, but I
observe from my mother's house in central Indiana when I visit.

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

Date: Wed, 15 Jan 86 07:57:53 PST
To: space
From: aiz@jpl-vlsi.arpa
Subject: Voyager Info on FTS

Date:    Wed, 15 Jan 86 06:16:34 PST
From: aiz@jpl-vlsi.arpa
Subject: RE: SPACE Digest V6 #77
To: ota@s1-b.arpa

The JPL prefix on FTS is 792.  You can dial 792-3051 for Voyager Information.

Art Zygielbaum, JPL

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

Date:    Wed, 15 Jan 86 09:26:35 PST
From: tencati@jpl-vlsi.arpa
Subject: Voyager II phone numbers and Photographing Halley
To: space@s1-b.arpa


The phone number for recorded Voyager information is (818)354-7650 also
(FTS)792-7650.  

The International Halley Watch, based at JPL maintains two recorded messages
which are updated ~daily.  For non-technical information, the number is 
(818)354-4300/(FTS)792-4300.  For amateur astronomers, a recording providing
current celestial coordinates and magnitude data is available by calling
(818)354-4301/(FTS)792-4301.

For photographing Halley and human subjects in the same frame, it depends on
how bright the comet appears.  If you can track the stars, then take a picture
from 5-15 minutes depending on film speed (10 minutes will give good star 
images too).   If you cannot track the stars, I would not recommend a picture
longer than about 5 minutes with the telephoto as the image will begin to blur.
If you use the 50mm lens, you could maybe get by with a good 5-min exposure.

Put the comet in one part of the frame, then take a flash picture of the human
subjects (against a dark sky, with no other objects in the field of view) on 
the same frame that you just exposed the comet.

Since your trip is not scheduled for April, and Halley comes but "once in a 
lifetime...", try shooting pictures of the stars with your camera, and place
human subjects in those pictures.  That way, you will get the best feel for
your own camera (oops, I just noticed I forgot to say try experimenting NOW)
and when you go to Hawaii, you can get the most out of your experience.

                                             Ron Tencati
                                             JPL-VLSI.ARPA

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

Date: 15 Jan 86 13:04:01 GMT
From: decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-pipa!biro@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Amateur Sattellite Observing  Reply to Alssandro Berni
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In reply to Alssandor Berni request on Satellite Observation
I  am interested  in amateur satellite observation, both visual and radio.  
Sorry about posting this on the  net but I could not figure out Alssandor 
electronic mail  address.  I would also  be interested in frequencies and
telemetry decoding info, especially on Solar Wind and Magnetic Studies.
I have access to a good Fortran_77 program that does satellite predictions.
I also can receive form 100khz to 2KMhz, an a Deep Space 10inch telescope.
Also I am interested in a newer element set for SALYUT_7 OBJ 13138 Set:791
as the one I have is out of date and NASA has not added this to my mailing
list yet.   I presently get prediction bulletins  form COSMOS series, GOES 
series, NOAA series, MTR 1,2,&3 series, an Amateur series.
John

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

Date:           Wed, 15 Jan 86 11:10:34 PST
From: "Niket K. Patwardhan" <bilbo.niket@locus.ucla.edu>
To: cpc@ames-nas.arpa
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject:        Photographing Halley's

There are two problems..... One is to get the brightness of the kids and the
comet comparable in the final picture, and the other is to get the sizes
comparable.

If the AE-1 has aperture control (that is, you select the aperture and the
camera figures out how long to keep the shutter open) then you choose the
largest aperture (smallest number) and the camera should get you a reasonable
picture of the comet. If the time it picks is a few seconds, then you flash
the kids near the end of the time, and get your picture in a single exposure.
You of course need a manual flash. If you are willing to borrow a friend's
camera for this, try using an Olympus OM-1, it has aperture control, with a
very long time limit. One of the biggest problems with using this technique
is making sure that the camera is reacting to the light from the comet, rather
than something else in the picture, and you make sure of this by letting its
image cover enough of the field of view, and that there are no artificial
light sources in the picture (street lights, the moon, etc).

To get the sizes comparable, you need to put the kids far enough away from
the camera, just like when you take a picture of people walking into a sunset,
and blow them up to the right siz with a telephoto (which you need anyway, since
a straight shot of the comet wouldn't be visible). Since I am not quite sure how
much magnification the comet needs for a reasonable picture, I can't even begin
to guess how far this needs to be. (A mile???? 100 yards? You might need a
walkie talkie to work the flash right).

A double exposure could be simpler because of the size problem.... you first
take a picture of the comet (borrowing somebody's telescope if necessary),
and then take a picture of your kids against a dark and even background. The
only problem would be stars in the middle of the kids.

If somebody knows the right telephoto to use to get the comet to occupy a least
5% of the field of view, please let us know.

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

Date: 14 Jan 86 17:07:25 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!lsuc!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Aviation Week on Star Wars
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> Technology advancing does not necessarily invalidate MAD, indeed,
> just the opposite.  Technology has made counterforce possible.
> Over the past 10 yrs, US nuclear throweight has dropped 40%.
> We simply don't need that much bang anymore.  Weapons are not getting
> larger, if anything, they're getting smaller.
Some people think this has little or nothing to do with advancing
technology, and a lot more to do with advancing common sense.  It is
worth remembering that the Oppenheimer committee, circa 1950, opposed
the development of the hydrogen bomb on the grounds that there was NO
VALID MILITARY REQUIREMENT for it.  These were knowledgeable people who
supported further development of other types of nuclear weapons.  Their
report stated, in so many words, that existing fission-bomb technology
(20kT bombs plus a sprinkling of fractional-megaton special designs) was
entirely adequate to meet all reasonable military needs, and that bigger
bombs were unnecessary.
They were right.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

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

Posted-Date: Wed 15 Jan 1986 15:11:31 EST
Date: Wed 15 Jan 1986 15:11:31 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Re: rail guns
To: ems <amdcad!amdahl!ems@ucbvax.berkeley.edu>
In-Reply-To: amdcad!amdahl!ems's message of 14 Jan 86 02:01:19 GMT
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa

>Why not use capacitors or something similar to store the energy?
>Charge them up over night, then POW, discharge for a launch.
>The peak size of the *generator* is reduced by orders of magnetude ...

Actually, you'd charge them up over a period of minutes using the power
grid.  A 100 kg payload launched to 10 km/sec needs 15 billion
joules of energy (at 33% efficiency).  Electrolytic capacitors these days
have a storage density of around 100 joules/cubic centimeter, so that's a
capacitor roughly 16 feet on a side!  Building something that big out of
hundreds of thousands of smaller capacitors doesn't sound impractical.

Handling the power is not just a matter of storing the energy, but also
switching it.  Designing switches and cables capable of handling tens of
gigawatts of power in short pulses is nontrivial.

It might be an interesting project to build, at home, a small railgun
or coil gun powered by some of those large capacitors found in computer
power supplies.  A 100 milligram mass could be accelerated to 10 km/sec
with just 15 kilojoules of energy (at 33% efficiency).  Don't aim it
at anything valuable.  (I take no responsibility for the results if
someone actually tries this...)

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

Date: Wed, 15 Jan 86 11:14:33 pst
From: decwrl!sun!saber!jc@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (John Cincotta)
To: sun!space
Subject: Re: Photographing Halley's
In-Reply-To: your article <8601141912.AA00708@prandt>

I think the way to do it would be to use the 50mm wide open and
let it stay open for 30 seconds use some of the new 1600 asa film
I think the problem will be getting them up and in position to pose in the
morning because it will be an hour or 2 before sunrise .
I would also take several pictures without the kids in the picture
at different exposures and then you can splice the pictures together 
in the darkroom.

Name:	John Cincotta
Mail:	Saber Technology, 2381 Bering Drive, San Jose, California 95131
AT&T:	435-8600
UUCP:	...{decvax,ucbvax}!decwrl!saber!jc
	...{amd,ihnp4,ittvax}!saber!jc

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

Return-Path: CC004049%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA
Date:         Wed, 15 Jan 86 20:29:34 EST
From: George S. Musser Jr.
  <CC004049%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu>
To: SPACE-INCOMING@s1-b.arpa
Subject:      NASA Servers/BBSs?

Do NASA or JPL maintain any network servers or BBSs that update the
progress of Voyager and other space probes?

Thanks.

George

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

Date: Wed, 15 Jan 86 13:54:33 PST
From: mcgeer@ji (Rick McGeer)
To: bilbo.niket@locus.ucla.edu, cpc@ames-nas.arpa
Subject: Re:  Photographing Halley's
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa

	Will you really need a telescope to see the comet in April?  I'd heard
that the tail will be 20 degrees or thereabouts, and magnitude 3 -- which would
make Halley's look more or less like a wide milky way of about the size of
Orion.  Is that not accurate?

						-- Rick.

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

Date: 9 Jan 86 15:57:00 GMT
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!convex!ctvax!kerry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Russians see angels
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

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

Return-Path: <ross@gollum>
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 86 12:56:35 pst
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!smeagol!gollum!ross@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Gary Ross)
To: smeagol!space
Subject: Re: Phone Number for Voyager Info

	You should be able to reach these numbers on FTS by using 792 instead of 354 in
the phone numbers that you listed in your article.

						Gary Ross
						Jet Propulsion Laboratory
						4800 Oak Grove Drive
						Pasadena, Ca 91107
						(818) 354 - 8770
						FTS: (818) 792 - 8770

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

Date: 15 Jan 86 05:07:16 GMT
From: tektronix!uw-beaver!ubc-vision!vertigo!doug@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Doug Girling)
Subject: bright star catalogue wanted
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Can anyone tell em where I might be able to scrounge a public
domain bright-star catalogue in machine readable form?  I need
R.A., dec, & magnitude, though spectral information would not be
unappreciated.
				Thanks,
				Doug Girling
...!uw-beaver!ubc-vision!vertigo!doug
...!alberta!ubc-vision!vertigo!doug

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

End of SPACE Digest V6 #78
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA19331; Fri, 17 Jan 86 03:01:09 PST
	id AA19331; Fri, 17 Jan 86 03:01:09 PST
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 86 03:01:09 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8601171101.AA19331@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #79

*** EOOH ***
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 86 03:01:09 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #79

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 6 : Issue 79

Today's Topics:
			   Re: L-5 Society
		     Re: Another Use for Tethers
			    Re: von Braun
		     Re: Too many skyhooks ? :-)
		     Re: Re: Altitude of "space"
			 bright stars catalog
		     Re:  Photographing Halley's
			      rail guns
		  Re: Re: Aviation Week on Star Wars
		Storing electricity for railgun shots
				   
			nearby stars program?
		      Re: Photographing Halley's
			     Laser Launch
		  retry: colliding two inert masses
	   Nemesis = Jupiter et al resonating the asteroids
		retry: gross or net number of deaths?
retry: If you don't climb straight up it's a much longer trip to orbit
		     Re: Timing of comet showers
			   composite photo
	can't use flexible tether as if it were a rigid lever
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 15 Jan 86 18:26:20 GMT
From: mtxinu!rtech!amdahl!ems@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (ems)
Subject: Re: L-5 Society
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <652@cadomin.UUCP>, andrew@cadomin.UUCP (Andrew Folkins) writes:
> In article <1326@ames.UUCP> al@ames.UUCP (Al Globus) writes:
> >
> >    Think of all the widows and cripples in old London town,
> >    Who owe their large pensions to Werner von Braun
> 
> Anybody out there know the rest of this Tom Lehrer song?  The only other
> verse I remember is : 
> 
>      I just send them up,
Umm, I think this line was more like:
       Once the rockets go up,
>      Who cares where they come down?
>      That's not my department
>      Says Werner von Braun.
-- 
E. Michael Smith  ...!{hplabs,ihnp4,amd,nsc}!amdahl!ems
This is the obligatory disclaimer of everything.

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

Posted-Date: Thu 16 Jan 1986 07:51:54 EST
Date: Thu 16 Jan 1986 07:51:54 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Re: Another Use for Tethers
To: Andrew Folkins <ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!utcsri!ubc-vision!alberta!cadomin!andrew@ucbvax.berkeley.edu>
In-Reply-To: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!utcsri!ubc-vision!alberta!cadomin!andrew's message of 13 Jan 86 19:00:40 GMT
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa

>Umm, what stops the cables from just wrapping around the station?  This
>scheme would work, but you would need rigid 'towers' instead of cables, and
>the mass needed for these towers might be large enough to offset any fuel
>savings.  One last point, the cables will only be stationary with respect
>to the station, and they will still have a considerable amount of angular
>momentum. Retracting them would spin up the station even more, just like
>a spinning figure skater.  

By stationary I meant with respect to an inertial reference frame, not
the space station (you torque the cables until they stop).  The point
about winding the cables up is a good one, but can be overcome by not
torquing them even that much, so leaving them with some residual
rotation.  This rotation can be eliminated by firing the rockets at the
ends again, but in the opposite direction.

One might acquire angular momentum by catching masses at the ends of
the cables.  This would transfer angular momentum from the orbits of
the masses to the rotation of the structure; because the orbits have
such large radii this could be extremely mass efficient.

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

Date: 15 Jan 86 18:06:58 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!harvard!bbnccv!bbncca!linus!faron!wdr@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (William D. Ricker)
Subject: Re: von Braun
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <652@cadomin.UUCP> andrew@cadomin.UUCP (Andrew Folkins) writes:
>In article <1326@ames.UUCP> al@ames.UUCP (Al Globus) writes:
>>    Think of all the widows and cripples in old London town,
>>    Who owe their large pensions to Werner von Braun
>
>     I just send them up,
>     Who cares where they come down?
>     That's not my department
>     Says Werner von Braun.
	[--Tom Leher]
I recall reading a biography of Werner von Braun when I was in junior
high, back during NASA's hey-day.  If I'm not mistaken, which I easily
could be dealing with memories over a decade old, "not my department"
is literaly and figuratively accurate.  My recollection is that Werner
von Braun was not exactly a volunteer Nazi, but was coerced into
cooperating with the R&D authorities by threats against his mother
etc.  (He may very well also be the German scientist that packed a
truck with secret documents and fled toward American lines when the
Soviets approached his compound during the last months of the war.)
(* anti (political flames) flames *)
Leave von Braun's war-work out of it.
Munitions research is not included under war-crimes.  
A bit contradictory to complain about both lack of attention to
Goddard's work and the
results achieved by those who did pay attention.
And particularly knock off the politics or ethics in net.space/SPACE-DIGEST.
This isn't ARMS-D or net.politics or an SDI discussion group.
I'm perfectly willing to listen to engineering discussions of space
based weapons  and to strategy discussions for more space-research funding
but the rancourous politics, no.  And my N-key is not the answer,
as I am interested in many of the SDI discussions, pro and con, but
would like to read them when I'm in an consider-SDI mood, not when I'm
in a how-to-get-stuff-into-orbit mood.
The best way to close my mind to your opinions is to shove them at me
when I'm trying to be open minded about some-thing else.  I can't
consider all the new ideas in the world at the same time.
-- 
  William Ricker
  wdr@faron.UUCP						(UUCP)
  decvax!genrad!linus!faron!wdr					(UUCP)
 {allegra,ihnp4,utzoo,philabs,uw-beaver}!linus!faron!wdr	(UUCP)
Opinions are my own and not necessarily anyone elses.
No warranty, expressed or implied, is given about the veracity of any
statements contained herein.  Applicable law in your state may differ.

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

Date: 14 Jan 86 00:52:45 GMT
From: ihnp4!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Too many skyhooks ? :-)
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> I can imagine the international furore if the U.S. and
> Soviet skyhooks get tangled.  Just imagine the problems
> in sorting out the tangle !!
The collision of two skyhooks would not normally yield a "tangle".
It would just yield four skyhooks.
-- 
Wayne Throop at Data General, RTP, NC
<the-known-world>!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw

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

Date: 15 Jan 86 23:07:16 GMT
From: ihnp4!houxm!hropus!riccb!rjnoe@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Roger J. Noe)
Subject: Re: Re: Altitude of "space"
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> So just how far does one have to go to reach 'space'?
> -- 
> E. Michael Smith  ...!{hplabs,ihnp4,amd,nsc}!amdahl!ems
Many pilots unofficially recognized 50 (statute) miles as the beginning of
space, i.e. beyond the atmosphere.  This would make a number of X-15 missions
space flights.  A more common recognition today is an altitude of 100 km
(about 62 statute miles).  Still some of the X-15 flights were above this
mark.  There is no universally accepted definition since there is no real
boundary to cross to get to space.
--
	Roger Noe			ihnp4!riccb!rjnoe

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

Date: Thu 16 Jan 86 12:12:42-PST
From: Christopher Schmidt <SCHMIDT@sumex-aim.arpa>
Subject: bright stars catalog
To: tektronix!uw-beaver!ubc-vision!vertigo!doug@ucbvax.berkeley.edu,
        Space-Enthusiasts@s1-b.arpa

	The 9000 entry Yale Bright Stars catalog is filed in
[SUMEX-AIM.arpa]<YALE.STARS>.  I think STARS.MSG is the message
that told me where on SIMTEL20 to get it and STAR.DOC describes
the syntax of the DAT files.  --Christopher
--Christopher
	STAR.DOC.1   19250(7)       STAR5.DAT.1  239700(7)
	STAR1.DAT.1  180336(7)      STAR6.DAT.1  239700(7)
	STAR2.DAT.1  239700(7)      STAR7.DAT.1  239700(7)
	STAR3.DAT.1  239700(7)      STAR8.DAT.1  239904(7)
	STAR4.DAT.1  239700(7)      STARS.MSG.2  889(7)
-------

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

Date:           Thu, 16 Jan 86 09:49:37 PST
From: "Niket K. Patwardhan" <bilbo.niket@locus.ucla.edu>
To: mcgeer@ji (Rick McGeer)
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject:        Re:  Photographing Halley's
In-Reply-To:    Message of Wed, 15 Jan 86 13:54:33 PST
                    from "mcgeer@ji (Rick McGeer)"
                    <8601152154.AA07383@ji.berkeley.edu>

>	Will you really need a telescope to see the comet in April?  I'd heard
>that the tail will be 20 degrees or thereabouts, and magnitude 3 -- which would
>make Halley's look more or less like a wide milky way of about the size of
>Orion.  Is that not accurate?

That's wonderful..... I was very disappointed with the current view..... It
really isn't a spectacle if you have to use binoculars to see it. Now I'll
be motivated to get up early to see it, or even camp out, given LA skies.

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

Date: 16 Jan 86  15:30 EST (Thu)
From: _Bob <Carter@red.rutgers.edu>
To: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Cc: ems <amdcad!amdahl!ems@ucbvax.berkeley.edu>, space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: rail guns
In-Reply-To: Msg of 15 Jan 1986  15:11-EST from Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet at csnet-relay.arpa>


    From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet at csnet-relay.arpa>
    It might be an interesting project to build, at home, a small railgun
    or coil gun powered by some of those large capacitors found in computer
    power supplies.  A 100 milligram mass could be accelerated to 10 km/sec
    with just 15 kilojoules of energy (at 33% efficiency).  Don't aim it
    at anything valuable.  (I take no responsibility for the results if
    someone actually tries this...)

Is there an appropriate description of such a small railgun anywhere
in the literature?  Just what physical principles do you have in
mind?  Are you speaking of what amounts to a linear motor only, or do
you also mean a device that would collapse the rails (and their
associated fields) with a linear chemical explosion as well?

If the latter, it would be advisable to consult the law governing
explosive devices.  Things that go bang are regulated everywhere
and completely illegal in many places.  Even a purely magnetic
railgun would probably be a "firearm" under the laws of my state.

_B

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

Date: 15 Jan 86 21:16:44 GMT
From: trwrb!trwspp!spp3!ansok@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Gary Ansok)
Subject: Re: Re: Aviation Week on Star Wars
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> > A 50% effective SDI protecting
> > our missiles would mean that we need 50% fewer missiles for "defensive"
> > purposes.
> 
> Alternately, we could launch a first strike against the USSR, knock out
> 50% or more of their missles, and stop the other 50% with SDI.
All we have to do is figure out which 50% will get stopped by SDI,
and blow up the other 50% ahead of time!  :-)

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

Date: Thu, 16 Jan 86 14:51 PST
From: FRIEDRITR%GAV.MFENET@lll-mfe.arpa
Subject: Storing electricity for railgun shots
To: SPACE@s1-b.arpa




One method (which is used in some fusion reactor experiments) is to use
a spinning rock.  A huge rock (specially shaped and balanced, of course)
is spun up to high RPM over a period of time.  Then, when you need the
shot of electricity, you throw all that angular momentum into spinning
a large generator.  I've seen this done; the rock stops RIGHT NOW, and
your pet project gets a huge jolt of electricity.

No representations as to efficiency, but it was cheaper and easier to
build than a bank of hundreds of thousands of capacitors ...

Terry

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

Date: 16 Jan 86 14:55:00 PST
From: far.cantwell@ames-vmsb.arpa
Subject: 
To: space@mit-mc.arpa
Reply-To: far.cantwell@ames-vmsb.ARPA

Subject: information
To: space@mit-mc.arpa
Reply-To: far.cantwell@ames-vmsb.ARPA

If you have a standard information blurb about your uses/contributors/
typical areas of discussion etc., could you please forward it to me?
Otherwise, I would appreciate a short note to that effect. Thanks much!

Elizabeth Cantwell
NASA-Ames
FAR.CANTWELL@AMES-VMSB
------


------

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

Date: 16 Jan 86 19:48:23 EST
From: Dale.Amon@fas.ri.cmu.edu
Subject: nearby stars program?
To: BBoard.Maintainer@a.cs.cmu.edu

Some time ago there was a person collecting data on positions of nearby
stars for a program that was to be published in Byte. As I don't read the
magazine, I don't know if it was ever published. Program was to display
nearby stellar group at any planar projection you desired.

Does anyone have a copy of this program? If so, could you get in touch?

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

From: hplabs!tektronix!reed!omssw2!ogcvax!pase@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: omssw2!space
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 86 10:36:24 pst
Subject: Re: Photographing Halley's
Newsgroups: net.space
In-Reply-To: <prandt.8601141912.AA00708>

In article <prandt.8601141912.AA00708> you write:
>I'd like to take a photo of Halley's Comet, and somehow get a reasonable
>shot of the comet with my two kids in the same frame. Does anyone out there
>have any ideas how to go about this? Somewhat incidentally, I plan on being
>in Hawaii in April, and I understand April 11 is the closest approach. Aside
>from the problem of keeping my kids still and awake on top of a Hawaiian
>mountain, what are the obstacles?
>
>I have a Canon AE-1. I've been thinking about a long exposure of the comet,
>followed by a flash of the kids with the shutter open. But I have no idea
>how long to expose on the comet. I have a 50mm, a 75-210 zoom, and a 2x
>extender. I'm not above double exposure if I knew how to do that with the
>Canon.
>
>Please mail to me directly and I will summarize.
>
>Chuck Collins              ...hplabs!ames!amelia!cpc              cpc@ames-nas

One possibility is to photograph the comet, photograph the kids against
a dark background, then mix the photos on the prints.

Another possibility  MIGHT be to use a long exposure for the comet,
then sometime during the photo of the comet, have your kids get into
place and use a dim flash to briefly illuminate them, getting them in
the picture too.   You would have to put some effort into getting
the flash just right.  You would also have to be sure there was 
absolutely NO background behind the kids to mess up the picture
(say a dark night, camara pointed above the horizon, kids standing on
chairs, etc.)

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

Date: 16 Jan 86 20:23:07 EST
From: Dale.Amon@fas.ri.cmu.edu
Subject: Laser Launch
To: BBoard.Maintainer@a.cs.cmu.edu

A recent issue of Scientific American discussed phase conjugate lasers, and
two of the capabilities seemed made to order for a Kantrowitz laser launch
system.

	1) Self targeting:
	   A small laser need only illuminate the target area, ie the
	   combustion chamber area, and the main laser would follow the
	   target point without having requiring heavy calculation or rapid
	   mechanical tracking. Tracking and feedback would be at the speed
	   of light. Probably a fairly good safety factor also because of
	   the use of basic properties of light rather than relying on
	   complex systems.

	2) Ability to put a large number of seperate lasers into precise
	   phase step:
	   This allows a ring of smaller lasers to be used to efficiently
	   deliver power to the rocket combustion chamber. the phase
	   conjugate system corrects for deficiencies in the optics,
	   atmospheric scattering and time delays through each laser, thus
	   allowing multiple beams to arrive at the target point exactly in
	   phase.

For those who are not familiar with the laser launch concept, it works as
follows.

The vehicle has a highly refractive combustion chamber on which powerful
laser pulses are directed. The pulses superheat the air contained in the
chamber and cause it to expand out the expansion nozzle at high velocity,
producing thrust. The vacuum thus formed draws in fresh air between pulses,
readying the chamber for the next cycle.

As the rocket travels into thinner air, the accelerating rocket rams
more air into the chamber. Final injection is by normal thrusters.

The advantage of the system is that the 'fuel supply' is left on the ground
(the lasers and their power sources) and the propellent mass is picked up
along the way (atmospheric gases).

Such a system drops the cost per kilo in orbit down to a few $$'s/kg.

I have the feeling that the advances in phase conjugate lasers have just
solved the most difficult of the engineering problems in this system.

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

X-Sent: to SU-AI.ARPA by IMSSS.FRONSTAD.EDU via ETHERNET with PUPFTP; 1986-Jan-16 20:15:36 PST (=GMT-8hr)
X-Mailer: EMACS -> PSL (FORMAT+SEND-ALL) -> PUPFTP
Date: 1986 January 16 19:43:13 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM@imsss> (this host known locally only)
To: FIRTH@tl-20b.arpa
Cc: Space@s1-b.arpa, LINDSAY@tl-20b.arpa
Subject: retry: colliding two inert masses
Sender: REM%IMSSS@su-score.arpa (for undeliverable-mail notifications)
Reply-To: REM%IMSSS@SU-SCORE.ARPA

phil%dean@BERKELEY.EDU says this message was rejected by USENET
because of problems with the message-id, so I'm resubmitting without
any message-id. Arpanet members please ignore duplicate.

Date: 1986 January 09 18:54:45 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM@imsss> (this host known locally only)
To: FIRTH@tl-20b.arpa
Cc: Space@s1-b.arpa, LINDSAY@tl-20b.arpa
Subject: colliding two inert masses

(Sorry for tardy reply but IMSSS was down most of Dec 30 thru Jan 07
 and I am just now catching up on answering mail.)

F: Date: Tue 31 Dec 85 15:12:04-EST
F: From: FIRTH@tl-20b.arpa
F: Subject: those two masses...
F: To: space@mit-mc.arpa
F: Mr Throop wonders how to get my two masses to join up.
F: Frankly, so do I, but the situation isn't quite as bad as he
F: indicates.  At the intersection point the masses are moving
F: with a relative velocity of ~6000 mph (~2.7 kps).  A deceleration
F: of 5g for 1 minute will bring them to relative rest - which doesn't
F: seem too hairy.

If you have a rocket for accellerating them to achive common orbit,
you don't need two in the first place, firing one then using a rocket
to accellerate it into orbit. I think your answer above begs the
question about how to just toss them up without having any on-board
accelleration devices such as rockets.

F: More likely would be a thrust of 50g for 20", and an accelerator
F: therefore 60 miles long (and a height difference of 3200 feet between
F: the ends).  That already rules out any human cargo - but the purpose is
F: simply to get MASS up there, to be assembled &c later.  Even bricks will
F: withstand 50g, after all.

Do you see the problem? Do you know any bricks able to withstand 50
gee which can after such launch receive radio commands and accellerate
as you proposed earlier? Either you have bricks, which have to be just
tossed up, and you have to figure a way that such dead weight can
achieve orbit, or you have delicate rocket engines or mirrors or sails
or whatever and you have to figure a way to gently launch them in the
first place.

Probably the solution is to launch just dead weight, but have
something up there already (by earlier gentle launch) that tracks them
and rendezvouses (sp?) with them and catches them and applies thrust
to put them in orbit. What we need is an orbital transfer vehicle, a
"space tug", solar powered and controlled from Earth.

On the other hand...
L> Date: Tue 7 Jan 86 23:35:50-EST
L> From: LINDSAY@tl-20b.arpa
L> Subject: pulling heavy Gs
L> There were comments recently about whether a payload could contain a rocket
L> and still survive a pretty rugged launch.
L> ... talked the U.S. Navy out of a battleship gun that had been
L> mothballed since the first world war. ... Each shot involved
L> packing the gun with wood pieces, and placing the payload in a hollow
L> in the middle. Then you packed explosives in back of that, closed the
L> breech, pointed the gun straight up, and blammo ! There was serious
L> discussion at the time about putting a rocket motor into the payload,
L> and going all the way to orbit.
L> ...
L> There was talk a few years ago about developing an anti-aircraft
L> missile that would bank to turn, and that would be a lifting body
L> rather than have wings.  The stated advantage was that it would
L> pull 100 or 200 Gs going around corners.

Maybe you can indeed build robust rockets and use mass driver or
battleship gun to replace first-stage rocket.

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

X-Sent: to SU-AI.ARPA by IMSSS.FRONSTAD.EDU via ETHERNET with PUPFTP; 1986-Jan-16 20:15:53 PST (=GMT-8hr)
X-Mailer: EMACS -> PSL (FORMAT+SEND-ALL) -> PUPFTP
Date: 1986 January 16 19:45:52 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM@imsss> (this host known locally only)
To: SPACE@mit-mc.arpa
Cc: "Dave-Platt%LADC"@cisl-service-multics.arpa
Subject: Nemesis = Jupiter et al resonating the asteroids
Sender: REM%IMSSS@su-score.arpa (for undeliverable-mail notifications)
Reply-To: REM%IMSSS@SU-SCORE.ARPA

phil%dean@BERKELEY.EDU says this message was rejected by USENET
because of problems with the message-id, so I'm resubmitting without
any message-id. Arpanet members please ignore duplicate.

Date: 1986 January 13 10:47:14 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM@imsss> (this host known locally only)
To: SPACE@mit-mc.arpa
Cc: "Dave-Platt%LADC"@cisl-service-multics.arpa
Subject: Nemesis = Jupiter et al resonating the asteroids

DP> Date: Fri, 10 Jan 86 14:32 PST
DP> From: Dave Platt <Dave-Platt%LADC@cisl-service-multics.arpa>
DP> Subject: Timing of comet showers
DP> ... for the asteroid to drop into an orbit that crosses
DP> Earth's.  There may be some subtle second- or third-order interactions
DP> between Jupiter, Saturn, the asteroids, Earth, and maybe the other
DP> planets which would lead to a periodic change in the number of
DP> asteriods perturbed into Earth-crossing orbits.
DP> So... Nemesis may exist, and be sitting right in front of our faces:
DP> it's Jupiter!  

As "Connections" host James Burke likes to point out, nobody comes up
with a new invention in vacuuo, each merely adds a little to what
existed already. Here's my little "value-added" enhancement to yours
which was an enhancement of the original Nemesis theory:

First, consider stable geometrically-fixed potential wells in two-plus
body systems, that is tiny test bodies trying to orbit in phase space
around two large orbiting bodies. I.e. consider L4 and L5 regions in
such places as Earth/Moon or Sun/Jupiter systems. With just the two
large bodies, in circular co-orbits, the potential wells are fixed in
shape and depth, so that a test body is either trapped or it isn't,
and if it is it'll stay there forever. With a third large body
(distant Sun in case of Earth/Moon, or Saturn in case of Sun/Jupiter),
the depth and shape of the wells are periodicaly purturbed according
to the phase (angle) relationship between the third body and the line
connecting the two main bodies. A test body (asteroid in our Nemesis
context) that is just barely trapped for most of the cycle could
escape when the well is shallowest if it happened to be visiting the
perimiter at that moment. After a few tens of cycles virtually all
just-barely-trapped test bodies will have escaped, leaving only deeper
trapped bodies. But now consider a fourth large distant body that
further purturbs the wells (Venus or Mars or Jupiter in case of
Earth/Moon system, Uranus in case of Sun/Jupiter system). This
produces additional sloshing of the shape/depth of the wells, with a
very long period. Perhaps test bodies that survive tens of thousands,
or even millions, of years will find every 30 million years or so the
well gets shallower than it ever was between times, and a few test
bodies will overflow the perimiter. Possibly the fourth body provides
two effects, first continually supplying knetic energy to test bodies
in the well so that if they were previously sitting at the bottom they
will now be orbiting highly, and secondly the aforementionned periodic
change of shape of the well. The result could be that for all time a
particular tiny fraction of the contents of the well are sloshed out
on a periodic basis (the tiny fraction may vary depending on the
exactitude of the phase at each major cycle, unless the four bodies
are locked in some immense rational-number relationship of orbital
periods). So, anyway, the Trojan asteroids may thus be periodically
sloshed out of their wells into random orbits including some
Earth-crossing, and over long time (4 billion years) the intensity of
"radiation" of these asteroids may follow an exponential-decay curve
with a half life perhaps 0.5 to 10 billion years.

Likewise in phase space of the two original bodies (Sun/Jupiter for
this knock-to-Earth-crossing example) there may be many more
complicated stable orbits, around each of which (in phase space) there
is a potential well. Just like the L4 and L5 (trojan) points, third
and fourth bodies (Saturn and Uranus) may cause periodic sloshing out
of the well, whose pulse period is a few million years and whose
longterm envelop is exponential decay. Note that the periodicity of
these additional wells would be exactly the same as the trojan wells,
because the phase relationships of the four bodies are the same for
all systems. The particular times that the pulse of spilling
(overflow) occurs for the various systems may all be different, or
there may be some correlation where a whole bunch of systems spill at
about the same time. In the latter case, we have periodic extinctions
from the bunch of spills occurring together. In the former case,
probably most spillage from strange stable orbital wells actually
falls into the trojan wells rather than colliding with Earth, so that
the trojan wells are resupplied from the other wells. During the
interval between trojan spills, lots of little spills from other wells
would have filld the trojan wells quite full, so that the trojan spill
when it comes is quite large. Then the major contribution to
Earth-crossing asteroids would be from the trojan wells periodially
overflowing, and again we have periodic mass extinctions with not much
bad happening between times.

So, could some expert in celestial mechanics offer a critique of my theory?

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

X-Sent: to SU-AI.ARPA by IMSSS.FRONSTAD.EDU via ETHERNET with PUPFTP; 1986-Jan-16 20:15:22 PST (=GMT-8hr)
X-Mailer: EMACS -> PSL (FORMAT+SEND-ALL) -> PUPFTP
Date: 1986 January 16 19:39:20 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM@imsss> (this host known locally only)
To: bilbo.niket@locus.ucla.edu
Cc: SPACE@mit-mc.arpa
Subject: retry: gross or net number of deaths?
Sender: REM%IMSSS@su-score.arpa (for undeliverable-mail notifications)
Reply-To: REM%IMSSS@SU-SCORE.ARPA

phil%dean@BERKELEY.EDU says this message was rejected by USENET
because of problems with the message-id, so I'm resubmitting without
any message-id. Arpanet members please ignore duplicate.

Date: 1986 January 09 18:16:35 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM@imsss> (this host known locally only)
To: bilbo.niket@locus.ucla.edu
Cc: SPACE@mit-mc.arpa
Subject: gross or net number of deaths?

NKP: Date:           Fri, 3 Jan 86 11:44:53 PST
NKP: From: "Niket K. Patwardhan" <bilbo.niket@locus.ucla.edu>
NKP: To: Space@s1-b.arpa
NKP: Cc: ota@s1-b.arpa
NKP: ...
NKP: As for how many deaths one would accept, a priori, to achieve a
NKP: goal, the answer should be NONE! The only time you accept death
NKP: as necessary is when you fight a war.

Do you mean gross deaths (total number that die with your method) or
net deaths (number that die with your method minus number that would
have died without your method)? I would agree only with the latter. To
say that it's unreasonble to allow one person to die to save a hundred
million is stupid since the net death count is minus 99,999,999. To
count just the one gross death and not deduct the 100,000,000 saved is absurd.

If development of space could save 100,000,000 people and the
Orion-rocket method used to accomplish that cost 1 life would you say
it wasn't worth it because of that one who died?


Disclaimer: I don't particularily like the recent trend toward putting long
disclaimers at the end of each network message, but it seems to be the latest
fad and I don't want to seem like some weirdo who doesn't follow trends, so
I've decided to join the bandwagon. Watch this spot for more trivia.

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

X-Sent: to SU-AI.ARPA by IMSSS.FRONSTAD.EDU via ETHERNET with PUPFTP; 1986-Jan-16 20:16:09 PST (=GMT-8hr)
X-Mailer: EMACS -> PSL (FORMAT+SEND-ALL) -> PUPFTP
Date: 1986 January 16 19:49:39 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM@imsss> (this host known locally only)
To: amdcad!cae780!weitek!mmm@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Cc: SPACE@mit-mc.arpa
Subject: retry: If you don't climb straight up it's a much longer trip to orbit
Sender: REM%IMSSS@su-score.arpa (for undeliverable-mail notifications)
Reply-To: REM%IMSSS@SU-SCORE.ARPA

fair@ucbarpa.BERKELEY.EDU says this message was rejected by USENET
because of problems with the message-id, so I'm resubmitting without
any message-id. Arpanet members please ignore duplicate.

Date: 1986 January 08 06:27:39 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM@imsss.stanford.edu>
To: amdcad!cae780!weitek!mmm@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Cc: SPACE@mit-mc.arpa
Subject: If you don't climb straight up it's a much longer trip to orbit

MT: Date: 27 Dec 85 21:36:45 GMT
MT: From: amdcad!cae780!weitek!mmm@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Mark Thorson)
MT: Subject: Re: Skyhooks, tethers, and kites.
MT: Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
MT: To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa
MT: With all the interest in skyhooks and tethers, I'm inspired to ask "How
MT: about a kite?" ... But the kite string would be tangent to the
MT: earth, hence you could WALK into space (its only a hundred miles to LEO,
MT: any good athlete should be able to make it in a few days).

I beg to differ. It's 100 miles up, but going out tangentially (on one
leg of a right triangle whose hypotenuse goes from the center of the
Earth to the orbital point, with the right angle at the tether-launch
point = north pole) it's about SQRT(4100**2 - 4000**2) = SQRT(810000)
= 900 miles. Some athletes indeed may be capable of walking 900 miles
with all the food and water and air they need on their back, but not
many. Your statement above "YOU could walk ..." is probably untrue for
any reader of this list except possibly Gene Salamin. (Hey Gene, care
to respond, could you or anyone you know?)

(Pardon tardy reply but IMSSS has been down almost continuously from
 Dec 30 thru Jan 06 and I'm just now catching up on replying to mail.)


Disclaimer: I don't particularily like the recent trend toward putting long
disclaimers at the end of each network message, but it seems to be the latest
fad and I don't want to seem like some weirdo who doesn't follow trends, so
I've decided to join the bandwagon. Watch this spot for more trivia.

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

Date: 14 Jan 86 22:11:00 GMT
From: tektronix!uw-beaver!fluke!ssc-vax!bcsaic!pamp@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (pam pincha)
Subject: Re: Timing of comet showers
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <6282@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
>
>> ... probably much smaller than
>> the ruckus raised by (for example) the massive erruptions that occurred
>> in what is now Yellowstone...
>
>Actually, massive volcanic activity is one of the "dark horse" theories of
>massive extinctions.  There is one province of India that mostly sits on
>a layer of lava *hundreds of meters* thick; that must have been one #@$%&@
>of an eruption, and it has been cited as a possible cause for the Cretaceous-
>Tertiary event that wiped out the dinosaurs.
>
This Indian example would not be a very good example either, since it is
a classic example of a series of flood basalts -- which are very mild in
nature, as opposed to andesitic lavas found at Yellowstone, St.Helens,
Tambor, Karakatoa, El Chichon, Mt. Mazama(now known as Crater
Lake),etc.etc.etc. Basalts are what make up the Hawaiin Islands. They
are characterized as very fluid, high magnesium/iron lavas that
rarely have significant ash falls associated with them. They tend to
form long lava flows eminating from fissures,cracks, and holes that
sometimes form impresive fire fountains. Very little atmospheric
influence. The deposits in India (and the Columbia Plateau of eastern
Washington state that seems to be comprised of flood basalt deposits
(basalt lava flood of great quantites from long fissures int the ground)
are around 10,000 feet thick) would have little atmospheric components
despite their size.
Now there are some very massive ash eruption deposits of the much
more explosive andesite lavas, that would be prime candidates for
mass extinction episodes. The Mt. Mazama explosion put out a massive
amount that spread ash all over the US and beyond. Next to its
remains (Crater Lake) there are fields  of pumice that are 200-500
feet thick. (And as these sort of eruptions go, this was only  a
moderate sized one.)
P.M.Pincha-Wagener
 
volcanic type m

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

X-Sent: to SU-AI.ARPA by IMSSS.FRONSTAD.EDU via ETHERNET with PUPFTP; 1986-Jan-16 22:01:57 PST (=GMT-8hr)
X-Mailer: EMACS -> PSL (FORMAT+SEND-ALL) -> PUPFTP
Date: 1986 January 16 21:37:03 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM@imsss> (this host known locally only)
To: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
Subject: composite photo
Sender: REM%IMSSS@su-score.arpa (for undeliverable-mail notifications)
Reply-To: REM%IMSSS@SU-SCORE.ARPA

To the person who wants to take composite picture of kids&Halley:

If you're willing to cheat, take separate images of p/Halley and kids
and superimpose them later with help from a professional photography
shop or some expert (or yourself), I suggest taking several shots of
p/Halley by itself (with stars and background sky brightness etc. of
course) and of kids against dark background. Then at your leisure try
combining them in both ways:
 (1) merely superimpose them with kids being translucent, stars
    shining thru them, maybe have kids seem to be grabbing at the
    comet, so the image is ghostly/supernatural kids out in space
    grabbing at the comet.
 (2) use masking techiques to blot out stars&sky from behind kids, so
    they appear opaque instead of translucent, and have kids pointing
    at comet or watching it or something like that.

If you don't want cheat at all, even by double-exposing with telephoto
for comet and flash for kids, you have a very hard problem getting
kids to stand motionless for 5-10 minutes on a platform that moves
with the comet's aparent motion.

If you want to cheat just a little, well, specify your exact cheat-rules.


Disclaimer: I don't particularily like the recent trend toward putting long
disclaimers at the end of each network message, but it seems to be the latest
fad and I don't want to seem like some weirdo who doesn't follow trends, so
I've decided to join the bandwagon. Watch this spot for more trivia.

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

X-Sent: to SU-AI.ARPA by IMSSS.FRONSTAD.EDU via ETHERNET with PUPFTP; 1986-Jan-16 22:01:35 PST (=GMT-8hr)
X-Mailer: EMACS -> PSL (FORMAT+SEND-ALL) -> PUPFTP
Date: 1986 January 16 21:24:09 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM@imsss> (this host known locally only)
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: can't use flexible tether as if it were a rigid lever
Sender: REM%IMSSS@su-score.arpa (for undeliverable-mail notifications)
Reply-To: REM%IMSSS@SU-SCORE.ARPA

dietz@SLB-DOLL.CSNET (Paul Dietz) writes:
D>Even if they aren't used for launching things, tethers may be very
D>useful for generating angular momentum in spinning space structures.
D>For example, a space station could be spun up by extending two very
D>long cables with small reaction engines on the ends.  The cables would
D>be spun up and, because of the long moment arms, would acquire large
D>amounts of angular momentum.

Andrew Folkins replies:
AF> Date: 13 Jan 86 19:00:40 GMT
AF> From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!utcsri!ubc-vision!alberta!cadomin!and
rew@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Andrew Folkins)
(That's an awfully long path!! Are you really 9 hops away from the Arpanet??)
AF> Umm, what stops the cables from just wrapping around the station?  This
AF> scheme would work, but you would need rigid 'towers' instead of cables,

Indeed, I missed that point in original reading of Dietz's idea, the
idea is nonsense because flexible objects don't transmit torque which
is how levers work in the first place. If you attached rockets that
were set to pull in a certain geographical direction, the tether would
just deform around to where the rocket was pulling straight along the
line of the tether. If you attached rockets that were set to apply
angular momentum, the tether would wind up around the space station
until the rockets were resting against the side of the station. If you
just attached the rockets to the end of the flexible tether without
any control mechanism, they'd gyrate in random directions depending on
momentrary torques due to the twisting/winding/pulling tethers. You
need a lightweight but rigid tower, and during the preceding STS
mission such were put together and taken apart several times to test
in-space construction of such objects. Now that has one more practical
application it seems, supplying rigid moment arms (levers) for
efficiently spinning up a station.

AF> ... the mass needed for these towers might be large enough to
AF> offset any fuel savings.

Perhaps. This will take an engineering decision. With a very bulky
station, very lightweight long beams, and many weeks time to spin up
the station, beam-levering may be a viable technique.

AF> One last point, the cables will be stationary only with respect 
AF> to the station, and they will still have a considerable amount of angular
AF> momentum. Retracting them would spin up the station even more, just like
AF> a spinning figure skater.  

You can also keep the arms partly extended and use slight extension or
retraction to servo the angular speed of the station to compensate for
motion of people and materials around within the station (walking
toward the center of the station causes the station to spin a little
faster, which may upset some pre-programmed astronomical observations
or ship dockings etc.), as an alterative to having an attitude-control
rocket consuming lots of fuel to do that. Other methods are spinning
weights on end of tethers which are reeled in or out (you don't gain
mechanical advantage, but you can still transfer angular momentum that
way if you reel slowly enough to avoid whiplashing the tethers), or
having a spinning wheel with an electrical motor for moving the
station with respect to the wheel to effectively transfer angular
momentum between the wheel and the station, or having two spinning
wheels at different RPM with gearing between them and the station to
transfer angular momentum with virtually no electrical energy needed
except during startup.

AF> All ideas in this message are fictional.  Any resemblance, to any idea,
AF> living or dead, is purely coincidental.

I can make my disclaimer sillier than yours (first header wars, now
disclamer wars, what's next, pornographic multimedia-mail wars??):

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

End of SPACE Digest V6 #79
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA24461; Sat, 18 Jan 86 03:01:07 PST
	id AA24461; Sat, 18 Jan 86 03:01:07 PST
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 86 03:01:07 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8601181101.AA24461@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #80

*** EOOH ***
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 86 03:01:07 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #80

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 6 : Issue 80

Today's Topics:
		       V-2s were VERY effective
		      Re: Photographing Halley's
			 Thermonuclear Device
			   Re: L-5 Society
		   Re: New planet formation theory
			 homemade railguns...
		    Re: Aviation Week on Star Wars
		    real interplanetary computers
		      FTS Voyager hotline number
		       Re: SPACE Digest V6 #79
			  Phase conjugation
		     Rail guns vs. ordinary guns
		       Spinning Space Stations
			    Halley's Photo
		       Lighter-than-air Launch
		Photographing Halley's with your kids
		    More on photographing Halley's
			 Lofstrom Launch Loop
	      Re: Storing electricity for railgun shots
	       Re: Voyager Uranus Symposium and request
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 16 Jan 86 05:11:03 GMT
From: tektronix!tekcrl!vice!keithl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Keith Lofstrom)
Subject: V-2s were VERY effective
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

  The discussions of V-2s causes me to repeat a posting I made to
net.politics some years ago.  Old timers please forgive me:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
  The V-2 rocket was justified by Hitler as revenge against the Allied
bombing of Germany.  It cost billions of marks, and didn't do very much
damage.  Some military historians claim that it was waste of money, and
the Nazis could have spent their money on more effective weapons.  However:
     The technical descendants of the V-2 are sitting in silos and
submarines throughout the northern hemisphere,  poised to smash the former
enemies of Nazi Germany.  The former Allies have spent far more than Hitler
ever did preparing to complete the job the V-2 started.  While it's true
that some of these missiles are pointed at Germany, most of those are
pointed at allied occupation bases!  Vengeance indeed.
  Perhaps the Nazis planned it that way all along, and are waiting in
South America to start the Fourth Reich...any paranoids out there care
to speculate?
  I'm putting this in net.politics, although perhaps this belongs in
net.space or net.humor.  Perhaps even net.suicide.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
;-) ICBMs - you can't live with them, and you can't live without them! ;-)
-- 
Keith Lofstrom
MS 59-316, Tektronix, PO 500, Beaverton OR 97077  (503)-627-4052
uucp:	{ucbvax,decvax,chico,pur-ee,cbosg,ihnss}!tektronix!vice!keithl
CSnet:	keithl@tek
ARPAnet:keithl.tek@rand-relay

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

Date: 16 Jan 86 18:56:08 GMT
From: mtxinu!rtech!amdahl!ems@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (ems)
Subject: Re: Photographing Halley's
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

I have not yet seen the suggestion of doing a darkroom composite.
Take one picture of the comet, a light object on a dark background.
Take one picture of your kids.  On a black background.  The dark
backgrounds will be clear in the negatives.  Overlay the two
negatives and print.   (Or double expose the print with various
darkroom magic.  Like a cutout about the size and placement of the
kids layed on the paper when printing the comet...)
Even if you don't plan on doing this as the primary approach, I
would suggest that you take a few pictures of the comet that could
be put together this way.  Just as insurance...
-- 
E. Michael Smith  ...!{hplabs,ihnp4,amd,nsc}!amdahl!ems
This is the obligatory disclaimer of everything.

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

Date: 14 Jan 86 16:12:23 GMT
From: hplabs!hao!noao!terak!mot!anasazi!will@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Will Fuller)
Subject: Thermonuclear Device
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

<REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR FINGERS>
One means of creating the temperatures and pressures necessary for
nuclear fusion is atmospheric ablation.
In this scenario a ceramic sphere containing a mixture of hydrogen
isotopes would be made to enter the atmosphere with a large initial
velocity. As the ceramic ablates away the temperatures and pressures
in the core of the sphere climb (this is a similar mechanism as the
one currently practiced for sustained fusion reactions via high
power laser). Another (more tasteful) application might be to use
the ceramic pellets as a fuel for a *very fast* ramjet.
I would like to see anybody's SDI knock out half a mole of billiard balls
traveling at tens of kilometers per second.
-- 
William H. Fuller
{decvax|ihnp4|hao}!noao!terak!anasazi!will

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

Date: 16 Jan 86 19:18:30 GMT
From: bellcore!petrus!karn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Phil R. Karn)
Subject: Re: L-5 Society
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> > Anybody out there know the rest of this Tom Lehrer song?
You have to get the pronunciation correct:
"'Vunce zee rrrockets are up,
Hoo cares vere zey come down?
Zats not my deparrtment!'
Says Werner Von Braun."
When it was apparent that the Peenemunde facility on the Baltic would be
overrun by the Soviets on their way to Berlin, the Germans at the site
divided into two groups.  The larger one, led by Von Braun, wanted to
surrender to the Americans; the smaller group decided to take their chances
with the Russians.  Von Braun's group was evacuated with as much paper as
they could carry to Oberammergau, the town in the Bavarian Alps famous for
the Passion Play.  There they waited for the northward-advancing Americans.
The initial contact was made by Werner's brother, who he sent out to meet a
couple of American advance scouts.  Von Braun and his men practically threw
themselves into the arms of the Americans; it was hardly a "capture".
As the war ended, the Americans held the area containing the major V2
production facilities. Since we had agreed to turn this area over to the
Soviets in exchange for part of Berlin, we conducted a full-scale raid on
the V-2 factories, smuggling out as many complete V-2's and parts as
possible before the Soviets moved into the territory (which they made part of
East Germany).  The Cold War had started.
There's a fascinating and detail history of the German V-2 project in the
book "The Rocket", by David Baker. This is the companion volume to Baker's
"The History of Manned Space Flight". Both are musts for space history
junkies.
Phil

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

Date: 15 Jan 86 19:29:52 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!snell@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Richard Snell)
Subject: Re: New planet formation theory
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

A front page article in a U of Toronto newspaper "The Newspaper"
refers to the "shepard theory" of Prof. Scott Tremaine (Canadian Institute
of Theoretical Astrophysics), Prof. Peter Goldreich (California
Inst. Technology), and Dr. Nicole Borderies (Pic-du-Midi Observatory,
France).  Portions of this article are reproduced:
"Uranus is known to have five satellites surrounding it.  The scientists
believe that 10 additional satellites are the only plausible theory
to explain why the rings of Uranus are so narrow.  In theory, the 
constant jostling of one ring particle against another should have
spread any narrow ring-like structure into a much broader diameter.
Despite the fact that Uranus's rings are some 300,000 kilometres in
circumference, the width of the rings themselves is only 2-3 kilometres.
"[They] suggest that if each ring was accompanied by small satellites
or moons - on inside and one outside - the gravitational forces of
these moons could overcome the natural tendency of a ring to spread...
""The satellites act somewhat like shepards keeping a flock of unruly
sheep in order and hence are called `shepard' satellites...   It is difficult
to understand without shepard satellites how such perfectly sharp 
and well-defined structures (ringsystem) could be maintained over
the age of the solar system," [Tremaine] added.
"In response to a question of what a sucessful prediction whould (sic)
mean to the discipline, Tremaine responded, "It certainly won't 
revolutionaize my thinking... but one broad implication
for the study of planetart rings is it gives you clues as to how the 
system (of disks and planets) works that can be applied to other systems
of galaxies and solar systems."
"... when the Voyager 2 mission went past Saturn, it discovered a 
previously unknown ring that shares characteristics with the Uranus
structure. The Saturn ring was narrow and accompanied by two shepard
satellites on either side of it
-- 
Name:   Richard Snell
Mail:   Dept. Zoology, Univ. Toronto
        Toronto, Ontario, Canada    M5S 1A1
UUCP:   {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!snell

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

Posted-Date: Fri 17 Jan 1986 08:09:39 EST
Date: Fri 17 Jan 1986 08:09:39 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: homemade railguns...
To: William Chops Westfield <BILLW@su-score.arpa>
In-Reply-To: William Chops Westfield's message of Fri 17 Jan 86 03:22:55-PST
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa

>Sorry, computer grade capacitors aren't of any use for
>building railguns.  They have too much internal inductance
>to supply the sort of short, high-current pulse that you
>would need.  They won't even explode wires!  You might
>have better luck with photo-flash capacitors charged to
>an appropriately high voltage...

Rats!

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

Date: 17 Jan 86 02:24:01 GMT
From: hplabs!ames!al@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Al Globus)
Subject: Re: Aviation Week on Star Wars
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> 
> Al, you seem to think that nuclear war is to be avoided at any cost.
Absolutely, I'd like this society to survive.
> The fact is, we in the US would prefer to
> start a nuclear war than to relinquish our national sovereignty.
I'm in the US and couldn't care less about national sovereignty.  I do
care about the health, wealth, and freedom of everyone - and see no
reason we need to sacrifice any of the above to avoid nuclear
catastrophy (sp?).
> 
> Also, taking a position like that would erode deterrence and increase
> the risk of war.  One element of deterrence is will.  If you have
> capabilities, even if the other side is confident in those capabilities,
> if you are not willing to use them they are not an effective deterrent.
> 
Just how good do you think the Soviet's crystal ball is?  How many
times have you seen them risk their survival on assumtions about
anybody's will, much less the US'.  Join the real world Milo.

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

Date: 17 Jan 86 00:19:51 GMT
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!oberon!smeagol!kwan@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Richard Kwan)
Subject: real interplanetary computers
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

When Galileo begins its trek to Jupiter this spring, it will carry a
new generation of interplanetary computing power.  Multiple processors.
Low powered CMOS technology.  A proven commercial microprocessor
architecture.  ...All put into a combination representing the best
interplanetary microprocessor architecture this planet has to offer.
What microprocessor, you ask.  The RCA 1802.
("Hey, George!  What's an 1802?"  "I dunno.  Isn't that some ancient
real-time computer made by IBM?")
The 1802 is part of the same generation as the 8080 and the 6800.  It
was also the only commercial CMOS microprocessor available at the time,
and thus the most logical candidate for radiation hardening.
Several rad-hardened 1802s will fly on-board the Galileo spacecraft.
They will also be used on the Venus Radar Mapper, now officially known
as Magellan.
What about Mariner Mark II and the Mars Observer?  If my sources are
correct (this stuff was hard to verify), processors of the 8085, 8086,
and 32000 families are in hardening.  Strangely, no mention was made
of 6800 or 68000 family processors.
		Rick Kwan
		JPL
"Jumping into hyperspace ain't like dustin' crops, boy."
					Han Solo
					another galaxy

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

Date: Thu, 16 Jan 86 09:53:37 pst
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!smeagol!jplgodo!steve@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Steve Schlaifer x3171 156/224)
To: ucbvax!space
Subject: FTS Voyager hotline number

In-reply-to: your article <8601141242.AA05194@s1-b.arpa>

All JPL numbers may be accessed from FTS by replacing the 354 commercial
prefix with 792.  The Voyager hotline then becomes
	792-7650


...smeagol\			Steve Schlaifer
......wlbr->!jplgodo!steve	Advance Projects Group, Jet Propulsion Labs
....group3/			4800 Oak Grove Drive, M/S 156/204
				Pasadena, California, 91109
					+1 818 354 3171

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

Date:           Fri, 17 Jan 86 09:13:20 PST
From: Bob English <lcc.bob@locus.ucla.edu>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Subject:        Re: SPACE Digest V6 #79
In-Reply-To:    Message of Fri, 17 Jan 86 03:19:19 PST
                    from "Ted Anderson <ota@s1-b.arpa>"
                    <8601171119.AA19530@s1-b.arpa>

> From: Robert Elton Maas <REM@imsss> (this host known locally only)
> Subject: can't use flexible tether as if it were a rigid lever

> dietz@SLB-DOLL.CSNET (Paul Dietz) writes:
> D>Even if they aren't used for launching things, tethers may be very
> D>useful for generating angular momentum in spinning space structures.

> Andrew Folkins replies:
> AF> Umm, what stops the cables from just wrapping around the station?  This
> AF> scheme would work, but you would need rigid 'towers' instead of cables,

> Indeed, I missed that point in original reading of Dietz's idea, the
> idea is nonsense because flexible objects don't transmit torque which
> is how levers work in the first place.

Flexible tethers can indeed generate torque--they just need a
lever arm to pull on.  After you've fired the rockets, you start
reeling in the cables until they stop relative to the station.
You can then fire the rockets again to continue the process.

Of course, if you've got light rockets, you'll have to pull 'em
in awfully fast.

--bob--

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

Date:         Fri, 17 Jan 86 11:53:13 EST
From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Reply-To:  ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA
To: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
Subject:      Phase conjugation

What phase conjugation is particularly good for is correcting
errors due to atmospheric turbulance, eg., a laser propelling
a rocket being launched from the earth.  Typically this would
use a low power pilot beam from the spaceship to the launch
laser.  The pilot beam would be distorted by the atmosphere,
then phase conjugated and amplified into a reverse beam at high
power.  This power beam is then already be pre-distorted for the
effects of the atmosphere, and atmospheric turbulance exactly
cancels this distortion, resulting in a perfect beam.
This works because the travel time through the atmosphere (at
the speed of light) is small compared to the time scale of atmospheric
turbulance.
     This might also be the mechanism used for a ground-to-space
laser weapon, such as has been proposed for SDI, where a ground
based laser is bounced off a mirror in space, off another mirror
near the target, and then destroys ICBM's.
     For a space-to-space laser, either weapon or spacecraft propulsion,
phase conjugation is much less useful.  There is little or no
distortion due to interplanetary gas, and the distances are large
enough that sending a power signal down the reverse path of a pilot
beam would be pointless, since the ship would have moved in the
interim.
     In fact, there was an article in Analog sometime last year, in the
Alternate View column, discussing phase conjugation.
The author suggested that this process violates the second law
of thermodynamics.  Unfortunately, that is not the case:  while the
entropy of the reversed pilot beam is, in fact, decreased (since the
random components are removed and it is restored to the original,
low entropy state), the entropy of the two pump beams is increased by
the same amount.
     "You can't win, you can only break even at absolute zero, and
you can never reach absolute zero."
                    --GL

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

Date:           Fri, 17 Jan 86 09:58:55 PST
From: "Niket K. Patwardhan" <bilbo.niket@locus.ucla.edu>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Subject:        Rail guns vs. ordinary guns


Can somebody tell me what the disadvantage of ordinary guns (blob in a barrel
propelled by hot gases under pressure) is as compared to the rail gun?

It can't be length....Using the formula  

V**2 = U**2 + 2*a*s

and 8000 metres/second as the final velocity (orbital) and 50 m/sec*sec (5G)
as the maximum accelaration, one gets 640,000 metres as the necessary length.
Thats 640 km or 400 miles! NO GUN OF THAT LENGTH could be feasible.

However if you are trying to get just MASS up, you could increase the G-factor
to say 5000 and wind up with a gun of 640 metres. If your payload was a chunk
of solid steel 1 metre long you would require about 350 atmospheres of pressure
to get this kind of accelaration, which is easy! (Steel ~7000kg/m**3).

I have heard of some restriction due to the speed of sound in the gases.. but this should
be easy to overcome by raising the temperature and selecting the right gas.
(hydrogen????)

PS What is the speed of sound in hydrogen at 3000K?
What is the melting point of tungsten?

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

Date:         Fri, 17 Jan 86 12:21:20 EST
From: ST401385@BROWNVM.BITNET
Reply-To:     ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA
To: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
Subject:      Spinning Space Stations

Angular momentum is conserved in space.  This means that if rockets
are fired on the ends of long tethers connected to a space station,
it will increase the angular momentum of the system, whether the
tether is a rigid rod, a cable, silly putty, whatever.  (Assuming,
however, that a pointing device exists to keep the rocket pointed
in the direction of the desired spin, perpendicular to the station-rocket
line.)
     The important question is how the angular momentum gets transfered
to the station if the tether is a flexible line.  What will happen in
the simplest case is that the line starts to wrap around the station.
If you visualize the situation for a moment, you will see that while
it does so the tension on the cable exerts a torque on the station
(proportional to the radius of the station divided by the distance
to the rocket.) This torque transfers angular momentum to the station.
When the mass whacks into the station, the sudden jerk on the line
transfers the remainder of the angular momentum.
     If the mass sticks, this is the end.  Otherwise, the mass will
begin to unwind.  Strangely enough, initially this process also
torques up the station.  Very shortly, though, the cable tension
goes slack.  The mass moves away from the station (by 'centrifugal
force'), but the rotating station unwinds cable faster than the
mass moves out.  If you cut the cable at this point, you have a
rotating station.  If not, when the mass reaches the end of the string,
WHACK!  There's another big jerk, and the station loses a bunch of
angular momentum (This process is known as "Yo-Yo despin."  Really.
It's occasionally used on sounding rockets which are spun during
boost, but need to be nonrotating at apogee.)
     Of course, that's in the simplest case.  In real life strings
are subject to all sorts of vibrations and such when you jerk them.
     This whole process would work much better if, instead of letting
the cable wind around the station, you reel it in on some sort of
roller.
                        ---Geoffrey Landis <GL>
.
QUIT

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

Date: Fri, 17 Jan 86 15:07:38 CST
From: dual!lll-crg!seismo!a.CS.UIUC.EDU!pangrle@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Barry Pangrle)
To: ucbvax!space
Subject: Halley's Photo


Your best bet for getting a picture with your kids and the comet together
is using a double exposure.  Double exposures can be done in one of two
ways: (1) you double expose one frame on the roll of film, or (2) you
take two separate photos and double expose the photographic paper during
printing.

What I would do:

I would take two separate shots.  This way you can choose any two that
you would want to combine.  Secondly, by using an enlarger for performing
the printing you can position the subjects on the final picture and even
adjust their relative sizes.  If you dont have a dark room for color
printing you might want to find someone who does to do this for you.

I haven't done alot of sky photography but I would guess that you
would probably want to use at least a 500mm lens.  The time exposure
is going to require that you have the camera mounted on a motorized
equatorial mount to account for the earth's rotation, otherwise the
image will be blurred. Possibly you could rent something like a 
Celestron lens for the photo of the comet.  Using a negative film,
a shot of your kids against a dark background should yield good
results in the printing.  This shot could be taken with your 50mm
lens.

Your best bet is to find someone who does color hand processing of
prints and tell them what you have in mind.  They could probably
best tell you what they need to get the picture that you want.
I'm sure that you'll probably get alot of other advice on the 
best way to get the picture of the comet from people on the net.

Good luck,
	Barry Pangrle
	U of Illinois Dept. Computer Science

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

Date: 17 Jan 1986 19:11-EST
From: Nicholas.Spies@h.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: Lighter-than-air Launch
To: space@s1-b.arpa

	 Given: We are at the bottom of the gravity well of the Earth
	 and also at the bottom of an ocean of air; the latter fact may
	 help to overcome the former. The 14 lbs/in^2 pressure of the
	 atmosphere [at sea level] is routinely used to generate lift;
	 but could this simple principle be used to develop
	 free-floating launch vehicles or large ground structures to
	 gain a decisive advantage for a space launch? (I acknowledge
	 that this is not an original idea as one of the first
	 proposals for spaceflight involved evacuated copper balls, if
	 I'm not mistaken, and also that some early rockets were launched
	 from ballons.)

	 It would seem that the ideal floatation medium would be
	 superheated hydrogen constrained by a tough, thin Mylar-like
	 film. A far safer but far more expensive next-best would be
	 superheated helium. Superheating in both cases would produce
	 higher pressures to counteract atmospheric pressure while
	 reducing the mass/weight of the lifting gas, increasing
	 lifting efficiancy. (Of course superheating would also
	 complicate the design of the envelope; perhaps heat
	 dissipation could be aided by introducing a small amount of
	 steam that could condense on the inner surface of the
	 envelope [or by taking off while raining!]).

	 At any rate, it would seem that a giant donut-shaped
	 lighter-than-air platform could, if large enough [how large?],
	 carry a fully-loaded shuttle to a fuel-saving altitude from
	 where it would be launched. Presumably "window-critical"
	 launches could be carried aloft, above most weather, from
	 where they could be launched on schedule. For the more
	 defense-minded, such platforms could presumably reside
	 indefinately in the upper atmosphere for a variety of
	 survaillance and defensive purposes.

	 Nearly-lighter-than-air structures might be a way of building
	 a ladder to space because traditional wisdom about the
	 strength of load-bearing members would be altered by the new
	 distribution of the load between compressive and floating
	 elements. Obviously such a structure would have to be designed
	 to take advantage of the tensile strength of materials, which
	 is typically many times greater than compressive strength.
	 Wind loading would increasingly be a more important factor,
	 which could be dealt with by distributing it to all other
	 elements of the structure and ultimately the ground. If we
	 were able to build a lasting tower 100 miles high (on a base
	 perhaps 50 miles across) able to support a shuttle-sized craft
	 would this realize much launch benefit? In the long term?

	 What are the critical problems with these proposals?

	 Nick Spies, Center for Art and Technology, CMU

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

Date: Fri, 17 Jan 86 17:30 PST
From: Dave Platt <Dave-Platt%LADC@cisl-service-multics.arpa>
To: Space <Space@s1-b.arpa>
Subject: Photographing Halley's with your kids
Randomness: There are no answers, only cross-references.  --Weiner

Well, here's some information I've gleaned from a number of photo and
astronomy magazines on this general subject... I'm working from memory,
so the figures etc. will be pretty inexact.

For a shot of comet-and-kids, you should probably figure on using your
50mm lens;  a 70-210 zoom (the Canon f/4?) is too slow for its focal
length... you'd have to use it with a motor-drive to get even
marginal results (the best choice might well be something like an
f/2 100mm lens... if you've got money to burn).  I assume that you're
going to want to do something like a tripod-mounted exposure, without
any sort of sky-following platform in use.  This will tend to limit your
useful exposure (with a 50 mm lens) to 30 seconds or less... any more
than this, and your photo will begin to show "star trails", and the
image of the comet will be blurred due to the Earth's rotation.  For
this reason, you'll probably want to shoot the comet with your lens
"wide open", to minimize the necessary exposure time... this will cost
you a bit of detail, and will make it more important to set your focus
properly (and will also complicate getting kids-and-comet into a single
exposure).

I'd suggest using an ASA 1600 slide film... slide film will work better
in situations of moderate underexposure, where print film handles
overexposure better.  You can buy good varieties off-the-shelf at
decent photo dealers (remember that you want a daylight, not a tungsten
film).  You might want to experiment with a roll or two of "hypered"
(hypersensitized) slide film... it's a slower (ISO 200-400) film that has
been treated with a gas to increase its sensitivity and decrease its
reciprocity failure... check ads in Sky&Telescope or Astronomy magazines.
If you don't insists on having color, then a fast black-and-white
negative film might be your best bet... you'll sacrifice the hues
visible to the eye, in exchange for finer grain and higher speed (and,
with some films, substantially lower contrast... which could result
in much more detail being visible on the prints).  Another idea...
one of the new "chromogenic" black&white negative films... they're
based on color-film technology (standard color C-41 negative development
process at any one-hour photo shop), have a very wide ISO range and
excellent exposure latitude, and very fine grain.

Necessary equipment:  camera body, 50mm lens, reasonably solid tripod,
shutter-release cable (preferably one with a release lock that will hold
the shutter open until you release it manually... beats standing there
with your finger on the button for 30 seconds), flash unit, black
electrical tape, fast film.

To shoot the comet:  mount the camera firmly on a tripod (in a location
shielded from the wind, if possible, and from any electrical lighting).
Set the lens to the wide-open setting (f/1.8 or f/1.4, depending on
which Canon lens you have), and set the exposure to "B".  Frame the
comet in the viewfinder;  then, cover the viewfinder opening with a
small piece of black electrical tape (to keep out stray light during
the long exposure).  Use the shutter release cable to open the shutter,
count 16 seconds, and then release the shutter.  Wind to the next frame,
and repeat the process adding 2-3 seconds to the exposure.  Continue this
process until you've reached 30 second exposure;  then, go back down the
sequence to 16.  This process will use up most of a 36-exposure roll of
film, and will result in a "bracketing" that stands a good chance of
catching much of the comet detail properly.

Now... for getting your kids into the picture.  You've suggested doing a
double exposure, and that's probably a good idea.  Because you're going
to have to shoot the comet with your lens pretty much wide open, there's
going to be a very narrow depth-of-field... and with the lens focused on
infinity (for the comet), you won't be able to get a decent (unblurred)
image of your kids unless they're very far away from the camera (and
probably outside of the range of your flash).  For decent results,
you'll have to reset the lens between exposures... stop it down to f/8
or so, and refocus on your children.  Set the camera and flash for a
normal flash exposure... and maybe plan to underexpose a bit, just to be
sure that the result of your double-exposure doesn't oversaturate your
film at any point.  You'll have to pose your kids in a position that
will not put them, or any other solid object, in the same portion of the
frame that the comet filled.

The trick in doing a double exposure, of course, is recocking the
shutter without advancing the film.  I'm not very familiar with the AE-1
(I have an A-1 myself), and I don't know if it has a double-exposure
switch (the A-1 does).  If it does, read your owner's manual for
instructions.  If it doesn't, you can "fake it", as follows:  before
taking your first exposure, turn the film-rewind knob [in the normal
direction] until you can feel that the film is under slight tension, and
that there's no slack left.  Take your first exposure.  Reach down under
the camera, and depress the little button on the bottom that you
normally push at end-of-reel;  this disengages the film-winding gears.
Hold the film-rewind knob in its current position with one or two
fingers, and use the film-advance lever to recock the shutter;  since
the gears are disengaged, the film should not move.  You should find
that the gear-disengage button pops back up when the shutter has been
fully cocked.  Now you can take your second exposure.  When you use the
film-advance lever after the second exposure, the film should advance
normally.

This may sound as if you're going to be do a lot of switching back and
forth between exposures.  Yup... you're going to be busy.  There is an
alternate solution, with its own set of tricks... run the film through
the camera twice.  To do this, you'd mark the film's position carefully
when you first put it in the camera (maybe place a small pencil mark at
the edge of the film, lined up with the end of one of the film guides).
Then, wind the film up to the first frame, and do your first set of
photographs.  You might, for example, want to do a complete roll of
flash photos of your kids standing in the appropriate positions.  When
you reach the end of the roll, rewind the film... but ONLY until you
have backed up past exposure 1 and feel the end of the film come out of
the take-up spool... do NOT wind the end of the film back into the
cassette!  Now, open the back of the camera, and thread the film back
into the take-up spindle... and line up the mark(s) that you made during
the first loading with the film guides (or whatever reference points
that you used).  Close the back, and wind the film to the first frame.
With a bit of luck, the film is now positioned very closely to where it
was during your first set of exposures... so you could now run through
the entire roll, taking photos of the comet, and have the comet images
"overlay" the first exposures and (we hope) fall right into the areas of
the frames that you reserved for the comet.  [The risk with this
technique, of course, is that if you don't get the film lined up
properly, or if it slips, then the two sets of exposures will not be
lined up properly, and the results will be quite confusing].

This whole process is going to be very much a "trial and error"
proposition... if you're lucky, you'll get two or three good
slides out of an entire 36-exposure roll (I, and just about
every amateur or professional photobug I've ever spoken to,
find that three-in-a-roll is about average even when shooting in
daytime under good conditions).  I STRONGLY recommend that you
perform several nights' worth of experiments BEFORE you go over
to Hawaii... try different types of film, different exposures,
different camera techniques, and *KEEP*NOTES*!!  This will cut your
risk of yngvi'ing up an unrepeatable opportunity with a simple
miscalculation or oversight... it'll be cheap insurance.

If you want to go whole-hog, you might consider setting up some kind of
star-tracking mount or platform.  This would let you take a longer
exposure, with the lens stopped down to f/4 or so;  you'll get more
detail without any "star tracks", and you could also use your 70-210
zoom (at about 100mm) [or your 50mm lens and 2x extender] to get a
"closer" shot of the comet.  Possible mountings include:  a "piggyback"
mounting on a standard equatorial telescope base with motor drive; a
"barn door" hinged mounting, or a special rotating platform (the
inventor's name escapes me at the moment... I think it starts with
"P".).  Check the last six months' issues of Astronomy and
Sky&Telescope... I've seen at least two construction articles for the
barn-door and rotating- platform devices... and the barn-door mount can
be made to operate manually, rather than with a motor... relatively
cheap & easy, by the look of it.

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

Date: Fri, 17 Jan 86 17:31 PST
From: Dave Platt <Dave-Platt%LADC@cisl-service-multics.arpa>
To: Space <Space@s1-b.arpa>
Subject: More on photographing Halley's
Randomness: Admiration:  Our polite recognition of another's resemblance to
            ourselves.

The November '85 issue of Sky&Telescope has a column on photographing
the comet.  Included are some diagrams of a Poncet platform, and
hints for using normal-angle lenses such as a 50-55mm (they recommend
shooting several stops below full aperture, rather than "wide open",
due to the increased amount of detail possible... of course, this
requires a sky-tracking platform due to the increased exposure time).

The timing figures I gave you (16-30 seconds) are, I admit, pretty low
w.r.t. what other folks have been telling you.  I'm not sure what the
truth of the matter is... I've gotten some pretty decent star photos
(with star trails) shooting 30-45 seconds wide-open at f/1.4 with
Fuji 1600 color negative film;  the results were grainy, but showed
a surprising amount of star color (more than the naked eye can pick
up under most conditions).  I really think that the longer exposure
times (5 minutes or so) that other folks suggested would absolutely
require a star-tracking platform of some sort... you're going to
be shooting a portion of the sky that "moves" very rapidly, and
a 5-minute exposure with a fixed camera position would result in an
unacceptable blurring of the comet, and probably a total loss of the
fine detail in the tail.

Another thing to remember.  The human eye is FAR better at adapting to
widely-differing light levels (in one scene) than any color film
available;  color photos of the comet will show a much higher contrast
than a naked-eye view.  Thus, you have the choice of either exposing
for detail near the head of the comet, and having most of the tail come
out very underexposed (or completely invisible)... or taking a longer
exposure to catch detail in the tail of the comet, and having the
brighter head "burn" the film into a detail-less white blob.  Sigh.
I've seen suggestions that people try using variable filters, or
performing some darkroom magic by overlaying multiple negative/slide
images on one print... but that's probably more than you're going to want
to try.

All in all, I think your best bet is to go for a standard-lens shot of the
comet;  bracket heavily by making a whole bunch of exposures, and then
choose the best ones to have prints made.  Good luck!

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

Date: Fri 17 Jan 86 11:39:31-PST
From: Steve Dennett <DENNETT@sri-nic.arpa>
Subject: Lofstrom Launch Loop
To: space@s1-b.arpa


Has anyone heard or read anything on the current status of Keith Lofstom's
launch loop idea?  I talked to him about it about 4 years ago, and at that
time he was starting to build a prototype model.

Steve Dennett
dennett@sri-nic.arpa
-------

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

Date: 17 Jan 86 19:21:08 GMT
From: hplabs!pyramid!isieng!phil@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Phil Gustafson)
Subject: Re: Storing electricity for railgun shots
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <8601162257.AA16707@s1-b.arpa> FRIEDRITR%GAV.MFENET@LLL-MFE.ARPA writes:
>One method (which is used in some fusion reactor experiments) is to use
>a spinning rock. 
The Bevatron at UC Berkeley does this, and has for years. A motor winds
a flywheel up to a high speed.  Then (every minute or so) a bank of thyratrons
lights up blue and  *all* the energy in the flywheel gets dumped into the 
accelerator.  Great fun to watch and listen to.  Cheaper and more compact than
capacitors holding the same energy.
	phil

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

Date: 17 Jan 86 08:05:40 GMT
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!oberon!smeagol!earle@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Greg Earle)
Subject: Re: Voyager Uranus Symposium and request
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> The rooms
> they booked were over $50 a night, which I'd like to avoid paying, so I'd
> appreciate hearing from anyone in netland who lives around Pasadena and can
> offer a place to crash, information on less expensive lodgings, or an
> informal tour of Caltech.  I've never been to LA before, and I'll be there
> from noon on Thursday, the 23rd, to noon on Sunday, the 25th.  If you can
> help, please contact me as soon as possible.
> 
> 				-Doug Mink
For Doug Mink, and anyone else coming to JPL for the encounter:
As I'm sure you are all aware, Pasadena holds this little shindig every Jan.
1st (some parade, I hear - wonder if it's as good as the Doo-Dah Parade? :-)
so there are BILLIONS AND BILLIONS (Good job, Carl .. :-) of little cheapo
motels on Colorado Blvd. in Pasadena.   These will be about 6-8 miles from
JPL.  There is one motel right down the street, called (I believe) the Rose
Motel (meditated on L for 3 days before they got that name ...).  This is the
only one close to JPL itself, I think.  The ones on Colorado are within
semi-reasonable taxi distance of the Big Di.. erm, Caltech (if you went
there, you'd know what I meant).  For those who've never been to Pasadena,
JPL is up against the mountains in a completely residential area, so no
easy access.  Speaking of access, what am I bid for weekend use of my JPL
badge ??  "A Hundred once, twice, ..."   :-)
	Greg Earle
	JPL Spacecraft Data Systems group
	sdcrdcf!smeagol!earle
	ia-sun2!smeagol!earle@csvax.caltech.EDU

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

End of SPACE Digest V6 #80
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA01459; Thu, 23 Jan 86 03:01:05 PST
	id AA01459; Thu, 23 Jan 86 03:01:05 PST
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 86 03:01:05 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8601231101.AA01459@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #81

*** EOOH ***
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 86 03:01:05 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #81

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 6 : Issue 81

Today's Topics:
		       Re: Thermonuclear Device
		    Looking for 1985 NASA Spinoffs
		  Re: Re: Aviation Week on Star Wars
		       Re: Altitude of "space"
		       Re: Thermonuclear Device
		   Wernher von Braun by Tom Lehrer
		     Rail guns vs. ordinary guns
		    Re: Aviation Week on Star Wars
		     Re: Lighter-than-air Launch
		       Re: Lofstrom Launch Loop
			   Re: tenth planet
			    Re: rail guns
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 18 Jan 86 00:40:55 GMT
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!ism780c!tim@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: Thermonuclear Device
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>I would like to see anybody's SDI knock out half a mole of billiard balls
>traveling at tens of kilometers per second.
>
Lets see, 1/2 mole ~= 1E23 = 4.6E7^3.  A billiard ball is about
3 inches in diameter.  This gives us a cube of billiard balls ~2000
miles on a side.  I don't think this is practical. :-)
-- 
Tim Smith       sdcrdcf!ism780c!tim || ima!ism780!tim || ihnp4!cithep!tim

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

Date: 16 Jan 86 21:18:52 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!harvard!bbnccv!bbncca!linus!utzoo!kcarroll@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Kieran A. Carroll)
Subject: Looking for 1985 NASA Spinoffs
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

(per aspirin, ad astra)
I have been asked to see if anybody on the net has access
to a copy of the 1985 NASA Spinoffs book.  Apparently, the
NASA public affairs office either hasn't any copies left, or
won't send them up here to Canada.  The Director of our
Institute, the University of Toronto Institute for Aerospace
Studies, is looking for a copy of this publication.
Does anyone know where a copy might be available; or, would
anyone be willing to make a photcopy of it d send it on to us?
Thanks much.
     Kieran A. Carroll @ U of Toronto Aerospace Institute
     {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!kcarroll
-- 
     Kieran A. Carroll @ U of Toronto Aerospace Institute
     {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!kcarroll

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

Date: 17 Jan 86 18:16:17 GMT
From: ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuts!orb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (SEVENER)
Subject: Re: Re: Aviation Week on Star Wars
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> > > A 50% effective SDI protecting
> > > our missiles would mean that we need 50% fewer missiles for "defensive"
> > > purposes.
 
funny thing then, that the Reagan administration is planning on deploying
18,000 more offensive nuclear weapons!  Indeed Reagan while smiling all
the while is deploying 5 new nuclear weapons *every day*!
 
    tim sevener   whuxn!orb

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

Date: 17 Jan 86 17:36:03 GMT
From: decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!cfa!mink@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Doug Mink)
Subject: Re: Altitude of "space"
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

 
> Many pilots unofficially recognized 50 (statute) miles as the beginning of
> space, i.e. beyond the atmosphere.  This would make a number of X-15 missions
> space flights.  A more common recognition today is an altitude of 100 km
> (about 62 statute miles).  Still some of the X-15 flights were above this
> mark.  There is no universally accepted definition since there is no real
> boundary to cross to get to space.
>					 	Roger Noe
In the early 60's, an altitude of 50 miles was recognized as the
beginning of space for the purpose of earning Astronaut wings, which I
believe were awarded to several X-15 pilots as well as to Mercury,
Gemini, and Apollo astronauts.
--
					Doug Mink

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

Posted-Date: Sat 18 Jan 1986 16:02:26 EST
Date: Sat 18 Jan 1986 16:02:26 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Re: Thermonuclear Device
To: Will Fuller <hplabs!hao!noao!terak!mot!anasazi!will@ucbvax.berkeley.edu>
In-Reply-To: hplabs!hao!noao!terak!mot!anasazi!will's message of 14 Jan 86 16:12:23 GMT
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa

The idea of using very high velocity projectiles to initiate fusion has
been considered.  It isn't too terribly feasible.  One would have to
ram projectiles together at > 100 km/sec; just hitting air would do
nothing.

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

Date: 18 Jan 86 16:31:02 GMT
From: decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-crvax1!kaplow@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Have you kicked your cat today?)
Subject: Wernher von Braun by Tom Lehrer
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

			Wernher von Braun
				Words and Music by Tom Lehrer
		[Copied without permission from "Too Many Songs by Tom 
	Lehrer with not enough drawings by Ronald Searle" (c) 1981
	Music notation eliminated due to terminal restrictions]
		"Gently"
	Gather round while I sing you of Wernher von Braun,
	A man whose allegiance
	Is ruled by expediance
	Call him a Nazi, he won't even frown,
	"Nazi, Shmazi," says Wernher von Braun.
	Don't say that he's hypocritical,
	Say rather that he's apolitical
	"Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down?
	Thats not my department," says Wernher von Braun.
	Some have harsh words for this man of renown,
	But some think our attitude 
	Should be one of gratitude,
	Like the widows and cripples of old London town
	Who owe their large pensions to Wernher von Braun.
	You too may be a big hero,
	Once you've learned to count backwards to zero.
	"In German oder English I know how to count down,
	Und I'm learning Chinese," says Wernher von Braun.
	[Please, don't ask for the words to "The Elements". Words to the 
	songs from all three of Toms albums, plus one that was to racy 
	for the sixties and two that he wrote for "The Electric Company" 
	are in his book. It was published by Pantheon Books, ISBN 
	0-394-74930-8, $8.95 in paperback]
    		Bob Kaplow 
    		Digital Equipment Corp. 
    		Arlington Heights, IL 
    UUCP:   {allegra,decvax,ihnp4,ucbvax}!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-crvax1!kaplow
    ARPA:   KAPLOW%CRVAX1.DEC@decwrl.DEC.COM 
	"In SPACE no one can hear them MEOW!"

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

Posted-Date: Sat 18 Jan 1986 16:10:15 EST
Date: Sat 18 Jan 1986 16:10:15 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Rail guns vs. ordinary guns
To: "Niket K. Patwardhan" <bilbo.niket@locus.ucla.edu>
In-Reply-To: "Niket K. Patwardhan"'s message of Fri, 17 Jan 86 09:58:55 PST
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa

There are several advantages of an electric gun over a chemical gun.  First,
the chemical gun is limited by the velocity of sound in the gas; if the
projectile moves faster than the gas particles it can't be accelerated.
Unless exotic propellants are used (pressurized hydrogen, for example)
velocity is limited.  Second, the gas in a conventional gun fills the
entire space between the breach and the projectile, meaning that gas
has to be added while the projectile is being accelerated (hard)
or the initial pressure must be very high.

A conventional railgun shares the second problem (only it is magnetic
flux, not gas, that fills the gun) but more current can be pumped in
easily.  Coilguns don't have that problem, and should have very high
efficiencies.

I wonder how hard it would be to design a hydrogen gas gun in which
the gas is arc heated as in a railgun.  It wouldn't be too efficient,
but the major cost of launching is going to be capital costs, not
electricity costs, so it might be worth looking into.

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

Date: 19 Jan 86 01:00:58 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!caip!im4u!nike!medin@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Milo S. Medin)
Subject: Re: Aviation Week on Star Wars
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

When did the USSR risk its survival on an analysis of anyone's
will, much less the US's?  How about the Cuban missile crisis?
The USSR bet that Kennedy wouldn't act.  He did.  It's precisely
this type of action that a indecisive foreign policy encourages.
The USSR would not have tried it if they knew what Kennedy was
going to do...  That is, they were not deterred by the US's
overwhelming superiority because they thought Kennedy wouldn't
use it.
					Milo

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

From: hplabs!tektronix!vice!keithl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space@tekcrl.tek
Return-Path: <@tekcrl:keithl@vice>
Comment: Message received over unauthenticated port at tekcrl
Date: 19 Jan 86 12:31:21 PST (Sun)

To: tekcrl!tektronix!hplabs!ucbvax!space
Subject: Re: Lighter-than-air Launch
References: <506391103.ns@H.CS.CMU.EDU>

The problem is not UP, it's ACROSS.  The energy needed for vertical lift
into low earth orbit is about 5% of that needed for horizontal delta V.
Lifting or lightening all the ground-based support equipment for a launch
(in order to make it airborne) to save a small fraction of vertical launch
energy is not a very good tradeoff.

Keith Lofstrom
MS 59-316, Tektronix, PO 500, Beaverton OR 97077  (503)-627-4052
uucp:	{ucbvax,decvax,chico,pur-ee,cbosg,ihnss}!tektronix!vice!keithl
CSnet:	keithl@tek
ARPAnet:keithl.tek@rand-relay

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

From: hplabs!tektronix!vice!keithl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space@tekcrl.tek
Return-Path: <@tekcrl:keithl@vice>
Comment: Message received over unauthenticated port at tekcrl
Date: 19 Jan 86 12:37:30 PST (Sun)

To: tekcrl!tektronix!hplabs!ucbvax!space
Subject: Re: Lofstrom Launch Loop
References: <12176017093.20.DENNETT@SRI-NIC.ARPA>

Still here, still working on it - far too slowly.  The small loop experiment
is still is on paper, a pile of copper wire, and power supplies.  I'm
spending most of my time working on control problems mathematically -
a slow process since I'm not much of a control theorist.

Someday...

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

Date: 19 Jan 86 00:11:05 GMT
From: ihnp4!astrovax!wls@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (William L. Sebok)
Subject: Re: tenth planet
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <6279@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
>I seem to recall that Chiron too was discovered from Earth.
It was discovered by Charles Kowal of Caltech using the Palomar 48" Schmidt.
I was there at the time.  I forget the year but it was sometime in the late
seventies.
-- 
Bill Sebok			Princeton University, Astrophysics
{allegra,akgua,cbosgd,decvax,ihnp4,noao,philabs,princeton,vax135}!astrovax!wls

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

Date: Sun, 19 Jan 86 05:39:55 cst
From: ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!raha@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Bob Hettinga)
To: ihnp4!space
Subject: Re: rail guns

Try the Space Studies Institute in Princeton. They'll send you papers on the
mass driver. The first one was built with photographic flash capacitors, I
believe.

Bob Hettinga
University of Chicago Computation Center

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

End of SPACE Digest V6 #81
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA03733; Fri, 24 Jan 86 03:01:30 PST
	id AA03733; Fri, 24 Jan 86 03:01:30 PST
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 86 03:01:30 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8601241101.AA03733@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #82

*** EOOH ***
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 86 03:01:30 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #82

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 6 : Issue 82

Today's Topics:
			   voyager.schedule
		     Re: Re: Altitude of "space"
		       Re: Altitude of "space"
		   Re: Rail guns vs. ordinary guns
		     Re: Lighter-than-air Launch
		     Re: V-2s were VERY effective
	 Re: Nemesis = Jupiter et al resonating the asteroids
			   Re: Laser Launch
			    Uranus' Moons
		   Re: Rail guns vs. ordinary guns
		   Re: Rail guns vs. ordinary guns
			Re: Phase conjugation
		       Re: homemade railguns...
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 18 Jan 86 18:26:41 GMT
From: ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!hjuxa!petsd!dcf@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (DCF group)
Subject: voyager.schedule
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

 Got some handy info, thought i'd post it....                
 As a ham i'm absolutely amazed at the performance of a specfic
22 watt transmitter...Voyager, and the encounter is coming...
for those of you lucky enough to have a dish to receive NASA select,
(which i assume will have live pix as it did in the saturn encounter)
here is the sched as i got it from "Science News Vol 129" :
(ALL TIMES PST)
         TIME AT    RECEIVED 
  DATE   VOYAGER     EARTH       EVENTS  
  ~~~~   ~~~~~~~    ~~~~~~~~     ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  1/23   8:25pm     11:10pm (PST) Begin ring occultation of Sigma Sagittarii
  1/24   12:37am     3:22am       End occultation of Sigma Sagittarii
  1/24   7:11am      9:56am       Closest approach to Titania (365,200km from
                                  center) Diameter:1,600 ~ 120km
  1/24   8:13am     10:58am       Closest approach to Oberon (470,600km from
                                  center) Diameter: 1,630 ~ 140km 
  1/24   8:22am     11:07am       Closest approach to Ariel (127,000km from
                                  center) Diameter: 1,330 ~ 130km
  1/24   9:05am     11:50am       Closest approach to Miranda (29,000km from
                                  center) Diameter: 500 ~ 220km 
  1/24   9:17am     12:02pm       Ring-plane crossing , at 67 deg. to plane
  1/24   10:00am    12:45pm       Closest approach to URANUS (107,100km from
                                  center) Diameter: approx. 51,000km
  1/24   10:28am     1:13pm       Begin 1st ring occultation of Beta Persei
  1/24   11:07am     1:52pm       End 1st ring occultation of Beta Persei
  1/24   11:20am     2:05pm       Begin 2nd ring occultation of Beta Persei
  1/24   11:46am     2:31pm       End 2nd ring occultation of Beta Persei
  1/24   12:53pm     3:38pm       Closest approach to Umbriel (325,000km from
                                  center) Diameter: 1,100 ~ 100km
==============================================================================
  And into history till 1989 when hopefully it arrives safely at NEPTUNE.
 
                                   This is real gud dx...
                                                 73 de KA2QHD  johnd
ps sure wish i knew someone with
 a dish here in central nj.  HI
-- 
 UUCP: {ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!pedsga!johnd  --- KA2QHD ---   
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 18 Jan 86 03:18:49 GMT
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!oberon!smeagol!kwan@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Richard Kwan)
Subject: Re: Re: Altitude of "space"
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> > So just how far does one have to go to reach 'space'?
> > -- 
> > E. Michael Smith  ...!{hplabs,ihnp4,amd,nsc}!amdahl!ems
> 
> Many pilots unofficially recognized 50 (statute) miles as the beginning of
> space, i.e. beyond the atmosphere.  This would make a number of X-15 missions
> space flights.  A more common recognition today is an altitude of 100 km
> (about 62 statute miles).  Still some of the X-15 flights were above this
> mark...
> --
> 	Roger Noe			ihnp4!riccb!rjnoe
Like various manned spacecraft, the X-15 required attitude control jets
to maneuver in a rarified atmosphere (or is it space?).  It also had to
tolerate a hot re-entry.  This much it has in common with Mercury,
Gemini, Apollo, and the shuttle orbiter.
	Rick Kwan
	JPL Spacecraft Data Systems group

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

Date: 20 Jan 86 00:03:15 GMT
From: tektronix!tekcrl!patc@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Pat Caudill)
Subject: Re: Altitude of "space"
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <173@cfa.UUCP> mink@cfa.UUCP (Doug Mink) writes:
>
>In the early 60's, an altitude of 50 miles was recognized as the
>beginning of space for the purpose of earning Astronaut wings, which I
>believe were awarded to several X-15 pilots as well as to Mercury,
	Tom Wolf tells a funny story about this in "The Right Stuff".
Apparently only military pilots (of the X-15) could get astronaut
wings for going over 50miles. The civilian test pilot who first
acheived this distinction was turned down, but the other test pilots
took him down to Pancho's bar and after due ceremony awarded him a
large pair of gold paper wings with "ASSTRONAUT" written on them.
			tektronix!tekcrl!patc

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

Date: Mon, 20 Jan 86 06:22:01 PST
From: ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: ihnp4!space
Subject: Re: Rail guns vs. ordinary guns
In-Reply-To: your article <8601171810.AA20973@s1-b.arpa>

The rail guns being discussed are smaller than you think since they
are designed to shoot small projectiles as weapons, not large payloads.
A recent test was made with a plastic projectile (it must have some
iron in it?) that puched its way into a solid block of aluminum.
An issue of Spectrum covered rail guns and other weapons that might be
used in a SDI system.

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

Date: Mon, 20 Jan 86 06:22:13 PST
From: ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: ihnp4!space
Subject: Re: Lighter-than-air Launch
In-Reply-To: your article <506391103.ns@H.CS.CMU.EDU>

We could get a good start just by climbing up existing mountains in
South America, Africa or Asia.  Imagine the top of Mount Everest
flattened off for a space port (:-)!

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

Date: 19 Jan 86 01:44:43 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: V-2s were VERY effective
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> ...The technical descendants of the V-2 are sitting in silos and
> submarines throughout the northern hemisphere,  poised to smash the former
> enemies of Nazi Germany...
> 
>   Perhaps the Nazis planned it that way all along, and are waiting in
> South America to start the Fourth Reich...
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity!
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

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

Date: 19 Jan 86 01:32:56 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Nemesis = Jupiter et al resonating the asteroids
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> ... So, anyway, the Trojan asteroids may thus be periodically
> sloshed out of their wells into random orbits including some
> Earth-crossing...
Small problem:  the Trojan potential wells are very shallow, and the
forces involved in planetary perturbations are small.  How do you get
"random orbits" from that?  You'll get only very small changes in orbit,
which will hardly suffice to turn a near-circular orbit in the outer
Solar System into an Earth-crossing orbit.  Perhaps later encounters
with Jupiter could account for it, but I have doubts.
I'd also like to see a quantitative analysis of the effect of other
planets on the Trojan gravity wells.  Remember the inverse-square law,
and the distances in the outer Solar System:  those effects are going
to be pretty small.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

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

Date: 19 Jan 86 01:42:27 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Laser Launch
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> I have the feeling that the advances in phase conjugate lasers have just
> solved the most difficult of the engineering problems in [laser launchers]
Last I heard, there was near-universal agreement that by far the most
difficult engineering problem of the laser launcher was on the receiving
end of the beam, not in the beam optics:  how to efficiently use the beam
energy to heat exhaust mass.  Nobody has more than vague notions for the
design of the beam receiver, I believe.
Incidentally, I believe Kantrowitz's proposals generally envisioned having
the vehicle carry the exhaust mass in tanks, rather than scooping up air
for the purpose.  The extension to using air results in a prettier system
with potentially higher performance, but makes the beam-receiver design
still harder.  A "first generation" system probably would avoid the extra
complexity and accept the lower performance.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

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

Date:  Mon, 20 Jan 86 10:09 CST
From: Slocum@hi-multics.arpa
Subject:  Uranus' Moons
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

I just read that 6 more satellites have been recorded by Voyager.  This
brings the total to 12 (after last month's discovery of6).  These are in
the 20-50 mile diameter range.
     Brett Slocum
     (Slocum@HI-MULTICS)

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

Date:           Mon, 20 Jan 86 13:25:15 PST
From: "Niket K. Patwardhan" <bilbo.niket@locus.ucla.edu>
To: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject:        Re: Rail guns vs. ordinary guns
In-Reply-To:    Message of Sat 18 Jan 1986 16:10:15 EST
                    from "Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>"


Your suggestion of arc-heating the hydrogen gas triggered another idea.....

Why not work on a "rail-rocket"..... This would not have the speed of sound
restriction, since by suitable nozzles the ejection velocity can be increased
beyond the speed of sound. Essentially the "rail-rocket" would be  a rocket
that got its heating power from two rails that feed electrical power into an
arc that was located where the combustion chamber would normally be.
If the rocket was encased in an open barrel you would have a "rail-bazooka":
and the rails and their support structure would be protected from the blast.

BTW the speed of sound in hydrogen should be around 3900-4100 m/s at 3000K.
Also the melting point of tungsten is 3370 or 3410 C depending on which
source I look at (eshbach?? Engineering Handbook OR Encyclopaedia Brittanica).

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

Posted-Date: Mon 20 Jan 1986 17:27:54 EST
Date: Mon 20 Jan 1986 17:27:54 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Re: Rail guns vs. ordinary guns
To: "Niket K. Patwardhan" <bilbo.niket@locus.ucla.edu>
In-Reply-To: "Niket K. Patwardhan"'s message of Mon, 20 Jan 86 13:23:51 PST
Cc: space@mc.lcs.mit.edu

A rail rocket would have to carry a lot of hydrogen, and have a VERY
high mass flow rate (all the mass must flow out in a fraction of a
second, or the barrel of the gun must be very long).  Also, you'd
have to commutate the thing somehow, which is hard at high velocity.

Actually, a railgun can be thought of as an arc-rocket.  Magnetic
forces confine the exhaust gases at the base of the projectile, so the
only mass flow is from an ablative coating on the back of the
projectile, and that's just for thermal protection.  I don't know if you
want a light gas in the arc, or if any material will do.

An alternative to the rail rocket would be a launcher in which the
hydrogen fuel is heated by an intense laser or particle beam.  A high
voltage electron beam, for example, might be easier to generate (at a
given power level) than the high current pulse a railgun needs.

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

Date: 20 Jan 86 13:23:29 PST (Monday)
From: Lynn.es@xerox.com
Subject: Re: Phase conjugation
In-Reply-To: BROWNVM's message of Fri, 17 Jan 86 11:53:13 EST
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Cc: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu, Lynn.es@xerox.com

Why won't the phase conjugation technique work in reverse to build a
large earth based telescope that removes the effects of atmospheric
turbulence?  One would need a laser in the field of view (on a
satellite, say) to determine the distortion during the trip down through
the atmosphere, then apply the correction for that distortion to all
incoming light to produce an undistorted image.  If it works, it sounds
like it could make the Space Telescope obsolete.
/Don Lynn

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

Date: 20 Jan 86 19:31:58 GMT
From: hplabs!amdahl!ems@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (ems)
Subject: Re: homemade railguns...
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <8601171419.AA20243@s1-b.arpa>, dietz@SLB-DOLL.CSNET (Paul Dietz) writes:
> >Sorry, computer grade capacitors aren't of any use for
> >building railguns.  They have too much internal inductance
> >to supply the sort of short, high-current pulse that you
> >would need.  They won't even explode wires!  You might
> >have better luck with photo-flash capacitors charged to
> >an appropriately high voltage...
> 
> Rats!
Are you sure about this?  Just how short a pulse is needed, anyway?
I used 'computer grade' capacitors of about 20,000 mfd charged
to 20v or so to launch model rockets (circa 1972).  They did
a dandy job of vaporizing the nichrom wire igniters!  (Though
they did have enough charge left after the first launch to ignite
one, and sometimes two, additional rockets).
It was my understanding that rail guns took a fractional second
to a few seconds to accelerate something depending on design.
Surely a model could be built that would be able to use computer
grade caps?
-- 
E. Michael Smith  ...!{hplabs,ihnp4,amd,nsc}!amdahl!ems
This is the obligatory disclaimer of everything.

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

End of SPACE Digest V6 #82
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA01482; Tue, 28 Jan 86 07:47:36 PST
	id AA01482; Tue, 28 Jan 86 07:47:36 PST
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 86 07:47:36 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8601281547.AA01482@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #83

*** EOOH ***
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 86 07:47:36 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #83

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 6 : Issue 83

Today's Topics:
	      Re: Photographing Halley's with your kids
		     More Launcher Ideas, Ramrod
			   Re: Laser Launch
			  More Werner V. B.
		     Re: Another Use for Tethers
			Re: Orphaned Response
		     Amateur Satellite Observing
		  Capacitors to ignite model rockets
	      Re: Storing electricity for railgun shots
		   Re: New planet formation thoery
		  Re: Phone Number for Voyager Info
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 20 Jan 86 19:54:54 GMT
From: hplabs!amdahl!ems@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (ems)
Subject: Re: Photographing Halley's with your kids
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <8601180216.AA23509@s1-b.arpa>, Dave-Platt%LADC@CISL-SERVICE-MULTICS.ARPA (Dave Platt) writes:
> Well, here's some information I've gleaned from a number of photo and
> astronomy magazines on this general subject... I'm working from memory,
> so the figures etc. will be pretty inexact.
...
> I'd suggest using an ASA 1600 slide film... slide film will work better
A few years ago at school, some of us were doing a project
involving comet photography.  The standard film used was high
speed Ektachrome pushed to about 6400.  Does anyone still do this?
The extra speed of a high ASA/ISO film should be a good trade off
of grain vs. blur from no motorized mount.
...
> To shoot the comet:  mount the camera firmly on a tripod (in a location
> shielded from the wind, if possible, and from any electrical lighting).
> Set the lens to the wide-open setting (f/1.8 or f/1.4, depending on
> which Canon lens you have), and set the exposure to "B".
You might also look up a friend with a f/1.2 lens.  I have one.  It
does an OK job.  Not the sharpest thing in the world, but blur and
grain will be bigger factors in this scenario...
> comet in the viewfinder;  then, cover the viewfinder opening with a
> small piece of black electrical tape (to keep out stray light during
> the long exposure).  Use the shutter release cable to open the shutter,
Or buy a viewfinder cover.  My cannon has grooves on each side of the
viewfinder to accept one.  They are cheap and nice to have.
-- 
E. Michael Smith  ...!{hplabs,ihnp4,amd,nsc}!amdahl!ems
This is the obligatory disclaimer of everything.

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

Posted-Date: Mon 20 Jan 1986 21:02:19 EST
Date: Mon 20 Jan 1986 21:02:19 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: More Launcher Ideas, Ramrod
To: space@s1-b.arpa

Here are some more thoughts on possible technologies for cheap ground
based high acceleration launchers.

Ramrod:  this is a DARPA-funded program developing a self-igniting
scramjet propelled antitank projectile.  It would be fired from a
conventional cannon, ignite and accelerate up to Mach 5.  Conventional
antitank rounds travel at perhaps mach 3-4 after leaving the barrel
and decelerate quickly.

It seems to me the same idea could be applied to projectiles launched
into space.  The projectiles will have to be coated with ablative
materials anyway, so it may make sense to use the lost mass as jet fuel.
This may also help keep the projectile velocity down when travelling
through the lower atmosphere, and may make more depressed trajectories
feasible.

This also suggests a hybrid cannon/rocket scheme.  The projectiles are
streamlined and somewhat smaller in diameter than the cannon bore.  The
projectiles carry some fuel, maybe hydrogen or methane.  The cannon is
filled with cold oxygen gas.  As the projectile flies down the barrel
oxygen slips past and is mixed with fuel, then is shot out the back.
The region between the projectile and the wall forms a combustion
chamber.  Very high accelerations would be needed (> 1000 gees) which
may mean too much heat is generated to be practical.

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

Date: 20 Jan 86 18:11:26 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!well!farren@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Mike Farren)
Subject: Re: Laser Launch
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <8601170304.AA18252@s1-b.arpa>, Dale.Amon@FAS.RI.CMU.EDU writes:
> A recent issue of Scientific American discussed phase conjugate lasers, and
> two of the capabilities seemed made to order for a Kantrowitz laser launch
> system.
> 
>     [Insert discussion here]
> 
> I have the feeling that the advances in phase conjugate lasers have just
> solved the most difficult of the engineering problems in this system.
     No, but they may have solved some of the theoretical problems. The
engineering problems will come up when you try to BUILD one of the things.
There's a fairly vast difference between a small lab laser and one of the
behemoths needed to make laser launch work.
-- 
           Mike Farren
           uucp: {your favorite backbone site}!hplabs!well!farren
           Fido: Sci-Fido, Fidonode 125/84, (415)655-0667

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

Date: 20 Jan 86 17:56:33 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!cmcl2!philabs!ttidca!ttidcb!jackson@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dick Jackson)
Subject: More Werner V. B.
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

I think Tom Lehrer is also responsible for the following, but I can't find
the source.
"Werner Von Braun's autobiography is called "I Aim At The Stars",
 -and subtitled "But Sometimes I Hit London".
Dick Jackson

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

Date: 20 Jan 86 00:22:36 GMT
From: decvax!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Another Use for Tethers
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Seems to me there is a much better, and far more efficent method of
using tethers to spin up (or down) a space station or satellite, using
tidal forces.  Might take a while, but so it goes.
The notion is to extend two tether ends (with some small mass or other
on each) away from the station, one primaryward, the other
anti-primaryward.  Tidal forces will produce a tension on the string.
Then merely use a solar powered eletcric motor (with the tension on the
tether as an "anchor") to spin up the station, and an electric generator
to spin it down.  No fuss, no muss, no reaction mass, and you can even
get some or most of your energy back by spinning the station back down.
In fact, isn't this method used (at least partly) to stabilize the space
telescope?  I had read where at least some satellites were stabilized
using this method, but I may be remembering some fictional scenario...
-- 
Wayne Throop at Data General, RTP, NC
<the-known-world>!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw

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

Date: 19 Jan 86 04:01:00 GMT
From: hplabs!hpfcdc!hpfcla!ajs@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Orphaned Response
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> If you cannot track the stars, I would not recommend a picture longer
> than about 5 minutes with the telephoto as the image will begin to blur.
> If you use the 50mm lens, you could maybe get by with a good 5-min
> exposure.
The rule of thumb I recently heard, which applied post-facto to some
streaked pictures I took, is:  maximum exposure (seconds) to avoid
streaking = 600 / focal length (mm).  For a 50mm lens, you get 12
seconds.  For 200mm, 3 seconds.
You'll also need high-ASA film.  In dark skies, 60sec on 100ASA at 50mm,
f/1.7, produced negatives about 1/2 as dark as needed for good results,
with noticeable streaking.  If things are linear (and they are probably
not), you'd need something like 30sec (way too long) with 1600ASA,
200mm.
Alan Silverstein

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

To: space
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 86 21:59:57 cet
To: SPACE-REQUEST@s1-b.arpa
From: EINAUDI%ICNUCEVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu (Alessandro Berni)
Subject: Amateur Satellite Observing

Thank you John and 'man-with-no-name-from-Chicago' for your replies.
If you like you can mail me directly at the following address:

        EINAUDI at ICNUCEVM.BITNET

In this way mail will arrive to me much faster than now.
For John particularly: what are the features of your prediction program?
I have done one in BASIC for my Commodore 64. Although it is very simple it
allows an acceptable accuracy.
This summer i was able to do a 20 days prediction for salyut-7 with an error
of only a bunch of seconds.

Keep mail coming, friends!!!

Alessandro Berni
Genoa, Italy

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

Date: 21 Jan 86 14:09:29 GMT
From: decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-star!fisher@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Burns Fisher ZKO1-1/D42 DTN 381-1466)
Subject: Capacitors to ignite model rockets
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>Are you sure about this?  Just how short a pulse is needed, anyway?
>I used 'computer grade' capacitors of about 20,000 mfd charged
>to 20v or so to launch model rockets (circa 1972).  They did
>a dandy job of vaporizing the nichrom wire igniters!  (Though
>they did have enough charge left after the first launch to ignite
>one, and sometimes two, additional rockets).
> . . .
>E. Michael Smith  ...!{hplabs,ihnp4,amd,nsc}!amdahl!ems

Sorry, E. Michael, I don't think that proves much.  I used flashlight
batteries (or at most, a lantern battery), and they gave the nichrome a
nice cherry glow!
Burns
...decwrl!rhea!star!fisher

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

Date: 20 Jan 86 14:56:29 GMT
From: ihnp4!poseidon!brent@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Brent P. Callaghan)
Subject: Re: Storing electricity for railgun shots
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>>One method (which is used in some fusion reactor experiments) is to use
>>a spinning rock. 
>
>The Bevatron at UC Berkeley does this, and has for years. A motor winds
>a flywheel up to a high speed.  Then (every minute or so) a bank of thyratrons
>lights up blue and  *all* the energy in the flywheel gets dumped into the 
>accelerator.  Great fun to watch and listen to.  Cheaper and more compact than
>capacitors holding the same energy.
I think this is called a "homopolar" generator.
-- 
				
Made in New Zealand -->		Brent Callaghan
				AT&T Information Systems, Lincroft, NJ
				{ihnp4|mtuxo|pegasus}!poseidon!brent
				(201) 576-3475

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

Date: 21 Jan 86 14:26:04 GMT
From: decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-star!fisher@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Burns Fisher ZKO1-1/D42 DTN 381-1466)
Subject: Re: New planet formation thoery
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Richard Snell answered my request for info about a new planet formation
theory which might be confirmed by Voyager findings by talking about the
"sheparding" theory of rings.  I had heard of that, but it is not the same
one.  Here is a followup article from the Boston Globe, Saturday 21-Jan-86
(which I remembered to save this time):
<start of article>
6 More Uranus moons discovered by Voyager 2
By David L. Chandler
Globe Staff
The discovery by the Voyager 2 spacecraft of six more moons orbiting the planet
Uranus was announced yesterday.  The finding adds support to a theory advanced 
recently by an Australian scientist.
<one graph about when imaging done, etc omitted>
The newly found moons are clustered together with the largest about 30 miles 
across, in an orbit 41,070 miles from the center of the planet.
The Australian scientist, Andrew Prentice, using a formula he has been 
developing for the last 15 years, predicted last week at a meeting of 
astronomers that a moon, or perhaps more than one moon would be found at a 
distance of about 41,300 miles.  He also had correctly predicted the position
of a 7th moon, whose discovery by Voyager 2 was announced last week.
<one graph about announcement date/time omitted>
Many scientists had predicted that Uranus might have 18 previously unknown 
moons that serve as "shepherds" to keep the planet's nine rings in place.
But none of the 7 moons so far found by Voyager 2 is in the right position to 
be a shepherd moon, so scientists at the laboratory feel they still may find 18 
more moons, which would give Uranus a total of 30 and make it the largest known 
satellite family in the solar system.
Prentice's theory of the formation of teh solar system, which allowed him to 
make the successful predictions, also predicts the density and composition of
the moons--predictions which will be tested during the next week as Voyager 2 
continues it <sic> observations as it nears the planet, which is 1.8 billion 
miles from the sun.
"I think it's quite powerful confirmation of my theory," Prentice, a senior
lecturer in mathematics at Monash University in Australia, said yesterday of
the new discoveries.
<end of article>
Repeating:  Does anyone know anything more about this theory?  Anyone from
Monash University on the net?
Burns
...decwrl!rhea!star!fisher

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

Date: 20 Jan 86 18:50:57 GMT
From: allegra!princeton!astrovax!escher!doug@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Phone Number for Voyager Info
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> Two numbers have been given in this digest for information on Voyager
> - (818) 354-3051 and (818) 354-7650 - and they both work. (They have the
> same recording.)
> 
> Does anyone know if there is an Autovon or FTS number I can use?
FTS is 792-3051 and 792-7650.  I don't think JPL is
available on Autovon specially.
-- 
Doug Freyburger		DOUG@JPL-ROBOTICS, DOUG@JPL-VLSI,
JPL Mail Stop 23	escher!doug, escher!teleop!doug
Pasadena, CA 91109	etc.
Disclaimers: My opinions are not those of JPL, Caltech,
NASA, etc.  Apologies to companies I'm forgetting to quote
as trademark holders.  Net site JPL-ROBOTICS has its net
link down lately, so no mail gets though.

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

End of SPACE Digest V6 #83
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA00212; Wed, 29 Jan 86 07:30:57 PST
	id AA00212; Wed, 29 Jan 86 07:30:57 PST
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 86 07:30:57 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8601291530.AA00212@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #84

*** EOOH ***
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 86 07:30:57 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #84

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 6 : Issue 84

Today's Topics:
			     SHUTTLE LOST
		     Re: Another Use for Tethers
			      Oh My God
		   Re: Soviets grow GaAs in Space ?
		   Re: Mt Shasta on Uranian moon!!
			 STS EXPLOSION TODAY
		    Reactions to Shuttle Disaster
		     Future of the Space Program
			 The Press parasites
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 28 Jan 86 09:39:02 PST
From: mcgeer%ji@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Rick McGeer)
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: SHUTTLE LOST

	At 8:39 AM PST today, the shuttle Challenger exploded at about a
minute into the flight.  NASA is searching for survivors now.  It appeared
that the orbiter and external tank exploded completely: television pictures
showed the SRBs moving away from a cloud of debris.  Thus it appears that
the first inflight disaster of the NASA space program has claimed the
lives of six astronauts and NASA's first passenger.

	The disaster occured 17 years and 1 day after the Apollo I tragedy.

						-- Rick.

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

Posted-Date: Tue 28 Jan 1986 13:12:31 EST
Date: Tue 28 Jan 1986 13:12:31 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Re: Another Use for Tethers
To: decvax!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
In-Reply-To: decvax!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw's message of 20 Jan 86 00:22:36 GMT
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa

Tidal forces... but of course!  Seasat used this scheme, I think, as
does the long duration exposure facility.

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

Posted-Date: Tue 28 Jan 1986 13:20:08 EST
Date: Tue 28 Jan 1986 13:20:08 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Oh My God
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Cc: dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa

What will happen next?  Some predictions:

The shuttle program is in very serious trouble, and stands a good
chance of being transfered to the military or being cancelled entirely.
Work will start immediately on a replacement vehicle, probably a smaller
scramjet-based TAV.  The Europeans will go ahead with Hermes and HOTOL.
The space station will be postponed or suspended pending the development
of a replacement vehicle.  NASA may feel compelled to invest heavily
in space robotics.

NASA will probably survive, unless it comes out that NASA has been
hushing up internal uneasiness about shuttle reliability.  In that case
the civilian space program is very likely dead.

What a nightmare.

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

Date: 27 Jan 86 18:41:00 GMT
From: hplabs!ames!eugene@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Eugene Miya)
Subject: Re: Soviets grow GaAs in Space ?
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

David Story notes:
> 	The Soviet Union has apparently grown gallium arsenide (GaAs)
> 	and other optoeletronic compunds and heterostructures in
> 	space. . . .
> 
> 	Space Business News
This is no surprise.  NASA and the DOD have known about this for several years.
--eugene miya

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

Date: 27 Jan 86 18:33:43 GMT
From: hplabs!ames!eugene@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Eugene Miya)
Subject: Re: Mt Shasta on Uranian moon!!
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> Voyager 2 has discovered a 3-mile-tall mountain on a moon of Uranus.
. . .
> hot then by bombarding everything in sight (layman's opinion again). So, what
> do the rest of you think, volcano as I claim?, extinct as I guess?, what kind
> of lava do you guess?, how long since active?
	Are you certain it's a volcano?  I've not seen the imagery
	(no TV and the print media have not had detailed images).
	No offense, but most lay people could not recognize a volcano
	other than pure cinder cones.  Was it a profile (how did you get
	3 miles?)? or face into the crater  or peak (I assume)?
	did it have obvious flows.  I walk over to our auditorium and they
	are televising clean room shots of some circular hatch: they say
	they are making history ... :-) [people crawling in and out
	the shuttle). When are they going to make channels for for
	something important? ...  Guess I have to find a tube.
> When are we gonna get that damn ion rocket developed so we can send
> Mariner/Viking/Galileo-class spacecraft (orbiter/lander). . .
	I refer you to James van Allen's article in Sci. Amer. a
	month or two back.  The rocket's been developed years ago
	the question is when are we going to get the money to
	send it up?  [obvious pilot light]: A mission would cost a
	fraction of the SDI program, the space station, or a carrier
	battle group.  Viking, BTW, is an order or magnitude more
	than other missions if you consider the lander technology.
	Planetary wish list:
		International Solar polar
		Comet rendevzous
		Stellar/solar wind sampler
		Mercury sample mission
		Venus mapper, atmospheric sampler
		Earth --? no intelligent life there :-)
		Moon -- polar orbiter, sampler missions
		Mars -- polar orbiter and sampler missions, mars moon missions
		astroid sampler missions
		Jovian sampler missions to Europa and I/O
		Saturn -- Titan orbiter, imager, atmospheric sampler.
		Uranian -- your suggestions
From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  {hplabs,ihnp4,dual,hao,decwrl,allegra}!ames!aurora!eugene
  eugene@ames-nas.ARPA

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

Date: 28 Jan 1986 1222-PST
From: Rem@imsss
Subject: STS EXPLOSION TODAY
To: SPACE%MIT-MC@su-score.arpa

In addition to obvious badness:
 (1) TDRS lost, so we won't be having the around-the-clock tracking of
   space missions like we were hoping to have;
 (2) Our STS capacity is now down to 60%. Originally we needed 5 orbiters,
   but the budget was cut and we had only 4, now we have only 3.

One minor good point:
 At least it didn't happen on the pad where the pad would have been destroyed
   preventing further launches. However this may be moot if they spend two
   years analyzing everything before doing anything.
-------

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

Posted-Date: Tue 28 Jan 1986 20:41:02 EST
Date: Tue 28 Jan 1986 20:41:02 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Reactions to Shuttle Disaster
To: space@s1-b.arpa

First impressons of reactions:

(1) Reagan's speech was masterful (the last sentence, especially).  You
have to admire his style.  Reagan has apparently ruled out immediate
cancellation of the shuttle; long term reaction is hard to judge.

(2) Criticism of NASA has been muted, perhaps because it would seem in
bad taste so soon after the incident.

(3) The anti-manned spaceflight planetary scientists will jump on this
to try to scuttle the space station and perhaps cut back on the
shuttle.  Thomas Gold was strongly critical of the shuttle and of manned
spaceflight to low orbit as practiced with the shuttle when he was
interviewed on MacNeill/Lehrer this evening.  The
juxtaposition of this tragedy with the Voyager-2 flyby of Uranus
did not go unmentioned.

(4) NASA isn't helping things by keeping quiet, although it's unfair for
the news media to expect immediate diagnosis of the cause of the
tragedy.  If NASA takes too long the media could get unruly.

(5) Pro-space groups have gone into damage-control mode.  Ben Bova was
on the local TV station downplaying the accident.

(6) The level of media interest is astounding.  Hard facts will be
scarce for a while, so there's going to be a tremendous news vacuum
sucking all sorts of speculation, accusation and justification into
public view.  A lot of what previously seemed unpatriotic criticism
will be aired.

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

Date: Tue 28 Jan 86 17:55:56-PST
From: Steve Dennett <DENNETT@sri-nic.arpa>
Subject: Future of the Space Program
To: space@s1-b.arpa

The shuttle tragedy has raised some questions (in my mind) about the
shuttle, and the effect this disaster will have on the space program.
Perhaps the readers of this digest will have some answers or speculation on
these questions.

- What kind of escape mechanism (if any) does the shuttle have for the crew?

- Will this be a setback for the space program, due to public disapproval
  or the government's need to find (and punish) someone?

- Alternately, might it lead to *greater* support of the space program
  (e.g., if NASA presents a case along the lines of "If our budget were
  larger, this wouldn't have happened.")?

- Might this redirect (to some extent) the focus of the manned space
  program away from the shuttle (large, complex) back toward simpler or
  alternative launch systems?


  Steve Dennett
  dennett@sri-nic.arpa
-------

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

Date:       Tue, 28 Jan 86 16:07:01 EST
From: "Bob Czech" <939@NJIT-EIES.MAILNET>
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject:    The Press parasites


     It's been about 4 hours since the Challenger blew up and the most disgusting aspect of this whole accident is the way the press has handled it.  This is
usually the problem that most people find with great tragedies.  Nothing bothered us more here at CCCC more than the way that ABC, descretely (said in REAL
sarcasm), enabled us to view the teacher's parents as the Challenger ascended and then after the explosion.  It's one thing to drag out an apparent accident,
but another to feed and use upon human emotions as they did.

     The real tragedy is the injustice done to NASA, after MANY great successes to have this dragged and blown out of proportion.  It's still a great pride
and joy to watch any shuttle lift off and I wish everyone would make such a big deal when NASA makes a great success and not eat away at them with the
failures.

     The whole space shuttle program has been one of the greatest feats in engineering and nobody really cares, but if it messes up, everyone is made sure not
to forget it.

     May those who died rest in peace, but let's not forget the real mission.

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

End of SPACE Digest V6 #84
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA03668; Thu, 30 Jan 86 03:01:46 PST
	id AA03668; Thu, 30 Jan 86 03:01:46 PST
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 86 03:01:46 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8601301101.AA03668@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #85

*** EOOH ***
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 86 03:01:46 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #85

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 6 : Issue 85

Today's Topics:
		      Re: Photographing Halley's
		  Re: Re: Aviation Week on Star Wars
		    Re: Aviation Week on Star Wars
		       interplanetary computers
			Re: Phase conjugation
			      lunarcrete
			    Re: Joy rides
			    Re: Joy rides
		     Mt Shasta on Uranian moon!!
		     Re: Timing of comet showers
		     Soviets grow GaAs in Space ?
		    Re: Accelerator Momentum Loss
		       Re: Altitude of "space"
	Re: Space Station, L5, and the Militarization of Space
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 24 Jan 86 09:57:56 cst
From: dual!lll-crg!seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!grads@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Steve Poole)
Posted-Date: Fri, 24 Jan 86 09:57:56 cst
To: ucbvax!space
Subject: Re: Photographing Halley's

There is an article in the January issue of Sky and Telescope
on photographing Halley's.  It recommends trying exposure
times of from 10 sec to 30 sec at widest aperture, with fast 
film (ISO 800 to 1600).  These short exposure times will not show 
star trails.  The article suggested trying longer exposure times
of up to 2 min. just for the heck of it.

Steve Poole

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

Date: 20 Jan 86 19:01:41 GMT
From: nbires!boulder!cisden!john@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (John Woolley)
Subject: Re: Re: Aviation Week on Star Wars
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <493@whuts.UUCP> orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) writes:
>funny thing then, that the Reagan administration is planning on deploying
>18,000 more offensive nuclear weapons!  Indeed Reagan while smiling all
>the while is deploying 5 new nuclear weapons *every day*!
Where did you get this?  In fact, we have far fewer (and smaller, because
more accurate) ICBMs than for some time past.  What weapons are you talking
about?  What plans to deploy them?  18000?  Don't be silly.
-- 
				Peace and Good!,
				      Fr. John Woolley
"Compared to what I have seen, all that I have written is straw." -- St. Thomas

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

Date: 24 Jan 86 16:14:00 GMT
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiucdcsb!carroll@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Aviation Week on Star Wars
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

/* Written 12:16 pm  Jan 17, 1986 by orb@whuts.UUCP in uiucdcsb:net.space */
 
funny thing then, that the Reagan administration is planning on deploying
18,000 more offensive nuclear weapons!  Indeed Reagan while smiling all
the while is deploying 5 new nuclear weapons *every day*!
		       --------------------- 
    tim sevener   whuxn!orb
/* End of text from uiucdcsb:net.space */
	You are confused. While it is true that about 5 nukes/day are
built, about that many are taken out of service too. Nuclear weapons wear
out over time, through (surprise!) radioactive processes and need to be
replaced. How many of these news bombs are REALLY new I don't know, but
not all of them are, in fact my guess is that most (if not all) are
replacement devices.

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

Date: 25 Jan 86 01:47:27 GMT
From: sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!oberon!smeagol!kwan@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Richard Kwan)
Subject: interplanetary computers
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

(Before someone in authority discovers my errors and chastises me...)
A few weeks ago, I mentioned that Galileo and Magellan will be equipped
with radiation-hardened RCA 1802 processors when they fly to Jupiter
and Venus, respectively.  Those ain't very powerful processors.
I suggested to someone, wouldn't be nice if the craft had an on-board
star catalog, and had enough on-board intelligence to recognize
the stars in figuring its position?  That, in fact, is what happens,
I was told.  A separate bit-slice design with floating point capability
(including sines and cosines) is used to compute orientation for
attitude control and depends on recognizing a number of objects.  The
design dates back to Voyager.
		Rick Kwan
		JPL Spacecraft Data Systems group
P.S.:  I've been having a hard time trying to track all this info down,
so don't take this as authoritative.  However, I think my sources are
reliable.

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

Date: 24 Jan 86 15:40:39 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!hao!noao!terak!mot!anasazi!will@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Will Fuller)
Subject: Re: Phase conjugation
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <860120-145927-1076@Xerox> Lynn.es@XEROX.ARPA writes:
>One would need a laser in the field of view (on a satellite, say) to
>determine the distortion during the trip down through the atmosphere...
One big problem with the atmosphere that can't be gotten rid of
is the attenuation at certain wavelengths. If you had a tunable dye
laser, you might be able to account for the degree of attenuation,
but if you can't see it...
Real time extinction information is of comparative little value (unless one
is being astronometric). Instead the air mass can be made to work in your
favor - as is the case of speckle interferometry.
What advantage would a space borne laser in the field of view of a telescope
have over any star in correcting the abberations caused by the air mass?
The star might be "calibrated" by a space based detector.
Further, the "spot" from such a remote laser (geosynchronous) would be
damned big...
-- 
William H. Fuller
{decvax|ihnp4|hao}!noao!terak!anasazi!will

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

Date: 25 Jan 86 20:21:18 EST
From: Hans.Moravec@rover.ri.cmu.edu
Subject: lunarcrete
To: BBoard.Maintainer@a.cs.cmu.edu

a069  0659  24 Jan 86
PM-Lunar Concrete,0314
Researcher To Make Concrete From Moon Dust
With PM-Voyager-Uranus Bjt
By LINDSEY TANNER
Associated Press Writer
    CHICAGO (AP) - Seeking concrete ideas on lunar housing for
astronauts, NASA is sending a researcher a golfball-sized clump of
moon dirt to cement his experiments on developing an unearthly
building material.
    If Tung Dju Lin can create a lunar cement, the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration plans to establish a factory on the moon to
make concrete for astronaut housing at the turn of the century, the
researcher said Thursday.
    The 40 grams of dirt will be delivered next week to his lab at
Construction Technology Laboratories in Skokie, said Lin. It was dug
up during the Apollo 16 mission in 1972.
    The dirt consists of grayish-brown particles slightly larger than
salt, said Lin. It doesn't look like Earth dirt ''because lunar
material has not been exposed to air and water and oxygen. It still
maintains the physical properties it had when the moon was created
4.6 billion years ago,'' he said.
    Doug Blanchard, chief of NASA's Lunar Material Curator Division at
the Johnson Space Center in Houston, described the soil to Lin during
a recent telephone conversation.
    Stan Sadin, a deputy director in NASA's office of aeronautics and
space technology in Washington, confirmed today that Lin's research
could lead to the establishment of a lunar concrete factory and
''putting an outpost ... in the spirit of an Antarctic outpost'' on
the moon.
    But he said that probably wouldn't happen until after the year 2000.
    Lin said his research could save NASA millions of dollars because
''it will be much cheaper'' to make concrete on the moon than to
transport it from Earth.
    For the past eight months, Lin, 52, has made concrete with simulated
lunar dirt that is twice as strong as the earthly stuff.
    
AP-NY-01-24-86 0959EST
***************

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

Posted-Date: Sat, 25 Jan 86 20:12:41 est
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 86 20:12:41 est
From: bellcore!decvax!linus!alliant!gottlieb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Bob Gottlieb)
To: decvax!space
Subject: Re: Joy rides
Newsgroups: net.space
In-Reply-To: <8601222243.AA04061@s1-b.arpa>

In article <8601222243.AA04061@s1-b.arpa> you write:
>                                                 Supposing you could go into
>space.... not into orbit, but just out of the atmosphere for 10 minutes to an
>hour, how much would you be willing to pay? You'd experience zero G, the
>launch, the blackness of space, and really see the Earth. Would this be just as 
>hard (difficult, costly, etc) as achieving orbit? In my opinion $10 per ticket
>would make it as popular as Disneyland, and $100 would cause most people to
>forget it.
>
>Comments on your trade-off price direct to me (I'll post a summary).

For me. personally:
	1) Sub-orbital "jaunt" (say, 10 minutes). $100 and I'd do it now!
	   $500 and I'd think about it, $1000 probably not (but maybe).

	2) 1 Orbit (90 minutes). $1000 and I'd do it now! Above that &
	   I'd think about it.





						-- Bob Gottlieb
UUCP: ...!linus!alliant!gottlieb
Mail: Alliant Computer Systems Corp, 42 Nagog Park, Acton, MA 01720
Phone: (617) 263-9110
Foot:  "You can't get there from here".
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I don't know what I'm doing, and Alliant isn't responsible either, so there!"

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

Date: 26 Jan 86 05:50:18 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!topaz!nike!riacs!julian@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Julian E. Gomez)
Subject: Re: Joy rides
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> We have now had two Congressmen take a joyride in the shuttle, and I'm sure
> that us lesser folk would like to enjoy one too. Supposing you could go into
> space.... not into orbit, but just out of the atmosphere for 10 minutes to an
> hour, how much would you be willing to pay? You'd experience zero G, the
> launch, the blackness of space, and really see the Earth. Would this be just as 
> hard (difficult, costly, etc) as achieving orbit? In my opinion $10 per ticket
> would make it as popular as Disneyland, and $100 would cause most people to
> forget it.
I'd sell my Macintosh for a ride on the shuttle!
(No :-] on this one, I'm serious! Really!)
-- 
"If Chaos himself sat umpire, what better could he do?"
	Julian "a tribble took it" Gomez  (ARPA: julian@riacs)
	415-694-6141        415-694-6363  (UUCP: decvax!decwrl!julian@riacs)
	RIACS - Research Institute for Advanced Computer Science

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

X-Sent: to SU-AI.ARPA by IMSSS.FRONSTAD.EDU via ETHERNET with PUPFTP; 1986-Jan-26 04:23:48 PST (=GMT-8hr)
X-Mailer: EMACS -> PSL (FORMAT+SEND-ALL) -> PUPFTP
Date: 1986 January 26 02:15:53 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM@imsss> (this host known locally only)
To: SPACE@mc.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: Mt Shasta on Uranian moon!!
Sender: REM%IMSSS@su-score.arpa (for undeliverable-mail notifications)
Reply-To: REM%IMSSS@SU-SCORE.ARPA

Voyager 2 has discovered a 3-mile-tall mountain on one of the moons of Uranus.
It really sticks out like a sore thumb on the photo I saw on TV. The only
thing it could be (my layman's opinion) is a volcanic cone, probably extinct
like Mount Shasta in California, but if Jupiter's Io is any example not
necessarily. The only major open question is what kind of lava it used. It
would have been too cold during the past 4 billion years to be basalt lava, so
probably water ice or ammonia (or nitrogen or methane if it is really cold
there and the volcano is recent); it couldn't be a very early volcano from the
first half billion years when moons were still very hot because it would have
been bombarded out of existance by all the meteors that were keepin things so
hot then by bombarding everything in sight (layman's opinion again). So, what
do the rest of you think, volcano as I claim?, extinct as I guess?, what kind
of lava do you guess?, how long since active?

When are we gonna get that damn ion rocket developed so we can send
Mariner/Viking/Galileo-class spacecraft (orbiter/lander) to all the outer
planets without having to wait ten years to get the craft to the very outer
ones via gravity-assist from the nearer ones? Those Uranian moons look as
interesting as Saturn's (although nothing is as pretty as Dione as far as I've
seen to date, but then I haven't seen Uranian moons in color yet).

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jan 86 20:47:18 pst
From: ihnp4!tektronix!ogcvax!sequent!brian@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Brian Godfrey)
To: ogcvax!space
Subject: Re: Timing of comet showers
Newsgroups: net.space
In-Reply-To: <8601102258.AA02103@s1-b.arpa>

   That was an interesting article. A piece of friendly advice, though. Most
people refer to our large orbiting satellite as "The Moon". We perceive the
name "Luna" to be the jargon of science fiction. It is, at the least, 
distracting having to "read around" your use of the name Luna in what I assume
was intended to be a serious article. I talked to two people who simply hit 
their 'j' key and junked it. Assuming it was the ravings of a science fiction
nut. Remember, when talking to a general audience, use the words they are 
accustomed to hearing. You may not like it, but that is what communication
is all about.

--Brian

PS - It really was interesting. I don't know a whole lot about the existing
     mass extinction theories, but maybe I will have to learn about them.

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

Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1986  17:42 EST
Sender: GZT.TDF%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu
From: "David D. Story" <FTD%MIT-OZ@mc.lcs.mit.edu>
To: space@mc.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: Soviets grow GaAs in Space ?
Phase-Of-The-Moon: FM+1D.18H.28M.42S.


	The Soviet Union has apparently grown gallium arsenide (GaAs)
	and other optoeletronic compunds and heterostructures in
	space. A Washington D.C> research firm came across a 1984
	study "factors influencing the liquid epitaxy process in zero
	gravity and in earth conditions" for gallium arsenide. Salut
	6 and 7, as well as earlier Soviet space labs have carried
	materials growth and characterization batch processing
	furnaces.

	Space Business News

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

Date: 26 Jan 86 01:54:59 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Accelerator Momentum Loss
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> Another solution is possible.  If a charge is placed on the
> accelerator, then it becomes a gigantic charged particle moving in the
> earth's magnetic field.  We know that in this case a force is exerted
> on the particle, a force that can be used to transfer angular momentum
> from the field to the particle, thus making up for the momentum lost
> by the payload acceleration...
Small problem:  as I recall it, at least for the simple case of motion
at right angles to the field lines (close enough, for an equatorial orbit),
the force is at *right angles* to the motion.  This isn't what's wanted.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

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

Date: 26 Jan 86 00:21:17 GMT
From: allegra!princeton!astrovax!escher!doug@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Douglas J Freyburger)
Subject: Re: Altitude of "space"
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> > Many pilots unofficially recognized 50 (statute) miles as the beginning of
> > space, i.e. beyond the atmosphere.  This would make a number of X-15
> > missions space flights...
> In the early 60's, an altitude of 50 miles was recognized as the
> beginning of space for the purpose of earning Astronaut wings, which I
> believe were awarded to several X-15 pilots as well as to Mercury,
> Gemini, and Apollo astronauts.
Not only were some of the .X-15 pilots awarded Astronaut
wings, but the SR-71 pilots wear Air Force Astronaut wings.
The service ceiling of the SR-71 is classified, so this
might only answer how high the Air Force considers space to
be to the few cleared to know about the Blackbird in
detail.
Neil Armstrong got his astronaut wings in the X-15 before
he transfered to the candlestick rockets.
-- 
Doug Freyburger		DOUG@JPL-ROBOTICS, DOUG@JPL-VLSI,
JPL Mail Stop 23	escher!doug, escher!teleop!doug
Pasadena, CA 91109	etc.
Disclaimers: My opinions are not those of JPL, Caltech,
NASA, etc.  Apologies to companies I'm forgetting to quote
as trademark holders.  Net site JPL-ROBOTICS has its net
link down lately, so no mail gets though.

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

Date: 26 Jan 86 02:01:37 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Space Station, L5, and the Militarization of Space
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> > If we're going to hesitate about things because of possible military
> > applications, we might as well give up on technological civilization...
> 
> ...If space missions can only be achieved on "the coattails," as you say,
> of massive military programs like SDI, then I have sincere doubts...
Tsk, tsk, you are putting words in my mouth.  I did *not* say, and do *not*
believe, that space missions can be accomplished only on the coattails of
the military.  What I was criticizing was the ridiculous attitude that we
shouldn't build a space station because it might have military uses.
I am solidly in favor of a purely civilian space program.  As Clarke said,
nationalism should end at the stratosphere.  Unfortunately, that doesn't
look likely.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

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

End of SPACE Digest V6 #85
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA07206; Fri, 31 Jan 86 03:01:15 PST
	id AA07206; Fri, 31 Jan 86 03:01:15 PST
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 86 03:01:15 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8601311101.AA07206@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #86

*** EOOH ***
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 86 03:01:15 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #86

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 6 : Issue 86

Today's Topics:
			   Re: SHUTTLE LOST
	       Challenger explosion.  SRB's when cold?
			      questions
		  Challenger/depression/catharsis...
	       Challenger explodes shortly after launch
		   Speculations on Shuttle Disaster
		   Re: Future of the Space Program
	       shuttle explosion; opinions, questions.
		   Re:  Future of the Space Program
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 29 Jan 86 02:48:46 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!rlgvax!hadron!klr@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Kurt L. Reisler)
Subject: Re: SHUTTLE LOST
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

	After watching the videos of the explosion, there can be no doubt
	that there can be no survivers of the explosion.  I am also fairly
	sure that the crew never really had a chance to know what happened.
	Perhaps this is best.
	Jake Garn was interviewed about 5 hours into this tragedy.  I have
	nothing but respect for this man (now).  He stated that he would not
	hesitate to go up on the next flight, even tomorrow.  He also stated
	that although we must hold future flights till we determine what 
	went wrong, he feels that the space shuttle program shuld and must
	continue.
	I am going to be collecting reactions to this tragedy that come in
	in net.space, and net.columbia, as well as the 2 FIDONET nodes that
	I operate.  I hope to present these to Senator Garn later in the
	week.  Sen your replies here, to me at my net address, or to Senator
	Garn's office directly.
	The Dream is (and must stay) Alive
	Kurt Reisler
	..!seismo!hadron!klr

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

Date: 28 Jan 86 18:27:30 GMT
From: mtxinu!rtech!amdahl!ems@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (ems)
Organization: Circle C Shellfish Ranch, Shores-of-the-Pacific, Ca
Subject: Challenger explosion.  SRB's when cold?
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

I am sure you have all heard by now, Challenger exploded.
The early reports have it that one of the SRB's may have exploded.
The weather reports had been of very cold weather.  What are
the temperature cycling limits on the SRB's?  Could the chilling
on the pad followed by the heating of the outer layers (morning
warmth, aerodynamic heating, etc.) have caused a problem with the
SRB fuel?  Either chemical or physical  (fracturing or sepparation
from the container).
I can only wonder now, what does the future hold for the shuttle.
-- 
E. Michael Smith  ...!{hplabs,ihnp4,amd,nsc}!amdahl!ems
This is the obligatory disclaimer of everything.

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

Organization: The MITRE Corp., Bedford, MA
To: space@mc.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: questions
Date: 29 Jan 86 08:11:57 EST (Wed)
From: James R. Van Zandt <jrv@mitre-bedford.arpa>

Two questions for discussion...

1. How long should we wait before launching another shuttle,
   if we CANNOT find the cause for the explosion?

2. Should we build another shuttle, or the next generation spacecraft?

                                     - Jim Van Zandt

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

Date: 28 Jan 86 19:41:40 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!cmcl2!lanl!jkw@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Subject: Challenger/depression/catharsis...
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

A few minutes ago, I wandered into a packed meeting room down the hall from my
office where a bunch of people were watching the Challenger lift-off on a
big screen TV.  When it EXPLODED, I felt like I had been kicked in the guts.
The silence in the room was deafening.   A few minutes later, someone told
me that some of the people in the meeting room were a shuttle crew here for
a briefing about an instrument to be taken up on a launch (formerly)
scheduled for later this spring.  How do you suppose they felt?  They
immediately scrambled for Houston.
I can't imagine the emotions experienced by the families of the astronauts,
not to mention those of the kids at the Cape watching their schoolteacher
being vaporized.  I feel a lot like I did when JFK was shot.
I think that Joe Tourist joyrides have just slipped a little farther into the
future.  I fervently hope that the anti-space types in Washington won't be
able to completely kill the shuttle program and that a few years from now we
will look back on this as we now do on the Apollo fire -- as an unfortunate
misstep in the dangerous activity of pioneering and one which, hopefully,
will add knowledge about safely launching future manned (peopled) missions.
       ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
       ~ Dust in the wind...All we are is dust in the wind......... ~
       ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
	  Jay Wooten  Los Alamos National Lab  ARPA:jkw@lanl.ARPA

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

Date: 28 Jan 86 17:55:00 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!ius2.cs.cmu.edu!ralphw@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Ralph Hyre)
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI
Subject: Challenger explodes shortly after launch
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

28 miles downrange, 1:12 after liftoff, Challenger exploded and
crashed into the ocean.  It is assumed there are no survivors.
(I leave it to others to post details, and followups, I just didn't
see any reference to it yet and wanted to get the news out.)
-- 
					- Ralph W. Hyre, Jr.
Internet: ralphw@c.cs.cmu.edu (cmu-cs-c.arpa)	Usenet: ralphw@mit-eddie.uucp
Fido: Ralph Hyre at Net 129, Node 0 (Pitt-Bull) Phone: (412)CMU-BUGS

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

Posted-Date: Wed 29 Jan 1986 12:53:08 EST
Date: Wed 29 Jan 1986 12:53:08 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Speculations on Shuttle Disaster
To: space@s1-b.arpa

Some speculations on the cause of the accident:

(1) It's clear from the tapes that the biggest explosion occured right
    at the point in the ET where the oxygen and hydrogen tanks abut.  This
    explosion was almost certainly the result of mixing of the fuels and
    reduced the shuttle to fragments.  Most of the liquid fuel was still
    in the tanks at that time and would burn with the force of a small
    atomic bomb.  The "intertank" area is near the top of the ET, since
    the oxygen tank is smaller than the LH2 tank.

(2) The flame earlier on around the ET could have any of several
    explanations:

   (a) Hydrogen leaked from the ET and burned in air.  However, the
       flame was orange/yellow; I thought hydrogen flame was
       blue/white.  Perhaps some insulation was burned also.

   (b) Oxygen leaked from the ET and caused insulation or the aluminum
       tank structure to burn.  Does anyone know what the tanks are
       made of, and can it sustain a reaction with LOX?

   (c) A third possibility is that the TDRS satellite sprung a leak.
       It contains hydrazine, I believe; also, its booster contains some
       kind of propellant (liquid, I think).  If fuel leaked out some
       could have leaked out of the payload bay and burned behind the
       main tank.  When the flame propagated back to the cargo bay
       the shuttle could have been blown apart, puncturing the ET.
       The tape seems to show the first explosion occuring between
       the orbiter and the ET, and significant flame occured on the
       outer side of the orbiter just before the big explosion.  I
       don't know if the shuttle computers can monitor the TDRS, so
       this is a real possibility.

   (d) The flame was SRB exhaust from a SRB defect (see below).

(3) If the ET was the source of gas a possible damage mechanism would be
    defects in the SRB's.  If a gas jet escaped from the side of the
    booster it could slice right into the ET.  The SRB's being used were
    the fairly new ones with filament wound casings.  Recovery of these
    should be possible and should confirm/deny this theory.

(4) Damage could have occured to the ET, which could have failed
    catastrophically when (a) less fuel was present to brace it, and (b)
    the throttle was pushed back up after max Q.  If the tank ripped
    this could explain what looks like the progressively larger amount
    of flame around the ET and the sudden failure of the intertank
    bulkhead.  It would have to sudden, though, otherwise the shuttle
    computers would jettison the tank when the pressure dropped.
    It has been suggested that they did just that, and that flash
    between the shuttle and the tank just before the big explosion
    was the explosive bolts going off.  This might have suddenly
    stressed the tank, causing catastrophic failure.  Telemetry should
    reveal if this in fact occured.

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

Posted-Date: Wed 29 Jan 1986 13:15:00 EST
Date: Wed 29 Jan 1986 13:15:00 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Re: Future of the Space Program
To: Steve Dennett <DENNETT@sri-nic.arpa>
In-Reply-To: Steve Dennett's message of Tue 28 Jan 86 17:55:56-PST
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa

>  - What kind of escape mechanism (if any) does the shuttle have for the crew?

At that point, the only escape mechanism was to detach the orbiter from
the fuel tank and hope it doesn't blow up before you get away.  I'll
add that if they had been able to get away but had to ditch in the ocean
they still would probably have died; the shuttle decelerates from 190
knots to zero in 100 yards when ditched and the TDRS would probably have
smashed through the cabin.

> - Will this be a setback for the space program, due to public disapproval
>  or the government's need to find (and punish) someone?

I was surprised by the immediate and almost universal support for the
program expressed by the public and politicians alike.  This might
change.  I doubt it will lead to more money, though.

> - Might this redirect (to some extent) the focus of the manned space
> program away from the shuttle (large, complex) back toward simpler or
> alternative launch systems?

It will certainly deflect satellite launching back to unmanned
expendable vehicles (mainly Ariane).  The disaster has probably soured
DOD permanently on the shuttle, so DOD may push for a small TAV.
France will go ahead with Hermes, which is smaller and simpler,
consisting of a small spaceplane on top of an Ariane-5 launcher.

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

Date: Wed, 29 Jan 86 22:31:34 eet
To: SPACE@mc.lcs.mit.edu
From: FYS-TS%FINHUT.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: shuttle explosion; opinions, questions.

The shuttle accident has been naturally an international event
and the main news media also in my country gave a lot of lines
and airtime for the disaster.

The explosion was of course a tragedy, however - which I find natural -
the tone of the mail to 'space' has been directing to future.

Paul Dietz, you gave a short summary of possible future options.
Transfer of the shuttle program to military would seem strange to
me; how could military be a better choice than NASA? They might be
able to hide some disasters if wanted to, but that's about it.

About the cause of the explosion; the TV-broadcast I saw gave me the
impression, that the flames had started from the SRB's. Does anyaone
know yet, whether the SRB casings were previously used or were they
brand new? The SRB's left the fireball; did the chute's work(is it
possible? timed pyrotechnics, perhaps?) or did the casings survive
the impact to water? If so, have any burnthroughs been found?

About future shuttle configurations; The current Hermes concept
pictures the spaceplane sitting on the Ariane 5 booster. Has there
been made assesments on the possibility of survival of the shuttle
in that type configuration in case of a fuel explosion?

Previously there has been discussion in the mailing list of the
cost of shuttle vs. Sat.V. During this discussion appeared also
the question of the fifth shuttle. Would it be
  - decent
  - economical
  - technically sensible
to build a replacement, perhaps a somewhat developed version of the
shuttle to replace Challenger(sort of an intermittent stage between
current shuttle technology and next generation TAV's, etc..)?

Steve Dennett, you wanted comments and opinions; here's something:

1. As far as I know, since the test flights, shuttle has not had
   an escape mechanism.
2. I think, that the future of your space program and the need to
   find the guilty and punish them should be somehow separated.
   If someone is directly responsible, the burden of responsibility
   must be carried, but the space program is so much more than
   those to punish.
3. Perhaps a dramatical way of putting it, but if the space program
   is political- and financial-wise severely damaged - by intention -
   because of this accident, would't the dead seven then have died
   somehow for nothing?
4. The redirection of the focus of the manned program might not be
   such a bad idea. ESA is planning the Hermes/Ariane 5 system, which
   combines the possibility of manned access to orbit and the security
   aspects of unmanned telecommunications satellite launches.

To 'Bob Czech': One of my dremas has been to experience the launch of
the shuttle; I hope it still might come true. Playing with words, but
I agree that, this should not be BLOWN OUT of proportion. Remember
Solar Max and others. And the other side of the coin: What if the
soviets would announce, that they have a Salyut crew in distress and
you would have a shuttle on the pad? There is time for human tragedy
and for human rescue, time for sorrow and time for joy.

The best way to deal with this incident would be to treat it openly
and thoroughly and without too much looking for scapegoats and people
to punish. If someone is really guilty, he or she will carry it his/her
mind. That might be punishment enough. To find the cause and to prevent
future explosions, that's the point.

If someone by any chance has got the impression, that I would under-
estimate the human tragedy involved, I can't help it. That's not my
purpose. However, I have seen some comments, that especially shocking
was, that there were two women on board. Mrs. McAuliffe's being on
is somewhat special, but I remember Sally Ride commenting after her
first flight, something that she would like to see the day, when
woman in space is nothing special. To sum: Six ASTRONAUTS and a
passenger are dead - may they rest in peace and I hope their memory
be respected with a thorough and open inspection.

Tero Siili
Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
FYS-TS@FINHUT.BITNET

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

Date: Wed, 29 Jan 86 15:28:40 pst
From: David Smith <dsmith@hplabsc>
To: Space%s1-b@csnet-relay.arpa
Subject: Re:  Future of the Space Program

> - What kind of escape mechanism (if any) does the shuttle have for the crew?

None.  Columbia had ejection seats for the first test flights, but this
happened too fast for ejection seats.  Explosions like this were the reason
for the escape towers on Mercury and Apollo.  The escape tower saved two
Soviet cosmonauts from a launcher explosion in 1983, although they had
extended hospital stays.

> - Might this redirect (to some extent) the focus of the manned space
>   program away from the shuttle (large, complex) back toward simpler or
>   alternative launch systems?

It astounded me that the orbiter and ET were completely obliterated, while
the SRBs flew out of the fireball apparently intact.  This suggests that
ths SRB-X proposal might produce a good, reliable launcher (for unmanned
payloads).  SRB-X consists of two SRBs side by side for a first stage, with
one SRB on top as the second stage.  While solid propellant is more
expensive than LH/LOX, a savings would come from not launching the weight
of the manned compartment when the mission does not otherwise need to be
manned.  Manned launches could be via transatmospheric vehicle, which would
be much smaller than the current Shuttle, not carrying the heavy cargo and
(explosive) propellant for the cargo.  Being air breathing through the
atmospheric boost phase, it wouldn't have so much LOX to tangle with its LH.
Manned missions requiring heavy equipment would use orbital rendezvous.  

About the press: I am still surprised at how imperceptive the newscasters
were.  They played the tapes over and over in slow motion, pointing out
that the fire started between the orbiter and ET at about the forward
attachment point.  Finally they discovered the earlier fire at the rear of
the tank.  These were said to be two separate fires.  By Tuesday night,
Rather was saying that the fires may have been breaches of the left (nearer)
SRB, in spite of the fact that the SRBs didn't have any flame out their
sides after emerging from the fireball.  The V-2 was solid fueled.  Etc., etc.

Here's what I think.  There was a leak in the hydrogen tank or its
connections, as evidenced by the cloud that gathered around the base of the
tank unnoticed by newscasters.  The short-lived flame plumes near the 
closer SRB were ignited in the cloud of hydrogen by the rocket exhaust.
Perhaps they went out for lack of atmospheric oxygen:  the SSME exhaust is
hydrogen rich.  But before long, the cloud really caught;  the fire spread
around the back side of the tank (as seen from the camera) to appear
between the tank and the orbiter.  By this time, more hydrogen was coming
out of the tank.  The fire climbed the oxygen line to the oxygen tank.
The explosion which ripped the vehicle apart was centered at the join
between the O2 and H2 tanks.

			David Smith
			hplabs!dsmith
			dsmith%hp-labs@csnet-relay

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

End of SPACE Digest V6 #86
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA02626; Sat, 1 Feb 86 03:01:23 PST
	id AA02626; Sat, 1 Feb 86 03:01:23 PST
Date: Sat, 1 Feb 86 03:01:23 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8602011101.AA02626@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #87

*** EOOH ***
Date: Sat, 1 Feb 86 03:01:23 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #87

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 6 : Issue 87

Today's Topics:
		   Re: Future of the Space Program
	   Despite the Shuttle Disaster, We Must Go Forward
			      Challenger
			  Shuttle comments.
		     Soyuz 1 "parachute" accident
			 Columbia Replacement
		     5 YEARS TO REPLACE ORBITER?
		     Don't gamble on the Shuttle
		   re: temperature effects on SRBs
		     SDI or a world without nukes
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 29 Jan 86 15:57:58 PST
From: mcgeer%ji@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Rick McGeer)
To: dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
Subject: Re: Future of the Space Program
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa

>
>>  - What kind of escape mechanism (if any) does the shuttle have for the crew?
>
>At that point, the only escape mechanism was to detach the orbiter from
>the fuel tank and hope it doesn't blow up before you get away.  I'll
>add that if they had been able to get away but had to ditch in the ocean
>they still would probably have died; the shuttle decelerates from 190
>knots to zero in 100 yards when ditched and the TDRS would probably have
>smashed through the cabin.

That escape mechanism would only have worked if the external tank exploded
first.  As far as I know, it's pretty much even money that an internal
tank went.

>
>> - Might this redirect (to some extent) the focus of the manned space
>> program away from the shuttle (large, complex) back toward simpler or
>> alternative launch systems?
>
>It will certainly deflect satellite launching back to unmanned
>expendable vehicles (mainly Ariane).  The disaster has probably soured
>DOD permanently on the shuttle, so DOD may push for a small TAV.
>France will go ahead with Hermes, which is smaller and simpler,
>consisting of a small spaceplane on top of an Ariane-5 launcher.

	Couple of points.  First, the Planetary Scientists have already been
banging away on getting rid of manned spaceflight (the argument runs: "neither
our missions nor satellite launches require men, hence no worthwhile missions
require men, hence we should use only unmanned spaceflight"; the breathtaking
arrogance of this has always amazed me).  Second, at least one Pentagon
official said yesterday that that DoD launches from Vandenberg would probably
resume *sooner* than Kennedy's civilian launches, since (I presume) the USAF
has a higher risk tolerance than NASA.

					-- Rick.

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

Date: 29 Jan 86 15:55:55 PST (Wednesday)
Subject: Despite the Shuttle Disaster, We Must Go Forward
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
From: James Parker <Parker.es@xerox.com>
Cc: James Parker <Parker.es@xerox.com>
Reply-To: James Parker <Parker.es@Xerox.COM>
Flame-To: Device.null


When I first heard the news yesterday morning here at work, I was
shocked.  When I saw the videotape last night, I just cryed.

Yes, I know that everything has some risk associated with it, and that
exploring any new frontier is definitely risky.  From time to time, you
will lose people.  We know that, still, it isn't pleasant when it
happens.  But we must go on.

I've had many close brushes with death, who hasn't?  Someday, I know I
won't walk away from an accident, but I don't let it scare me.  I'll
change my lifestyle when death collects.

The astronauts knew the risks and the rewards of what they were doing.
They faced the risks like real men & real women.  They were after the
rewards despite the risks.  And unfortunately, they lost the gamble this
time.  But they were doing something significant with their lives.  We
should remember that, - and them - and go on.

There are plenty of qualified people who would be willing to fly the
next shuttle - if and when the bean counters, beaurocrats, cowards, &
anti-space people will ever let them.

Keep in mind that we've had airplanes for eighty years now, and we still
lose one occasionally.  Airplanes are a more mature technology because
they have been built by the thousands for decades.  After we've built
hundreds of earth-to-orbit -- orbit-to-earth shuttles for decades, they
will be as safe as todays airplanes.  But now, they aren't.  They can't
be.  But that's no excuse not to use them, build better ones, and
perfect the technology.  We are still in the canoe stage of space
exploration.  And canoes aren't the same as ocean liners.  But they are
all we have right now.

Having lost seven of our people and a shuttle, the space programs (
manned/unmanned, public/private, US/non-US ) are going to need our
support now more than ever.  I think it's a choice - do we support space
and our aspirations and dreams and humanitys future XOR do we support
the Wisconsin Luddite and the anti-space efforts to keep humanity
groveling in the mud for all eternity.

We must press onward, upward, & outward despite this tragity.

Far better to die reaching for the stars than live groveling in the mud
with the damm Wisconsin Luddite.

The meek shall inherit the Earth !!!  -  Because everyone else is going
to leave for the stars !!!

James

;-(    crying face for the lost crew.

standard disclaimer

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

To: space
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 86 09:14:34 PST
From: aiz@jpl-vlsi.arpa
Subject: Challenger


I can't minimize the sense of loss with respect to the Challenger disaster.
It was a tragedy for the people involved, the families, the school children,
and the National Space Program.

But with respect to the comments on the press, it is interesting to note that
most programming was inturrupted for most of the day on the loss of 7 people.
Yet when a jumbo jet crashes with the loss of 300, we get a few bulletins and
first mention on the 6 o'clock news.   It reminds of what Mr. Spock said in
one of the Star Trek episodes (to paraphrase): "You humans are strange.  You
can mourn the loss of a single person, but you cannot feel the death of
millions."

Art Zygielbaum

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

To: space
Date:     Wed, 29 Jan 86 17:56 EDT
From: Chris Johnson <JOHNSON%northeastern.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Cc: johnson%northeastern.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
Subject:  Shuttle comments.


     I found out about the shuttle exploding about five minutes after it
happened.  I thought of seven lives lost and felt the pain that was felt 
when three others died years ago.  I share the grief of many I think.  

     The news media is often tacky, tasteless and inconsiderate.  I also
wonder if they know a reasonable definition of news.  The shuttle
Challenger blew up on take-off and seven good people are lost.  The news
people broadcast family and friends going from elation to tears on the
air.  I never thought that this kind of thing was news myself.  News is
that the shuttle blew up.  News is that seven people died.  News is that
nobody knows why yet.   News isn't millions of people being forced to
invade someone's grief.  You can't necessarily get to the off switch
fast enough to avoid this.  The space program has a great many successes
under its belt.  The successes shouldn't be forgotten in the midst of
pain and tragedy. 

     The news media, true to form, questioned the whole of manned space
flight and forgets the successes fast.  I know of only two such
incidents in the U.S. space program in twenty-five years of manned space
exploration.  Not a bad record.  Look at the early history of hot air
balloons or lighter than air craft in general.  Many people died but air
flight exploration continued.  I think it was worth it. 

     What kind of mechanisms for escape are on the shuttle?  I'm not 
sure anything would have worked in this case.  A half million gallons of
LOX and liquid hydrogen is quite a bomb.  It just happened too fast.

     I don't want the space program to end or the shuttle to stop being 
used and developed.  This would be a middle ages attitude towards 
science.  Humans are the most adaptable machines around and are wonderful 
all purpose repair tools.  No robot could ever equal that.  If it could,
it would have to be human.

     If we stop, all those who have died in space flight research have 
died for nothing.  This too would be a tragedy.

Chris Johnson
johnson@northeastern                             (CSNet)
johnson%northeastern@csnet-relay                 (ARPAnet)

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

From: prandt!cpc@ames-nas.arpa
To: s1-b!amelia!space-incoming@ames-nas.arpa
Subject: Soyuz 1 "parachute" accident
Date: 29 Jan 86 17:16:51 PST (Wed)

Since yesterday, I have seen and heard several references to the "parachute"
accident of Russian cosmonaut Vladimir Komarov in April, 1967. There is a
different story of the accident in the book "Manned Spaceflight Log",
copyright 1983 by Tim Furniss, p. 50:

Soyuz 1, April 23, 1967

"... Unofficial reports indicate that although one solar panel had failed
to deploy the mission was going tolerably well until the 13th orbit. Then
the stabilisation system failed, causing Soyuz to go into a debilitating
Gemini 8-like spin ... there had [also] been failures of the on-board computer,
an antenna and a TV transmitter. Komarov attempted to re-enter on the standard
16th orbit but failed. He tried again on the 17th orbit, once more without
success. In a last-ditch effort the retros were fired on orbit 18 after,
as reports from a US listening post in Turkey indicated, Komarov had accepted
that he was doomed and had spoken to his wife and to Premier Kosygin, who
assured him that he would always be remembered. It would appear that the
flight module was out of control when it separated from the orbital section
and the instrument module, resulting in excessive re-entry heat loads on
essential systems, including the vital parachute.

   "... Soyuz 1 plummeted like a stone and smashed into the ground. Komarov,
who mercifully might already have been dead, could not have abandoned the
capsule, which was not fitted with an ejection seat. After a long silence
the Russians announced the tragic news, mentioning only the parachute
failure."

Chuck Collins              ...hplabs!ames!amelia!cpc              cpc@ames-nas

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

Date:  Wed, 29 Jan 86 14:27 CST
From: "David S. Cargo" <Cargo@hi-multics.arpa>
Subject:  Columbia Replacement
To: space@s1-b.arpa

Given that the shuttle program will continue, how will the program deal
with a decline in their orbiter inventory?  I can see three
possibilities.
 (1) NASA will not replace the Columbia, and will simply fly fewer
missions with the remaining shuttles.
 (2) NASA will have Rockwell build another shuttle.  This will take some
time (and a lot of money), but would restore the 4th shuttle.  (Some
have said that there are already a substantial number of spare parts, so
that everything wouldn't have to be done from scratch.)
 (3) NASA will have Rockwell refit the Enterprise to make it fully
operational.  Nobody has mentioned this one.  Is it even possible?  I
don't know how far the Enterprise is from being an operational orbiter,
instead of a boiler plate shuttle replica.  Anybody have any ideas?

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

X-Sent: to SU-AI.ARPA by IMSSS.FRONSTAD.EDU via ETHERNET with PUPFTP; 1986-Jan-29 23:28:59 PST (=GMT-8hr)
X-Mailer: EMACS -> PSL (FORMAT+SEND-ALL) -> PUPFTP
Date: 1986 January 29 23:27:16 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM@imsss> (this host known locally only)
To: SPACE@mc.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: 5 YEARS TO REPLACE ORBITER?
Sender: REM%IMSSS@su-score.arpa (for undeliverable-mail notifications)
Reply-To: REM%IMSSS@SU-SCORE.ARPA

Criminey! Tonight on the news they said it would cost $2E9 and take 5
years to make one (1) new STS orbiter to replace Challanger. I would
think that since they already know how to build one (learned 1975-81)
and how to test them (learned 1979-1985), they could just hire a lot
of additional manpower and put work on a 2-hour shift and do all the
tasks in parallel from specs already worked out, using computerized
PERT charts to find bottlenecks, and get all the parts for another
orbiter built in a year and assembled&tested in another year. Is it
really as bad as they say, 5 years minimum, or are they assuming
everybody drags their feet about funding but it could be done faster
if they really pushed to go into production?

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

Date: Wed, 29 Jan 86 21:54:31 pst
From: warren hik <hik%cascade.carleton.cdn%ubc.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Mmdf-Warning:  Parse error in original version of preceding line at CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
Subject: Don't gamble on the Shuttle

Sorry to be morbid, or lacking of human emotions, but I just heard a news 
story worth repeating.  It seems that those inclined to invest heavily in 
lotteries in the hopes of winning the 'big one', employ certain numerical
analysis and current events motifs as 'winning numbers'.  For the record:
 
"Wednesday, January 29, 1986, one day following the final journey of the
Space Shuttle Challenger, New York State Lottery Officials have suspended
the use of any combination of the four digits representing the time of the
Space Shuttle disaster, namely 11:39.  The suspension follows an abundance
of lottery buyers utilizing the aformentioned numerals."

Now, just to make you scratch your head about this whole business, the winning
Cross-Canadian Lotto 649 numbers are:  11-3-9- and some others.  The draw was
Wednesday evening.  Explain this one to your Apollo Workstation.

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

Date: 29 Jan 86 21:52:01 GMT
From: decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-crvax1!kaplow@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Have you kicked your cat today?)
Subject: re: temperature effects on SRBs
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

	I'm still in a daze from yesterdays news. I have followed the space
    program from its beginnings and can't remember anything like this,
    including the Apollo 1 fire 19 years ago. 
	To answer the question, I have been involved in model rockets for
    over 20 years, and am very familiar with temperature induced problems in
    solid propellants. The black powder motors do suffer from temperature
    problems, occuring when the motor is fired at a colder temperature than
    it was stored at. This is usually the result of storing the motor at a
    very high temperature, like the trunk of a car on a hot summer day, but
    can also be caused by firing a motor on a cold day, as was the case in
    Florida yesterday. These motors are very different in design and
    construction from the SRBs. 
	Some of the new high power motors use almost exactly the same
    propellant, save a few trace additives, as the SRBs. They consist of
    about 15% rubber propellant (poly something or other) and 85% ammonium
    perchlorate oxidizer. These seem to be immune to any storage problems.
    The propellant itself is a rubber like material, thus temperature
    changes do not cause cracking or bond separation. Hard shock also has no
    effect on this material. Over a very long time, surface oxidation will
    cause some deterioration, but this requires an unsealed motor and
    several years to happen. 
	One of the advantages of this propellant is that it will not
    explode. Many solid propellants burn faster as chamber pressure
    increases, causing a chain reaction leading to an explosion. The AP
    propellant actually burns slower as pressure increases, regulating
    itself. In fact, these motors are often hard to ignite, needing to be
    rapidly pressurized or they will extinguish themselves. Any casing
    rupture usually extinguishes the propellant, or at least causes it to
    burn slowly without producing any thrust. Scraps of this propellant
    material will burn in an ash tray if lit with a match, but no more
    violently than a similar hunk of rubber. 
	These model rocket motors, like the SRBs are usually ported down the
    center, giving a large initial burn area. They burn radially out toward
    the casing, thus the unburnt propellant is the insulation that prevents
    the casing from burning thru. A void in the cast propellant, or a crack
    between the seperately cast segments in the motor, could cause one part
    of the motor to burn all of its propellant down to the metal wall sooner
    than the rest of the motor. There was some concern about this on a
    flight a year or so, which they found after recovering the spent SRB. 
	The first replay I saw of the disaster was on a 5" screen, and it
    looked like one of the SRBs might have burned thru and started the chain
    of events. Later replays last night show either a leak in the rear area
    of the ET, or around the 3 liquid engines, just after throttle up. Once
    this trail ignited, the whole ET went with it. The fact that the two
    SRBs continued burning while tumbling leads me to believe that the SRBs
    performed properly. I guess we will have to wait for NASA to analyze all
    of the data and find the cause, as the spokesman yesterday made it
    pretty clear that they were not going to give the media any more footage
    or information until the investigation is completed. 
    		Bob Kaplow 
    		Digital Equipment Corp. 
    		Arlington Heights, IL 
    UUCP:   {allegra,decvax,ihnp4,ucbvax}!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-crvax1!kaplow
    ARPA:   KAPLOW%CRVAX1.DEC@decwrl.DEC.COM

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

Date: 19 Jan 86 19:13:47 GMT
From: ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!hjuxa!petsd!pedsgd!bob@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: SDI or a world without nukes
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Organization : CONCURRENT Computer Corp, Tinton Falls NJ
Keywords: 
Well what have we here? President Reagan raises the ante by proposing
SDI, Mr Gorbachev takes a quick look at his cards, (3-1?, 10-1?, whatever)
conventional superiority in Europe, and figures "what the hell". And
it looks to me like a pretty good bet.
From the Soviet's point of view, the worst that can happen is for
Reagan to be made a fool and a liar. He would have to conceed that SDI
does nothing to rid the world of nuclear weapons, for if that was
the real goal we could now get it at a cheaper price by negotiation.
At best, he can agree to a treaty which makes the world safe for
the politicians again, particuarlly Soviet ones.
My guess is that Reagan's best move is say fine, no problem, and
how bout we limit standing armies to 100,000, with maybe 500
tanks and aircraft, for both Nato and Warsaw pact alliances first? 
Finally, hasnt anybody noticed that one could nip SDI in the bud,
as well as all of the rest of the US space program, with maybe 2
missiles?

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

End of SPACE Digest V6 #87
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA05656; Sun, 2 Feb 86 03:01:29 PST
	id AA05656; Sun, 2 Feb 86 03:01:29 PST
Date: Sun, 2 Feb 86 03:01:29 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8602021101.AA05656@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #88

*** EOOH ***
Date: Sun, 2 Feb 86 03:01:29 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #88

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 6 : Issue 88

Today's Topics:
			  Re: Robert Goddard
		      Re: NASA Summer Employment
       Photographing Comet Halley, info from a reputable source
			      Joy rides
		      Accelerator Momentum Loss
		       Re: Thermonuclear Device
			  counting backwards
	Re: Space Station, L5, and the Militarization of Space
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 21 Jan 86 23:21:50 GMT
From: hplabs!ames!eugene@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Eugene Miya)
Subject: Re: Robert Goddard
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> >    I wonder if Goddard will ever get the respect that he deserves from the
> >  space community?
[ line eater fortune cookie: you travel in the wrong circles]
What does he need?
He has a large space flight center named after him, [reachable by BITNET],
there is a space institute named after him, and there is an award named after
him.  I don't think there are any Goddard lasting constants, formula,
equations, but I may be wrong [probably had it surpased by standing on
"other's shoulders" as Newton said].  He's got lots of respect.
From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  {hplabs,ihnp4,dual,hao,decwrl,allegra}!ames!aurora!eugene
  emiya@ames-vmsb.ARPA

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

Date: 21 Jan 86 19:23:03 GMT
From: hplabs!ames!eugene@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Eugene Miya)
Subject: Re: NASA Summer Employment
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

I have just returned from two conferences to find stacks of
summer employment forms.  I would like to personally thank
all of those who sent me forms: many more than last year.
I am certain my other friends have been swamped, too.
Next year, I think I had better generate a form letter to at
least acknowledge receipt of your letters.  I have forwarded them
to our summer employment office with special attention to
those groups where additional matches appear promising.
This year will be tight as the latest budget cutting threatens
summer programs.  I hope that some of you who responded will get
in.  The closing date is Feb. 1.  Evaluation is thru the month of
Feb. and notification typically happens in March (around the 15th).
Best wishes!
From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  {hplabs,ihnp4,dual,hao,decwrl,allegra}!ames!aurora!eugene
  emiya@ames-vmsb.ARPA

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

Date: 21 Jan 86 23:39:00 GMT
From: hplabs!amdahl!ems@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (ems)
Subject: Photographing Comet Halley, info from a reputable source
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

There has been a discussion on net.space about the best way
to photograph the comet and have a picture of the kids in the
same frame  (hopefully without resorting to darkroom magic.)
Some have suggested a time exposure of the comet and a flash
of the kids.  Various lens/time combinations were recomended.
Here is what I could glean from a couple of magazines:  (reprinted
without permission.  I *do* hope they think of this as advertizing... :-)
Photo Information Almanac '86: (chart of Lunar Eclipse exposures)
Tentative Exposures for Lunar Eclipse Photography
                                      ASA
Stage of Eclipse                      25    32    64   125   160   400
 full moon,          Time (sec.)   1/250 1/250 1/250 1/250 1/250 1/250
  clear sky          Lens opening  f/5.6 f/5.6 f/8   f/11  f/12  f/22
 Moon deep in Penumbra       Time  1/60  1/60  1/60  1/60  1/60  1/60
  up to First contact and    Lens  f/4.5 f/5.6 f/8   f/11  f/12  f/22
  after Fourth contact
 At Second and Third         Time  3 sec 2 sec 1 sec 1 sec 1 sec 1/2
  contacts                   Lens  f/2   f/2   f/2   f/3.5 f/4   f/5.6
 MID Totality                Time  12sec 8 sec 4 sec 4 sec 4 sec 2 sec
                             Lens  f/2   f/2   f/2   f/3.5 f/4   f/5.6
Note 1. When the moon is partially in the umbra, exposure must be
        selected for the umbra portion or the penumbra portion.  No
        film can accomdate both at one time.
(It is my beliefe that the f/12 given in the first to cases for asa 160
 should be f/16; but what do I know...)
From Photo Graphic October 1985, article titled Shooting Stars:
Film: Slides are probably the most rewarding medium (...)  Start with
a fast color slide film, such as Fuji 1600D, Kodak P800/1600, 3m 1000,
or Agfachrom 1000RS.  If you are in a large, light-poluted city, however,
experiment with a fast black-and-white film (like Kodak Tri-x, Ilford HP5,
or Agfapan Vario-XL Professional) combined with a red filter to block
some of the city lights
     Whatever you are using, try pushing it. (...)  At this point you are
looking for the combination that will reveal the most stars before being
smothered in grain and fog.  Later, when you are become more proficient
with long exposures, try some of the slower slide films for better
resolution.
Lenses:  A lens's ability to record faint point sources - the
stars themselves - depends, not on the f-number, but on the
absolute size of the aperture.  An f/16 lens with a 10-inch
aperature will record fainter stars than an f/4 lens with a 6-inch
aperture.  This probably sounds odd to anyone accustomed to
terrestrial photography, and when we get into 'extended
sources' - anything, like the moon, that is of sufficient size to
be resolved by the lens - we are back on familiar ground (...)
This is because for a given aperature, images of extended objects
expand, and therefore become dimmer, as focal lengths and f-numbers
increase, whereas point sources do not. (...)
   As a novice astrophotographer, your first lens should be the
50mm that came with your camera, provided it has a reasonably large
aperture.  An f/2 is good, but f/1.2 is better. (...)  The wide
field is essential if you want early pictures of Halley's
Comet and you only know that it will be somewhere in the constellation
Taurus.
(...)  Using the lens is simple: open the aperture all the way
and focus on infinity.
Exposure:  On a dark night, mount your camera on a tripod and point
it at the sky.  Take a series of test exposures, for 5, 10, 15, 20,
30, and 60 seconds.  Be sure to keep good records.  Each roll should
begin with at least two well lit frames to let the lab technician
know where the frame lines fall.  Enclose a note with the exposed
film explaining that the roll contains star pictures.  Otherwise the
lab might conclude that they are botched exposures and cut them up.
    You will find that with each longer exposure more stars will
appear until, around 15 or 20 seconds, the stars will begin to
record as short streaks rather than sharp dots.  (...)  With a
fast film, this 15 to 20 second limit should permit you to
record stars as faint as magnitude seven, one magenetude beyond
the reach of the unaided eye.
(...)
__________________________________________________
Well, what does this all mean about photos of The Comet?
Looks like fast film, fast lens, under 10 second exposure
and flash the kids.  You may want to refocus and reset the
aperture for the flash ...
Hope this helps.
-- 
E. Michael Smith  ...!{hplabs,ihnp4,amd,nsc}!amdahl!ems
This is the obligatory disclaimer of everything.

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

Date:           Wed, 22 Jan 86 14:23:33 PST
From: "Niket K. Patwardhan" <bilbo.niket@locus.ucla.edu>
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject:        Joy rides

We have now had two Congressmen take a joyride in the shuttle, and I'm sure
that us lesser folk would like to enjoy one too. Supposing you could go into
space.... not into orbit, but just out of the atmosphere for 10 minutes to an
hour, how much would you be willing to pay? You'd experience zero G, the
launch, the blackness of space, and really see the Earth. Would this be just as 
hard (difficult, costly, etc) as achieving orbit? In my opinion $10 per ticket
would make it as popular as Disneyland, and $100 would cause most people to
forget it.

Comments on your trade-off price direct to me (I'll post a summary).

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

Date: Wed 22 Jan 86 20:39:31-EST
From: "Jim McGrath" <MCGRATH%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: Accelerator Momentum Loss
To: space%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu
Reply-To: mcgrath%mit-oz@mit-mc.arpa



This is a followup to a previous message of mine concerning the loss
of momentum (and thus the orbital decay) experienced by an accelerator
placed in low earth orbit (LEO) and designed to accelerate sub-orbital
payloads to low earth orbit velocity.  Two obvious solutions suggest
themselves.  First is to install reaction motors to accelerate the
structure again.  Since they may be far more efficient than those used
in the earth to orbit phase (e.g. ion rockets), you still turn out a
winner.  The second is to decelerate payloads from beyond LEO to
sub-orbital speeds.  The problem here is that you do not want to be
required to lose mass from the space environment to the earth.
Moreover, it is unlikely that you could balance the traffic in the
early stages of use.

Another solution is possible.  If a charge is placed on the
accelerator, then it becomes a gigantic charged particle moving in the
earth's magnetic field.  We know that in this case a force is exerted
on the particle, a force that can be used to transfer angular momentum
from the field to the particle, thus making up for the momentum lost
by the payload acceleration.  Note that no mass is needed to
accomplish any of this, only a power plant which may not even be
physically coupled to the accelerator.

How much of a charge is needed?  The following is a very simple
analysis, correct only to the first approximation.  A lot of
simplifying assumptions are used.  But the gist should be correct.

Assume throughout that the accelerator is in a circular orbit
concentric and coplanar with the earth.  Let delta J = J (final) - J
(initial) [ J = angular momentum of accelerator ].  We know that this
is equal to M*(rf*vf - ri*vi), where M = mass of the accelerator, rf =
final radius of orbit, fi = initial radius of the orbit, vf = final
orbital velocity, vi = initial orbital velocity.  Now after the loss
of momentum we charge up the accelerator, resulting in a delta J equal
to rf*Q*vf*B*t, where rf = initial radius of the accelerator before
charging, Q = charge on the accelerator, vf = initial velocity of the
accelerator before charging, B = earth's magnetic field, and t = the
duration that the charge is present.  Note that since the velocity is
increasing, and radius decreasing, with time, this is not strictly
correct, but is true in the limit as the mass of the payload becomes a
very small fraction of the mass of the accelerator.

Setting the two equal, we have: M*(rf*vf - ri*vi) = rf*Q*vf*B*t.  Using
conservation of linear momentum we have ((M-m)/M)*vi = vf, where m =
mass of the payload.  Also, we know that ri = GMe/vi**2, and rf =
GMe/vf**2, where Me = mass of the earth.  So we can combine all this
into the following (if I manipulated right):

        Q*t = m/B.

Unfortunately, I do not have a good reference value for B.  Does
anyone out there?


Jim
-------

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

Date: 20 Jan 86 17:56:45 GMT
From: hplabs!hao!noao!terak!mot!anasazi!will@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Will Fuller)
Subject: Re: Thermonuclear Device
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <8601182109.AA26118@s1-b.arpa> dietz@SLB-DOLL.CSNET (Paul Dietz) writes:
>The idea of using very high velocity projectiles to initiate fusion has
>been considered.  It isn't too terribly feasible.  One would have to
>ram projectiles together at > 100 km/sec; just hitting air would do
>nothing.
Ramming objects together is quite another matter entirely. What was
origionally proposed was to use the heat generated by aerobraking
for ablation.  I have no idea what temperatures would be required
to obtain the desired combination of temperature and pressure inside
a ceramic sphere by the ablation process. Seems like some of you
laser fusion experts out there could hang some numbers on this one.
Further, I have no idea what sort of atmospheric impact velocities
would be required to achieve the above temperatures. Perhaps some of
the NASA types on the net could fill in some numbers.
The only "wow" number that I can think of off hand is that the Soviet
Vennera lander was subject to temperatures in excess of the surface
temperature of the sun (far cry from the interior) when it entered the
Venusian atmosphere.
Seems like ~6-7 years back some fellow writing in Mercury or Icarus or
maybe even the Ap. J., tried to show that a meteorite with trace
hydrogen isotopes might have caused the Siberian Tenchutka (spelling?)
meteoritic devestation. Unfortunately, the only journals I have available
any more are the UN*X Reveiw, etc., (gek!) or I would try to find the
article again.
-- 
William H. Fuller
{decvax|ihnp4|hao}!noao!terak!anasazi!will

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

Date: 23 Jan 1986 21:04-EST
From: Nicholas.Spies@h.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: counting backwards
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

	 An interesting case of art influencing life is provided by the
	 effect of Fritz Lang's 1928 film "Frau im Mond" (written by
	 Thea von Harbou), variously translated as "Woman in the Moon"
	 and "The Girl in the Moon".  As mentioned in the NOVA show on
	 the subject, this film contributed to the enthusiasm of
	 Werner von Braun and others in Germany in the 30's and 40's
	 for using rockets to escape the Earth's gravity well. Lang
	 consulted both Hermann Obert and Willy Ley as technical
	 advisors and the result was apprently a story within a
	 documentary (U have not seem the film, which, apparently
	 survives only in an altered state).

	 In the biography "Fritz Lang" by Lotte H. Eisner (Oxford
	 University Press 1977) the author notes that "The launching of
	 the rocket was in the film however was so authentic in all its
	 technical details, as were the drawings, sill valid today, on
	 which the trajectory from the earth to the moon was mapped,
	 that the Nazis withdrew the film from distribution. Even the
	 model of the space ship was destroyed by the Gestapo, on
	 account of the imminence of the Vi and V2 rocks on which
	 Werner von Braun was working from 1937 onwards. (Willy Ley had
	 escaped to the United States, while Oberth had become a Nazi.)"

	 Also quoted in this book from Willy Ley's "Rockets, Missles
	 and Men in Space" [Ley says] "Thinking back, I realised to
	 my own surprise that it (the count-down) had first been used
	 in the film 'Frau im Mond'. This was a silent movie, and at
	 one point the words 'ten seconds to go' flashed on the screen,
	 followed by the numbers, '6-5-4-3-2-1-0-FIRE' Knowing that
	 Fritz Lang had been in the First World War, I asked him
	 whether he had adapted some military practice which used a
	 count-down. He replied that he had thought it up for dramatic
	 purposes when working on the film; on a proving ground nobody
	 would possibly think of that side effect!" [By which Lang
	 presumably means that technicians would not have thought to
	 use a countdown for dramatic puposes. ns]

	 I have, strangely, the "film book" of "The Girl in the Moon"
	 (in English) obviously published to support the US release of
	 this German film. Evidently at that time there were not a
	 significant number of Americans similarly inspired...

	 However AFTER the War there were many American scientists that
	 acknowledged that Bradbury and Heinlien (and others) showed
	 the way to moon landings, etc. What caused the phase-change?

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

Date: Thu 23 Jan 86 23:33:13-EST
From: Richard A. Cowan <COWAN@xx.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Space Station, L5, and the Militarization of Space
To: space@mc.lcs.mit.edu

> from <Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology>:
> If we're going to hesitate about things because of possible military
> applications, we might as well give up on technological civilization.
> *All* technology has military applications.  (Case in point: possibly
> the biggest advance in medicine in this century was wide-spectrum
> antibiotics like penicillin.  The techniques needed for economical mass
> production of penicillin were developed because of urgent military need
> for it during WW2 -- the *first* major war in which disease was not the
> #1 cause of death!)

Henry, 
  By expressing concern about militarization of space, I am not
arguing for hesitation.  I am instead arguing that this concern be
freely discussed, so that the space community, and the entire
technological community, can explore alternatives to the present mode
of technological development in the United States.

  The problem is this:  Historically, technological development in the
United States has justified with military goals in mind first, and
civilian applications come second.  Because the United States had vast
economic and military superiority in the 50's and 60's (50% of the
world's wealth), the US was able to stay fairly strong with this
inefficient mode of development.  Now other countries are funding the
civilian side of technology directly, completely blowing away the
United States, which continues to subscribe to the myth that civilian
spinoffs of massive military research will pay off.  But all the great
spinoffs occurred 20-30 years ago, few occur today, and if any do
occur and are worthwhile, it is likely that other countries will put
them to use before we do 'cause we're busy with our government contracts.

  We have a $150 billion trade deficit, and our ability to sell goods
is rapidly declining in major world markets that are being infiltrated
by countries such as Brazil, India, and of course Japan.  Our defense
buildup has been temporarily propping up GNP growth; when it ends, GNP
will decline.  A recession, decreased standards of living, pressure
for trade restrictions, and retaliatory trade measures by other
countries are almost inevitable.  Will the US finally heed
Eisenhower's warning, recognizing its military overemphasis and change
its ways technologically?  Or will it continue to decline and go to
war in a vain attempt to salvage its economic interests militarily?
If space missions can only be achieved on "the coattails," as you say,
of massive military programs like SDI, then I have sincere doubts
about our future ability to afford space, because the resulting
economic decline will create pressures on the space budget.  Other
needs, such as housing and unemployment, will become more urgent.

  Fortunately, there is an alternative for the space community.  It
can advocate conversion: that certain military programs be gradually
phased out, and some of their facilities converted to needed
non-military technology.  For many military programs, conversion to
space is easier than conversion to anything else, so great pressure to
INCREASE space funding would result.

  If L5 is REALLY interested in space exploration in the United
States, and not just in the short term, then I believe it should
advocate conversion, not coattails.  Before "riding coattails," it is
necessary to ask where the general wearing the coat is going.

  Generally, it's a good idea for groups to avoid taking strong
political stands which will alienate members.  So I agree that L5
should take no stand on which its membership is nearly unanimous.  But
to squelch debate is going too far, for only through discussion can
people resolve their differences and establish a consensus which will
enable a stand to be taken that changes the "pre-set course" the space
industry is following.  "Neutralism," especially when extended to the
suppression of political discussion, is partisan, toward preserving
the status quo.

-Rich (Cowan@xx)

P.S.  For a more complete exposition of some of the economic issues
I've brought up, try Profits Without Production or The Permanent War
Economy, both by Seymour Melman.  I do realize that most of you would
have a hard time reaching the economic conclusions I've made.  I would
be happy to give more facts to justify them later, but I don't want to
make this note much longer.

-------

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

End of SPACE Digest V6 #88
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA08106; Mon, 3 Feb 86 03:01:29 PST
	id AA08106; Mon, 3 Feb 86 03:01:29 PST
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 86 03:01:29 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8602031101.AA08106@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #89

*** EOOH ***
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 86 03:01:29 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #89

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 6 : Issue 89

Today's Topics:
			Satellite Observation
			    Re: Joy rides
			Re: Phase conjugation
			  Re: 50% effective
			    Re: Joy rides
		   Re: Amateur Satellite Observing
		       Re: Thermonuclear Device
		       Re: homemade railguns...
		     Re: Another Use for Tethers
			    Re: Star-Wars
			Re: Phase conjugation
	       Halley`s Comet Filthy Limericks Contest
			 SETI vs. starflight
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 23 Jan 86 16:40:30 GMT
From: decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-pipa!biro@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Satellite Observation
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Thank you  Alessandro Berni  for your reply.   Sorry to put this on the net
but I am having trouble with mailing directly,  if you can send me a direct
a message so that I can use it to get the reply address correct. I will try
to make this message of general interest to all.
If anyone  is interested  I have a FORTRAN_77  satellite program that is based
on the Tom Clark's (W3IWI) basic program. The main  features of the prediction 
program is that it runs faster then the basic  one and it  also keeps up to 42
different element set per file and you can have as many  different element set 
files as you have room for.It is up an working on a VAX-780  and several other 
computers.  The input files are create from the NASA prediction Bulletins.  
I am  very interested  in monitoring SALYUT-7 both visual an via radio, I have
had good luck receiving them on  142.4175 MHz NBFM,   but my element set is so 
old the prediction program is in error, my latest element set is as follows:
ID,SALYUT_7	(OBJ 13138 Set: 791)
EY 85.	
ED 227.85871294   
DR 5.4829E-4      
IN 51.6466        
RA 003.4507  
EC 0.0002817
AP 187.7937
MA 172.2732
MM 15.71343851
DF 142.4175
OR 19166.
If you have a newer set ,  could you mail me a copy , I have ask NASA for
prediction for SALYUT_7 but still have not received a  copy, I  will have
to ask again .  This should be interested as they are supposed to go back
to SALYUT_7 in Mid February.
I am  experimenting taking  pictures of different satellites and will try
to combined telemetry data and visual  data, for  example, on  UOSAT  one
can copy the  telemetry data  when the bird comes out of the Earth Shadow
one coul confirm the telemetry data with visual data.  I now  use a 35 mm 
camera with ASA 1600 film with a 55mm lens, as soon as I get good, I plan  
to use a ten inch reflector Telescope for better light gathering capability
John

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jan 86 23:56:12 pst
From: white@brahms.berkeley.edu (Samuel P. White)
To: space@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Joy rides
Newsgroups: net.space
In-Reply-To: <8601222243.AA04061@s1-b.arpa>

In article <8601222243.AA04061@s1-b.arpa> you write:
>We have now had two Congressmen take a joyride in the shuttle, and I'm sure
>that us lesser folk would like to enjoy one too. Supposing you could go into
>space.... not into orbit, but just out of the atmosphere for 10 minutes to an
>hour, how much would you be willing to pay? You'd experience zero G, the
>launch, the blackness of space, and really see the Earth. Would this be just as 
>hard (difficult, costly, etc) as achieving orbit? In my opinion $10 per ticket
>would make it as popular as Disneyland, and $100 would cause most people to
>forget it.
>
>Comments on your trade-off price direct to me (I'll post a summary).
Are you seriously implying that most people would turn down a chance to
go to space even if it cost 100 dollars?  Personally,  I think there
are many people who would think money was no object, they would
pay more just to get a chance for a ride.  People already
pay 100s of dollars for short plane trips, certainly they would be
be willing to pay more for a trip of a lifetime even if it does go
nowhere but up and back. :-)  I think that at even 1,000 dollars
it would be hard to keep the flood back.

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

Date: 22 Jan 86 18:53:21 GMT
From: mtxinu!rtech!amdahl!bnrmtv!perkins@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Perkins)
Subject: Re: Phase conjugation
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> Why won't the phase conjugation technique work in reverse to build a
> large earth based telescope that removes the effects of atmospheric
> turbulence?  One would need a laser in the field of view (on a
> satellite, say) to determine the distortion during the trip down through
> the atmosphere, then apply the correction for that distortion to all
> incoming light to produce an undistorted image.  If it works, it sounds
> like it could make the Space Telescope obsolete.
> /Don Lynn
There are two reasons this won't work.  The first is that you'd have to
move the "satellite" into a position on a line between the earth-based
telescope and the object to be photographed.  That's not a satellite
anymore, but rather a precisely controlled station-keeping spacecraft.
The second reason is that all you'd be taking would be a terrific
photograph of a laser on a spacecraft.  You'd only be correcting for
the wavelength of the laser beam (different wavelengths are distorted
differently), and it would overwhelm anything else you're attempting
to have in the same field of view.  It wouldn't even work to turn off
the laser before taking the picture because atmospheric changes take
place on the order of seconds, and typical exposures are on the order
of minutes.
-- 
{hplabs,amdahl,3comvax}!bnrmtv!perkins          --Henry Perkins

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

Date: 20 Jan 86 17:13:12 GMT
From: decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!rochester!rocksanne!sunybcs!colonel@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Col. G. L. Sicherman)
Subject: Re: 50% effective
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> > A 50% effective SDI protecting our missiles would mean that we need
> > 50% fewer missiles for "defensive" purposes.
> 
> Alternately, we could launch a first strike against the USSR, knock out
> 50% or more of their missles, and stop the other 50% with SDI.
One way to implement this is to knock out the odd-numbered missiles with
a first strike and stop the even-numbered ones with Star Wars.  That
way there's no risk of duplication.  |-P
-- 
Col. G. L. Sicherman
UU: ...{rocksvax|decvax}!sunybcs!colonel
CS: colonel@buffalo-cs
BI: csdsicher@sunyabva

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jan 86 22:23:54 cst
From: ihnp4!stolaf!umn-cs!crickman@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Robin Crickman)
To: stolaf!space
Subject: Re: Joy rides

--------
I'd pay a thousand or so.

John Hasler (...ihnp4!umn-cs!crickman)

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jan 86 08:20:17 pst
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!vecpyr!amd!mikeh@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Mike Haley)
To: ucdavis!space
Subject: Re: Amateur Satellite Observing
In-Reply-To: your article <8601211711.AA00638@s1-b.arpa>

Hi, my name is mike haley and Iam interested in being able to
predict when a satellite is visible for viewing. Is there a
book you can recommend or could you explain just how a person
would go about it? Thanks


 Mike Haley (408) 982-6555
 UUCPnet: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra,intelca}!amd!mikeh
 ARPAnet: amd!mikeh@decwrl.ARPA

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

Date: 21 Jan 86 20:37:24 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Thermonuclear Device
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> One means of creating the temperatures and pressures necessary for
> nuclear fusion is atmospheric ablation.
Alas, it won't work.  Yes, you can get heat and pressure that way, but
nowhere near *enough* of either.  The energy is coming from the kinetic
energy of the projectile, so the maximum heating can be calculated by
assuming that all the kinetic energy is instantly turned into heat and
none of the energy is lost to the atmosphere. You end up with temperatures
of tens of thousands of degrees, tops.  Not good enough, by orders of
magnitude.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

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

Date: 21 Jan 86 21:02:30 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: homemade railguns...
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> It was my understanding that rail guns took a fractional second
> to a few seconds to accelerate something depending on design.
> Surely a model could be built that would be able to use computer
> grade caps?
But the output velocity probably wouldn't be too hot, not from a gun
of practical length.  Assuming a constant acceleration, v^2 = 2ad,
which translates as "to get a high velocity, you need either a high
acceleration (short transit time, high currents, low-inductance caps)
or a very long gun (gets physically cumbersome very quickly)".  The
problems of gun length are why rail-gun and mass-driver work tends to
push for very high accelerations.  Phrased another way, again for a
constant acceleration, v = 2d/t, which means that a velocity of hundreds
of meters per second (a high-velocity rifle is maybe a thousand) means
acceleration times of a few milliseconds if the gun is to fit in an
average-sized room.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

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

Date: 21 Jan 86 20:49:23 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Another Use for Tethers
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> The notion is to extend two tether ends (with some small mass or other
> on each) away from the station, one primaryward, the other
> anti-primaryward.  Tidal forces will produce a tension on the string...
> Then merely use a solar powered eletcric motor (with the tension on the
> tether as an "anchor") ...
> 
> In fact, isn't this method used (at least partly) to stabilize the space
> telescope?  I had read where at least some satellites were stabilized
> using this method, but I may be remembering some fictional scenario...
Not the space telescope, but a number of satellites are stabilized this
way.  It's called "gravity gradient" stabilization, because the reason
for the tidal forces is that the primaryward and antiprimaryward masses
are at different distances from the primary and hence feel slightly
different gravitational accelerations from it.  Tethers probably would
not do; you need rigid or semi-rigid structures to transmit torque.  The
distances don't need to be all that long, either:  LDEF (the Long Duration
Exposure Facility satellite), which is maybe 3 times as long as it is
wide, is stabilized this way.
Remember that the tidal forces on your "anchor" mass must be stronger than
those on the mass you are rotating.  Remember also that these forces are
fairly small, so don't expect rapid rotation rates.
The Space Station probably will use gravity-gradient stabilization, if
for no other reason because gravity-gradient effects are unavoidable in
something that big, and it's easier to use them than fight them!
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

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

Date: 23 Jan 86 01:39:53 GMT
From: decwrl!glacier!kestrel!ladkin@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Star-Wars
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <18493@styx.UUCP>, mcb@styx.UUCP (Michael C. Berch) writes:
> In article <787@petrus.UUCP> karn@petrus.UUCP (Phil R. Karn) writes:
> > . . . 
> > Has anyone set up a Star Wars (aka SDI) newsgroup yet?
> > 
> > Phil
> 
> Try mod.politics.arms-d, which is gatewayed from the ARPANET ARMS-D
> (Arms Discussion Digest) mailing list.  About every angle about SDI
> has been discussed, and probably will continue to be discussed.
> 
 
the risks digest, moderated by Peter Neumann (Neumann@sri-csl.arpa)
contains extensive discussion of the SDI software problem, by
major participants in the debate. I'm not sure how you may get it,
except by ftp over the arpanet. Sending a note to
risks-request@sri-csl.arpa can result in adding your machine
to the distribution list, I believe.
Peter Ladkin

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

Posted-Date: Fri 24 Jan 1986 08:12:16 EST
Date: Fri 24 Jan 1986 08:12:16 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Re: Phase conjugation
To: Lynn.es@xerox.com
In-Reply-To: Lynn.es's message of 20 Jan 86 13:23:29 PST (Monday)
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa

n

>Why won't the phase conjugation technique work in reverse to build a
>large earth based telescope that removes the effects of atmospheric
>turbulence?  One would need a laser in the field of view (on a
>satellite, say) to determine the distortion during the trip down through
>the atmosphere, then apply the correction for that distortion to all
>incoming light to produce an undistorted image.  If it works, it sounds
>like it could make the Space Telescope obsolete.

I'm not sure if phase conjugation is what you want, but it doesn't
seem impossible to use a laser beam to determine what the
atmosphere is doing, then correct the image by computer.  You might
have some problems if the atmosphere causes different wavelength light
to travel along different paths.  There's already a technique, called
speckle interferometry, that stacks short snapshots of a star into
one image with resolution better than normally allowed by atmospheric
distortion.

I don't think it would make the space telescope obsolete; the ST can
also be used to see infrared and ultraviolet light in wavelengths where
atmospheric absorption and interference is important.

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

Date: 22 Jan 86 12:59:21 GMT
From: cbosgd!ukma!psuvm.bitnet!gmp@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Halley`s Comet Filthy Limericks Contest
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

------------------------------

Date: 23 Jan 86 01:35:05 GMT
From: decvax!linus!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: SETI vs. starflight
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In the recent joint issue of Communications of the ACM and IEEE Computer
(Nov 1985, both) appears a paper on the search for extraterrestrial
intelligence (SETI):  "Signal Processing in SETI", by D.K. Cullers,
Ivan R. Linscott, and Bernard M. Oliver, of NASA Ames, Stanford, and
Hewlett-Packard respectively.  By and large it's pretty good, and worth
reading, which is half the reason why I bring it up.
The other reason is one paragraph of incredible nonsense, near the
beginning:
	At present spacecraft speeds (circa 1e-4 c), a round-trip to
	the nearest star would take about 80,000 years.  At 0.32c the
	trip could be made in 30 years, but even with a 100 percent
	efficient drive, the energy required is the annihilation
	energy, mc^2, of the payload.  For a thousand-ton ship, this
	is enough to supply all US energy needs for a millenium.  The
	extreme cost of interstellar travel, even with no technological
	limitations save those imposed by natural law, probably explains
	"their" absence here and casts grave doubt on our ever reaching
	the stars ourselves...
This is either political propaganda -- which I had thought beneath such
eminent authors in a technical publication -- or appalling ignorance.
The numbers are probably correct (I have not checked them, but they sound
about right), but the conclusions drawn from them are total bullshit.
An hour's browse through back Interstellar Studies issues of JBIS, or ten
minutes' inspection of the Project Daedalus report, or attending just one
of Robert Forward's talks on advanced propulsion, would reveal this at once.
"All US energy needs for a millenium", at *what* demand?  Today's demand?
1940's demand?  985 AD's demand?  If it's 1940's demand, then the total
energy requirement is *one* large modern power plant running for a decade
or so.  Hardly an exorbitant investment.  Obviously they mean today's demand,
but it is worth emphasizing that the energy resources at our command have
grown TEN-THOUSANDFOLD in less than fifty years.  One large modern power
plant, *idling*, puts out more power than the entire US did in 1940.  If
this trend, or anything remotely resembling it, continues, then the energy
resources needed for starflight will pose little problem soon.
Furthermore, the authors don't seem to appreciate the power levels involved
in even today's primitive rocketry.  A single Space Shuttle Main Engine puts
out 5-7 gigawatts of power.  A Saturn V at takeoff was FORTY gigawatts of
useful output -- over a tenth of the entire power production of the US.
Handling enormous energies is nothing new in space propulsion.
Robert Forward, who has studied the matter professionally as a USAF
consultant on advanced space propulsion, says that antimatter propulsion
is within our reach with today's technology.  Antimatter production would
be extremely expensive, but you don't need much.  At $50M/mg (yes, that's
millions per milligram), antimatter is competitive with Earth-launched
hydrogen/oxygen mix for in-space propulsion.  At $20M/mg, it's competitive
with fission rockets.  At $10M/mg, it's competitive with fusion rockets.
Forward indicated that at least the first of these numbers, and possibly
all three, look possible with current accelerator technology.  Antimatter
handling needs work, but doesn't appear to need breakthroughs.  (Really
large-scale production would be simpler and safer in space, mind you.)
And if we are on the brink of starflight -- reading JBIS will tell you
that there are *dozens* of different schemes for interstellar propulsion
that look viable -- what about civilizations millenia older than ours?
"Their" absence here is a considerable mystery, which has occasioned much
debate in recent years, but the "extreme cost" of interstellar travel just
does not suffice as an explanation.
"Antimatter rockets will take us to the stars.  *This is no longer
science fiction*." -- Forward
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #89
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA09462; Mon, 3 Feb 86 10:01:46 PST
	id AA09462; Mon, 3 Feb 86 10:01:46 PST
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 86 10:01:46 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8602031801.AA09462@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #90

*** EOOH ***
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 86 10:01:46 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #90

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 6 : Issue 90

Today's Topics:
			     IN MEMORIUM
			 Re: Trojan asteriods
		     Re: Another Use for Tethers
			 Joy ride into space
		    Looking for 1985 NASA spinoffs
			 JPL on the ARPA net?
		     Re: Another Use for Tethers
			 Re: Trojan asteriods
		       Request for Information
			Voyager 2 soundtrack??
			Re: Orphaned Response
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 30 Jan 86 03:12:06 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!rlgvax!hadron!klr@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Kurt L. Reisler)
Organization: Hadron, Inc., Fairfax, VA
Subject: IN MEMORIUM
Also-From: Dave Platt <Dave-Platt%LADC@cisl-service-multics.arpa>
  via MacQueue bboard from Tom Kunich
Add'l-Info-From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!watnot!agparghi@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Amit Parghi)

This was left on one of my FIDONET BBS in response to the request for
thoughts on the shuttle tragedy.
TO: Sysop on 109/74     From: Lloyd Schwartz
29 Jan 86  20:32:21
SUBJECT: Challenger Demise

For those who did not identify President Reagan's moving poetic closing
literary allusion, the following original text of the WWII flier's piece
will be appropriate:

	"Oh, I have slipped the surly bonds of Earth
	And danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings;
	Sunward I've climbed, and joined the tumbling mirth
	Of sun-split clouds ... and done a hundred things
	You have not dreamed of ... wheeled and soared and swung
	High in sunlit silence. Hov'ring there,
	I've chased the shouting wind along, and flung
	My eager craft through footless halls of air ...
	Up, up the long, delirious, burning blue
	I've topped the wind-swept heights with easy grace,
	Where never lark, or even eagle flew ...
	And, while with silent, lifting mind I've trod
	The high untrespassed sanctity of space,
	Put out my hand and touched the face of God."

What could be a better tribute, and memorial, to those who died in Space?

[Unless I am mistaken, it was written by John Gillespie Magee, Jr.
	-Amit Parghi]

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 24 Jan 86 11:10 EST
From: "Anthony J. Courtemanche" <acourt@bbn-vax.arpa>
Subject: Re: Trojan asteriods
To: Space@s1-b.arpa

> Remember the inverse-square law, and the distances in the outer Solar
> System: those effects are going to be pretty small.

If I'm not mistaken, resonances with planets are responsible for
the "Kirkwood gaps" in the asteroid belt (the one between Mars and
Jupiter, I think).  The asteroid belt is not uniform but has several
rings where there are no asteroids at all.  Computer simulation at
M.I.T. has convinced some people that if there were any any asteroids
in the Kirkwood gaps, after some period of time they would eventually
settle into non-Kirkwood gap orbits.  If planetary resonances can
explain this structuring of the asteriod belt, I don't think it
is too far fetched that planetary resonances can sling Trojan asteroids
into earth-crossing orbits.  I am not necessarily a beleiver but I don't
think it is outrageous.

Disclaimer: I disclaim this disclaimer.

--Anthony Courtemance
acourt@bbn-vax.arpa

------------------------------

Date: 22 Jan 86 17:12:26 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!utcsri!hogg@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (John Hogg)
Organization: CSRI, University of Toronto
Subject: Re: Another Use for Tethers
References: <98@dg_rtp.UUCP>, <6307@utzoo.UUCP>, <1976@utcsri.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <1976@utcsri.UUCP> hogg@utcsri.UUCP (John Hogg) writes:
>Note, by the way, that two balancing tethers are not required.
>Furthermore, for a given amount of cable, it will be far more efficient to
>have one long tail (up or down, dealer's choice) than two small ones; in
>fact, for half the plumb bob mass (one instead of two) you'll get twice the
>gradient force.  There's an r^2 in there.
If you do the high school physics on the envelope BEFORE posting, you look
like far less of an idiot.  Tether force is a linear, not square, function
of tether length.  You still gain (in simplicity apart from force strength)
by using one long tether, but not by quite as much.
-- 
John Hogg
Computer Systems Research Institute, UofT
...utzoo!utcsri!hogg
Standard disclaimer: the above may or may not contain sarcasm, satire,
irony or facetiousness.  It does not contain smiley-faces.

------------------------------

Date: 24-Jan-1986 1133
From: decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-amber!dipirro@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (I spilled spot remover on my dog and now he's gone)
To: ucbvax!space
Subject: Joy ride into space


	I think your joy-ride threshold is too low. I would be willing to pay
$100 for the experience and might even go as high as $300 or $400. I believe
that many a yuppie would even be willing to pay more than that.

Steve DiPirro
Digital Equipment Corp.

------------------------------

Date:           Thu, 23 Jan 86 17:26:20 PST
From: "Niket K. Patwardhan" <bilbo.niket@locus.ucla.edu>
To: utzoo!kcarroll@f.ihnp4
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject:        Looking for 1985 NASA spinoffs

Wouldn't anybody who sent you the copy of Tech Briefs be violating the Data
Export Control Laws? I think they are stinkers, but they do exist!

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 24 Jan 86 10:45:05 cst
From: dual!lll-crg!seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!grads@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Steve Poole)
Posted-Date: Fri, 24 Jan 86 10:45:05 cst
To: ucbvax!space
Subject: JPL on the ARPA net?
Cc: ut-ngp!grads

Steve

I used to work at JPL.  I saw your article on Voyager on the
net.  I have been wondering if I could reach JPL through the
ARPA net.  There are several people there that I would like to
correspond with.  What computer do you use to access the net?

Steve Poole
Center for Space Research
University of Texas
Austin, TX.

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jan 86 22:02:18 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!utcsri!hogg@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (John Hogg)
Organization: CSRI, University of Toronto
Subject: Re: Another Use for Tethers
References: <8601161312.AA15050@s1-b.arpa>, <98@dg_rtp.UUCP>, <6307@utzoo.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <6307@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
>> The notion is to extend two tether ends (with some small mass or other
>> on each) away from the station, one primaryward, the other
>> anti-primaryward.  Tidal forces will produce a tension on the string...
>> Then merely use a solar powered electric motor (with the tension on the
>> tether as an "anchor") ...
>
>Not the space telescope, but a number of satellites are stabilized this
>way.  It's called "gravity gradient" stabilization, because the reason
>for the tidal forces is that the primaryward and antiprimaryward masses
>are at different distances from the primary and hence feel slightly
>different gravitational accelerations from it.  Tethers probably would
>not do; you need rigid or semi-rigid structures to transmit torque...
Actually, tethers might provide an advantage here.  You need a solid lever
arm to change a force into a torque.  This should ideally be as large as
possible.  However, if it must be small, a tradeoff can be made made by
increasing the force, which can be done by creating a large gravity
gradient via a long tether.  In other words, a case can be made for a
small (=> light) satellite, a small (=> also light) plumb bob and a
LONG string.  Kevlar cable will weigh less than a rigid boom providing
the same stabilizing torque.
I have no idea what vibrational properties a design of this type would
have, and that could be the most serious problem.
Note, by the way, that two balancing tethers are not required.
Furthermore, for a given amount of cable, it will be far more efficient to
have one long tail (up or down, dealer's choice) than two small ones; in
fact, for half the plumb bob mass (one instead of two) you'll get twice the
gradient force.  There's an r^2 in there.
-- 
John Hogg
Computer Systems Research Institute, UofT
...utzoo!utcsri!hogg
Standard disclaimer: the above may or may not contain sarcasm, satire,
irony or facetiousness.  It does not contain smiley-faces.

------------------------------

Date: 26 Jan 86 02:06:59 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Subject: Re: Trojan asteriods
References: <8601241616.AA04734@s1-b.arpa>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> If I'm not mistaken, resonances with planets are responsible for
> the "Kirkwood gaps" in the asteroid belt... Computer simulation at
> M.I.T. has convinced some people that if there were any any asteroids
> in the Kirkwood gaps, after some period of time they would eventually
> settle into non-Kirkwood gap orbits...
That's right.  Incidentally, it was known long before the MIT simulations;
Kirkwood published his findings in the late 19th century, I believe.
> If planetary resonances can
> explain this structuring of the asteriod belt, I don't think it
> is too far fetched that planetary resonances can sling Trojan asteroids
> into earth-crossing orbits...
We're still talking about different orders of magnitude, though.  The
Kirkwood-gap asteroids have their orbits changed only slightly, to the
point where they are no longer in resonance with Jupiter.  Moving a Trojan
asteroid into an Earth-crossing orbit is a vastly larger change.  This
does not sound plausible to me.  Moving it out of the Trojan point, okay,
but that's still a very long way from an Earth-crossing orbit.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 26 Jan 86 15:38:24 GMT
From: ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!raha@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Bob Hettinga)
Organization: U. Chicago - Computation Center
Subject: Request for Information
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Ah, a chance to use the net for it's intended purpose...
There is a small group of us here in Chicago interested in financial and
economic research in space development.  We want to look at some of the
more, er, entrepreneurial ventures and project ideas out there and write
them up. Our interest in this stuff is purely academic, more for progress
along our own learning curves than anything else.  That, and the fact that
stuff like this is a hell of a lot of fun. One of the interesting things
about amateur status is the opportunity to walk out onto thin ice and jump
on it to see if it holds...  (Eat your heart out, Wolfgang Demisch ;-).)
Our scam-of-interest this time (* Scam := Deal(Wants_Bucks); *) is the
current project of one Gary Hudson; the Phoenix. 
NO, we do NOT want to cloud the newsgroup with comments, postings, flames or
other stuff. YES, we ARE soliciting e-mail info and will send copies of our
results back via e-mail, maybe by USnail if the postage doesn't kill us, IF
we can produce something readable.  If there is significant demand, we'll
even post a short abstract/synopsis to the net.
Our primary interests here are 1.)  *publically*  available sources of
financial data and estimates (ie, development and production costs, market
size and projected growth, etc.) and 2.) sources of technical information on
both the Phoenix project and it's attendant technologies (ie, hypercooled
fuel, SSTO single-fuel engines, VTOL spacecraft, yup, even plug nozzles).
Also, we'd appreciate hints, pointers, comments from sidewalk supervisors,
rumour mill output, and other such subjective stuff, to get a feel for the
space community's opinion of Hudson, the Phoenix, and whether this thing
will ever play in Peoria.
PLEASE NOTE: If you don't get through to us through uucp or bitnet, DON'T
post as a last resort.  If you think it's important enough, send it via
USnail. I've only been on the net since the middle of October, and I'm sure
the topic of Hudson and the Phoenix has been beat to death here already.
The last thing I saw was someone's posting about where to send your
resume`s, and I'm sure the users of the net have better things to talk about
than another round of war stories, plug nozzles, and how Gary's Last Rocket
Blew Up |-).
Our effort is shoestring, bootleg, and mostly recreational.  There is no
budget here except the contents of our 'donated manhours' line item.  We
have no connection with Pacific American Launch Systems, and not really
anyone else in the Aerospace or Finance Biz, either.
Thanks in advance for all your help. I'm through jumping up and down now. I
think I hear the sound of cracking ice. Hmmm, sounds more like a calving
glacier....  Better run. Bye.
-rah
-- 
Bob Hettinga (Chairman, CEO, Virtual Vaccuum Ventures, Inc. (V^3 I) ) 
UUCP: ...!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!raha 
Phone: 312-684-8340
Home Address: 		5454 South Dorchester
			Chicago, Illinois 60615

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jan 86 01:49:29 GMT
From: ihnp4!tellab1!thoth@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Marcus Hall)
Organization: Tellabs, Inc., Lisle, IL
Subject: Voyager 2 soundtrack??
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

I was wondering if the "soundtrack" sent out with the Voyager spacecraft
is available from any source currently.  Does anyone have any hints at
where to look for this?  Is it even available?
Thanks in advance (as usual).
marcus hall
..!ihnp4!tellab1!tellab2!thoth

------------------------------

Date: 24 Jan 86 02:42:00 GMT
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!convex!infoswx!bees@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Orphaned Response
References: <8512040306.AA22588@s1-b.arpa>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

The cape will hear sonic booms again as soon as the new steerable nose
wheel is in use.  Because the runway at KSC is shorter and narrower
than a large lake bed, the increased steerability was required.
Ray Davis
Teknekron Infoswitch, Richardson, TX
infoswx!bees, (214)644-0570

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #90
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA12083; Mon, 3 Feb 86 22:01:23 PST
	id AA12083; Mon, 3 Feb 86 22:01:23 PST
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 86 22:01:23 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8602040601.AA12083@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #91

*** EOOH ***
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 86 22:01:23 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #91

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 6 : Issue 91

Today's Topics:
		 Has Shuttle disaster killed Galileo?
		Response to Steve Dennett's questions
		     Re: interplanetary computers
			    shuttle delays
			Re: Joyrides in space
		    Re: Phase Conjugate telescope
		       Re: "Altitude of space"
		  Re: Looking for 1985 NASA spinoffs
		       Re: JPL on the ARPA net?
			    Re: Joy rides
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 29 Jan 86 21:16:20 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!topaz!harvard!h-sc1!mccauley@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (john mccauley)
Subject: Has Shuttle disaster killed Galileo?
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

I understand that the Galileo probe has a two-week launch window in
March.  The next window will be in two years. Since it is very
unlikely that the Shuttle program will be reinstated by then, does
this mean that Galileo is dead?  Is there any way that this probe
could be launched by other rockets in time?
	Scott McCauley
	harvard!h-sc1!mccauley.UUCP
	jsm@tardis.ARPA

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 29 Jan 86 11:46 PST
From: Dave Platt <Dave-Platt%LADC@cisl-service-multics.arpa>
To: Space <Space@s1-b.arpa>
Subject: Response to Steve Dennett's questions
Randomness: The decision doesn't have to be logical; it was unanimous.

Only Steve's first question is answerable in a certain, and objective
way... here's my understanding of the situation...

Challenger's "escape mechanism" is basically this:  if something goes
wrong during launch, and the pilot has time to detect it, Challenger
can detach itself from the external fuel tank and SRBs and glide back
(dead-stick) to a landing strip near the launch site.  I believe that
there are alternate emergency-landing sites downrange (Africa?).  I also
recall hearing that the orbiter could (in theory) survive a water landing,
and would float for quite some time.  Neither of these escape scenarios
has ever been tested in practice.

There are no ejection seats on Challenger... Columbia (I think) had them
for the first few flights, but it was decided that they wouldn't do much
if any good during a flight with a full crew.  There are evacuation
procedures that can be used to get the crew out of the orbiter once it
has landed (I saw a videoclip of Challenger's final crew practicing
these procedures).

The existing escape procedures provide no protection if:

1- Trouble occurs during the first seconds of a liftoff.  If Challenger
   doesn't have enough airspeed to manage a dead-stick landing, it will
   crash.

2- Trouble occurs so rapidly that the pilot doesn't have the necessary
   few seconds to detect the situation, make a decision to abort the
   launch, and detach from the tank & SRBs before they explode (either
   due to an accident, or due to an arm&destruct signal from the Range
   Safety Officer if the shuttle launch goes badly off-course).

The latter situation appears to be what happened yesterday... even if the
shuttle had instrumentation on-board that could have detected the first
traces of the apparent burn-through or fuel-leakage (or whatever), the
pilot could not possibly have hit the "detach" button (or whatever it is)
and pulled the orbiter far enough away from the main tank before the
explosion... it was all over within a second or so.

In re the range-safety-officer's self-destruct capability... there's an
excellent discussion of this system in the most recent Risks digest,
posted by someone who did a lot of the software design for that system.
He asked that his message not be redistributed without his written
permission, so I will not discuss it here... save to say that it looks
to me as if he did a very responsible job of ensuring that his part of
this system was as proof against failure or subversion as could be
managed.

Other questions:  setback, and/or greater support, and/or alternates?
It will certainly be a short-term setback;  I wouldn't be surprised if
most of this year's planned launches never take place.  Figuring out the
exact cause of the disaster (if possible) will take months, and
correcting any physical defects that led to the explosion will take
months more.  Clearly, the shuttle mission that would have observed
Halley's will never take place, and there's probably no unmanned mission
or probe that can take its place (BLAST!  It was humiliating enough that
the USA didn't send a probe of its own... and now our participation will
probably be limited to the American instruments on the Russian probes.
What do they say about all the eggs in one basket??).  Similarly, the
launch of the Hubble Space Telescope will be seriously delayed.

In the long term, it could be either a setback or a boost.  I imagine
that the shuttle program itself has taken some serious damage, and I
would not be too surprised if the final decision is "Don't build a
replacement for Challenger".  The loss of Challenger, and the certain
slippage in the shuttle program will probably act as a major boost to
the European space program... Ariane (sp?) was pretty fierce competition
for the shuttle on a cost/launch basis, and now it's going to be the
only game in town for a lot of people who want packages put into orbit
during the next year or so.

It's quite possible that the loss of Challenger will put some pressure
on NASA to go to a more diverse launch-vehicle program... perhaps a
combination of disposable multistage launch vehicles for satellites, and
a truly reusable hybrid (air-breathing/tanked Scramjet) for manned
launches.  A lot will depend on how the American people feel about
space... most of the public figures who I've seen speak in the last day
or so have been quite firm about "pioneering spirit" and
don't-let-this-stop-us (I personally agree whole-heartedly), but we'll
have to see how many people of the "Space isn't worth the risk of life
and $$" ilk begin speaking up once the numbness fades.

Although this event is a terrible tragedy, we should remember to keep it
in perspective (and urge others to do likewise).  There are more people
in the USA killed by drunk drivers on any average day than died in the
Challenger... and drunk drivers don't usually ask for volunteers.  I
imagine that the total monetary loss from this disaster is less than
the population of the U.S.A. spend on beer in a month... or on the
interest to the national debt in a week (I'm just tossing figures around,
so no flames please... you get the idea).

I just wish that there were something more that we could do for the
families and friends of the Challenger crew...

------------------------------

Date: 26 Jan 86 21:42:54 GMT
From: allegra!princeton!astrovax!escher!doug@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Douglas J Freyburger)
Organization: NASA/JPL, Pasadena, CA
Subject: Re: interplanetary computers
References: <564@smeagol.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

->Discussion about using Rad-hard RCA 1802's on Galileo and
->also some bit-slice processors, to by Rick Kwan, JPL Spacecraft
->Data Systems group
When I was in one of the VLSI design groups doing a Mariner
Mark II chip at JPL, one of the things we were constantly told
about was how 3 different companies did rad-hard 2901's for
use on Galileo.  The 2901 is a 4-bit machine used in all
sorts of bit-slice designs.  Galileo is carrying over a
dozen each of 1802s and 2901s.  RCA, Sandia, and "I forgot"
did the Galileo chips.
The Mariner Mark II series will carry 80C86 or 32C016s most
likely.  The 1802 and 2901 are very dependable machines, but
are hard to use.  It demostrates the NASA can't afford to
fix it beyond Earth orbit.  Remember that the 1802 was the
latest and greatest about 10 years ago and it will be about
10 years until today's latest and greatest is reliable enough
to launch.
-- 
Doug Freyburger		DOUG@JPL-VLSI,
JPL Mail Stop 23	escher!doug, escher!teleop!doug
Pasadena, CA 91109	etc.
<Generic Disclaimer>

------------------------------

Date: 24 Jan 86 02:44:00 GMT
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!convex!infoswx!bees@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: shuttle delays
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Shuttle delays are very complicated and are addressed on an individual
basis.  There is no set schedule of delay times for a given set of
problems.  When Lockeed Space Operations Corp. (LSOC) has to address a
problem, there is a meeting of 70 - 80 people to determine the
requirements to solve the problem and what delays must be effected.
Additionally there are people on-line from KSC, JSP and the individual
companies responsible for whatever the current payload is.
One reason that there is not a set schedule of delay times is that each
shuttle mission is different.  Different payloads require different
processing and may have critical time limits.  For instance, on the
last launch, delays caused the blood sacks to have to be replaced.
Often each launch brings updates and enhancements to the shuttles which
may require different processing in that area.
Everything is a complication.  star!fisher has already explained hold
times and launch windows.  If a problem is small and can be fixed
during the current launch window, the countdown can be put on hold.  If
a problem is more complex (see star!fisher's Auxiliary Power Unit
example) things get increasingly worse.  A shuttle can only hold fuel
for so long.  The fuel cools down the main engines, which must be in a
specific temperature range for the launch.  If the APUs are shutdown,
the temperature controls have to be cooled before a restart.
There are also safety considerations to be made each time something has
to be done to a shuttle.  Entry into the aft to fix a problem requires
evacuation of the fuel.  This is a many step process with certain time
periods between each step.
On another note, NASA can handle overlapping missions.  It all depends
on the specific requirements of the mission.  Some missions are
intentionally scheduled to overlap. 
Every mission is a different story!  ...sounds like Rod Stewart  B-)
Ray Davis
Teknekron Infoswitch, Richardson, TX
infoswx!bees, (214)644-0570

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jan 86 14:45:04 GMT
From: decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-star!fisher@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Burns Fisher ZKO1-1/D42 DTN 381-1466)
Subject: Re: Joyrides in space
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

...
I would probably pay a few hundred (maybe even $1k or so) for the joyride
you described (an hour or two in space), but that is only because it is so
short.  If you lengthen the 0g stay to several days, I would mortgate <insert
your favorite exageration>.  The tradeoff for me is one of space sickness.  If
the thing is only going to last a few hours, I would be afraid of being too
sick to enjoy it!  Give me a couple days for my inner ear to settle down
followed by a day or so to play, and name your price!  I'll go!  Make a
trip to the moon, and you don't even have to say much about safety!  (Shades
of Robert Heinlein's "The Man Who Sold the Moon"/"Requiem")
Burns
...decwrl!rhea!star!fisher

------------------------------

Date:         Mon, 27 Jan 86 15:37:47 EST
From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Reply-To:  ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA
To: space digest <space@s1-b.arpa>
Subject:      Re: Phase Conjugate telescope

   >Why won't the phase conjugation technique work in reverse
   >to build a large earth based telescope that removes the effects
   >of atmospheric turbulence  ...  could make the Space Telescope
   >obsolete.

     I've been thinking about this, and I can't think of a good way to
make it work.  There are two problems.  First, as far as I know (but
I'm not an expert by any means) phase conjugation only works on
monochromatic, coherent light (or at least light that is very nearly
so).  More worrisome, though, is the fact that phase conjugation
doesn't remove the distortion.  It antidistorts, so that repeating
the passsage through the atmosphere cancels the distortion.
It sure sounds like there must be a way to use this phenomenon
to cancel out the twinkling of starlight, but it certainly isn't
obvious (at least to me) how.
                             --Geoffrey A. Landis

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 27 Jan 86 13:07:08 PST
From: mcgeer%ji@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Rick McGeer)
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Re: "Altitude of space"

>Neil Armstrong got his astronaut wings in the X-15 before
>he transfered to the candlestick rockets.
	I wondered about this, and thought about making it a trivia question.
But is this really true?  Armstrong flew the X-15 as a civilian, and civilians
(I thought) weren't awarded Air Force Astronaut wings.

						-- Rick.

------------------------------

Date: 26 Jan 86 19:38:07 GMT
From: hplabs!ames!eugene@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Eugene Miya)
Subject: Re: Looking for 1985 NASA spinoffs
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> Wouldn't anybody who sent you the copy of Tech Briefs be violating the Data
> Export Control Laws? I think they are stinkers, but they do exist!
Are you going to turn me in?
From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  {hplabs,ihnp4,dual,hao,decwrl,allegra}!ames!aurora!eugene
  emiya@ames-nas.ARPA
p.s. I did this one time as a test of our bureaucracy.  Future requests
for Spinoffs should be mailed to the Technology Utilization Office.

------------------------------

Date: 26 Jan 86 19:35:15 GMT
From: hplabs!ames!eugene@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Eugene Miya)
Subject: Re: JPL on the ARPA net?
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

You can reach different facilities.  I was responsible for the
purchases of the LH/DH interfaces for jpl-vlsi.arpa when I was at
the Lab.  There is also jpl-robotics.arpa now.  There are quite a few
Unix workstations:  escher which is polled by teleops (we poll on UUCP),
and Steve's two machines.  Unfortunately, few of these machines
talk to one another yet.  Soon.  You should ask, who you would like
to reach then we could figure out a mail path for you.
From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  {hplabs,ihnp4,dual,hao,decwrl,allegra}!ames!aurora!eugene
  emiya@ames-nas.ARPA

------------------------------

Date: 26 Jan 86 19:24:19 GMT
From: hplabs!ames!eugene@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Eugene Miya)
Subject: Re: Joy rides
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Recently, I was asked this question during a ski weekend prior to Usenix.
I would personally love to make a shuttle ride as my friend Julian Gomez
could attest, but I feel that in the early stages of the space program,
as we are in, we should refrain from joy riding.  Garn had more justification
than the second Congressman.  Today we should be sending a teacher into
space and soon a reporter.  As a NASA employee, I would probably be
one of the least likely picked (but would love to go if the job required
it [an earlier job of mine required that I learn to ski :-) ]) for such
joy rides.  My opinion is that those personnel whose skills and imaginations
can best benefit mankind and space development should go first (I
think this excludes the second Congressman). [11:24 PST, we just had a strong
earthquake (planetary science in action).]  Joy rides too early in the program
will only justify the thoughts of those against space (there are many).
And if you think a ride in space will change their minds, you only need
walk three block North of the Capitol to understand.
From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  {hplabs,ihnp4,dual,hao,decwrl,allegra}!ames!aurora!eugene
  emiya@ames-nas.ARPA
p.s. A friend in Santa Barbara has plunked down $50,000 with Pan Am
for a ride.....

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #91
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA13185; Tue, 4 Feb 86 03:01:27 PST
	id AA13185; Tue, 4 Feb 86 03:01:27 PST
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 86 03:01:27 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8602041101.AA13185@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #92

*** EOOH ***
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 86 03:01:27 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #92

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 6 : Issue 92

Today's Topics:
			    Re: Joy rides
			    Re: Joy rides
			    Re: lunarcrete
			    Re: Joy rides
			    Re: Joy rides
			    Re: Joy rides
			    Re: Joy rides
		   Re: Mt Shasta on Uranian moon!!
		       Re: homemade railguns...
			    Re: Joy rides
		      Re: Photographing Halley's
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 27 Jan 86 19:41:58 PST
From: sun!amdahl.uucp!ems@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (ems)
To: sun!space
Subject: Re: Joy rides
News-Path: hplabs!pesnta!pyramid!decwrl!ucbvax!space

I would pay about $400 for the ride.  At least once.  After
that I would be willing to pay $100 or so a time.  Contrast
this with skiing:  $27-35 lift ticket, $20-30 equipment rental,
$80 or so for a room to stay in, not to mention food, parking ...
Those numbers are for one day.  Also for comparison, a hot air
balloon ride is typically $75-100 for an hour...

------------------------------

From: tektronix!orca.TEK!kendalla@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: tektronix!space
Return-Path: <kendalla@orca.TEK>
Comment: Message received over unauthenticated port at tektronix
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 86 16:27:52 PST
Subject: Re: Joy rides
Newsgroups: net.space
In-Reply-To: <8601222243.AA04061@s1-b.arpa>

$1000 for a quick ride out of the atmosphere
$7500 for an orbital trip
$30K for round-trip to the moon

Another interesting question is: How much would you expect to get paid
to live and work a) in orbit, or b) on the moon?

In orbit: 25K + living expenses
On moon: 5-10K + living expenses

Kendall Auel
tektronix!orca!kendalla

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jan 86 20:50:02 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!seismo!brl-tgr!brl-smoke!wmartin@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: lunarcrete
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

I had thought that the main ingredient in concrete was water. Anybody
know if this "lunarcrete" stuff is made in a waterless process? Or does
the process start with extracting/creating water from lunar materials,
and then using it to make this "lunarcrete"?
Will

------------------------------

From: voder!wlbr!jplgodo!steve@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 86 23:53:46 pst
To: wlbr!space
Subject: Re: Joy rides
In-Reply-To: your article <8601222243.AA04061@s1-b.arpa>

I knew about 20 people who were willing to spend $200 each for a 4 day
raft trip down the Colorado river.  $100 probably wouldn't discourage them
from a shuttle "joy ride".

...smeagol\			Steve Schlaifer
......wlbr->!jplgodo!steve	Advance Projects Group, Jet Propulsion Labs
....group3/			4800 Oak Grove Drive, M/S 156/204
				Pasadena, California, 91109
					+1 818 354 3171

------------------------------

From: ihnp4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Return-Path: <pwa-b!mmintl!franka>
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 86 22:37:36 est
To: pwa-b!space
Subject: Re: Joy rides
Newsgroups: net.space
In-Reply-To: <8601222243.AA04061@s1-b.arpa>


At $100, I would almost certainly take it.  At $1000, almost certainly not.
The breakeven point for me is probably around $250.

Consider that while the flight itself is only an hour or so, the total
experience is a full-day event.  People pay $40 or so for a day at Disney
World.

Frank Adams                           ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
Multimate International    52 Oakland Ave North    E. Hartford, CT 06108

------------------------------

Date: 28 Jan 86 03:45:45 GMT
From: mtxinu!rtech!amdahl!ems@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (ems)
Subject: Re: Joy rides
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <8601222243.AA04061@s1-b.arpa>, bilbo.niket@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU ("Niket K. Patwardhan") writes:
> (... )                                In my opinion $10 per ticket
> would make it as popular as Disneyland, and $100 would cause most people to
> forget it.
Hot air balloon rides are typically $75-100 for an hour ride.
They sell reasonable well.  Space should have at least a few
hundred thousand folks willing to pay $500-1000 each and many
more who would pay $100.
Compare with skiing:  Ticket $27 at Squaw, equipment rental $20-30?
or more  (I havn't rented in a long time...), not to mention getting
there and motels.  Lots of people skii.
-- 
E. Michael Smith  ...!{hplabs,ihnp4,amd,nsc}!amdahl!ems
This is the obligatory disclaimer of everything.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 29 Jan 86 09:24:07 est
From: Richard Newman-Wolfe  <ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!rochester!nemo@ucbvax.berkeley.edu>
To: ucdavis!space
Subject: Re: Joy rides
Newsgroups: net.space
In-Reply-To: <8601222243.AA04061@s1-b.arpa>

In article <8601222243.AA04061@s1-b.arpa> you write:
>... Supposing you could go into
>space.... not into orbit, but just out of the atmosphere for 10 minutes to an
>hour, how much would you be willing to pay? You'd experience zero G, the
>launch, the blackness of space, and really see the Earth. Would this be just as 
>hard (difficult, costly, etc) as achieving orbit? In my opinion $10 per ticket
>would make it as popular as Disneyland, and $100 would cause most people to
>forget it.
>
>Comments on your trade-off price direct to me (I'll post a summary).

You could avoid the costs of getting the vehicle to the exact orbital
postion, but the amount of fuel you would save wouldn't be that much.
Maybe doing a piggy-back launch from a 747 would be a win on that count.
As far as the price goes, if you could do it for $1000 a ticket and come
out ahead you would impress a lot of people.  You would also still be 
likely to be booked for years, price notwithstanding.  The "space camps"
are doing pretty brisk business, and they don't even get you out of the
atmosphere.  As a comparison of other successfull rides, consider that 
a balloon ride costs around $100 around here, a helicopter ride of 10 min.
costs around $20, a plane ticket across the US costs $500 (or if you cut
the frills and pack 'em in there, $140).  Sure, most people would forget
it at $1000, but if .1% were still willing, you would have enough business
to keep you busy for a long time.
Nemo

------------------------------

Date: 28 Jan 86 00:52:14 GMT
From: allegra!princeton!astrovax!escher!doug@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Douglas J Freyburger)
Subject: Re: Mt Shasta on Uranian moon!!
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> When are we gonna get that damn ion rocket developed so we can send
> Mariner/Viking/Galileo-class spacecraft (orbiter/lander) to all the outer
> planets without having to wait ten years to get the craft to the very outer
> ones via gravity-assist from the nearer ones?
My preferred answer would be right-now/yesterday, but...
There are some communications satelites that use ion
rockets to keep station, and various ion drives have been
flown for years.  It would seem that the answer really IS
yesterday.
The major problem with running ion driven spacecraft to the
outer planets is their strong magnetic fields.  Ion drives
have severe problems in strong enough magnetic fields.
They work by accelerating charged particles in a straight
line to VERY high speeds and out the nozzle.  In a magnetic
field, the particles follow an arc (f=B-cross-v/c) and foul
up the 'combustion chamber'.  The other problem is
restarting the drives.  They tend to foul up when they are
shut down, so you only get one sure shot per engine.
SO: We just have to send up a probe that 1) has enough
regular rocket fuel to maneuver when it gets into the
magnetic field, 2) only uses the ions to get there fast and
still slow up when it gets close, and 3) can get out of
Earth orbit on regular rockets (I'm not sure enough about
field strengths to know if this is a problem).  This is a
tough list to make, and we lose multiple planet missions,
but we DO get there the fastest with the mostest.  
Is it time to push for this for the next wave of planetary
exploration?  Mariner Mark II doesn't have any ion rockets,
and I don't know if the isotopic generators make enough
energy.  Could be we are restricted to Mars-and-closer
until we are willing to fly "real nuclear reactors".
-- 
Doug Freyburger		DOUG@JPL-VLSI,
JPL Mail Stop 23	escher!doug, escher!teleop!doug
Pasadena, CA 91109	etc.
<Generic Disclaimer>

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jan 86 21:58:22 GMT
From: hplabs!amdahl!ems@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (ems)
Subject: Re: homemade railguns...
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <6308@utzoo.UUCP>, henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
> > It was my understanding that rail guns took a fractional second
> > to a few seconds to accelerate something depending on design.
> > Surely a model could be built that would be able to use computer
             *****
> > grade caps?
> 
> But the output velocity probably wouldn't be too hot, not from a gun
The original discussion was about building a model gun.  I took this
to mean a lab gun for 'playing with'.  Not one that would reach
hazardous velocities.  I can see where others might take 'model' to
mean 'prototype of small size' with realistic performace velocities.
> of practical length.  Assuming a constant acceleration, v^2 = 2ad,
> which translates as "to get a high velocity, you need either a high
> acceleration (short transit time, high currents, low-inductance caps)
> or a very long gun (gets physically cumbersome very quickly)".  The
> problems of gun length are why rail-gun and mass-driver work tends to
> push for very high accelerations.  Phrased another way, again for a
> constant acceleration, v = 2d/t, which means that a velocity of hundreds
> of meters per second (a high-velocity rifle is maybe a thousand) means
> acceleration times of a few milliseconds if the gun is to fit in an
> average-sized room.
For more modest accelerations, could not the time be extended to a
few hundredths of seconds for a 10 metre or so rail gun?
(Yes, I know I should do the math, but it is so much easyier to let
 someone else do it ...)
-- 
E. Michael Smith  ...!{hplabs,ihnp4,amd,nsc}!amdahl!ems
This is the obligatory disclaimer of everything.

------------------------------

Date: 28 Jan 86 15:07:40 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!rlgvax!hadron!klr@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Kurt L. Reisler)
Subject: Re: Joy rides
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Let us again raise the old question of a lottery for a chance to
ride on the shuttle.  Price the tickets at the $25 to $100 range,
make the ticket transferable, and place a restriction, that the
winner or user of the prize must be physically able to meet the
physical and other requirements of the trip.  Not only would it
increase public interest in the shuttle, but would provide an
acceptable way to raise funds for the space program.
I would definately be up for buying a ticket or two for a chance.

------------------------------

From: prandt!cpc@ames-nas.arpa
To: s1-b!amelia!space@ames-nas.arpa
Subject: Re: Photographing Halley's
Date: 29 Jan 86 18:03:44 PST (Wed)

A few weeks ago, I put out a request for info on how to go about taking
a photo of Halley's comet with my kids in the same frame. I've received
enough good information to write a small book. I plan to post a summary
next week. Thanks to all who replied.

To make the summary complete, I would appreciate anyone who can point me to a
reference on how to construct a "Poncet mounting" for tracking stars. I have
seen the writeup in the November Sky & Telescope, but would appreciate more
details. If anyone also knows a reference that describes the "barn door"
tracking mount, I would appreciate it.

Please reply by mail.

Chuck Collins      ...{ihnp4,hplabs}!ames!amelia!cpc              cpc@ames-nas

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #92
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA14207; Tue, 4 Feb 86 07:01:28 PST
	id AA14207; Tue, 4 Feb 86 07:01:28 PST
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 86 07:01:28 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8602041501.AA14207@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #93

*** EOOH ***
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 86 07:01:28 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #93

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 6 : Issue 93

Today's Topics:
		  Halley/Hartley-Good Comet Hunting
			    Re: Joy rides
		       Re: Joy ride into space
			      What Now?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 29 Jan 86 23:49 EST
From: SECRIST%OAK.SAINET.MFENET@lll-mfe.arpa
Subject: Halley/Hartley-Good Comet Hunting
To: Space@s1-b.arpa

Date:    Wed, 29-JAN-1986 23:50 EST
To:      Space@Angband.Arpa
Message-ID: <[OAK.SAINET.MFENET].0A836F20.008E9C6C.SECRIST>
Quote: "May your future be limited only by your dreams." -- Christa McAuliffe
Organization: Science Applications Int'l. Corp., Oak Ridge, Tenn.
CompuServe-ID: [71636,52]
X-VMS-Mail-To: ARPA%"Space@Angband.Arpa"

  From the East Coast Forth Board (affiliated with the Potomac Forth
Interest  Group, Jerry Shifrin, SYSOP).  The following text has been
edited from the original sources indicated.

-=<***>=-

Francis R. Scobee
Michael Smith
Ronald E. McNair
Ellison S. Onizuka
Judith Resnik
Gregory Jarvis
Sharon Christa McAuliffe

Let each of us carry on their mission in our hearts and souls 
that humankind may one day share the heavens with them.

Richard Secrist
SECRIST%OAK.SAInet.MFEnet@LLL-MFE.Arpa


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                
                * * *   H A L L E Y   F A C T S   * * *
        by Morrison, & Cole, c/o STAR-NET at (305) 639-0715 by modem

                               INTRODUCTION

Halley's  [rhymes  with "valleys"] Comet is composed  of  a  small,  bright 
nucleus  (probably 1-3 km across),  surrounded by a much larger fuzzy head, 
or "coma" (Latin for "hair"),  10 000 to 1 000 000 km across, and a fainter 
gas (mainly carbon monoxide and nitrogen) and dust tail streaming away from 
the head.   Only the nucleus,  composed of ice, dust, and stones mixed with 
frozen  gases,  is  solid.   The total mass of the comet  is  approximately 
65,000,000 metric tons.

                               WHERE IS IT?

This  month  the comet continues moving west and south,  dipping below  the 
Great  Square  of  Pegasus,  through the  Circlet  of  Pisces,  and  toward 
Aquarius.  It will brighten rapidly, from 6.4 at the beginning of the month 
to  5.9  at the end.   The comet will transit the north-south  meridian  at 
about  18:00  and  be about 50 degrees above the southern  horizon  (at  40 
degrees  north latitude).   Note that this position and time mean that  the 
comet  is  moving  into  the sunset region of  the  sky,  and  will  become 
progressively washed out by the sunlight until its re-appearance in Spring.


                         COMET DATA FOR MID MONTH

        Right Ascension:  03 hours 49.02 minutes                        
        Declination:      23 degress 17.652 minutes (near Gamma Piscium)
        Distance:         122 982 530 km from Earth                     
        Magnitude:        6.2                                           
        Velocity:         32.31 km/s                                    


                            OBSERVING THE COMET

During this month's moon-free "window" (1st to 15th),  the comet should  be 
bright enough to spot easily in binoculars and finderscopes.  It is several 
arc  minutes across,  with a condensed nucleus and a small tail,  which  is 
generally   oriented  away  from  Earth  (hidden  mostly  - until  Spring).  
Binoculars  (7x35,  7x50,  or 10x50) will be perfect for an  overall  view.  
They're portable, light, relatively inexpensive, and offer good light grasp 
and ease in locating faint celestial objects like Halley's Comet.  Although 
telescopes  may reveal subtle details in the head,  they aren't  wide-angle 
instruments.  Binoculars will be required to encompass the comet's tail.


                          PHOTOGRAPHING THE COMET

The  simplest  way to photograph the comet is to use a tripod and a  35  mm 
camera  with  a  cable release.   Aim the camera and  focus  the  lens  for 
infinity.  A 30-second exposure will record bright stars and show the comet 
as a non-stellar ball with a fuzzy tail.  Exposures of more than 60-seconds 
will  record dimmer stars,  but show trailed images of stars and the comet.  
Choose a 28 to 50 mm lens (for adequate sky coverage) with a focal ratio of 
f/4 or faster (for a brighter image).   Tracking by mounting a camera  with 
normal  or 135mm lens "piggyback" atop a motor-driven telescope is the only 
way  to manage longer exposures.   For best results,  use FUJICHROME  color 
slide  film  with marked ISO (ASA) value of 400.    Ektachrome is a  second 
choice,  due to real speed falling off in time exposures like these: marked 
values of speed are NO indicator past 60 second exposures!!


                                NEXT MONTH

During  January  the comet moves into the barren star  field  of  Aquarius, 
which  rapidly  sinks into evening twilight during the  month.   It  should 
enter  dim  naked-eye visibility (5th magnitude) and be visible  relatively 
easily in binoculars or a finder telescope.  The moon-free observing window 
will be the 1st to the 15th.


                EPHEMERIS FOR COMET HALLEY STARTING 11/20/1986
                Courtesy of STAR-NET at (305) 639-0715 by modem

Comparing  this current info to the tables that follow for April shows that 
brightness (low value of "magntude") is part of the rationale for the  best 
expectations for seeing to occur in the Spring.  A difference of 1.0 in mag 
is a brightness ratio of 2.5,  or more than one camera F stop.  Only a more 
detailed  examination  of the coordinate data will show those not  familiar 
with  celestial charts that the comet is getting too close to the  sun  now 
(contrast dies due to sun's glare),  and will be too low on the horizon for 
viewing from points in the USA when it re-appears in Spring.  In April from 
the  Florida  Keys,  the  comet will be within about 30 degrees  above  the 
horizon, which is the region where atmospherics severely limit contrast and 
definition  of  celestial  objects.

    PAGE  1     DAYS FROM    COORDINATES:        DISTANCES (AU):  PREDICTED
       DATE     PERIHELION    RA       DEC        SUN    EARTH    MAGNITUDE
    +----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+
     1/ 1/86       -40       22:15   -02:35       1.00   1.18        5.3 
     1/ 2/86       -39       22:13   -02:49       0.99   1.20        5.3 
     1/ 3/86       -38       22:11   -03:02       0.97   1.22        5.2 
     1/ 4/86       -37       22:08   -03:15       0.96   1.24        5.2 
     1/ 5/86       -36       22:06   -03:28       0.94   1.26        5.2 
     1/ 6/86       -35       22:04   -03:41       0.93   1.28        5.1 
     1/ 7/86       -34       22:02   -03:53       0.91   1.29        5.1 
     1/ 8/86       -33       22:00   -04:04       0.90   1.31        5 
     1/ 9/86       -32       21:58   -04:16       0.88   1.33        5 
     1/10/86       -31       21:56   -04:27       0.87   1.35        4.9 
     1/11/86       -30       21:54   -04:39       0.85   1.37        4.9 
     1/12/86       -29       21:53   -04:50       0.84   1.39        4.8 
     1/13/86       -28       21:51   -05:01       0.83   1.41        4.8 
     1/14/86       -27       21:49   -05:11       0.81   1.42        4.7 
     1/15/86       -26       21:47   -05:22       0.80   1.44        4.6 
     1/16/86       -25       21:45   -05:33       0.78   1.46        4.6 
     1/17/86       -24       21:44   -05:42       0.77   1.47        4.5 
     1/18/86       -23       21:42   -05:53       0.76   1.49        4.5 
     1/19/86       -22       21:40   -06:04       0.74   1.50        4.4 
     1/20/86       -21       21:38   -06:15       0.73   1.52        4.4 

Note: the coordinates RA & DEC are celestial coordinates that designate the 
position  in the sky relative to the star field,  not your position on  the 
earth.   Use  them  by comparison to the coordinates of something  you  can 
recognize.   The charts in Sky & Telescope magazine are exellent references 
to  aid  in locating things (Sky & Tel's $18 is included in  $20  dues  for 
membership  in  the  Central FL Astronomical Society,  Inc.  - if  you  are 
interested:  contact CFAS or Star-Net by sending a note to Chuck Cole).

[Too be continued]

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jan 86 22:53:39 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!cmcl2!philabs!micomvax!musocs!mcgill-vision!mouse@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (der Mouse)
Organization: McGill University, Montreal
Subject: Re: Joy rides
References: <8601222243.AA04061@s1-b.arpa>,, <8601240756.AA23383@brahms>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>> [ discussing joyrides in the shuttle ]  Supposing you could go into
>> space.... not into orbit, but just out of the atmosphere for 10
>> minutes to an hour, how much would you be willing to pay?  [...]  In
>> my opinion $10 per ticket would make it as popular as Disneyland,
>> and $100 would cause most people to forget it.
> Are you seriously implying that most people would turn down a chance to
> go to space even if it cost 100 dollars?  Personally,  I think there
> are many people who would think money was no object, they would
> pay more just to get a chance for a ride.  People already
> pay 100s of dollars for short plane trips
     I  think  your  analogy  with   planes  is  stretched   (charitably
speaking).   I pay $200 for a plane  trip  not for the trip,  but to get
from  point  A  to  point  B.  The  trip  itself  usually  is  not  even
particularly enjoyable.
     There  would  probably be  a brief spate of  people willing  to pay
whatever  it takes, tapering off to a trickle.  In a decade  or two such
trips  will be as commonplace and boring  as plane rides are now.    (My
prediction only!)
-- 
					der Mouse
USA: {ihnp4,decvax,akgua,etc}!utcsri!mcgill-vision!mouse
     philabs!micomvax!musocs!mcgill-vision!mouse
Europe: mcvax!decvax!utcsri!mcgill-vision!mouse
        mcvax!seismo!cmcl2!philabs!micomvax!musocs!mcgill-vision!mouse
Hacker: One who accidentally destroys /
Wizard: One who recovers it afterward

------------------------------

Date: 28 Jan 86 19:39:02 GMT
From: ihnp4!alberta!sask!zaphod!flory@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Trevor Flory)
Subject: Re: Joy ride into space
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <8601241638.AA25711@decwrl.DEC.COM> space@ucbvax.berkeley.edu.UUCP writes:
>	I think your joy-ride threshold is too low. I would be willing to pay
>$100 for the experience and might even go as high as $300 or $400. I believe
>that many a yuppie would even be willing to pay more than that.
I'd probably be considered a yuppy (age 25, BSc (Cmpt.Sc.), 2 yrs
employment at a datacomm firm, cook french cuisine, etc).  I'd pay
TEN times the amounts you guys have been quoting.  Of course I'd
want to get behind the wheel for a while.  8-)
-- 
Trevor K. Flory            UUCP: ...!ihnp4{!alberta}!sask!zaphod!flory
Develcon Electronics Ltd:(disclaim!)   Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, CANADA
"Life is a bitch ... and then you die."

------------------------------

Date: 30 Jan 86 03:04:42 GMT
From: nike!topaz!harvard!think!craig@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Craig Stanfill)
Subject: What Now?
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In the aftermath of Challenger's loss, we have to examine
the shuttle program, and answer the question ``where do we
go from here?''  First, I am (like most Americans) committed
to the manned space program.  I think we have a future in
space, and the sooner we learn the technology needed to
conquer space the better.  Some important issues.
1.  As transportation from earth to orbit for payloads, is
    the STS economically justified?  I include in this
    dollar cost, cost due to delay when the STS cannot get
    off the ground, and cost due to payload loss when the
    launch vehicle fails (a significant problem with
    ARIENNE, and now alas with STS).
2.  Can the shuttle be fixed?  Perhaps NASA will figure out
    what went wrong, and correct the problem.  But more
    distressing, the shuttle is very complex.  Will there be
    more losses as new problems crop up?  STS was built as
    well as we know how, but it still suffers from many
    failures.  Most of these failures have resulted in
    nothing more than delayed flights;  some have come close
    to causing disaster; now we have a catastrophic failure.
    But then, who knows how many Saturns we would have lost
    if we had flown 25 missions with them.
3.  Do we have a choice?  How long can we afford to be
    without the Shuttle?  The military and civilian space
    programs are utterly dependent on the Shuttle.  The
    delays in Apollo (after the fire in I and the explosion
    in XIII) delayed only Apollo, but a delay in the Shuttle
    delays everything we are doing in space.
4.  Are we willing to risk more orbiters and more crews?
I welcome other opinions.  Here are my own.
First, the value of the Shuttle is as a means of perfecting
space technology.  The fact that payload fees pay for part
of its cost is icing on the cake.  I don't care much if it
loses money in the short run; in the long run what we learn
by flying the Shuttle is more than worth the cost.  
Second, I think the Shuttle can be fixed, and that it will
ultimately be reliable.  In any system as complex as the
Shuttle, it is impossible to get everything perfect on the
drawing board, so you have to keep trying the system out and
fixing bugs as they appear.  Whatever killed Challenger was
probably a small mistake.  Commercial airlines have much
larger safety factors in their design, but noone would
certify an airliner on the basis of 24 flights.  Airliners
continue to crash, in any event; new bugs are always being
found. 
Third, there is little alternative to the current STS.
Designing a new one is out of the question at this point;
if we did, there is no guarantee that it would be more
reliable.  It would certainly have to be at least as
complex.  Expendable boosters are an alternative, but
satellites would have to be redesigned, and this takes time.
ARIENNE is booked up, and there is a very small supply  of
other boosters.  Perhaps some aging TITAN II's being wasted
sitting in silos...
Fourth, it is unthinkable to needlessly risk orbiters and
crews.  NASA's credibility is on the line: their first
priority has always been flight safety, as it should be.
It should not fly until everything possible has been done to
fix the STS.
I think, then, that the following is in order.  First, find
the specific cause of this failure, and fix it.  Second,
evaluate the design of the STS, from top to bottom, and try
to find residual problems before we find one the hard way.
This might ground us for a year.  Third, build three more
orbiters.  We'll need them.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #93
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA17329; Tue, 4 Feb 86 19:01:23 PST
	id AA17329; Tue, 4 Feb 86 19:01:23 PST
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 86 19:01:23 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8602050301.AA17329@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #94

*** EOOH ***
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 86 19:01:23 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #94

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 6 : Issue 94

Today's Topics:
		  Halley/Hartley-Good Comet Hunting
	   nameing Uranian moons after the Challanger-seven
	      sore thumb on Oberon, wish list for space
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: SECRIST%OAK.SAINET.MFENET@lll-mfe.arpa
Subject: Halley/Hartley-Good Comet Hunting
Date:    Wed, 29-JAN-1986 23:50 EST
To:      Space@Angband.Arpa

[More] from the East Coast Forth Board (affiliated with the Potomac
Forth Interest  Group, Jerry Shifrin, SYSOP).  The following text has
been edited from the original sources indicated.

                EPHEMERIS FOR COMET HALLEY STARTING 11/20/1986
                Courtesy of STAR-NET at (305) 639-0715 by modem

    PAGE  1     DAYS FROM    COORDINATES:        DISTANCES (AU):  PREDICTED
       DATE     PERIHELION    RA       DEC        SUN    EARTH    MAGNITUDE
   +----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+
     3/ 1/86        19       20:27   -16:21       0.73   1.26        3.5 
     3/ 2/86        20       20:25   -16:43       0.74   1.24        3.5 
     3/ 3/86        21       20:23   -17:06       0.75   1.21        3.5 
     3/ 4/86        22       20:22   -17:29       0.77   1.19        3.5 
     3/ 5/86        23       20:20   -17:51       0.78   1.17        3.6 
     3/ 6/86        24       20:18   -18:15       0.79   1.14        3.5 
     3/ 7/86        25       20:16   -18:41       0.81   1.12        3.6 
     3/ 8/86        26       20:14   -19:07       0.82   1.10        3.6 
     3/ 9/86        27       20:12   -19:34       0.83   1.07        3.6 
     3/10/86        28       20:10   -20:02       0.85   1.05        3.6 
     3/11/86        29       20:08   -20:32       0.86   1.02        3.6 
     3/12/86        30       20:06   -21:02       0.88   1.00        3.6 
     3/13/86        31       20:03   -21:34       0.89   0.97        3.6 
     3/14/86        32       20:01   -22:08       0.91   0.95        3.6 
     3/15/86        33       19:58   -22:43       0.92   0.92        3.6 
     3/16/86        34       19:55   -23:20       0.94   0.90        3.6 
     3/17/86        35       19:52   -23:59       0.95   0.87        3.6 
     3/18/86        36       19:49   -24:40       0.97   0.85        3.6 
     3/19/86        37       19:46   -25:23       0.98   0.82        3.6 
     3/20/86        38       19:42   -26:09       1.00   0.79        3.5 
     3/21/86        39       19:38   -26:57       1.01   0.77        3.5 
     3/22/86        40       19:34   -27:48       1.03   0.74        3.5 
     3/23/86        41       19:29   -28:42       1.04   0.72        3.5 
     3/24/86        42       19:24   -29:40       1.06   0.69        3.4 
     3/25/86        43       19:18   -30:41       1.07   0.67        3.4 
     3/26/86        44       19:12   -31:46       1.09   0.64        3.4 
     3/27/86        45       19:05   -32:54       1.11   0.62        3.4 
     3/28/86        46       18:58   -34:06       1.12   0.59        3.3 
     3/29/86        47       18:49   -35:22       1.14   0.57        3.3 
     3/30/86        48       18:39   -36:42       1.15   0.54        3.2 
     3/31/86        49       18:29   -37:00       1.17   0.52        3.1 
     4/ 1/86        50       18:17   -39:24       1.18   0.50        3.1 
     4/ 2/86        51       18:04   -40:49       1.20   0.48        3.1 
     4/ 3/86        52       17:48   -42:13       1.21   0.46        3 
     4/ 4/86        53       17:31   -43:35       1.23   0.44        3 
     4/ 5/86        54       17:12   -44:50       1.24   0.42        2.9 
     4/ 6/86        55       16:50   -45:56       1.26   0.41        2.9 
     4/ 7/86        56       16:27   -46:47       1.28   0.39        2.8 
     4/ 8/86        57       16:02   -47:21       1.29   0.38        2.8 
     4/ 9/86        58       15:36   -47:33       1.31   0.37        2.8 
     4/10/86        59       15:09   -47:22       1.32   0.37        2.8 
     4/11/86        60       14:42   -46:46       1.34   0.36        2.8 
     4/12/86        61       14:16   -45:48       1.35   0.36        2.8 
     4/13/86        62       13:52   -44:29       1.37   0.37        2.9 
     4/14/86        63       13:30   -42:55       1.38   0.37        3 
     4/15/86        64       13:10   -41:10       1.40   0.38        3.1 
     4/16/86        65       12:51   -39:18       1.41   0.40        3.2 
     4/17/86        66       12:35   -37:23       1.43   0.41        3.3 
     4/18/86        67       12:21   -35:28       1.44   0.43        3.5 
     4/19/86        68       12:08   -33:35       1.46   0.45        3.6 
     4/20/86        69       11:57   -31:46       1.47   0.47        3.7 
     4/21/86        70       11:48   -30:03       1.49   0.49        3.8 
     4/22/86        71       11:39   -28:24       1.50   0.51        4 
     4/23/86        72       11:31   -26:52       1.52   0.54        4.1 
     4/24/86        73       11:24   -25:25       1.53   0.56        4.2 
     4/25/86        74       11:18   -24:05       1.55   0.59        4.4 
     4/26/86        75       11:13   -22:49       1.56   0.62        4.5 
     4/27/86        76       11:08   -21:39       1.58   0.65        4.6 
     4/28/86        77       11:03   -20:34       1.59   0.68        4.8 
     4/29/86        78       10:59   -19:33       1.61   0.71        4.9 
     4/30/86        79       10:56   -18:37       1.62   0.74        5 
     5/ 1/86        80       10:53   -17:44       1.64   0.77        5.1 

[Too be continued]

------------------------------

X-Sent: to SU-AI.ARPA by IMSSS.FRONSTAD.EDU via ETHERNET with PUPFTP; 1986-Jan-30 02:59:08 PST (=GMT-8hr)
X-Mailer: EMACS -> PSL (FORMAT+SEND-ALL) -> PUPFTP
Date: 1986 January 30 01:38:50 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM@imsss> (this host known locally only)
To: SPACE@mc.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: nameing Uranian moons after the Challanger-seven
Sender: REM%IMSSS@su-score.arpa (for undeliverable-mail notifications)
Reply-To: REM%IMSSS@SU-SCORE.ARPA

(Gee, I came up with that C-7 hack as I was typing the header to this
message and the number 7 randomly triggered the Galileo-seven from
Startrek and some other seven from VietNam protest. But back to subject...)

It was suggested today that seven of the Uranian moons discovered this
month by Voyager 2 be named after the astronauts & technicians &
passenger who died on the shuttle this week. Some obvious questions/problems:

First names or last names?

Actual (English) names or greek translations of them?

Since we haven't staked claim on these moons, what right have we to
name them after citizens of our nation? All the other moons have been
named after greek mythological beings affiliated in myth with the
parent body. Do we want to start naming moons after real humans of the
nation that discovered them? Craters on the Moon discovered by
spacecraft follow the real-human naming convention in some cases, but
there's a mixture of discoveries from USA and USSR craft thus we
accept each other's names. Would the USSR and other nations accept our
breaking from tradition on naming moons of other planets?

Why not name three more after Grissom/Chaffe/White, or after Russian
cosmonauts who have died?

Wouldn't it be sort of a slap in somebody's face to name the seven who
died in the worst attempted-human-space-travel accident to date after
moons that were discovered by the most successful
unmanned-space-discovery mission to date, at a time when the contrast
between these two missions is used by some people to argue that manned
exploration should be totally stopped and everything should be done by
robotics?

By the way, I saw a fairly good picture of the moon that was
discovered just 4 weeks ago as Voyager 2 was approaching Uranus. I'm
used to seeing good pictures of moons already known where the
spececraft program can be set up to aim the high-resolution camera at
just the right spot, and little dots that occupy fewer than ten pixels
for moons that were just discovered on this flight. I was rather
impressed that they were able to get a good picture this week of a
moon that was just discovered in flight about a month ago! How did
they do it? Did they figure they had time to reprogram their
observation plan to get a good picture so they did it, or did they
just happen to have the camera aimed in about the right direction so a
trivial change in direction was able to get the hi-res picture without
adversely affecting the rest of the observation plan?

P.s. looks like we found a moon (Miranda) more complicated than Ganymede!!
If I ever have any children and they happen to be girls, maybe I'll
name the prettiest one Dione and the most complicated one Miranda if
my wife (if I ever find one) will let me and if I can predict their
features ahead of time. (My first choices would have been Drucilla and
Linda, but my mind is changing...)

------------------------------

X-Sent: to SU-AI.ARPA by IMSSS.FRONSTAD.EDU via ETHERNET with PUPFTP; 1986-Jan-30 02:59:36 PST (=GMT-8hr)
X-Mailer: EMACS -> PSL (FORMAT+SEND-ALL) -> PUPFTP
Date: 1986 January 30 02:28:46 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM@imsss> (this host known locally only)
To: hplabs!ames!eugene@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Cc: SPACE@mc.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: sore thumb on Oberon, wish list for space
Sender: REM%IMSSS@su-score.arpa (for undeliverable-mail notifications)
Reply-To: REM%IMSSS@SU-SCORE.ARPA

R> Voyager 2 has discovered a 3-mile-tall mountain on a moon of
R> Uranus. ... So, what do the rest of you think, volcano as I claim?,
R> extinct as I guess?, what kind of lava do you guess?, how long since active?

E> Date: 27 Jan 86 18:33:43 GMT
E> From: hplabs!ames!eugene@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Eugene Miya)
E> Are you certain it's a volcano?

Not at all, just the visual impression I got. See more later including
partial retraction of my guess.

E> I've not seen the imagery (no TV and the print media have not had
E> detailed images).

Picture in on TV (before I sent the message, causing the sending)
repeated in Peninsula Times-Tribune Sunday (after I sent the message),
of Oberon. The cone is right on the terminator (horizon, edge), and
sticks out like a sore thumb. On TV it looked like a volcanic cone,
like Shasta or like StHelens before the explosion. In the newspape the
quality was much lower but the cone can still be seen.

E> No offense, but most lay people could not recognize a volcano
E> other than pure cinder cones.  Was it a profile (how did you get
E> 3 miles?)? or face into the crater  or peak (I assume)?
E> did it have obvious flows.

Profile. TV news gave height, probably computed from known distance
from Voyager camera and resolution, or from known diameter and
fraction of that. No flows apparent, just a giant cone with nothing
anywhere near that height near it, like Mt. Shasta all alone among
lesser hills (Mt. Shasta is rather impressive in the distance from
highway 97 near Klamath Falls Oregon, 70 miles away), or like the
sugar-loaves south of Eugene Oregon or East of Rio Di Janero. On the
other hand, for sheer size relative to parent body (ignoring
volcanoness), nothing compares to the giant crater half the size of
Phobos and the "evil eye" crater about a third the size of a moon of
Saturn (I forgot the name).

As promised... after I sent the message proposing the volcano theory,
another report came out whereby scientists claimed the "sore thumb"
was the rebound peak in the center of an impact crater, like the ones
you see on the moon only much higher (higher by far than the rim of
the crater itself if my eyes aren't deceiving me). I presume they are
right and I am wrong; them's the breaks of a layperson trying to guess
from preliminary evidence (but I'm not the only one; witness all the
TV newspeople trying to guess what caused Challenger to blow up, just
from the TV pictures and no telemetry info whatsoever).


R> When are we gonna get that damn ion rocket developed so we can send
R> Mariner/Viking/Galileo-class spacecraft (orbiter/lander). . .

E> I refer you to James van Allen's article in Sci. Amer. a
E> month or two back.  The rocket's been developed years ago
E> the question is when are we going to get the money to
E> send it up?

Sigh, due to rainy weather I haven't been able to go to library on
bike except once in the last 2 months, and haven't even found time to
read the Lin article on SDI.

E> Planetary wish list:
(Arranged by distance from Sun, rather than priority, I see/presume)
E> International Solar polar
I think that was planned for launch this year (if I correctly recall
the launch schedule that was published on SPACE a week ago), but of
course now that is on hold.
E> Comet rendevzous
Need ion rocket tested in space, which I wish they'd do asap.
E> Stellar/solar wind sampler
ICE did that for years before being diverted&renamed to go to G/Z
E> Mercury sample mission
Let's pass on that. Mercury has lots of gravity and no moons, so this
is purely of scientific interest, except due to heat of sun it's been
greatly modified thus not likely to yield much of scientific interest
about origin of solar system, but still moderately useful for studying
composition of planets at the extreme of nearness to Sun so should be
done someday, but we want core samples not just surface samples.
E> Venus mapper, atmospheric sampler
We're already doing a fair job of that ("we" includes USSR mostly).
E> Earth --? no intelligent life there :-)
Not so sure, congressman Jake Garn seems to be fairly bright lately.
E> Moon -- polar orbiter, sampler missions
Yes!!! Find out if source of hydrogen closer than comets!
E> Mars -- polar orbiter and sampler missions, mars moon missions
Mars has too much gravity and atmosphere to make samples much useful
except to manned landed base. But robot rover and manned orbiter I
like to tighten servo loop, after we establish permanent habitat in space.
E> astroid sampler missions
Yes!! Lots of them and hardly any gravity, easy to bring large pieces
or whole asteroids back to Earth-orbit.
E> Jovian sampler missions to Europa and I/O
"Io" not "I/O"! I sort of like Ganymede and Io samples. Why did you
pick Europa instead of Ganymede?
E> Saturn -- Titan orbiter, imager, atmospheric sampler.
Dione orbiter for me!! I want to see what those beautiful patterns
really are close up. They might be even more beautiful! But yes Titan
atmosphereic sampler thrown in too with Saturn sampler. I also want
ring rendezvous so we can get a real picture of trillions of chunks of
ice extending out to infinity along a plane!!!!!!!! If we had a
deep-space propulsion system (ion rocket for example) those
ring-chunks might be an inexhaustable supply of hydrogen and other
materials which don't have to be broken off from larger
asteroids/comets, merely rendezvous and find one the right size for
your current technology of grappling.
E> Uranian -- your suggestions
(I forget; Did I propose Galileo-class craft to orbit and measure and
send probes into atmosphere of Uranus?)

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #94
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA18647; Wed, 5 Feb 86 03:01:14 PST
	id AA18647; Wed, 5 Feb 86 03:01:14 PST
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 86 03:01:14 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8602051101.AA18647@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #95

*** EOOH ***
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 86 03:01:14 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #95

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 6 : Issue 95

Today's Topics:
      Comparison between Challanger-seven and Pearl Harbor et al
			 Scuttle the Shuttle?
		  Halley/Hartley-Good Comet Hunting
		       Re: JPL on the ARPA net?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

X-Sent: to SU-AI.ARPA by IMSSS.FRONSTAD.EDU via ETHERNET with PUPFTP; 1986-Jan-30 03:35:20 PST (=GMT-8hr)
X-Mailer: EMACS -> PSL (FORMAT+SEND-ALL) -> PUPFTP
Date: 1986 January 30 03:34:21 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM@imsss> (this host known locally only)
To: SPACE@mc.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: Comparison between Challanger-seven and Pearl Harbor et al
Sender: REM%IMSSS@su-score.arpa (for undeliverable-mail notifications)
Reply-To: REM%IMSSS@SU-SCORE.ARPA

Today on the news a comparison was made between the loss of the
Challanger and other disasters of the past which affected people
intensely: Hindenburg, Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt's death, Kennedy
assassination. I would like to offer some rebuttal to the apparent
claim that all five are of equal impact.

Only Pearl Harbor involved great loss of life, Challenger was only 7,
Roosevelt&Kennedy were one each (and Roosevelt was no surprise, he had
been sick for a long time), Hindenburg deaths were mostly due to
jumping because low-pressure hydrogen in air burns at a low
temperature and if they hadn't panicked they would mostly have
survived. Pearl harbor was 3 years before I was conceived, but from
hearing about it second hand I'd rank it in terms of human loss as a
much greater sudden disaster for the US than anything else in the
list. The newscasters who were emphasizing human loss had no right to
compare the explosion of the Challanger to Pearl Harbor as they did
without mentionning the orders of magnitude difference in human life.
Furthermore, if they care about human lives, hundreds of civilians die
each year from airplane crashes, and hundreds die each week from
automobile crashes. If anyone considers STS not safe enough for
civilians, how about banning civilians from airlines and cars until
they can be made safe??

Now consider the special people who died. One popular civilian died,
but then Rickey Nelson died a month ago and he was popular too. Why
wasn't Rickey Nelson or John Lennon compared to Christa McAuliffe,
instead of our presidents (Roosevelt/Kennedy)? Since all are primarily
media people rather than functional units of our government, I think
that kind of comparison would have been more appropriate. When Kennedy
was shot I was worried that Cuba had paid the assassin and we'd go to
world war over it. With the schoolteacher in Challanger, there was no
such worry, just one more sadness over a liked person dying
unexpectedly like John Lennon or Sam Cooke (singer died in barroom
fight) or Johnny Horton (singer died in plane crash).

But where I see the explosion of the challanger as being more
significant is in capability lost. Here the comparison to Pearl Harbor
is valid. The attack on Pearl Harbor didn't just kill hundreds of
staff aboard the sunk ships and on land, but mostly wiped out our
military capability in the whole Pacific ocean. Fortunately one major
part of our fleet wasn't there and didn't get lost, or we might have
ended up being invaded by Japan during the war. But it was a really
major military capability lost unmatched in all our other national
disasters. The explosion of the Challanger has destroyed a major
fraction of our manned space capability, a very important satellite
for our space program, and cast doubt on our safety which will
probably cause some companies to retract their reservations. Also
there's bound to be a several-month delay. Because we have no unmanned
launch capability (almost whatsoever; just a few recycled ICBMs and
plans to build some new Titans or somesuch, but absolutely nothing in
production currently), our whole space program is stopped for as many
months as it takes to debug STS, and slowed by a quarter for at least
five years it takes to replace the lost spacecraft. Either the loss of
our Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor or the loss of our space capability
this week is much more serious than the mere loss of important or
loved individual people, in terms of overall national capability. It's
faster and cheaper to train LBJohnson to be President or some new
schoolteacher to fly in space, than it is to replace Challanger and TDRS-B.

Yes, everytime somebody we know and care about dies it's sad, but TV
news are comparing apples and oranges on the basis of their use as
baseballs and ignoring their nutritional content or flavor. I think
that by treating only the human-death aspect, but by comparing Pearl
Harbor and Challenger-Seven as co-equals, ignoring automobiles etc.,
and televising interviews of children who are upset, they are creating
a "media event" that greatly exaggerates the human-loss that occurred
and unfairly casts a bad light on the manned space program.

(editorial by REM)

P.s. I'm thinking of writing a letter to the editor saying that if
anyone considers stopping the space program because 7 died trying to
get to space, or not allowing civilian passengers, then certainly the
same argument applies moreso to commercial airlines and private
automobiles and cigarettes, all of which kill vastly more people on a
regular basis. I wonder how harsh or cynical I can get by with without
being counterproductive.


BC> Date:       Tue, 28 Jan 86 16:07:01 EST
BC> From: "Bob Czech" <939@NJIT-EIES.MAILNET>
BC> Subject:    The Press parasites

BC>      It's been about 4 hours since the Challenger blew up and the
BC> most disgusting aspect of this whole accident is the way the press
BC> has handled it.  This is usually the problem that most people find
BC> with great tragedies.  Nothing bothered us more here at CCCC more
BC> than the way that ABC, descretely (said in REAL sarcasm), enabled
BC> us to view the teacher's parents as the Challenger ascended and
BC> then after the explosion.  It's one thing to drag out an apparent
BC> accident, but another to feed and use upon human emotions as they
BC> did.

They did the same with Three-Mile-Island which involved no loss of
life at all (except due to cancer caused by coal that replaced TMI).
I agree with your derogatory opinion of that aspect of TV coverage.
It was, however, encouraging to hear interviews with several people
who compared this to the expedition lost at the South Pole and on
Everest, and Madam Curie getting leukemia for her work with Radium,
etc. I thought that part was really good. Too bad they have so much
crap the rest of the time.

By the way, did anyone on this list happen to see the launch&explosion
live (in person, not on TV feed)?

------------------------------

Posted-Date: Thu 30 Jan 1986 17:23:21 EST
Date: Thu 30 Jan 1986 17:23:21 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Scuttle the Shuttle?
To: space@s1-b.arpa

Just when you thought things couldn't get worse, they did.  The shuttle
was plagued by delays and bad economics, and now its a killer.  It's
time to take a long hard look at the shuttle and strip away the myth
from the reality.

Some myths:  that the shuttle is a cheap way of delivering cargo to
orbit, that manned shuttle missions are somehow bringing us closer to
real exploitation of space, that manned missions in the shuttle can
accomplish things economically that can't be done by robots.

I addressed the first myth several months ago.  The NY Times mentioned
in today's paper that the cost of shuttle cargo ($2000 to $2500/lb to
LEO) makes almost all space manufacturing uneconomical.  NASA has
received almost no positive response from industry, just some companies
exploiting NASA's subsidized rates for research to do work feeding back
to ground based processes.

The shuttle has also been less reliable and more expensive than unmanned
boosters for lifting satellites in orbit.  Although the putative cause
of many of these satellite failures has been PAM motor or satellite
malfunctions, have you noticed how many problems there have been with
experiments in the shuttle cargo bay?  I suspect the vibrations during
shuttle launch from the SRB's are damaging the payloads.  This is
one of the theories about what destroyed Challenger -- combustion
instabilities in the SRB's could induce vibrations in the shuttle
that could lead to structural failure.

The second myth: that the shuttle is somehow advancing the real
exploitation of space.  This a curious inversion of logic.  Clearly,
when space has been fully exploited there will be lots of people up
there, it doesn't follow, though, that any scheme for sending people
into space moves us towards that goal.  Except for some sound (if
extremely expensive) research conducted in Spacelab, the shuttle has
done little for the advancement of space exploitation.

The third myth: that manned missions can accomplish things economically
that can't be done by robots.  This is true in the long term (unless AI
really succeeds), but in the short term (read: for the rest of this
century, at least) there is little that can be done in space
economically that robots and teleoperated manipulators can't do better.
Repair and maintenance of spacecraft in earth orbit, mining the moon,
exploration of the planets, manufacturing in low earth orbit are all
better done by robots and remotely controlled manipulators, simply
because they don't breath or eat, don't die of radiation from solar
flares, and can be launched by supposedly less reliable expendable
boosters, can be controlled from the ground 24 hours a day and can be
left in space for years.


So, what should be done with the shuttles?  Just grounding them is a bit
excessive, but they are currently unsafe and uneconomical.   The
following might make sense: convert one shuttle to purely manned mode;
beef up its structure so that it's too heavy to carry much cargo but
can carry people into orbit.  The other two shuttles can be adapted to
as unmanned reusable cargo vehicles.  Strip out the cabin section and
replace it by a much smaller forward electronics bay.  Extend the
cargo bay forward, or just leave that space empty.  This converted
vehicle would take off and land semiautonomously, and would be used to
deploy satellites.  It could conceivably carry much more cargo and,
if it prangs after 25 flights no one would be killed.  Perhaps all
three can be adapted for unmanned use, but NASA probably wants to keep
one vehicle around for congressional joyrides.

------------------------------

From: SECRIST%OAK.SAINET.MFENET@lll-mfe.arpa
Subject: Halley/Hartley-Good Comet Hunting
Date:    Wed, 29-JAN-1986 23:50 EST
To:      Space@Angband.Arpa

[More] from the East Coast Forth Board (affiliated with the Potomac
Forth Interest  Group, Jerry Shifrin, SYSOP).  The following text has
been edited from the original sources indicated.

        Courtesy of Greg Walz-Chojnacki c/o STAR-NET @ (305) 639-0715 by modem
                        Comet HARTLEY-GOOD, from STAR-NET

     Here is the latest information on Comet Hartley Good from the  Central 
Bureau  for Astronomical Telegrams.  Note,  by the way,  that this comet is 
more  spectacular than Halley's through early January,  due to placement in 
the  sky.   The  designation of Comet Hartley-Good  is  1985l.  Any  future 
uploads  to STAR-NET on this comet will be named 1985l.DCx (where x is  the 
version, starting with 3) to reflect a nomenclature correction.

     The comet is moving swiftly west toward the Sun.   While the comet  is 
expected  to  attain  reach  a total maginitude of  6.6,  when  it  reaches 
perihelion  in Ophiuchus it will be too close to the Sun to be  seen  well. 
Nevertheless,  it should be worth viewing with even modest telescopes.   It 
will  also  make a reasonable photographic subject.   Look for  it  through 
early December in the progressively earlier evening sky. 

     Below  are  the improved parabolic orbital elements,  followed by  the 
ephemeris.  I would appreciate observers' reports on this  object.   Please 
include  such circumstances as time,  date,  altitude of comet,  instrument 
(aperture and magnification), etc.  Thanks.

T = 1985 Dec 9.092       w = 87.040 degrees (arg. of peri.)
                         W = 357.702  "     (long. of asc. node)
q= .69435                i = 79.897


               Ephemeris for Comet Hartley-Good (epoch 1950)          
                                                                  
      DATE  |   r.a    |   dec.     |    Delta  |    R   | t. mag.
      mm/dd |(hh mm.mm)| ( dd mm.m )|    (AU)   |   (AU)          
      ______|__________|____________|___________|________|_______ 
      9/22  | 00 14.21 |  -27.54.7  |    0.644  |  1.602 |   9.1  
      9/27  | 23 33.81 |  -26 55.1  |           |        |        
      10/2  | 22 46.43 |  -24 30.5  |    0.529  |  1.457 |   8.3  
      10/7  | 21 56.19 |  -20.29.2  |           |        |        
      10/12 | 21 08.60 |  -15 16.4  |    0.511  |  1.311 |   7.7  
      10/17 | 20 27.53 |  -09 42.9  |           |        |        
      10/22 | 19 54.03 |  -04 31.6  |    0.581  |  1.166 |   7.5  
      10/27 | 19 27.18 |  -00 01.8  |           |        |        
      11/01 | 19 05.47 |   03 44.6  |    0.699  |  1.026 |   7.3  
      11/06 | 18 47.43 |   06 52.6  |           |        |        
      11/11 | 18 31.84 |   09 28.0  |    0.828  |  0.896 |   7.1  
      11/16 | 18 17.79 |   11 35.0  |           |        |        
      11/21 | 18 04.56 |   13 15.8  |    0.948  |  0.787 |   6.8  
      11/26 | 17 51.69 |   14 30.1  |           |        |        
      12/01 | 17 38.95 |   15 16.8  |    1.044  |  0.714 |   6.6  
      12/06 | 17 26.31 |   15 34.2  |           |        |        
      12/11 | 17 13.93 |   15 21.9  |    1.106  |  0.695 |   6.6  
      12/16 | 17 02.01 |   14 41.4  |           |        |        
      12/21 | 16 50.70 |   13 35.7  |    1.127  |  0.736 |   6.9  
      12/26 | 16 40.06 |   12 09.1  |           |        |        
      12/31 | 16 29.98 |   10 25.6  |    1.109  |  0.825 |   7.4  
      01/05 | 16 20.25 |   08 28.7  |           |        |        
      01/10 | 16 10.57 |   06 20.7  |    1.061  |  0.944 |   7.9  
      01/15 | 16 00.56 |   04 03.0  |           |        |        
      01/20 | 15 49.79 |   01 35.8  |    0.991  |  1.078 |   8.3  
      01/25 | 15 37.82 |  -01 01.0  |           |        |        
      01/30 | 15 24.17 |  -03 47.8  |    0.913  |  1.221 |   8.7

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jan 86 19:30:41 GMT
From: sun!wdl1!gerolima@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: JPL on the ARPA net?
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Sure! There are a whole BUNCH of JPL machines...
Check out your host table. They all begin with JPL-<stuff>
P.S.:
	What is the U.S. Mail address of JPL?
"Eeez next...		Mark Gerolimatos
SOFTVARE!....		ARPA: gerolima@ford-wdl1.arpa
verrrry niiice..."	UUCP: {sun,fortune}!wdl1!gerolima

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #95
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA19527; Wed, 5 Feb 86 07:01:28 PST
	id AA19527; Wed, 5 Feb 86 07:01:28 PST
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 86 07:01:28 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8602051501.AA19527@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #96

*** EOOH ***
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 86 07:01:28 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #96

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 6 : Issue 96

Today's Topics:
	Re:  nameing Uranian moons after the Challanger-seven
			    Re: joy rides
			    Re: Joy rides
		       Re: Television coverage
			      Shuttle...
    Re: Comparison between Challanger-seven and Pearl Harbor et al
		   Re: Future of the Space Program
			    Re: questions
		   Re: Mt Shasta on Uranian moon!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 30 Jan 86 10:37:30 PST
From: mcgeer%ji@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Rick McGeer)
To: REM@imsss
Subject: Re:  nameing Uranian moons after the Challanger-seven
Cc: mcgeer@ji.berkeley.edu, space@s1-b.arpa

>Date: 1986 January 30 01:38:50 PST (=GMT-8hr)
>From: Robert Elton Maas <REM@imsss> (this host known locally only)
>To: SPACE@mc.lcs.mit.edu
>Subject: nameing Uranian moons after the Challanger-seven
>Sender: REM%IMSSS@su-score.arpa (for undeliverable-mail notifications)
>Reply-To: REM%IMSSS@su-score.arpa
>
>It was suggested today that seven of the Uranian moons discovered this
>month by Voyager 2 be named after the astronauts & technicians &
>passenger who died on the shuttle this week. Some obvious questions/problems:
>
>First names or last names?

Last.
>
>Actual (English) names or greek translations of them?

Actual.
>
>Since we haven't staked claim on these moons, what right have we to
>name them after citizens of our nation? All the other moons have been
>named after greek mythological beings affiliated in myth with the
>parent body. Do we want to start naming moons after real humans of the
>nation that discovered them? Craters on the Moon discovered by
>spacecraft follow the real-human naming convention in some cases, but
>there's a mixture of discoveries from USA and USSR craft thus we
>accept each other's names. Would the USSR and other nations accept our
>breaking from tradition on naming moons of other planets?

By longstanding tradition, dating back to Galileo, the discoverer of celestial
bodies has the right to name them.  I can't imagine that anyone with any
decency would either question our right to do so nor the appropriateness of
the memorial.

>
>Why not name three more after Grissom/Chaffe/White, or after Russian
>cosmonauts who have died?

Internally, NASA refers to three stars by the nicknames of Grissom, Chaffe and
White.  The Russians may have named some of their discoveries after their
lost cosmonauts; I don't know.  Does anybody?

>
>Wouldn't it be sort of a slap in somebody's face to name the seven who
>died in the worst attempted-human-space-travel accident to date after
>moons that were discovered by the most successful
>unmanned-space-discovery mission to date, at a time when the contrast
>between these two missions is used by some people to argue that manned
>exploration should be totally stopped and everything should be done by
>robotics?

No, I don't think so.  The Challenger Seven died as pioneers crossing a new
frontier; like all pioneers, they expected others to follow.  I think that
naming (or renaming) some Lunar craters for them would be more appropriate:
that way, the time when we'll be able to erect a plaque in their memory in
the object named for them is in the not-too-distant future.  I'd like the
schoolchidren of Moonbase to be able to take a field trip to McAuliffe
Crater, and read about the woman who dreamed of teaching children to reach
for the stars...

Requiscet in Pacem.  And may the Perpetual Light shine upon them.

						Rick.

------------------------------

Date:  Thu, 30 Jan 86 13:49 CST
From: Slocum@hi-multics.arpa
Subject:  Re: joy rides
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Why restrict yourself to joy rides only.  How about sub-orbital
passenger service from New York to Paris in thirty minutes?
Then you can charge rates along the lines of airlines.
The Concorde SST costs about $2000 one-way for the above trip
and takes about 3 hours.  How about $5000 one way. Remember,
this is in half an hour or less.

    Brett Slocum
    (Slocum\@HI-MULTICS)

------------------------------

Date:           Thu, 30 Jan 86 08:24:49 PST
From: Rich Silva <lcc.rich@locus.ucla.edu>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa
Subject:        Re: Joy rides



If the cost was $100 I'd go today...
If less then $500 I'd still go today...
If less then $1000 I'd go as soon as I could save it up (Wife and kids and all that...)

Which brings to mind a question..... Since the disaster, I'd like
to do something for/about/in support of/etc. NASA, the shuttle program,
space exploration in general.... Has anyone a bunch of ideas they'd like
to throw into the forum?

Also has anyone the phone number/address of 'NASA general info'. Thanx...

To the above price list add....

For anything under 5000 I'd find a way to go.... somehow (well maybe 3K).


Rich Silva
Locus Computing Corporation		       lcc!rich@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU
				{ucivax,trwrb}!lcc!rich
 {ihnp4,randvax,sdcrdcf,ucbvax,trwspp}!ucla-cs!lcc!rich

------------------------------

Date: 30 Jan 86 17:01:52 GMT
From: okamoto@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Doctor Who)
Subject: Re: Television coverage
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Let's remember one thing before everybody else starts flaming about
the callous news coverage by the networks (ie, the "elation-to-tears"
of the crowd, etc, etc, ad nauseum).
The ONLY video coming out from the launch site was NASA's official
news feed.  So don't go blaming the networks for their supposed
morbid curiosity of the crowd's bemoaning the loss of the Challenger.
The New Number Who,	okamoto@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Jeff Okamoto		..!ucbvax!okamoto

------------------------------

Posted-Date: Thu 30 Jan 1986 21:24:16 EST
Date: Thu 30 Jan 1986 21:24:16 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Shuttle...
To: space@s1-b.arpa

I hear on CNN that there is some evidence that the far SRB (the one
behind the shuttle in the videotapes) split a seam, causing 6000 degree
F gas to slice into the ET.  Apparently NASA has some photos from other
angles showing this.  If so, there should be evidence in the guidance
telemetry, as this should have caused anomalous accelerations on the
vehicle in the seconds before the end.  Too bad the SRB's were exploded,
although perhaps pieces of the casings can be recovered.

If I'm not mistaken these SRB's had filament wound composite casings.
There was a test failure recently in the composite casings to be used
with Atlantis from Vandenburg (the casing failed at 120% rather than
140% of maximum pressure).  Was this the same kind of casing?

If the SRB was at fault then NASA will be in good shape.  The SRB's can
be strengthened with some loss of payload capacity.  DOD will be upset,
though, since lighter SRB's are needed for getting into polar orbit
with payload.  Morton Thiokol will be in deep trouble.

To test damage to the external tank NASA may want to fly one into orbit
for inspection.  This might be a backdoor route to a tank farm (I'm
trying to be optimistic).

------------------------------

Date: 31 Jan 86 02:08:14 GMT
From: brahms!weemba@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Matthew P. Wiener)
Subject: Re: Comparison between Challanger-seven and Pearl Harbor et al
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <8601301631.AA04783@s1-b.arpa> REM%IMSSS@SU-SCORE.ARPA writes:
>Today on the news a comparison was made between the loss of the
>Challanger and other disasters of the past which affected people
>intensely: Hindenburg, Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt's death, Kennedy
>assassination. I would like to offer some rebuttal to the apparent
>claim that all five are of equal impact.
>
>Only Pearl Harbor involved great loss of life, Challenger was only 7,
>Roosevelt&Kennedy were one each (and Roosevelt was no surprise, he had
>been sick for a long time), Hindenburg deaths were mostly due to
>jumping because low-pressure hydrogen in air burns at a low
>[etc etc including comparisons with traffic fatalities, popular singers,
>more detailed comparison with Pearl Harbor, and more media bashing]
The media rushes into a news vacuum, and you now rebroadcast the same vacuum?
Please, please, don't even bother.
ucbvax!brahms!weemba	Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720

------------------------------

From: sdcsvax!ncr-sd!se-sd!cbk@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 86 10:04:25 PST
To: ncr-sd!space
Subject: Re: Future of the Space Program
Newsgroups: net.space
In-Reply-To: <12178969201.19.DENNETT@SRI-NIC.ARPA>

In article <12178969201.19.DENNETT@SRI-NIC.ARPA> you write:
 
>- What kind of escape mechanism (if any) does the shuttle have for the crew?
  
   To my knowledge, none.

>- Will this be a setback for the space program, due to public disapproval
>  or the government's need to find (and punish) someone?

   From Reagan's speech, I would think not.


>- Alternately, might it lead to *greater* support of the space program
>  (e.g., if NASA presents a case along the lines of "If our budget were
>  larger, this wouldn't have happened.")?

   I have seen something to this effect on the net, and heard people on
the news refer to this.

>- Might this redirect (to some extent) the focus of the manned space
>  program away from the shuttle (large, complex) back toward simpler or
>  alternative launch systems?

   Possibly, we'll just have to see.

Interesting observation: 30 minutes after the loss of the shuttle, pictures
were carried on Soviet TV...

-- 
-- Carl Kuck  (apply all standard disclaimers to the preceeding babble)
  
UseNet (west) : {wherever}!sdcsvax!ncr-sd!se-sd!cbk 
       (east) : {wherever}!ihnp4!ncr-sd!se-sd!cbk

PacBell: (619) 450-6271 (w), 944-1705 (h)

Quote #1: Only those who attempt the absurd can achieve the impossible.
Quote #2: 55 mph isn't a good idea, it's just the law...

------------------------------

From: dual!micropro!kepler!mojo@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 86 22:00:26 pst
To: micropro!space
Subject: Re: questions
Newsgroups: net.space
In-Reply-To: <8601291312.AA09715@mitre-bedford.ARPA>
Cc: 

In article <8601291312.AA09715@mitre-bedford.ARPA> you write:
>Two questions for discussion...
>
>1. How long should we wait before launching another shuttle,
>   if we CANNOT find the cause for the explosion?

In his news conference, the acting director of NASA stated that if
the definite cause isn't found, then a "shotgun fix" will be applied,
as has been done in the past, meaning fixing everything that could
have caused the problem.  That'll be the determining time period.

>2. Should we build another shuttle, or the next generation spacecraft?

Use the existing ones, but start design on the next generation.

Mojo
... Morris Jones, MicroPro Product Development
{lll-crg,ptsfa,dual,well,pyramid}!micropro!kepler!mojo

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 30 Jan 86 14:05:32 pst
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!amdcad!decwrl!glacier!oliveb!barb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Barbara Jernigan)
Posted-Date: Thu, 30 Jan 86 14:05:32 pst
To: ucdavis!space
Subject: Re: Mt Shasta on Uranian moon!!
In-Reply-To: your article <8601261231.AA04077@s1-b.arpa>

> 
> ...The only
> thing it could be (my layman's opinion) is a volcanic cone, probably extinct
> like Mount Shasta in California, 
> ...So, what
> do the rest of you think, volcano as I claim?, extinct as I guess?...

If you mean 'extinct as Mt. Shasta', it's not very extinct at all.  Indeed,
Shasta *probably* erupted within known (white man) history.  It's just about
as *extinct* as Mt. St. Helens.  There's *a lot* of seismic and hot-steam/
venting activity going on around there.  (Don't mean to flame, but I grew
up midway between Shasta and Lassen -- yes, in the sticks -- and have
a Geologist for a husband.)

For your information, none of the Cascade Peaks (save, maybe, Mt. Mazama
[Crater Lake] :-) are extinct.  

Just wanting to set you straight.

Barb

(Meanwhile, you have some interesting observations -- wish I could see the
pict.s -- covet, covet!)

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #96
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA03316; Wed, 5 Feb 86 19:01:23 PST
	id AA03316; Wed, 5 Feb 86 19:01:23 PST
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 86 19:01:23 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8602060301.AA03316@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #97

*** EOOH ***
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 86 19:01:23 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #97

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 6 : Issue 97

Today's Topics:
		       Re: Scuttle the Shuttle?
		       Re: JPL on the ARPA net?
		   Re: Future of the Space Program
		   Re: 5 YEARS TO REPLACE ORBITER?
			      Shuttle...
			    SRBs Detonated
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 31 Jan 86 05:22:30 GMT
From: brahms!desj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (David desJardins)
Subject: Re: Scuttle the Shuttle?
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <8601301636.AA04800@s1-b.arpa> dietz@SLB-DOLL.CSNET (Paul Dietz)
writes:
>Just when you thought things couldn't get worse, they did.  The shuttle
>was plagued by delays and bad economics, and now its a killer.  It's
>time to take a long hard look at the shuttle and strip away the myth
>from the reality.
   Oh my god, it's a killer!  We'd better get rid of cars, motorcycles,
planes, ships, knives, guns, cigarettes, alcohol, drugs, swimming pools,
bathtubs, electricity, and pregnancy too.
   As for the long hard look, I'm ready when you are.
>Some myths:  that the shuttle is a cheap way of delivering cargo to
>orbit, that manned shuttle missions are somehow bringing us closer to
>real exploitation of space, that manned missions in the shuttle can
>accomplish things economically that can't be done by robots.
>
>I addressed the first myth several months ago.  The NY Times mentioned
>in today's paper that the cost of shuttle cargo ($2000 to $2500/lb to
>LEO) makes almost all space manufacturing uneconomical.  NASA has
>received almost no positive response from industry, just some companies
>exploiting NASA's subsidized rates for research to do work feeding back
>to ground based processes.
   This is a common debating tactic; put words in your opponent's mouth
(obviously ones which are easy to shoot down).  Obviously knowledgeable
people in or out of NASA would not claim that the shuttle is a cheap way
to deliver small packages to low Earth orbit.  But there are a lot of
things that it can do quite well that no current or previous space
transportation system could even aspire to do.
>The shuttle has also been less reliable and more expensive than unmanned
>boosters for lifting satellites in orbit.  Although the putative cause
>of many of these satellite failures has been PAM motor or satellite
>malfunctions, have you noticed how many problems there have been with
>experiments in the shuttle cargo bay?  I suspect the vibrations during
>shuttle launch from the SRB's are damaging the payloads.  This is
>one of the theories about what destroyed Challenger -- combustion
>instabilities in the SRB's could induce vibrations in the shuttle
>that could lead to structural failure.
   Are you suggesting that NASA engineers are too stupid to be able to
measure the level of vibration during launch and analyze its effects
on the shuttle and the payload, or that there is a cover-up where
everyone who knows the truth about shuttle vibration is keeping it
secret so that multimillion-dollar payloads and multibillion-dollar
spacecraft can be destroyed?
>The second myth: that the shuttle is somehow advancing the real
>exploitation of space.  This a curious inversion of logic.  Clearly,
>when space has been fully exploited there will be lots of people up
>there, it doesn't follow, though, that any scheme for sending people
>into space moves us towards that goal.  Except for some sound (if
>extremely expensive) research conducted in Spacelab, the shuttle has
>done little for the advancement of space exploitation.
   Another debating tactic: fabricate an illogical argument for your
opponent and then point out why it is wrong.  The fact of the matter
is that the only way to learn how to do things in space is to try to
do them.  The real question is not whether the shuttle is advancing
the exploitation of space (obviously it is) but whether it is doing
so more effectively and economically than the alternatives.  I wait
to see your proposed alternatives.
>The third myth: that manned missions can accomplish things economically
>that can't be done by robots.  This is true in the long term (unless AI
>really succeeds), but in the short term (read: for the rest of this
>century, at least) there is little that can be done in space
>economically that robots and teleoperated manipulators can't do better.
>Repair and maintenance of spacecraft in earth orbit, mining the moon,
>exploration of the planets, manufacturing in low earth orbit are all
>better done by robots and remotely controlled manipulators, simply
>because they don't breath or eat, don't die of radiation from solar
>flares, and can be launched by supposedly less reliable expendable
>boosters, can be controlled from the ground 24 hours a day and can be
>left in space for years.
   Another debating technique: make such a grand claim that it is very
difficult to refute.  The statement you have made here seems so absurd
that I don't see how I could start to refute it.  As far as I know nobody
has had any success in space operations using "robots and teleoperated
manipulators."  I will put the ball back in your court; you are making a
positive assertion here, that these things can be done.  Do you have one
shred of evidence to back this up?
>So, what should be done with the shuttles?  Just grounding them is a bit
>excessive, but they are currently unsafe and uneconomical.   The
>following might make sense: convert one shuttle to purely manned mode;
>beef up its structure so that it's too heavy to carry much cargo but
>can carry people into orbit.  The other two shuttles can be adapted to
>as unmanned reusable cargo vehicles.  Strip out the cabin section and
>replace it by a much smaller forward electronics bay.  Extend the
>cargo bay forward, or just leave that space empty.  This converted
>vehicle would take off and land semiautonomously, and would be used to
>deploy satellites.  It could conceivably carry much more cargo and,
>if it prangs after 25 flights no one would be killed.  Perhaps all
>three can be adapted for unmanned use, but NASA probably wants to keep
>one vehicle around for congressional joyrides.
   This doesn't really make sense, as I'm sure you're aware.  If all the
vehicle is going to do is deploy satellites in earth orbit it makes far
more sense to just launch the satellite and not the whole orbiter.  And
the loss rate would be a lot higher than 4% without onboard human control,
if the operation could be managed at all.
   Even if it were possible it would mean abandoning:
-- All repair operations in earth orbit
   (e.g. Landsat, Solar Max, and many more).
-- All recovery operations in earth orbit 
   (e.g. the Long Duration Exposure Facility).
-- All servicing operations in earth orbit.
   (e.g. inspection and maintenance of Hubble Telescope)
-- All human-directed experimentation and observation in earth orbit.
   (e.g. many biology, manufacturing, physics experiments)
-- All experimation and study of humans in earth orbit.
   (e.g. studies of human response to weightlessness, human efficiency
   in weightlessness) 
-- All plans for possible space station construction.
Or is all of this magically going to be taken care of by your "robots and
teleoperated manipulators"?
   I also want to reply briefly to all of your flaming about safety.  I
think that you are being hypocritical in claiming that the safety of the
astronauts is your primary concern.  Either that or you are misguided.
There is certainly no shortage of extremely qualified people willing to
risk their lives in space.  If the risk is acceptable to them I don't see
that it's any of your business.  If you were really concerned for the
welfare of the astronauts you would allow them to live their lives as they
please.
   One more comment for the record.  There was an article from the LA Times
which began with something like "While the seven lives lost in the accident
are of course the primary concern..." and then went on to talk about the
impact on the space program.  This is absurd.  The next day 21 people died
in Mexico in a plane crash and I don't think most network news programs
even mentioned it.  Three maintenance workers died in a room full of pure
nitrogen in the early days of the shuttle program, and it was essentially
ignored by the public and the news media.  And those were not people who
had chosen, with full knowledge of the danger, to take a rather large risk.
I'll try not to belabor the point, but I don't see how anyone can consider
the seven lives of any great significance when compared to the destruction
of a $1.2E9 spacecraft and probably several times that much expense in
direct and indirect costs (cost of the investigation, delays in planned
missions, possible changes to the other vehicles, etc.).  How many lives do
you think $5E9 in medical research, or construction of trauma centers, or
even public education would save?  Certainly more than 7!
   All I'm saying is that we should keep our priorities straight.  One of
mine is space exploration.  I hope the American public agrees with me (or
at least can be persuaded to pay for it; $5E9 would put quite a dent in my
checkbook :-)).
   -- David desJardins (ucbvax!brahms!desj)

------------------------------

Date: 29 Jan 86 19:29:06 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!hao!ames!eugene@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Eugene Miya)
Organization: NASA-Ames Research Center, Mtn. View, CA
Subject: Re: JPL on the ARPA net?
References: <962@wdl1.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> P.S.:
> 	What is the U.S. Mail address of JPL?
> "Eeez next...		Mark Gerolimatos
For the Nth time:
person or office/Mail stop
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
California Institute of Technology
4800 Oak Grove Dr.
Pasadena, CA 91109
From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  {hplabs,ihnp4,dual,hao,decwrl,allegra}!ames!aurora!eugene
  eugene@ames-nas.ARPA

------------------------------

Date: 31 Jan 86 08:44:55 GMT
From: vger!al@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  ( Informatix)
Subject: Re: Future of the Space Program
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <12178969201.19.DENNETT@SRI-NIC.ARPA>, DENNETT@SRI-NIC.ARPA (Steve Dennett) writes:
> 
> - What kind of escape mechanism (if any) does the shuttle have for the crew?
Only the orbiter itself, plus various ways of getting out of the orbiter
on the ground or in the water.  For the accident that occured, no imaginable
safety device would have been even slightly useful.
> 
> - Will this be a setback for the space program, 
You bet it is.  25% of the fleet, half of TDRSS, 6 astronauts, the first
passenger, months (at least) of delay, a launch schedule blown completely
away, customers who won't launch on time ...
> due to public disapproval
>   or the government's need to find (and punish) someone?
I doubt that these will be major issues.

------------------------------

Date: 31 Jan 86 09:06:46 GMT
From: vger!al@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  ( Informatix)
Organization: UC Santa Cruz, CIS Dept.
Subject: Re: 5 YEARS TO REPLACE ORBITER?
References: <8601300732.AA03494@s1-b.arpa>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <8601300732.AA03494@s1-b.arpa>, REM@IMSSS (Robert Elton Maas, this host known locally only) writes:
> Criminey! Tonight on the news they said it would cost $2E9 and take 5
> years to make one (1) new STS orbiter to replace Challanger. I would
> think that since they already know how to build one (learned 1975-81)
> and how to test them (learned 1979-1985), they could just hire a lot
> of additional manpower and put work on a 2-hour shift and do all the
> tasks in parallel from specs already worked out, using computerized
> PERT charts to find bottlenecks, and get all the parts for another
> orbiter built in a year and assembled&tested in another year.
There are several problems with speeding up the process much, having to
do with the nature of building an orbiter and the nature of the aerospace
business.
* Hiring a lot of manpower won't necessarily speed things up.  Very few 
people in the unemployment line know anything about building shuttles, and
it's a very complex operation.  Training is a major issue.
* Government procurement takes a minimum of 3 months to buy ANYTHING costing
more than a few hundred dollars.  Items worth more than a few thousand generally
take 6 months to a year, and 18 months is not unheard of.  This is for
stuff that you just get off the shelf.  You can imagine the paperwork 
involved in procuring a shuttle - completely independent of the actual
construction work.  I would guess two to three years of PURE PROCUREMENT
DELAY in getting another shuttle.  After working as a contractor for NASA
for almost 7 years, I know of what I speak.
* Major aerospace corporations such as Rockwell aren't very efficient.  
Everything takes a long time and a lot of money - a lot more than it should,
but nobody but Rockwell could, realistically, build a new orbiter.  Thus,
the way Rockwell does things is the way any replacement orbiter would
be built and that fact must be factored into the time needed.

------------------------------

Posted-Date: Fri 31 Jan 1986 08:31:31 EST
Date: Fri 31 Jan 1986 08:31:31 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Shuttle...
To: space@s1-b.arpa

TDRS has a solid fuel orbital transfer motor; it uses hydrazine for
maneuvering in oribt.

I suggested the shuttle may be militarized because DOD has first dibs
on shuttle capacity, and because traditionally military pilots are
subjected to more risks than civilians.  Also, NASA may not be able to
justify risking astronauts' lives just for commercial satellite
launches.

CNN's report on the SRB is apparently premature.  What NASA has found,
according to the NY Times, is a white hot spot on the ET in enhanced
images.  This could be an SRB jet, or could be a hydrogen flame on the
ET.  If it is a hydrogen flame then I would think the likely failure
mechanism would be progressive melting of the tank structure leading
to a run-away fuel leak and eventual failure.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 31 Jan 86 09:21 EST
From: SECRIST%OAK.SAINET.MFENET@lll-mfe.arpa
Subject: SRBs Detonated
To: SPACE@s1-b.arpa

Date:    Fri, 31-JAN-1986 09:22 EST
To:      SPACE@S1-B.Arpa
Message-ID: <[OAK.SAINET.MFENET].FFF67920.008E9D84.SECRIST>
Quote: "May your future be limited only by your dreams." -- Christa McAuliffe
Organization: Science Applications Int'l. Corp., Oak Ridge, Tenn.
CompuServe-ID: [71636,52]
X-VMS-Mail-To: ARPA%"SPACE@S1-B.Arpa"

Excerpt from AP in local morning paper, Fri., Jan. 31, 1986:

"Also found were two cone-shaped objects described as "about 10 feet" in
diameter.  One had an attached parachute, indicating it came from one of
the solid rocket boosters blown up by the range safety officer."

So much for the SRBs being intact to give us a Big Clue.  Then again, even
if they survived impact in the ocean, they'd be way off the continental
shelf, and who knows how we'd get them back...

Richard
SECRIST%OAK.SAInet.MFEnet@LLL-MFE.Arpa

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #97
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA04695; Thu, 6 Feb 86 03:01:53 PST
	id AA04695; Thu, 6 Feb 86 03:01:53 PST
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 86 03:01:53 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8602061101.AA04695@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #98

*** EOOH ***
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 86 03:01:53 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #98

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 6 : Issue 98

Today's Topics:
		       Re: Scuttle the Shuttle?
		       Re: STS EXPLOSION TODAY
			    Re: Challenger
			    Re: Joy rides
			 Re: Trojan asteriods
			Re: Joyrides in space
		       Re: STS EXPLOSION TODAY
			   SRB Destruction
			    Ejection seats
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 31 Jan 86 09:54:39 GMT
From: vger!al@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  ( Informatix)
Organization: UC Santa Cruz, CIS Dept.
Subject: Re: Scuttle the Shuttle?
References: <8601301636.AA04800@s1-b.arpa>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <8601301636.AA04800@s1-b.arpa>, dietz@SLB-DOLL.CSNET (Paul Dietz) writes:
> 
> Some myths:  that the shuttle is a cheap way of delivering cargo to
> orbit, that manned shuttle missions are somehow bringing us closer to
> real exploitation of space, that manned missions in the shuttle can
> accomplish things economically that can't be done by robots.
> 
> I addressed the first myth several months ago.  The NY Times mentioned
> in today's paper that the cost of shuttle cargo ($2000 to $2500/lb to
> LEO) makes almost all space manufacturing uneconomical.  
Actual cost to a user is more like $1500/lb.  Contrary to making space
manufacturing uneconomical, only the shuttle makes space manufacturing
POSSIBLE (except for the now defunct Salyut).  No industry in the history
of the world has been established without people there to set it up.  The
shuttle can put the people and the equipment up
to do all of the the initial, necessary startup work for establishing
orbital factories.  No other space system in use today, with the possible
exception of the Soviet system, can do that.  At any price.  That goes
for any near terms plans that I am aware of as well.
> NASA has
> received almost no positive response from industry, just some companies
> exploiting NASA's subsidized rates for research to do work feeding back
> to ground based processes.
This is not true.  McDonnell Douglas and 3M are both seriously working
on orbital processing.  A number of smaller companies are getting to
work as well.  Almost every flight lately has had some kind of materials
processing experiments, many of which have gone very well.  Japan and
Europe are extremely interested in this area.  Some reports claim that
a substantial fraction of the all of the semi-conductor material used
by the Soviets come from Salyut.
> The shuttle has also been less reliable and more expensive than unmanned
> boosters for lifting satellites in orbit.  
Shuttle, with all of its problems, has a better record than Ariane (an
unmanned European system) for lifting satellites into orbit.  Until the
current flight, no shuttle launched satellite had been a complete loss,
although there were several partial failures.  Ariane, in contrast,
has deposited quite a number of its payloads into the Atlantic.  Shuttle
costs to the user are roughly comparable to Ariane.
> have you noticed how many problems there have been with
> experiments in the shuttle cargo bay?  I suspect the vibrations during
> shuttle launch from the SRB's are damaging the payloads.  
Launching satellites ALWAYS involves a lot of vibration.  With the shuttle,
however, you have people on board to fix problems that come up and the
payload can be returned to Earth for repair and reflight as well.  Try that
on an expendable booster.
> 
> The second myth: that the shuttle is somehow advancing the real
> exploitation of space.
Shuttle initiated satellite repair on orbit, satellite retrieval, and has
given a lot of people hands on experience with the problems of working in
space.  Construction techniques have been verified by actual experiment.
With the return of the long duration exposure facility we will get a good
look at the long term effects of low earth orbit on many materials.  Something
we can only get if we RETURN things from space, which only the shuttle can
do.  All of these substantially further real exploitation of space.  In 
addition, shuttle capabilities are critical to space station, and various
commercial projects to establish industry in space.
> 
> The third myth: that manned missions can accomplish things economically
> that can't be done by robots.  This is true in the long term (unless AI
> really succeeds), but in the short term (read: for the rest of this
> century, at least) there is little that can be done in space
> economically that robots and teleoperated manipulators can't do better.
I am not aware of any operation teleoperator in low earth orbit that could
have repaired solar max, retrieved two communication satellites, performed
experiments on live plants and animals, fixed problems with the electro-
phoresis experiment, etc., etc., etc.  I think you are confusing paper
studies with operational hardware.  If you want to do work in space in
the near future, there is NO teleoperation system to do the work.  Furthermore,
much of the work that needs to be done cannot be accomplished by ANY existing
system even on Earth much less in orbit.  E.g., handle animals.
The crux of the issue is that the shuttle actually works now, although there
are problems.  Teleoperation and robots are paper studies that won't see
reality for many years.  When they do become reality, they will undoubtedly
have more problems and cost more than current paper studies suggest.  In 
addition, shuttle out performs existing expendables (primarily Ariane).  
Again, paper studies out perform shuttle, but paper studies always perform
well.  Finally, since the US does not have access to Salyut, only shuttle
gives us any space industrialization capabilities at all.  This will be
true for many years.
> The other two shuttles can be adapted to
> as unmanned reusable cargo vehicles.
Here in the Bay area they though human pilots were unnecessary for the
extremely simple problem of controlling subway cars.  They were wrong, the
automatic systems on BART have been the source of never ending problems.
People are very good at controlling vehicles, we should use them.

------------------------------

Date: 31 Jan 86 08:38:14 GMT
From: vger!al@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  ( Informatix)
Organization: UC Santa Cruz, CIS Dept.
Subject: Re: STS EXPLOSION TODAY
References: <8601282025.AA07409@s1-b.arpa>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <8601282025.AA07409@s1-b.arpa>, Rem@IMSSS writes:
> In addition to obvious badness:
>  (1) TDRS lost, so we won't be having the around-the-clock tracking of
>    space missions like we were hoping to have;
>  (2) Our STS capacity is now down to 60%. Originally we needed 5 orbiters,
>    However this may be moot if they spend two
>    years analyzing everything before doing anything.
This echos the sentiment frequently expressed on the net that NASA is too
careful.  As the Challenger disaster shows, NASA is not quite careful
enough.  If it takes two years to do the analysis, then they should take
it.  Five if necessary.  I doubt that it will take more than a few months
to determine the cause of the problem, fixing it may be another story.  In
any case, I hope that those of you who think NASA should take chances are
happy - they took enough chances to have a major accident and the space
program has suffered a serious setback as a result.

------------------------------

Date: 30 Jan 86 14:48:19 GMT
From: nike!topaz!harvard!gcc-milo!john@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (John Allred)
Organization: General Computer Company, Cambridge Ma
Subject: Re: Challenger
References: <663@aicchi.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <663@aicchi.UUCP> ivy@aicchi.UUCP (Iverson) writes:
>One solid fueled engine clearly flew on by itself. They filmed that.
>Two contrails extended from the fireball. Did both boosters fly on?
Yes, both flew on.  Range Safety had to destroy them, since they were headed
toward a populated area.  This is unfortunate: had the boosters survived, they
might have given some clues as to why the orbiter/external tank blew up.
-- 
John Allred
General Computer Company 
uucp: seismo!harvard!gcc-milo!john

------------------------------

Date: 28 Jan 86 19:55:00 GMT
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiucdcsp!neth@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Joy rides
References: <8601222243.AA04061@s1-b.arpa>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

I read in Money magazine the other day that a company is going to be offering
trips in space sometime in 1990.  Cost for 3-8 orbits (depending on mission) 
was ~$50,000!  Of course, you also get two meals and 3 days of pre-flight 
training.  The article read like they were going to build their own machine.
I wonder how the recent tragedy of Challenger will impact this venture?

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jan 86 23:53:16 GMT
From: voder!kontron!cramer@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Organization: Kontron Electronics, Irvine, CA
Subject: Re: Trojan asteriods
References: <8601241616.AA04734@s1-b.arpa>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> > Remember the inverse-square law, and the distances in the outer Solar
> > System: those effects are going to be pretty small.
> 
> If I'm not mistaken, resonances with planets are responsible for
> the "Kirkwood gaps" in the asteroid belt (the one between Mars and
> Jupiter, I think).  The asteroid belt is not uniform but has several
> rings where there are no asteroids at all.  Computer simulation at
> M.I.T. has convinced some people that if there were any any asteroids
> in the Kirkwood gaps, after some period of time they would eventually
> settle into non-Kirkwood gap orbits.  If planetary resonances can
> explain this structuring of the asteriod belt, I don't think it
> is too far fetched that planetary resonances can sling Trojan asteroids
> into earth-crossing orbits.  I am not necessarily a beleiver but I don't
> think it is outrageous.
> 
> --Anthony Courtemance
Correct.  The Kirkwood Gaps are caused by resonances between the asteroid
belt and Jupiter.  Anything at a harmonic revolutionary period with
Jupiter (1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/5 the period of Jupiter) will be pulled closer
to Jupiter.  The harmonics associated with the planets further out are
less important both because the gravitional pull is smaller (both for
distance and planetary mass reasons), and because the smaller the harmonic,
the less often the planet and the asteroid are in opposition.  (The
1/5 harmonic would only be in opposition to Jupiter every 60 Earth years,
as opposed to the 1/2 harmonic, which is in opposition every 12 Earth
years).
The Cassini Division in Saturn's rings exists because of the harmonic
period with Titan (I think).
*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***

------------------------------

Date: 28 Jan 86 19:28:03 GMT
From: tektronix!orca!kendalla@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Kendall Auel)
Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville OR
Subject: Re: Joyrides in space
References: <732@decwrl.DEC.COM>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

It will be many years before I'll even be able to think about taking a
joy ride in space. Yesterday, I would have paid $200 just to see a launch.
Now, I wish I hadn't even turned on the T.V.
I realize now just what kind of "right stuff" is involved in making space
flights. It takes dedication, determination, and above all courage. Let's
hear it for the brave crew of the space shuttle Challenger.
Kendall Auel
...tektronix!orca!kendalla

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 31 Jan 86 10:24:55 PST
From: mcgeer%ji@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Rick McGeer)
To: vger!al
Subject: Re: STS EXPLOSION TODAY
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa

If, in the history of technology, there has *ever* been a new vehicle launched
succesfully 24 times before its first fatal accident, I have been unable to
find it.  Compare The Shuttle's safety record to the X series rockets, the
first jets, the first airplanes, the first automobiles.  The fact that there
were 24 succesful missions before the Challenger disaster is a tribute to 
NASA's technical skill, quality control, and prudence; some would say timidity.
The only chance that NASA took was running the program at all.

							- Rick.

------------------------------

Date: Fri 31 Jan 86 13:51:27-CST
From: Clive Dawson <AI.CLIVE@mcc.arpa>
Subject: SRB Destruction
To: space@s1-b.arpa

One aspect of the SRB self-destruct mechanism which has bothered me the
most is the fact that a single action will destroy BOTH SRB's (and perhaps
the external tank as well?).  It is clear that recovery of the intact
casings would have been invaluable in the NASA investigation.  News reports
tell us that one of the SRB's was headed on a dangerous course toward
popluated areas and had to be destroyed.  Fair enough.  But why destroy
the other one unless and until it was also proved necessary??

Thinking about this further reveals it may not be that simple.  First of
all, I can imagine scenarios in which both SRB's would need to be destroyed
as quickly as possible, especially in the early phases of the launch.  You
would certainly want to have a mechanism for doing this as exists now.
On the other hand, last Tuesday's events show that it would be very
valuable to be able to destroy them individually as well.  This would imply
modifying the hardware/software such that each SRB responded to two destruct
commands: a common one for both and an individual one.  Perhaps a simpler
scheme would be to simply have two different frequencies which could be
used simultaneously or separately.

Those of us discussing this were momentarily satsified until somebody
asked, "Yes, but how do you tell which SRB is which??!"  In this case, it
was reasonably easy to answer that question when they emerged from the 
fireball, but this might not always be the case.  Furthermore, it's not
clear that the task would be any easier when watching them on a radar
screen.  (What does the Range Safety Officer use?)  This difficulty
can presumably be overcome by electronic equipment on each SRB that would
tag its radar image in some fashion.

I'm wondering if this is a case of "good hindsight" or if there are
other considerations we didn't think of.

Clive
-------

------------------------------

Date: 29 Jan 86 22:07:15 GMT
From: ihnp4!ihwpt!gjl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (g licitis)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Subject: Ejection seats
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

  While watching the news coverage about the shuttle disaster I
couldn't help but notice how most of the commentators made a big deal
about the shuttle's lack of ejection seats.  When NASA people pointed
out that they didn't think anyone could survive an ejection in the
event of a shuttle disaster the news people seemed to ignore them. I
must have heard the ejection seat issue argued on every channel from
cable news to the networks.  The news people should stick to reporting
the news and not to try to second guess NASA engineers.  10 to 1 they
will have ejection seats on the next shuttle.
  I am also appaled at the networks treatment of the families involved.
There is no reason to show over and over the grief of the families
as they realize what is happening.  How do they expect people to feel.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #98
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA05799; Thu, 6 Feb 86 07:01:11 PST
	id AA05799; Thu, 6 Feb 86 07:01:11 PST
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 86 07:01:11 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8602061501.AA05799@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #99

*** EOOH ***
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 86 07:01:11 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #99

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 6 : Issue 99

Today's Topics:
		    Still not enough info, I guess
			    Re: Joy rides
	 replacement orbiter = 2 weeks of California lottery
       Re: replacement orbiter = 2 weeks of California lottery
       Re: replacement orbiter = 2 weeks of California lottery
       Re: replacement orbiter = 2 weeks of California lottery
			      Trust fund
			    Crew Profiles
		   Re: Shuttle Explodes in Take-Off
			  Presidents speach
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 29 Jan 86 16:52:42 GMT
From: ihnp4!ltuxa!cuuxb!frye@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (frye)
Organization: AT&T-IS, Customer Support, Lisle, Il.
Subject: Still not enough info, I guess
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

  From the shots I saw of the explosion of the shuttle, I doubt there
are many pieces of it left that are as big as a quarter. I suppose
that's an exageration, but not that big an exageration. Just after the
throttle up command was given (Which, I guess means that the craft has
stablized and acceleration can resume. Its par to back off a little at
a certain speed where the actual preasure on the craft reaches its
highest. If the craft is operating smoothly enough, its okay to pour
on the coal again.), the craft blew into a great ball of fire.  I
guess NASA still hasn't sorted it out yet, though they are pretty sure
there couldn't have been any survivors.  I wonder if a wind shear
could've shook something loose and caused a fuel leak.
  'Nough of my speculation on the subject, 'specially since I know
nearly nothing but what I've heard from the media so far...Just hope
NASA can collect enough of the ill fated craft to piece the puzzle
together.
 Its really tough watching something like that happening.  The hell of
it is, there ain't a thing in the world a guy can do. At least those
folks died doing something they really wanted to do.

Regards,
Tom Frye

------------------------------

Date: 30 Jan 86 01:11:29 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!ut-sally!pyramid!pesnta!wjvax!mel@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Melchor R. Tolentino)
Organization: Watkins-Johnson Co., San Jose, Calif.
Subject: Re: Joy rides
References: <8601222243.AA04061@s1-b.arpa>, <8601280337.AA06255@pwa-b.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <8601280337.AA06255@pwa-b.UUCP> space@ucbvax.uucp writes:
>At $100, I would almost certainly take it.  At $1000, almost certainly not.
>The breakeven point for me is probably around $250.
After yesterdays tragedy, I was wondering if anyone out there has changed      
their minds on joyrides to space. It's amazing how we all took the success  
of the space shuttle for granted. I guess it reflects the mentality of todays
'space generation'.
By the way, sign me up . I'll still go.
The future doesn't belong to the faint-hearted,
         it belongs to the brave.
         President Ronald Reagan
       In Honor of the Challenger 7
           January 28,1986
-- 
              Mel Tolentino (Watkins-Johnson Co.  San Jose, Calif.)
	{pesnta,twg,ios,qubix,turtlevax,tymix,vecpyr,certes,isi}!wjvax!mel

------------------------------

X-Sent: to SU-AI.ARPA by IMSSS.FRONSTAD.EDU via ETHERNET with PUPFTP; 1986-Jan-31 17:46:48 PST (=GMT-8hr)
X-Mailer: EMACS -> PSL (FORMAT+SEND-ALL) -> PUPFTP
Date: 1986 January 31 17:46:03 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM@imsss> (this host known locally only)
To: SPACE@mc.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: replacement orbiter = 2 weeks of California lottery
Sender: REM%IMSSS@su-score.arpa (for undeliverable-mail notifications)
Reply-To: REM%IMSSS@SU-SCORE.ARPA

This past week the California lottery earned 1 billion dollars.
That's half the replacement cost of the Challanger.
California could divert two weeks of lottery money to buy California's
own personal shuttle orbiter. (California would get a lot of that
money back in jobs at Lockheed et al contractors that build the shuttle.)
What say we propose that?

------------------------------

Date: 1 Feb 86 03:51:39 GMT
From: brahms!desj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (David desJardins)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Subject: Re: replacement orbiter = 2 weeks of California lottery
References: <8602010203.AA01808@s1-b.arpa>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <8602010203.AA01808@s1-b.arpa> REM%IMSSS@SU-SCORE.ARPA writes:
>This past week the California lottery earned 1 billion dollars.
>That's half the replacement cost of the Challanger.
>California could divert two weeks of lottery money to buy California's
>own personal shuttle orbiter. (California would get a lot of that
>money back in jobs at Lockheed et al contractors that build the shuttle.)
>What say we propose that?
>
>
   I hate to speak up when I don't have proof, but this number is just too
absurd to be right.  I think the budget of the state of California is about
$4E10; according to this posting lottery revenues exceed the entire state
budget.  Another way of looking at it is as 25 $1 lottery tickets per
resident per week!
   Please think about what you're saying before you post something that is
clearly off by orders of magnitude...
   -- David desJardins

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 1 Feb 86 15:10:43 pst
From: sdcsvax!sdcc3!loral!pavo@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (not_responsible_for_lost_or_stolen_items)
To: space@sdcc6.acc
Subject: Re: replacement orbiter = 2 weeks of California lottery
Newsgroups: net.space
In-Reply-To: <8602010203.AA01808@s1-b.arpa>
Organization: we_reserve_the_right_to_refuse_service_to_anyone
Cc: 

not to argue your point, but the giga-bucks have been earned since
the lottery began, last Oct 3rd, not in one week.

		jim

------------------------------

Date: 1 Feb 86 19:32:50 GMT
From: sun!chuq@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Chuq Von Rospach)
Organization: Third Person, Omniscient
Subject: Re: replacement orbiter = 2 weeks of California lottery
References: <8602010203.AA01808@s1-b.arpa>, <11643@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> In article <8602010203.AA01808@s1-b.arpa> REM%IMSSS@SU-SCORE.ARPA writes:
> >This past week the California lottery earned 1 billion dollars.
> 
>    I hate to speak up when I don't have proof, but this number is just too
> absurd to be right.
It isn't right. California is taking in about $9,000,000 a day on the
lottery, and just passwd the $1 billion mark since the start. After prizes
and expenses, only about 34% of that is left.
-- 
:From catacombs of Castle Tarot:        Chuq Von Rospach 
sun!chuq@decwrl.DEC.COM                 {hplabs,ihnp4,nsc,pyramid}!sun!chuq
FidoNet: 125/84
My uncle told me all of this. It must be true, because I know my uncle, and he
is as honest as me.

------------------------------

From: crash!bryan@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu
Add'l-Info-From: ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!rlgvax!hadron!klr@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Kurt L. Reisler)
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 86 10:58:45 PST
To: sdcsvax!space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Trust fund

Washington Post 1/29/86
   Trust Fund Established To Benefit   
     Children Of Shuttle Victims       
                 ---
    WASHINGTON - A Washington lawyer has set up a trust fund to benefit the
children of the seven victims of the explosion of the space shuttle Chal-
lenger, a local bank said Wednesday.
    The charitable trust was estab- lished at American Security Bank.
    It was the idea of Delbert Smith, who has represented NASA and space and
satellite organizations and companies for 15 years.
    ''While the lives of those pioneers on board the Challenger will be
mourned for a very long time, there are other lives - namely the children of
the crew - that will be permanently affected by this tragedy,'' Smith said in
a statement released by the bank.
    The Challenger passengers had eleven children among them who will be
beneficiaries of the fund.
    For additional information, you can call
	1-800-462-7878
    Donations can be sent to:
	Space Shuttle Children's Fund
	American Security Bank
	Box 0150,
	Washington, DC 20055
    Checks should be made out to the Space Shuttle Children's Fund.

------------------------------

From: crash!bryan@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 86 10:59:40 PST
To: sdcsvax!space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Crew Profiles

Washington Post 1/29/86
   Profiles Of Crew Members            
     Of Space Shuttle Challenger       
                 ---
    HOUSTON - The crew of Challenger included three trained pilots, an expert
on lasers, the second American woman to fly in space, a Hughes Aircraft Corp.
engineer and a Concord, N.H., school teacher flying as the first
citizen-in-space.
    Francis R. Scobee, 46, commanded the flight and was making his second
space shuttle mission.
    Scobee was born and raised in Washington state, and enrolled in the Air
Force after high school graduation.
    He atended night school and earned a degree from the University of
Arizona. The Air Force then gave him a commission and trained him as a jet
pilot. Scobee flew combat missions in Vietnam and then attended the Air Force
test pilot school. He was selected as an astronaut in 1979 and made his first
space flight in 1984.
    Scobee married the former June Kent. They had two children.
    Challenger's pilot was Mike Smith, 40, a commander in the U.S. Navy.
    Smith was born and raised in Beauford, N.C., and graduated from the U.S.
huttle
flight last January.
    The astronaut married the former Lorna Leiko Yoshida of Pahala, Hawaii,
and the couple had two children, Janelle, 16, and Darien, 10.
    Astronaut Judy Resnik, 36, was a classical pianist who earned a doctorate
in electrical engineering from the University of Maryland.
    After college, Resnik was a research scientist for RCA, then the National
Institutes of Health and later for Xerox. She was selected as an astronaut in
1978.
    Resnik, who was single, trained on the shuttle's robot arm and during her
first flight, in 1984, used the arm to delicately break away a chunk of ice
that built up on the side of Discovery.
    Gregory Jarvis, 41, is a Hughes Aircraft Co. engineer who was flying on
Challenger to conduct tests on the effects of weightlessness on fluid carried
in tanks. 
    Jarvis was born in Detroit. He served as a satellite engineer in the Air
Force and achieved the rank of captain before resigning to become a Hughes
engineer.
    Jarvis married the former Marcia Jarboe of Spring Valley, N.Y., where the
couple made their home.

------------------------------

Date: 29 Jan 86 20:45:44 GMT
From: ihnp4!mecc!sewilco@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Scot E. Wilcoxon)
Organization: MN Ed Comp Corp, St. Paul, MN
Subject: Re: Shuttle Explodes in Take-Off
References: <733@houxu.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Net.columbia is for short-term discussions.  Comments on the shuttle
accident belong there.  (Followups to this msg go to net.columbia)
Net.space is for long-term discussions.  Some Challenger comments may
be appropriate here, particularly if cause of the accident happens to
be due to an erroneous fundamental assumption.
Readers of net.space may remember that a few months ago the long-term
probability of fatalities in the space program was discussed there.
As someone (Yeager?) said last night.. Deaths are certain in the
long run, but unlikely for any one specific flight.
It seems now net.columbia will be addressing a specific case.
(Do I sound stilted or in shock?  [insert graphic of flag at half-staff])
-- 
Scot E. Wilcoxon  Minn. Ed. Comp. Corp.            quest!mecc!sewilco
45 03 N / 93 15 W   (612)481-3507 {ihnp4,mgnetp}!dicomed!mecc!sewilco

------------------------------

From: crash!bryan@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 86 10:52:08 PST
To: sdcsvax!space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Presidents speach

   Text Of President's Reagan Speech   
     On Space Shuttle Explosion        
                 ---
    Ladies and gentlemen, I'd planned to speak to you tonight to report on the
State of the Union.
    But the events of earlier today have led me to change those plans.
    Today is a day for mourning and remembering.
    Nancy and I are pained to the core by the tragedy of the shuttle
Challenger.
    We know we share this pain with all the people of our country.
    This is truly a national loss.
    Nineteen years ago almost to the
day, we lost three astronauts in a terrible accident on the ground.     But
we've never lost an astronaut
in flight.
    We've never had a tragedy like this.
    And perhaps we've forgotten the courage it took for the crew of the
shuttle.
    But they, the Challenger seven, were aware of the dangers and overcame
them and did their jobs brilliantly.
    We mourn seven heroes: Michael Smith, Dick Scobee, Judith Resnik, Ronald
McNair, Ellison Onizuka, Gregory Jarvis and Christa McAuliffe.
    We mourn their loss as a nation together.
    To the families of the seven, we cannot bear as you do the full impact of
this tragedy.
    But we feel the loss and we're thinking about you so very much.   
    Your loved ones were daring and brave, and they had that special grace,
that special spirit that says give me a challenge and I'll meet it with joy.
    They had a hunger to explore the universe and discover its truths.
    They wished to serve and they did.
    They served all of us.
    We've grown used to wonders in this century.
    It's hard to dazzle us.
    But for 25 years the United States space program has been doing just
that.
    We've grown used to the idea of space and perhaps we forget that we've
only just begun.
    We're still pioneers.
    They, the members of the Challenger crew, were pioneers.
    And I want to say something to the school children of America who were
watching the live coverage of the shuttle's takeoff.
    I know it's hard to understand, but sometimes painful things like this
happen.
    It's all part of the process of exploration and discovery.
    The Challenger crew was pulling us into the future and we'll continue to
follow them.
    I've always had great faith in and respect for our space program.
    We don't hide our space program.
    We don't keep secrets and cover things up.
    We do it all up front and in public.
    That's the way freedom is and we wouldn't change it for a minute.
    We'll continue our quest in space.
    There will be more shuttle flights and more shuttle crews, and, yes, more
volunteers, more civilians, more teachers in space.
    Nothing ends here. Our hopes and our journeys continue.
    I want to add that I wish I could talk to every man and woman who works
for NASA or who worked on this mission, and tell them: ''Your dedication and
professionalism have moved and impressed us for decades and we know of your
anguish. We share it.''
    There's a coincidence today.
    On this date 390 years ago, the great explorer Sir Francis Drake died
aboard ship off the coast of Panama.
The frontiers were the oceans and a historian later said ''He lived by the
sea, died on it and was buried in it.''
    Well, today, we can say of the Challenger crew, their dedication was, like
Drake's, complete.
    The crew of the space shuttle Challenger honored us with the manner in
which they lived their lives.
    We will never forget them or the last time we saw them, this morning, as
they prepared for their journey and waved goodbye and slipped the surly bonds
of Earth to touch the face of God.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #99
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA08661; Thu, 6 Feb 86 19:01:30 PST
	id AA08661; Thu, 6 Feb 86 19:01:30 PST
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 86 19:01:30 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8602070301.AA08661@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #100

*** EOOH ***
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 86 19:01:30 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #100

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 100

Today's Topics:
			    Re: Oh My God
			    Re: Joy rides
			       Shuttle
		   Shuttle escape question answered
			  Hmmm a TDRS leak?
			    Re: Challenger
	    Long Term Implications of Challenger Accident
		       Re: Thermonuclear Device
       Next generation shuttle: electrically assisted take-off?
			  Re: SRBs Detonated
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 29 Jan 86 20:26:26 GMT
From: sdcsvax!bmcg!bobn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Bob Nebert)
Organization: Burroughs Corp. ASG, San Diego, CA.
Subject: Re: Oh My God
References: <8601281921.AA01471@s1-b.arpa>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> What will happen next?  Some predictions:
> 
> The shuttle program is in very serious trouble, and stands a good
> chance of being transfered to the military or being cancelled entirely.
> Work will start immediately on a replacement vehicle, probably a smaller
> scramjet-based TAV.  The Europeans will go ahead with Hermes and HOTOL.
> The space station will be postponed or suspended pending the development
> of a replacement vehicle.  NASA may feel compelled to invest heavily
> in space robotics.
> 
> NASA will probably survive, unless it comes out that NASA has been
> hushing up internal uneasiness about shuttle reliability.  In that case
> the civilian space program is very likely dead.
> 
> What a nightmare.
WAIT A MINUTE!! Of course the explosion was tragic but before everybody
runs out and makes wild predictions, take a second.
This has been the first in-flight fatality. Given the COMPLEX equipment
and varied experiments, not to mention the evolution of the spacecraft
itself, I'm suprised it hasn't happen sooner. NOTE: I'M JUST AS HORRIFIED
AS EVERYONE ELSE. 
If by your logic above, the first crash or explosion on a aircraft  should
have transfered the CAB (or whatever it was called back then) to military
control.  That's nonsense.
It was a tragic event, but everyone hopefully will learn and get better
by it. BTW NASA checks, rechecks and double rechecks all work. They have
an excellent safety record and I have faith in future launches.

------------------------------

Date: 30 Jan 86 02:57:15 GMT
From: sdcsvax!sdcc3!sdcc12!np42pf@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Pierre Flament)
Organization: U.C.S.D.
Subject: Re: Joy rides
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

A transatlantic Concord ticket costs ~2000$ to 3000$.
And the plane is barely profitable. How could you possibly
be profitable with Joy Rides in the 1000$ range ?

------------------------------

Date: 30 Jan 86 15:13:44 GMT
From: decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-pisces!piermarini@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Subject: Shuttle
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

          It seems that when the space program is running smoothly
people have all good things to say about it but when disaster strikes
all I here is criticism ! I for one am all for the space program!
There is the potential there for a lot of good that can be done for
humanity. I have to laugh when all this talk about canceling the
program because they have an accident. I feel great sorrow for the
lives lost but do we stop the manufacture of automobiles when theres
an accident?

------------------------------

Date: 30 Jan 86 14:35:46 GMT
From: decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-star!fisher@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Burns Fisher ZKO1-1/D42 DTN 381-1466)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Subject: Shuttle escape question answered
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> 
>The shuttle tragedy has raised some questions (in my mind) about the
>shuttle, and the effect this disaster will have on the space program.
>Perhaps the readers of this digest will have some answers or speculation on
>these questions.
> 
>- What kind of escape mechanism (if any) does the shuttle have for the crew?
> 
All escape possibilities in the Shuttle assume that the orbiter survives and
functions.  For the first 4 flights of Columbia, there were 2 ~standard
escape seats, but it was considered that chances of surviving in them was
only marginal.  You may have noticed during those first 4 flights the call
"negative seats" meaning "you can't use them from now on".  It was not very
far into the flight.
Back of the envelope calculation:  It blew 10 miles high, 72 seconds after
liftoff.  That is an AVERAGE speed of 500 mph (assuming it went straight up,
which it did not).  If you assume linear acceleration (not true either, but
what the hell), that means that the shuttle was going 1000 MPH when it blew. 
Want to guess at the chances of surviving an ejection at 1000MPH at 52000 feet?
It seems to me that the only possible chance would have been to blow the 
orbiter free of the tank and solids and try for a Return-to-launch-site abort
or a ditching.  Separating from the tank is a lot of mechanical action to
take place in only a few milliseconds.
Burns
...decwrl!rhea!star!fisher

------------------------------

Date: 1 FEB 86 00:24-EST
From: SYSMSH%ULKYVX.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
To: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Hmmm a TDRS leak?

I was extremely interested to note Paul Dietz's comments that the
explosion may have been due to a leak in the TDRS.  An explanation
like that would vindicate the shuttle system, and I'd suppose we'd
all like to see that.  I wonder if there IS any monitoring of the
cargo area other than say, air pressure and environment?  The one
thing that bothers me about Paul's idea is the time the explosion
occured, ie., right after throttle(sp) up.  I'd like to see Paul
speculate on why the hydrazine(or other leaking TDRS fuels) would
have gone off such a short time after Scobie went to full thrust.

Does anyone have any comments about the JPL's speculation that
they actually did go into abort sequence (since the solid fuel
boosters survived and veered off) ?  If leaking fuel detonated
in the cargo bay this might explain why we didn't see the orbiter
veer off as well?  There is talk on CNN today that sonar may have
detected the cockpit component of the challenger.  A lack of cargo
bay remnants and presence of remnants of the front end might lend
some support for Paul's idea.  The more I think about it ect ect.

Mark Hittinger/Systems Programmer/University of Louisville/Kentucky
(bitnet: sysmsh@ulkyvx)

------------------------------

Date: 31 Jan 86 03:41:21 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!topaz!pyrnj!pyramid!amiga!dusty@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dusty [snake] Bleher)
Organization: Commodore-Amiga Inc., 983 University Ave #D, Los Gatos CA 95030
Subject: Re: Challenger
References: <663@aicchi.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <663@aicchi.UUCP> ivy@aicchi.UUCP (Iverson) writes:
>The television news couldn't possibly be kidding about the detonation of
>space shuttle Challenger and loss of all 7 aboard ... could they?
..regretfully true!
>
>One solid fueled engine clearly flew on by itself. They filmed that.
>Two contrails extended from the fireball. Did both boosters fly on?
..yes, until destroyed by the RSO about 20 seconds later
>
>What in the main fuel tank could burn white? Hydrogen burns blue. Did
>the camara saturate with the brightness?
..Correct, in an "air" environment H2 burns with a nearly colorless flame.
However combined with high quantity/quality O2, it releases a great deal
of energy, and being a (nearly) "perfect fuel" its only combustion by
products are, humble water vapor (2 H + 1 O = H2O).  When the effects of
decompression cooling, altitude, and a handful of other factors are 
accounted for, we're left with perhaps...ice crystals.
>
>Does anybody on the .net have more information than network television?
Dusty

------------------------------

Date: 30 Jan 86 17:39:49 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!hao!noao!astrovax!elt@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Ed Turner)
Organization: Princeton Univ. Astrophysics
Subject: Long Term Implications of Challenger Accident
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Although terribly tragic, it doesn't seem to me that the loss of life in the
Challenger accident should have any long term significance.  As many have and
will point out, much greater risks and losses have been accepted for the
initial exploration of all historic frontiers and, for that matter, even
recreational activities (e.g., hang gliding).  Of course, there is always the
(real and unpleasant) possibility of an irrational public opinion reaction
on this matter.
Nevertheless, it does seem to me that the accident provides a clear motivation
for at least reconsidering some of the criticisms which have been leveled
against the Shuttle program.  For example, one might reasonably conclude
that
1)  it is unwise to invest nearly all of our launch capability in a very 
    small number of extremely complex and expensive vehicles,
2)  reasonably short cycle time and inexpensive reusability is fundamentally
    incompatible with high reliability with current technology,
3)  for many routine space missions, the cost in complexity and required
    reliability of manned missions is not worth the much touted gain in
    flexibility and on site intelligence, and thus
4)  the Shuttle Program (like the Apollo Program before it), despite
    its breath-taking level of technical prowess, will turn out to be a
    dead end and not the true starting point for elaborate future space
    activities (manned and unmanned).
All of these points are obviously debatable, and the relevance of the
Challenger accident will depend on what the actual cause of the accident
is determined to have been.  Obviously, no. 2 is is not implied if the
problem was in the non-reusable external tank.  Nevertheless, I think that
even "friends of the space program" need to consider these issues in view
of the loss of a shuttle in what should have been one of the more routine
aspects of its operation (All risk analyses I know of have assigned far
greater danger of catastrophic failure to the landing process than the
launch).  One must also weigh the relatively modest mission success rate of
previous flights and the several earlier "close calls".
Ed Turner
astrovax!elt

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jan 86 23:04:55 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!harvard!cmcl2!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Frank Adams)
Organization: Multimate International, E. Hartford, CT
Subject: Re: Thermonuclear Device
References: <8601182109.AA26118@s1-b.arpa>, <497@anasazi.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <497@anasazi.UUCP> will@anasazi.UUCP (Will Fuller) writes:
>The only "wow" number that I can think of off hand is that the Soviet
>Vennera lander was subject to temperatures in excess of the surface
>temperature of the sun (far cry from the interior) when it entered the
>Venusian atmosphere.
This is not really very impressive.  I believe a welding torch does the
same.  Anything which is heated enough to glow white is at about solar
surface temperature.
Frank Adams                           ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
Multimate International    52 Oakland Ave North    E. Hartford, CT 06108

------------------------------

Date:         Fri, 31 Jan 86 15:40:26 EST
From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Reply-To:  ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA
To: space digest <space@s1-b.arpa>
Subject:      Next generation shuttle: electrically assisted take-off?

     There have recently been several postings relating to
electromagnetic launch from the Earth's surface.
Why not use an accelerator boost for a next-generation shuttle?
     Rockets are not very energy efficient.  Most of the energy of the
fuel goes to the exhaust.  The other problem is that they have to carry
their reaction mass with them.  Propulsion is much more efficient
if you can push against something else, like the earth.
In fact, propulsion energy efficiency approaches unity as the mass of
what you're pushing gets large compared to your mass.
     Suppose we boost a shuttle from a linear accelerator attached
to the side of a mountain.
For an example, let's suppose this is Mount Kenya, a 5 Km
tall mountain on the equator (the most efficient place to launch
from, at least if you want equatorial orbits.)
A track slanting 45 degrees up the side of the mountain has a path
length of 7.4 km.  Use an electromagnetic accelerator ("mass driver")
to boost it at one g.  At the end of the track, the shuttle will be
moving at 380 m/sec, or mach 1.2 (speed of sound at 5 km is 320 m/sec).
Boost time is 39 seconds, and the acceleration on board (vector sum of
applied acceleration and gravity) is 1.85 g--not very stressful at all.
Certainly this is gentle compared to what most of the mass-driver
people design for, and with much smaller problems with how fast
power switching is required.
     Now, 380 m/sec is not a large fraction of what is needed for orbit,
and the 5 mile altitude is small compared with orbit.  However, keep in
mind that we are substituting cheap electrical energy for expensive
rocket propulsion at the most important part of flight, where we are
lifting not only the shuttle, but also a huge load of fuel.
I don't have good figures
for the shuttle weight and impulse, (how much of the fuel is needed to
get it to the first 380 m/sec?) but a rough calculation tells me that
this will save about 33%.   You could use only one SRB, or
reduce the size of the ET to about a quarter of what it now is.
In fact, a tank that small would probably be better incorporated into the
shuttle (or into the SRB's): no throw-away parts.
     How much energy would such a thing take?  Lets see, if the vehicle
masses say 2000 metric tons; 150 billion joules.  40 megawatt hours?
That's tiny.  Average launch power is 4 Gigawatts: high, but not
unreasonable.
     Is this idea totally nuts, or would it work?

                                    --Geoffrey A. Landis
                                      Brown U.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 31 Jan 86 23:06:40 PST
From: sdcsvax!sdcc13!co198wat@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Kevin B Baird)
To: space@sdcc3.acc
Subject: Re: SRBs Detonated
Newsgroups: net.space
In-Reply-To: <8601311422.AA07947@s1-b.arpa>
Organization: U.C. San Diego, Academic Computer Center
Cc: 

In article <8601311422.AA07947@s1-b.arpa> you write:
>Message-ID: <[OAK.SAINET.MFENET].FFF67920.008E9D84.SECRIST>
>Quote: "May your future be limited only by your dreams." -- Christa McAuliffe
>
>So much for the SRBs being intact to give us a Big Clue.  Then again, even
>if they survived impact in the ocean, they'd be way off the continental
>shelf, and who knows how we'd get them back...
>
>Richard
>SECRIST%OAK.SAInet.MFEnet@LLL-MFE.Arpa

They float.  How else would NASA be able to reuse them?

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #100
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA09961; Fri, 7 Feb 86 03:01:51 PST
	id AA09961; Fri, 7 Feb 86 03:01:51 PST
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 86 03:01:51 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8602071101.AA09961@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #101

*** EOOH ***
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 86 03:01:51 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #101

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 101

Today's Topics:
		   Re: Shuttle Explodes in Take-Off
		   Re: Future of the Space Program
			   shuttle missions
			Sen. Glenn's comments
			      Challenger
			 Dream Is Still Alive
		       Re: The Press parasites
		   Re: Future of the Space Program
			    Re: Oh My God
			    Re: lunarcrete
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 29 Jan 86 23:32:00 GMT
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiucuxc!rcook@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Shuttle Explodes in Take-Off
References: <733@houxu.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

There was no crash into the oceon, Challenger was completely destroyed.
The largest piece of debris was 12'x 4'.  (Might have been 12x8, but it
was EXTREMELY small for the size of the shuttle.)
Regardless, there was no possibility for survivors.
	 Rob Cook						
							
UUCP:	 {ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!uiucuxc!rcook          
						
					
      'Life is just a cocktail party on the street'        
			-Mick Jagger-

------------------------------

Date: 30 Jan 86 05:02:05 GMT
From: ihnp4!chinet!bdw@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Bill Wisner)
Organization: The Computer Connection
Subject: Re: Future of the Space Program
References: <12178969201.19.DENNETT@SRI-NIC.ARPA>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

DENNETT@SRI-NIC.ARPA (Steve Dennett) writes:
>- What kind of escape mechanism (if any) does the shuttle have for the crew?
None. Once the orbiter gets very far off the ground, how could the crew get
out? Five miles is a long drop..
>- Will this be a setback for the space program, due to public disapproval
>  or the government's need to find (and punish) someone?
There WILL be a setback; it is inevitable. NASA will suspend most regular
activities, including even training, until the cause of the explosion is
determined. The public might set the program back even more, but it is
always hard to tell.
>- Alternately, might it lead to *greater* support of the space program
>  (e.g., if NASA presents a case along the lines of "If our budget were
>  larger, this wouldn't have happened.")?
I personally don't think that NASA would be offer a comment in such poor
taste. Also, one of the reasons NASA's budget is too small is the 
extensive safety precautions that are taken with everything they do.
>- Might this redirect (to some extent) the focus of the manned space
>  program away from the shuttle (large, complex) back toward simpler or
>  alternative launch systems?
There is a chance; but I would say that if it DID happen that way, a 
big factor would be congress -- that wonderful body of elected officials
who think they know what is best for us. This body also controls NASA's
budget -- at the whim of a majority of representatives/senators, NASA
could even cease to exist.
-- 
Bill Wisner					"All that wander are not lost."
The Computer Connection					     --- J.R.R. Tolkien
UUCP:   ihnp4!chinet!bdw
CIS:    76474,1213
USNail: 6290 Highway 44
	Star, ID 83669

------------------------------

Date: 29 Jan 86 21:39:13 GMT
From: tektronix!tekig5!sandyf@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Sandy Frazier)
Organization: Tektronix, Beaverton OR
Subject: shuttle missions
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

would some please send me a copy of the schedules, and the nature of
the missions the shuttles were to fly for the next two to three years.
i understand that with the tragedy that just happened that this data
will change.
thanks in advance.

------------------------------

Date: 30 Jan 86 18:50:43 GMT
From: decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-chovax!eros@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Subject: Sen. Glenn's comments
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

	Sen. John Glenn, D-Ohio, noted that he had earlier been
	critical of NASA's decision to allow non-astronauts,
	such as teacher Christa McAuliffe, to ride in the
	shuttles.  "I never was a big proponent of that", he
	said.  "The main reason for having a [space] program
	is basic fundamental research.  It's not just to see
	whether we can put the butcher, the baker, the candle-
	stick maker on these rides.
				- Los Angeles Times
I find it very difficult to accept these statements.  The implication that
Christa McAuliffe's role in the ill-fated Challenger mission was somehow
beneath the dignity of the shuttle program is insulting.  Hers was the
opportunity to present a layperson's view of space both to the common man
and to thousands of children; a worthwhile endeavor if for no other reason
than because it was for the benefit of those responsible, both today and
tomorrow, for the money that funds the space program.
Space is not only for the test pilot and the engineer; it is for all of
mankind.  Christa McAuliffe was to show us that the 'right stuff' could
be found within each and every one of us.
-- Anthony L. Eros
   Digital Equipment Corporation
   decwrl!chovax!eros
"My opinions are my own - who else would want them?"

------------------------------

Date: 29 Jan 86 18:36:26 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Challenger
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

"If we die, we want people to accept it.  We're in a risky business, and we
hope if anything happens to us, it will not delay the program.  The conquest
of space is worth the risk of life."
					Virgil I. Grissom
					commander, Apollo 1
					speaking a few weeks before his
					death in the Apollo fire
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 30 Jan 86 14:24:22 GMT
From: ihnp4!inuxc!inuxm!arlan@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (A Andrews)
Organization: AT&T Consumer Products, Indianapolis
Subject: Dream Is Still Alive
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Arthur C. Clarke, in a mid-50s book on the exploration of the moon,
called such space accidents, "The Price."

As an engineer and an SF writer and a human being, I stand ready to go
on the next one, and I'm sure I stand in line behind thousands of
others who would go.  Regardless of the smug arguments of the vultures
on the networks the last two days, machines can never do in space what
humans can--give part of the race a chance to live there.  I am for
getting all of our eggs out of one basket.

-Arlan Andrews

------------------------------

Date: 30 Jan 86 19:25:04 GMT
From: calma!sivax!jim@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Jim Boman)
Organization: System Industries, Milpitas, Ca
Subject: Re: The Press parasites
References: <M24.6750@NJIT-EIES.MAILNET>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Bob Czech writes:
> 
>      It's been about 4 hours since the Challenger blew up and the most disgusting aspect of this whole accident is the way the press has handled it.  This is
> usually the problem that most people find with great tragedies.  Nothing bothered us more here at CCCC more than the way that ABC, descretely (said in REAL
> sarcasm), enabled us to view the teacher's parents as the Challenger ascended and then after the explosion.  It's one thing to drag out an apparent accident,
> but another to feed and use upon human emotions as they did. 
Don't forget why the press is there...to report. They don't enjoy having
to bring reality to the screen, but what happens, happens. What else can
they do? Run Bugs Bunny cartoons? Of course not. They're not there to make
judgements as to what is "fit" for us to see. They were there. The relatives
were there. The shuttle exploded. We watched. There is nothing disgusting
about that...it's sad. You want disgusting? If reporters had made a mad dash
for the bleachers and asked the stupid "How do you feel" questions to the 
relatives at that time, THAT would be disgusting, and I dare say that ANY
journalist who attempted that would soon find himself looking for work as 
a copyboy. That's how the press used to act in this country (remember the
Hauptmann case?), and I think you'll agree that most don't any more.
Next time a tragedy occurs, put yourself in the place of the press. What
would you do, keeping in mind that you have a job to do? Read Bob Czech's
first comment again. Don't you think that the loss of life, and the sense
of loss everyone felt is disgusting? The fact that millions of little kids
were watching? Only someone who has a serious problem with journalists would
think what Mr. Czech thinks

------------------------------

Date: 30 Jan 86 17:09:47 GMT
From: ihnp4!mmm!mrgofor@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Michael Ross)
Organization: 3M Company, St. Paul, Minn.
Subject: Re: Future of the Space Program
References: <12178969201.19.DENNETT@SRI-NIC.ARPA>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <12178969201.19.DENNETT@SRI-NIC.ARPA> DENNETT@SRI-NIC.ARPA (Steve Dennett) writes:
>The shuttle tragedy has raised some questions (in my mind) about the
>shuttle, and the effect this disaster will have on the space program.
>Perhaps the readers of this digest will have some answers or speculation on
>these questions.
>
>- What kind of escape mechanism (if any) does the shuttle have for the crew?
>
Did you see the explosion? What kind of escape mechanism would have helped?
	--MKR

------------------------------

Date: 29 Jan 86 21:56:10 GMT
From: hplabs!ames!eugene@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Organization: NASA-Ames Research Center, Mtn. View, CA
Subject: Re: Oh My God
References: <8601281921.AA01471@s1-b.arpa>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Officially we have a news blackout.  The comments are my observations
Paul Dietz writes:
> What will happen next?  Some predictions:
> 
> The shuttle program is in very serious trouble, and stands a good
> chance of being transfered to the military or being cancelled entirely.
Serious trouble, yes.  Cancelled, probably not. Military transfer?
This has been suggested in the past.  I doubt it.  I suggest you are
not familiar with the dynamics of civilian and military space and
aeronautics.  The military is not interested in civilian transport
(FAA not equiped), nor planetary space, not civilian communications
[*some generalization on this latter].
> Work will start immediately on a replacement vehicle, probably a smaller
> scramjet-based TAV.
> The Europeans will go ahead with Hermes and HOTOL.
They would regardless.  All in progress.  Give the European and us some
credit.
> The space station will be postponed or suspended pending the development
> of a replacement vehicle.  NASA may feel compelled to invest heavily
> in space robotics.
Station: probably some delay, measured in years.  I won't specuate on length,
but we have estimates.  We are "investing" in robotics right now.
> NASA will probably survive, unless it comes out that NASA has been
> hushing up internal uneasiness about shuttle reliability.  In that case
> the civilian space program is very likely dead.
Gee, bury us before we are dead.
> What a nightmare.
Agreed.
> From: Rem@IMSSS
> In addition to obvious badness:
>  (1) TDRS lost, so we won't be having the around-the-clock tracking of
>    space missions like we were hoping to have;
>  (2) Our STS capacity is now down to 60%. Originally we needed 5 orbiters,
>    but the budget was cut and we had only 4, now we have only 3.
> 
> One minor good point:
>  At least it didn't happen on the pad where the pad would have been destroyed
>    preventing further launches. However this may be moot if they spend two
>    years analyzing everything before doing anything.
Overall a good analysis [payload, pad, etc.]. 3,4,5, 60%,75%, these are
all just numbers.  Estimates are unclear of real need.  TDRSS is quite
serious to NASA, we have one  [TDRSS-C] more to go.  Galileo was scheduled for 
Challenger.  They are figuring a year delay [spoke to JPL friends
yesterday, but maybe Doug, Ron, or Steve can say more.]  No in orbit
Halley observations [The Kuiper is flying at 41K feet].
Generally at Ames, there is a state of depression in some of the staff.
Business is continuing in many quarters are usual.  Please keep the
"conspiracy theories" down.  We are in the dark like everybody else.
We have no "inside" information.  Please understand that NASA has
some information not for immediate release, but they want to verify
leads, check plans, and reschedule things.  Rumors only serve to feed
vultures.
--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  {hplabs,ihnp4,dual,hao,decwrl,allegra}!ames!aurora!eugene
  eugene@ames-nas.ARPA

------------------------------

Date: 30 Jan 86 02:21:00 GMT
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!wombat@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: lunarcrete
References: <8601260124.AA03051@s1-b.arpa>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

  From what I remember about lunar materials, although some of it is
high in oxygen content there is little hydrogen available.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #101
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA11033; Fri, 7 Feb 86 07:01:13 PST
	id AA11033; Fri, 7 Feb 86 07:01:13 PST
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 86 07:01:13 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8602071501.AA11033@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #102

*** EOOH ***
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 86 07:01:13 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #102

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 102

Today's Topics:
		       Re: Columbia Replacement
		      Did the Challenger wobble?
		       Voyager_2 Radio Emission
	       Info sought on Gemini & Apollo missions
		     Public Reation to Challenger
			    Re: Joy rides
		       RE: Columbia Replacement
		  details of shuttle tank explosion
		   Re: 5 YEARS TO REPLACE ORBITER?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 30 Jan 86 20:20:48 GMT
From: sun!chuq@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Chuq Von Rospach)
Organization: Third Person, Omniscient
Subject: Re: Columbia Replacement
References: <860129202758.780479@HI-MULTICS.ARPA>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> Given that the shuttle program will continue, how will the program deal
> with a decline in their orbiter inventory?  I can see three
> possibilities.
>  (1) NASA will not replace the Columbia, and will simply fly fewer
> missions with the remaining shuttles.
I don't think the military (not to mention anyone else) would like this.
With major payload competition from France (among others) and the shuttles
already booked solid, they can't really afford this option unless the 
US is willing to give up space dominance.
>  (2) NASA will have Rockwell build another shuttle.  This will take some
> time (and a lot of money), but would restore the 4th shuttle.  (Some
> have said that there are already a substantial number of spare parts, so
> that everything wouldn't have to be done from scratch.)
the cost figure I've heard is 1.1 billion, and about a year (I think). That
is before any re-engineering needed to prevent whatever caused the loss of
the Challenger.
>  (3) NASA will have Rockwell refit the Enterprise to make it fully
> operational.  Nobody has mentioned this one.  Is it even possible?  I
> don't know how far the Enterprise is from being an operational orbiter,
> instead of a boiler plate shuttle replica.  Anybody have any ideas?
It is not possible. Enterprise, being first, was more a mockup than a real
orbiter and is significantly heavier than the production schedules. They
would have to significantly reduce payloads to orbit it, and I'm not really
sure if it was ever certified as spaceworthy.
There is a couple of possible options that weren't mentioned:
(4) Sell the shuttles to Boeing, since they have been trying to buy them for
about 5 years, and turn space into a commercial venture.  Make all
non-military space operations work in the public sector, perhaps with
government help to some degree. 
(5) Take a closer look at what is being sent in the shuttle as payload, and
redirect stuff that doesn't need human care to unmanned (Titan or
equivalent) rocket launches -- do we really need a crew of seven to ship out
sattelites? One problem I've seen at Nasa is that because of budgetary
problems they've put all of their eggs in the shuttle basket. Perhaps now is
the time to lobbty for a REAL budget and use men where men are neccessary
and robots where robots are acceptable. A lot of payload that could have
been shipped on Titan boosters was sent in the shuttle to justify the
shuttles existence, and it is probably time to rethink that.
-- 
:From catacombs of Castle Tarot:        Chuq Von Rospach 
sun!chuq@decwrl.DEC.COM                 {hplabs,ihnp4,nsc,pyramid}!sun!chuq
FidoNet: 125/84
My uncle told me all of this. It must be true, because I know my uncle, and he
is as honest as me.

------------------------------

Date: 30 Jan 86 22:12:30 GMT
From: ihnp4!mmm!mrgofor@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Michael Ross)
Organization: 3M Company, St. Paul, Minn.
Subject: Did the Challenger wobble?
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

While watching my VCR replay of the shuttle disaster, I noticed
something that others may not have caught. The TV people kept showing
slow motion footage of the explosion itself - but they didn't think
to go the other way and speed up the tape rather than slowing it down.
Using the fast scan on my VCR, I watched the whole flight in fast
motion. Just before the camera cut to the chase-plane's view, Challenger
seemed to be wobbling back and forth a little bit. It's too slow to 
notice at normal speed - but I thought it was fairly easy to see
at the faster speed. You people out there who have it on tape - try
it and see. Is it my imagination? Could it hold a clue?
	--MKR

------------------------------

Date: 30 Jan 86 21:24:37 GMT
From: decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-pipa!biro@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Subject: Voyager_2 Radio Emission
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

** VOYAGER 2   NEW RECORDING OF RADIO EMISSIONS **
I did not hear this but I read in a local paper the  Boston Globe
'New recording of radon emissions generated by the magnetic  field
turned up "something that has never been heard before in any other
magnetosphere  and  for  which  there  is  no  real  explanation," 
according to project scientist Edward Stone.   A tape recording of 
the strangely musical, almost voice-like radio emission was played
at yesterday's press breifing '
(=:  After reading this all I could picture was Carl Sagen grinning 
ear  to  ear  as  I  believe that there was a tape recording on the 
Voyager_2 of Whale's calls, could it be and  answer to the Whales.
:=)    Sorry for the pun.  The radio emmission is true.
Has anyone hear the recording, and are the moons of Uranus in the
plane of N and S poles or are they Perpendicular to the poles.
thanks John

------------------------------

Date: 29 Jan 86 17:42:35 GMT
From: sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!randvax!boren@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Pat Boren)
Organization: Rand Corp., Santa Monica
Subject: Info sought on Gemini & Apollo missions
References: <8601222243.AA04061@s1-b.arpa>, <8601280753.AA04437@voder.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

I'm looking for a nice concise chart or listing re: the Gemini
and Apollo space missions.  Something that includes
  Mission name/#
  Astronaut(s)
  Date
  What the mission did
Also, could someone fill me in on what I call "missing" missions?
Such as, was there an Apollo 1?  If not, why?
Thanks for your help.  Please send the info to me by e-mail.
-- 
		Patricia Boren
		decvax!randvax!boren
		boren@rand-unix.arpa

------------------------------

Date: 31 Jan 86 16:59:12 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!mangoe@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Charley Wingate)
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Subject: Public Reation to Challenger
References: <8601300054.AA02860@s1-b.arpa>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <8601300054.AA02860@s1-b.arpa> space@ucbvax.UUCP writes:
>I can't minimize the sense of loss with respect to the Challenger disaster.
>It was a tragedy for the people involved, the families, the school children,
>and the National Space Program.
>But with respect to the comments on the press, it is interesting to note that
>most programming was inturrupted for most of the day on the loss of 7 people.
>Yet when a jumbo jet crashes with the loss of 300, we get a few bulletins and
>first mention on the 6 o'clock news.   It reminds of what Mr. Spock said in
>one of the Star Trek episodes (to paraphrase): "You humans are strange.  You
>can mourn the loss of a single person, but you cannot feel the death of
>millions."
I think that this illustrates the importance of the space program to the
American psyche.  Its embodiment of American hopes and aspirations is not to
be belittled.  Here at the U. of Md., for instance, people crowded the halls
of the student union watching the CBS coverage over the building monitors.
My hope is that this will translate into continued, perhaps even increased
support for space exploration.  It's my opinion, though, that there should
be a re-examination of the use of unmanned flights and vehicles.  We've
banked too much on the shuttle.
C. Wingate

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 31 Jan 86 01:13:25 est
From: ihnp4!osu-eddie!bgsuvax!mitchell@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Jack Mitchell)
To: cbosgd!space
Subject: Re: Joy rides
References: <8601222243.AA04061@s1-b.arpa>

Even after the crash for $100 I'd go in a minute. $200 maybe, $300? No.

Jack Mitchell
mitchell!bgsuvax

------------------------------

Date: 1 Feb 86 02:19:06 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!cvl!umd5!don@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Organization: U of Md, CSC, College Park, Md
Subject: RE: Columbia Replacement
References: <860129202758.780479@HI-MULTICS.ARPA>, <3203@sun.uucp>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>> Given that the shuttle program will continue, how will the program deal
>> with a decline in their orbiter inventory?  I can see three
>> possibilities.
>>  (1) NASA will not replace the Columbia, and will simply fly fewer
>> missions with the remaining shuttles.
>>
>>  (2) NASA will have Rockwell build another shuttle.  This will take some
>> time (and a lot of money), but would restore the 4th shuttle.  (Some
>> have said that there are already a substantial number of spare parts, so
>> that everything wouldn't have to be done from scratch.)
> 
> the cost figure I've heard is 1.1 billion, and about a year (I think). That
> is before any re-engineering needed to prevent whatever caused the loss of
> the Challenger.
> 
The DoD has allocated (but not appropriated) about $2 billion in case there
is a "catastrophic loss" of one orbiter from Vandenburg AFB.
> >  (3) NASA will have Rockwell refit the Enterprise to make it fully
> > operational.  Nobody has mentioned this one.  Is it even possible?  I
> > don't know how far the Enterprise is from being an operational orbiter,
> > instead of a boiler plate shuttle replica.  Anybody have any ideas?
> 
> It is not possible. Enterprise, being first, was more a mockup than a real
> orbiter and is significantly heavier than the production schedules. They
> would have to significantly reduce payloads to orbit it, and I'm not really
> sure if it was ever certified as spaceworthy.
> 
The US Space Shuttle Enterprise has already been donated by NASA to the
Smithsonian Institute. I've heard the cost of retrofitting the Enterprise
would exceed the cost of a brand-new orbiter.
-- 
--==---==---==--
"beware the fruminous Bandersnatch"
  ARPA: don@umd5.UMD.EDU
BITNET: don%umd5@umd2
  UUCP: ..!{ seismo!umcp-cs, ihnp4!rlgvax }!cvl!umd5!don
(NOTE: Please mail to  umcp-cs!cvl!umd5!don  NOT  umd5!cvl!umcp-cs!don)
umcp-cs ::= mimsy.UMD.EDU | maryland.ARPA | umcp-cs.UUCP

------------------------------

Date: 30 Jan 86 23:23:10 GMT
From: tektronix!teklds!athena!grahamb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Graham Bromley)
Organization: Tektronix, Beaverton OR
Subject: details of shuttle tank explosion
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

I'm very interested in gathering accurate information regarding 
the exact sequence of events during the shuttle tank explosion. 
Having watched the events frame by frame on a VCR, here's what I 
noticed:
1: a jet of orange flame appears on the upper rear of the
   tank, near the left rear orbiter strut (not necessarily
   exactly at that spot).
2. Over several frames, this jet of flame changes shape,
   is sometimes smaller or larger, and is almost invisible on
   some frames.
3. A larger orange flame appears on the other side of the
   tank (opposite the orbiter), further forward. This also
   pulsates over several frames.
4. A much brighter jet (yellow) appears at or very near the
   point where the front struts are attached to the tank.
   This remains bright. There are now three jets of flame,
   two orange near the rear, one bright yellow toward the 
   front.
So far perhaps 0.5 - 1.0 seconds have elapsed.
5. The explosion begins. A ball of intense white flame appears
   at the top of the frame, somewhere near the front of the
   tank.
6. Over several frames, this spreads the length of the tank
   and engulfs the orbiter. The orbiter remains attached to
   the disintegrating tank. After several frames, several
   pieces of debris are blown away from the tank, glowing 
   orange, off the picture to the right. These appear to be 
   pieces of the tank rather than orbiter debris. The outline 
   of the orbiter remains in the same place relative to the tank.
At this point the camera returns to the rear view shot. The
solid rockets spiral away, apparently still functioning.  As far 
as I can tell, most of the orbiter remains within the fireball.
One thing I find really puzzling is that the orbiter was not 
blown away from the explosion. I would expect to see large pieces 
emerge from the fireball to the right. The solids escape because
they are still burning and presumably their attachments to the tank 
break as soon as the tank comes apart. I'd expect to see the orbiter 
wreckage for the same reason.
The impression I have is that the orbiter remained largely intact 
for perhaps 2-4 seconds, still attached to the remnants of the tank, 
until it presumably disintegrates within the fireball. The tiles on 
the underside may have deflected the initial effects of intense heat.
And since the orbiter reenters at a steep nose up angle, the underside
must be designed to withstand intense pressure. It may be that the 
orbiter engines continued to burn, with the wings more or less intact, 
so that the orbiter continued to fly within the fireball until 
disintegration . (In any case the loss of life clearly couldn't have 
been avoided. I can't imagine that the orbiter would have been in a 
fit condition to fly to a landing, even if it had immediately detached 
and turned away from the tank).
If anyone has anything to add please forward your comments. 
I think NASA won't say much until they are sure what happened, 
and that won't be soon.

------------------------------

Date: 31 Jan 86 17:34:09 GMT
From: allegra!princeton!astrovax!elt@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Ed Turner)
Organization: Princeton Univ. Astrophysics
Subject: Re: 5 YEARS TO REPLACE ORBITER?
References: <8601300732.AA03494@s1-b.arpa>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

As I understand it, the enormous delay and $2E9 price tag for a new shuttle
are the result of Rockwell retooling the shuttle assembly line for production
of the B-1 bomber.  Thus, building a new shuttle means building a new factory
or delaying the B-1 and doing two retoolings of the existing facilities.
Obviously, the timetable could be accelerated to some extent by spending more
money, although in view of the budget balancing push this may be a remote
posssibility.
Ed Turner
astrovax!elt

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #102
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA01781; Fri, 7 Feb 86 19:01:30 PST
	id AA01781; Fri, 7 Feb 86 19:01:30 PST
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 86 19:01:30 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8602080301.AA01781@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #103

*** EOOH ***
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 86 19:01:30 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #103

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 103

Today's Topics:
		      Re: Oh My God (Challenger)
		  Re: Press parasites? Net parasites
			 SRB Telemetry Clues
		     An Enterprise Alternative ?
		Scientists For a Manned Space Station
			  shuttle explosion
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 31 Jan 86 22:27:07 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!topaz!pyrnj!pyramid!hplabsb!bl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Bruce T. Lowerre)
Organization: Hewlett Packard Labs, Palo Alto CA
Subject: Re: Oh My God (Challenger)
References: <8601281921.AA01471@s1-b.arpa>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

My feelings and some predictions:
I feel sorrow for the six crew members.  However, I feel pain for
Crista McCuliffe.  She was the surrogate space traveler for all of
us who look up at the sky and dream.  We all died a little with her
passing.
Should the shuttle program go on?  Yes.  The loss of the seven has stunned
the nation, if not the world.  However, planes crash killing hundreds but
we still fly; buildings catch fire killing dozens but we still live in them.
Auto accidents kill thousands every year but we still drive.  There is risk
in every human endeavor.  We accept the risks and when havoc strikes we
pick up the pieces and go on.
Should man venture into space?  Resounding YES.  For if we (humanity)
do not then the human race as we know it shall parish here on Earth.  We
are a species whos population is growing geometrically while we compete
and fight amongst ourselves for dwindling finite resorces here on Earth.
If we want our race to live on forever, we must venture out.

------------------------------

Date: 30 Jan 86 18:43:26 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!hao!ames!eugene@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Eugene Miya)
Organization: NASA-Ames Research Center, Mtn. View, CA
Subject: Re: Press parasites? Net parasites
References: <8601290324.AA02523@s1-b.arpa>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

The following commentary is not unique to the net, but can be
found in the print, the airwaves, and the wires:
> (4) NASA isn't helping things by keeping quiet,... 
> If NASA takes too long the media could get unruly.
> 
> (6) ... .  Hard facts will be scarce for a while,...
> sucking all sorts of speculation, accusation and justification into
> public view.
The second comment says it all.  This is not like the Apollo fire
where there was lots of evidence.  I am tired of everybody beginning to
say, "It's clear . . ." when it is `clear' to me that many people do not
know what they are talking about.  We have a penant for causality and
determinism.  We have all seen a single set of footage and have picked up
on little artifacts.  Important pieces of information are missing
and what might appear to be a `cause' might in reality be an after
effect of something greater yet unseen.  Grand-stand post-mortems only
contribute to rumors, and we (in NASA) have heard many.  Someone on the net
might summarize known facts, some one else might collect summarize
and check off implications (neither of these should be in NASA)
without the redundant replication.  I cannot comment on the various
speculations, but so long as we remember that they are just speculations
and remember to eliminate them, we will avoid Zapruder (sp) based
analysis.
Certainly, we are in a damage control mode.  We will have to await
Mr. Weinburger's comments after the retoric has died down.
With that, I bid you adieu.
--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  {hplabs,ihnp4,dual,hao,decwrl,allegra}!ames!aurora!eugene
  eugene@ames-nas.ARPA

------------------------------

Posted-Date: Sat 1 Feb 1986 11:17:21 EST
Date: Sat 1 Feb 1986 11:17:21 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: SRB Telemetry Clues
To: space@s1-b.arpa

The NY Times today (2/1/86) reports that telemetry indicates the right
(far) SRB experienced a 4% drop in thrust and a 30 lb/in^2 drop in pressure
starting 10 seconds before the explosion.   The main engines and SRB
nozzles were swivled at that time to try to compensate.  Also, telemetry
indicates the main engines stopped several seconds before the explosion,
apparently because the oxygen line running down the side of the ET was cut.

My guess of the course of the accident is this: (1) the right SRB
was faulty, (2) when the burn-though on the side of the SRB occured
(either because of cracked propellant or casing) a jet of hot gas hit
the ET near the oxygen line, (3) it took several seconds for the
insulation and metal to burn through, (4) when the oxygen line went
gas began escaping and perhaps the tank structure itself (aluminum)
burned in the hot oxygen gas, (5) just before the explosion the
flames may have set off the range-safety charges on the ET, allowing
the fuels to mix and explode.  This could explain the small explosion
that occured several frames before the big blast.

It looks like proper software could have saved the shuttle.  The proper
course would have been to jettison the SRB's as soon as one acted up.
Unfortunately, SRB's have varying thrust, so perhaps NASA didn't want
to jettison one for just a 4% variation.  Even so, the shuttle could
have tried to get away when all the main engines failed, although it's
not clear enough time remained for it to get clear.

Does anyone know if the shuttle was in a position to return to Kennedy,
or did it already have too much lateral velocity to glide back on its
own?  Also, how close is the oxygen line to the right SRB?  If it runs
down the right side of the ET this could be considered a serious design
error (similarly for the range safety charges).

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 1 Feb 86 12:59 EST
From: SECRIST%OAK.SAINET.MFENET@lll-mfe.arpa
Subject: An Enterprise Alternative ?
To: Space-Incoming@s1-b.arpa

Date:    Sat,  1-FEB-1986 13:00 EST
To:      Space-Incoming@s1-B.Arpa
Message-ID: <[OAK.SAINET.MFENET].BCE209E0.008E9E6C.SECRIST>
Quote: "May your future be limited only by your dreams." -- Christa McAuliffe
Organization: Science Applications Int'l. Corp., Oak Ridge, Tenn.
CompuServe-ID: [71636,52]
X-VMS-Mail-To: ARPA%"Space-Incoming@s1-B.Arpa"

>       Date:  Wed, 29 Jan 86 14:27 CST
>       From: "David S. Cargo" <Cargo@hi-multics.arpa>
>       Subject:  Columbia Replacement
>       To: space@s1-b.arpa
>
>       ...replace the Columbia, and...

It's Challenger, David - please !

> (3) NASA will have Rockwell refit the Enterprise to make it fully
> operational.  Nobody has mentioned this one.  Is it even possible?

Anyway, you've got a good point there about the Enterprise - I was wondering
the same thing.  After they've taken it to the New Orleans World's Fair though,
you've gotta wonder if it's not been hopelessly stripped or outdated, being
the flying prototype.  Then again - if the funding wasn't cut, it was going to
fly.  Anybody heard about this yet ?  Opinions ?

Richard
SECRIST%OAK.SAInet.MFEnet@LLL-MFE.Arpa

------------------------------

Date: 1 Feb 86 14:41:57 EST
From: David.Pugh@k.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: Scientists For a Manned Space Station
To: BBoard.Maintainer@a.cs.cmu.edu

Many of you may remember when we created 'Scientists For a Manned Space
Station' on short notice. This action was critical in gaining funding for
the station by defeating efforts in committee to divert or cut funding.

Well folks, we need you again. If you were not part of that effort, or if
you have changed phone, USnail address or net address over the last year,
please send an update to:

		dep@k.cs.cmu.edu

Membership requirements are:

	a) You work in science (not necessarily a Phd)
	b) You agree that a manned space station is a good idea

Among the key figures who worked with us at one point or another over the
last two years are: Dr.  Jastrow, Dr.  Sheffield as spokespersons; Dr. James
Fletcher (Former NASA director), Dr.  Noel Jarret (tech. dir. at Alcoa),
Gordon Woodcock, Peter Vijk, Marvin Minsky, John McCarthy, and many others
by lending their names.

In previous years, we have only needed your names to help us in the
congressional battle. With Gram-Rudman plus the tragedy we will be facing a
fight that makes previous ones pale by comparison. This will be a very rough
year.

In addition to this, we wish to ask you to take active measures on your own
to defend manned flight. There is little doubt that as soon as the period of
mourning is over, the lowlifes will crawl from under their rocks and begin
the search for scandal and personal fame and fortune. When they attack the
dream those seven people shared with us, and for which those seven risked
and lost their lives, we must all be ready to cry "HOW DARE YOU!!!"

The direct action we suggest is the following:

	1: contact your congressmen, call or write them in support of space
	2: get on talk shows and push manned space flight. Urge your
	   colleagues to do the same. It is really quite easy to get on.
	   Simply call a local station that has a talk show give them your
	   credentials and the topic. You will be on the air in a week or
	   less.
	3: Send letters to editors, PARTICULARY when you find editorial or
	   news articles with a slant that you find offensive to the memory
	   of the Challenger crew. For TV or radio news, call in and
	   complain. Don't let your rage go unvented.
	4: write articles and do interviews for your local papers and
	   magazines, and if you have the credentials or skills, get
	   articles in national magazines.
	5: listen to the state of the union address and call
	   the white house comment line, 202-456-7639 (last years number,
	   probably unchanged) with comments in support of space


To lend your support, mail the following information to dep@k.cs.cmu.edu

	Name:		Dr. Public
	Title:		Professor of Foobaz
	Affiliation:	Computer Science Department, CMU
	Mail:		work or home
	Phone:		work and/or home
	Net:		network address
	Comments:	


Get people in other departments if you can. If they do not have an EMAIL
address, send us the rest of the info. We may have some old fashioned mailing
this year.  Get the info in as soon as possible.  We want to show a ground
swell of support for getting on with the job of opening the space frontier.

As SFMSS is not 'organized' per se, there is no particular game plan. We ask
you to remember your dreams, listen to your heart and personally take whatever
action you can. The Challenger crew will not be forgotten.

						Ad Astra,
						Dale Amon

------------------------------

Date: 1 Feb 86 16:35:16 EST
From: Dale.Amon@fas.ri.cmu.edu
Subject: shuttle explosion
To: BBoard.Maintainer@a.cs.cmu.edu

I am almost totally in agrteement with dsmith's analysis of the course of
events. It is in fact the sequence I described to local media when
interviewed for the evening news a few days ago. The only other item I would
add is that if the undershuttle explosion (the bright flare of about 10-20
ft length) pierced through to the shuttle bay, there are small O2 and H2
tanks at that point (2 pair on each side I believe) that would have ruptured
as well. This might be the reason for the relative brightness. It could also
be the O2 line suggested by dmsith, as this line is indeed at the same point
and this would explain the almost instantaneous explosion of the O2 tank
despite the fact that no fire track could be seen from the midshuttle
explosion to the fairly distant main explosion.

The burning color could also be due to incomplete combustion: the air is
getting thin at that altitude, so the flame would be relatively weak until
fed with O2.

Aluminum will burn like magnesium in a pure O2 environment. I expect goodly
portions of the structure to have burned to ash. I think it is a testament
to the violence of the explosion that a 'quarter panel' of the Challenger's
nose survived intact.

I should point out that even if the tank had only ripped open at the rear,
the system would have been ripped apart by aerodynamic stresses. I will in
fact hypothesize that up to the point of rupture of the O2 line, we were in
fact seeing the the breakup of the ET with some H2 burning off and assisting
in the destruction. As dmsith said, the tank unravelled around the side away
from us. If you look closely you can see an orange glow on the left side
that seems to verify this. Note that the H2 line runs from the intertank to
and up the left rear strut, and the O2 line does the same on the right,
as viewed from above the shuttle.

The interior of the shuttle was a bomb from end to end.

Nose:		large RCS tanks, MMH & NT
Bay:		4 pairs O2 and H2 tanks for fuel cells
		large IUS tanks, MMH & NT
		TDRS station keeping fuel, prob MMH & NT
Rear Bulkhead:	2 pair (?) APU tanks, MMH & NT
OMS pods:	1 pair large OMS tanks in each, MMH & NT
		1 pair small RCS tanks in each, MMH & NT

Not to mention other assorted hydraulic and coolant fluids, life support O2,
and so forth.

These fuels are VERY caustic, which is why people have been warned not to
handle fragments they might find on the beach.

I have problems with the SRB burnthrough concept because the SRB's burn from
the core outwards, and a burnthrough should cause asymetric thrust. Also, I
would think that the hole size should expand as the new burnfront expands
around the pinhole. Both SRB's appeared to be quite stable up to the time
the RSO pulled the pin on them. True, they did not go straight, but then
they did not tumble or change direction wildly. They simply drifted slowly
in direction as one would expect them to do with no guidance.

My personal theory is that a material failure occured at or around the left
rear support strut, possibly caused by vibration induced fatigue during max
Q. The rapid change in acceleration caused by the throttle up caused the
weak point to rupture. The H2 fuel ignited in the exhaust and burned weakly
in the thin atmosphere. This is the first flare we see, down near the left
SRB. Aerodynamic pressures ripped the tank open like a toilet paper tube (a
spiral). The increasing amounts of dumped H2 cause the orangish glow to the
left. The rip comes into view on the right again just as it strikes the O2
line on the ET. This is the bright flash under the middle of the shuttle. It
then propagated nearly instantly up the O2 line to the O2 tank. Velocity
drove the H2 into the O2 cloud causing nearly complete combustion. The
byproduct, water, was the main constituent of the round cloud.

I suspect that the crew felt a violent thump underneath. The flight deck
crew saw a blinding flash. The lower deck may have already ruptured from the
first explosion. In any case, they had nothing more than an instant of
realization. I would be very surprised if any one of them was aware long
enough for even a rush of adrenalin. It was mercifully quick.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #103
*******************


0,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA02899; Sat, 8 Feb 86 03:01:16 PST
	id AA02899; Sat, 8 Feb 86 03:01:16 PST
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 86 03:01:16 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8602081101.AA02899@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #104

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 104

Today's Topics:
			Shuttle and the Media
			    Re: Joy rides
		    Shuttle Payload Assist Modules
			    Re: Joy Rides
			Re:  Hmmm a TDRS leak?
			     Continuation
	       Re: Television coverage and other topics
	      Remotely Controlled Manipulators in Space
				SRB's
		       Re: Scuttle the Shuttle?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat 1 Feb 86 19:18:19-EST
From: "Jim McGrath" <MCGRATH%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: Shuttle and the Media
To: space%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu
Reply-To: mcgrath%mit-oz@mit-mc.arpa


    From: Chris Johnson <JOHNSON%northeastern.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
    The news media is often tacky, tasteless and inconsiderate.  I
    also wonder if they know a reasonable definition of news....  The
    news people broadcast family and friends going from elation to
    tears on the air.  I never thought that this kind of thing was
    news myself.  News is that the shuttle blew up.  News is that
    seven people died.  News is that nobody knows why yet.  News isn't
    millions of people being forced to invade someone's grief....

No, it is not news - it is entertainment.  I hope no one still
believes that the press is some noble institution.  As this episode
illustrates, the press are nothing but glorified snoops.  However,
they are snoops that we (including myself) support, what with our need
for knowledge and human drama.

I watched the entire coverage, and was shocked as to how little was
said during that entire day.  Not only was there little to say besides
the obvious, but it was clear that the media had allowed their space
coverage units to get flabby.  But TV being what it is, no network
could simply say "well, we don't have anything more to add, so back to
our regular programming."  Instead, they had to show the only material
they had available - the family, the accident itself, and earlier
videotape of the crew.


   The news media, true to form, questioned the whole of manned space
   flight and forgets the successes fast....

Actually, with a few exceptions (many on PBS), TV has been very
supportive of the program after the accident.  One anchor (Rather?)
even got in what I would consider commentary, not news, when he stated
that the program must go forward both because it is needed and as a
tribute to the dead.  No one has seriously called for an outside
inquiry (can you imagine the implied respect for NASA being so freely
given to any other government agency?).  Only when NBC speculated on
the impact on SDI were there any down notes voiced.


Jim
-------

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 1 Feb 86 01:35:48 EST
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!rochester!rocksanne!sunybcs!devinney@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (George DeVinney)
To: ucdavis!space
Subject: Re: Joy rides
Newsgroups: net.space
In-Reply-To: <8601222243.AA04061@s1-b.arpa>
Organization: SUNY/Buffalo Computer Science


Hard to give a good upper limit ...... $1000 is very reasonable and I
would pay more ($5000?) if I had the money.

------------------------------

Date: 31 Jan 86 14:11:55 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!mcvax!ukc!csw@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (C.S.Welch)
Organization: U of Kent at Canterbury, Canterbury, UK
Subject: Shuttle Payload Assist Modules
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

I am looking for details on space shuttle payload assist modules. Basically
I need details of
                  PAM dry mass
                  Propellant mass
                  Average vaccum thrust
                  Burn time
                           etc.
i.e. slightly more info than they usually give in A&STW, JBIS, Spacefight etc.
If anyone out there has this data, or could point me in the direction of the
right reference, I would be very happy. Doing literature searches can be very
boring at times.
          Thanks in advance,
                  Chris Welch       csw@ukc.uucp
                  Cranfield Institute
                  U.K.

------------------------------

From: ihnp4!uw-beaver!tektronix!reed!omssw2!argent!batie@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: omssw2!space
Subject: Re: Joy Rides
Date: Tue Jan 28 18:38:40 1986

I would gladly pay $100 to take a ride into space as described.  I think
$500 - $1000 would be the upper limit.

Even with today's tragedy.

  Alan Batie  ...tektronix!reed!omssw2!argent!batie

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 1 Feb 86 17:31:38 PST
From: mcgeer%ji@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Rick McGeer)
To: SPACE@s1-b.arpa, SYSMSH%ULKYVX.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: Re:  Hmmm a TDRS leak?

	From the size of the pieces of debris recovered, it now appears at
least reasonably likely that Cmdr. Scobee detected a problem and jettisoned
the ET and SRBs right at the blast; if true, this really is a tragedy
another second and they'd've made it.

					-- Rick.

------------------------------

Date: 1 Feb 86 06:51:59 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!mangoe@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Charley Wingate)
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Subject: Continuation
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

A few thoughts on continuing the space program:
First, those who say that men are unnecessary are, I think, quite wrong.
For recovery of dead satellites, repairs, and the like, it much easier to be
able to have a person who can get out there with a suit and a wrench.
Nevertheless, I think there has been too much emphasis over use of the space
shuttle to launch relatively small satellites.  There's really nothing the
shuttle crew can do when one of the communications satellites doesn't
function properly when launched from the shuttle, and it seems kind of silly
to risk them under those circumstances.  My feeling is that payloads of that
type should only fly on a space-available basis; first priority should go to
things like the Hubble 'scope that are too big, and things like spacelab
which must be manned.
There needs to be a program for a launch vehicle to replace the Titan III.
Perhaps something could be thrown together from Minuteman or Mx components
(make that "Peacekeeper" a peacemaker!).
Given the inevitable setback due to fixing whatever happened, space station
really ought to get a low priority.  We have plenty of interesting things we
could be doing with unmanned explorers, and, assuming that some launch
vehicle is found, the delay could be used to advantage.
More Funding!
These, I repeat, are just opinions.  No claims are made for practicality
(this is space flight we are talking about, after all).
C. Wingate
P.S.  My guess is that it's going to be some failure/defect in the main tank.

------------------------------

Date: 31 Jan 86 19:43:46 GMT
From: sun!saber!msc@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Mark Callow)
Organization: Saber Technology, San Jose, CA
Subject: Re: Television coverage and other topics
References: <11627@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> Jeff Okamoto		..!ucbvax!okamoto
> Let's remember one thing before everybody else starts flaming about
> the callous news coverage by the networks (ie, the "elation-to-tears"
> of the crowd, etc, etc, ad nauseum).
> 
> The ONLY video coming out from the launch site was NASA's official
> news feed.  So don't go blaming the networks for their supposed
> morbid curiosity of the crowd's bemoaning the loss of the Challenger.
Yes but NASA didn't show it over and over again.  The networks did
that.  One time when ABC was showing the video of Crista's
parents watching the launch, the tape went on the fritz just before
the tragedy, the picture cut back to Peter Jennings, who said
"we are having a problem with that tape.  That's probably a not
a bad thing."  Bravo!!
The idea that this accident might lead to cancellation of manned
space flight seems to have been proposed entirely by the media
who pushed the question relentlessly on everyone.   It's quite
absurd.  You might as well ask if we should stop manned aviation
every time an airliner crashes.
The most fundamental reason for continuing manned space exploration
is our economic future.  All economies on the world are based on
the idea of constant growth.  This is much too engrained to ever be
changed.  Since our planet Earth is a fixed resource we will someday
exceed its capacity.  The only way for essential economic growth to
continue is to move into space.  I was delighted to hear Senator
Garn touch on this question of resources though he didn't tie it
to enabling continued economic growth.
I am against renaming this group to net.challenger.  We shouldn't
dwell on tragedy.  We must grieve, pay our respects to those who
died and then look forward to the future.  I suggest that those
who support the renaming reconsider their choice after they are over
the emotional shock.
-- 
  From the TARDIS of Mark Callow
msc@saber.uucp,  sun!saber!msc@decwrl.dec.com ...{ihnp4,sun}!saber!msc
"Boards are long and hard and made of wood"

------------------------------

Posted-Date: Sat 1 Feb 1986 19:40:10 EST
Date: Sat 1 Feb 1986 19:40:10 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Remotely Controlled Manipulators in Space
To: space@s1-b.arpa

The Challenger explosion has got me thinking about more about
teleoperated mechanical manipulators for space tasks.  These are robot
arms or similar devices controlled from Earth by humans.  Such devices
already exist on Earth as manipulators on submarines and for handling
radioactive substances.   The problem with using them in space is the
nonnegligible feedback delay imposed by the speed of light: about .25 to
.3 seconds for geosynchronous orbit and about ten times that for the moon.

There are lots of interesting questions raised by these machines.  How
inconvenient is the feedback delay?  What kind of force sensing is
needed to prevent the manipulator from crushing things?  What kind of
sensors should the manipulator have?  Cameras, surely, but how many
and what kinds?  How much image processing should be done, and how
a should the resulting information be presented to the operator?  Where
should the processing be done: in space or on the ground?

The remote manipulators would have many uses, and would probably be
built with interchangable effectors for various missions.  Suggested
missions include: satellite refueling and/or part replacement in
geosynchronous orbit, lunar mining and manufacturing, and
orbital manufacturing of habitats or solar power collectors.
Gerard K. O'Neill estimates that, using remotely controlled
manipulators, a "seed" manufacturing facility capable of
making 1800 tonnes of material per year could be put in place
with 107 tonnes on the moon and 89 tonnes in high orbit.  The facility
would be capable of reproducing itself (except for some "vitamins",
like integrated circuits and some volatiles) in 90 days.

Remotely controlled manipulators probably also make sense even if
humans are in orbit.  For example, it probably would be more efficient
(and safer) for the human to be close (< .05 light seconds) to the
manipulator (and inside a habitat) than for the human to be in a space
suit.

A study of the effect of feedback delays on manipulator performance
would seem to be an excellent research area for a robotics lab.  This
research would probably be the single most important near term
contribution a computer scientist/roboticist could make to the space
program.

------------------------------

Date: 1 Feb 86 21:38:59 EST
From: Dale.Amon@fas.ri.cmu.edu
Subject: SRB's
To: BBoard.Maintainer@a.cs.cmu.edu

Just heard they are saying that it WAS a burn through of the left SRB, and
that it can be seen from  other camera angles.

Can anyone explain why off earth the thing didn't go tumbling madly
after seperating? How there was no apparent sign of flame from the side of
the SRB after seperating?

(I think the rest of my analysis will probably still hold true: mainly
incorrect in that the initial break in the ET was not a materials failure.

Since Morton Thiokol already came close to a burn through once before, I
suspect they are about to get put into some VERY hot water.

------------------------------

Date: 1 Feb 86 06:52:48 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!cmcl2!lanl!jlg@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Subject: Re: Scuttle the Shuttle?
References: <8601301636.AA04800@s1-b.arpa>, <11632@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>In article <8601301636.AA04800@s1-b.arpa> dietz@SLB-DOLL.CSNET (Paul Dietz)
>writes:
>>The third myth: that manned missions can accomplish things economically
>>that can't be done by robots.  This is true in the long term (unless AI
>>really succeeds), but in the short term (read: for the rest of this
>>century, at least) there is little that can be done in space
>>economically that robots and teleoperated manipulators can't do better.
>>Repair and maintenance of spacecraft in earth orbit, mining the moon,
>>exploration of the planets, manufacturing in low earth orbit are all
>>better done by robots and remotely controlled manipulators, simply
>>because they don't breath or eat, don't die of radiation from solar
>>flares, and can be launched by supposedly less reliable expendable
>>boosters, can be controlled from the ground 24 hours a day and can be
>>left in space for years.
I keep fairly close tabs on AI and robotics.  There is no way with
today's technology to build an automaton that could have repaired
the Solar MAX satellite.  Much less - capture and return disabled
satellites.  Teleoperation doesn't help this much, the problem is
at least partly one of dexterity.  Robots are marvelous things (I
wouldn't follow developments in the field if they weren't of interest)
but they aren't yet anything near a good substitute for a human
technician.
Not all of the tasks performed by the shuttle missions require human
intervention - in fact, I've never thought the shuttle should be
used for satellite launching (unless the satellite requires on site
assembly or adjustment).  As a satellite repair capability though it
is likely to remain unsurpassed for decades.  Think how much more
reliable deep space probes could be if they could receive a post
launch check before being sent out of earth orbit.  They would be
cheaper too, since the human crew can do some of the assembly in
space (instead of the present system of building in automatic systems
to extend antennae, pop launch shrouds, power up sensitive equipment,
etc.).
You made another point about robots being better than humans through
the end of the century.  This is exactly backward.  I am willing to
believe that robotic technology may become reliable enough in the
future not to require much in the way of human backup.  But in the
short term (read: to the end of the century, at least) there are
many things that can't be done by robots or teleoperated manipulators.
They can't think, they can't improvise special purpose tools, they
can't come up with different ways to grapple a wayward satellite, and
they are just as likely to malfunction as the equipment they were
sent to repair or maintain.
J. Giles
Los Alamos

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #104
*******************


0,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA03999; Sat, 8 Feb 86 07:01:13 PST
	id AA03999; Sat, 8 Feb 86 07:01:13 PST
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 86 07:01:13 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8602081501.AA03999@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #105

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 105

Today's Topics:
		   Re: Future of the Space Program
			    Re: Joy rides
		       bridges not yet crossed
			       loncrete
			  Crator Counts (cc)
			  Re: Ejection seats
		   Re: Mt Shasta on Uranian moon!!
		   Re: Mt Shasta on Uranian moon!!
		  Re: Press parasites? Net parasites
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 30 Jan 86 21:52:55 GMT
From: decvax!linus!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Subject: Re: Future of the Space Program
References: <12178969201.19.DENNETT@SRI-NIC.ARPA>,, <429@umich.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> There are no ejection seats; reasons given: ...
> ... (3) not viable, orbiter speed at ejection and/or
> magnitude of emergency would preclude successful deployment.
If you listen to recordings of one of the early test flights, when the
pilot and copilot did have ejection seats, quite early in the mission you'll
hear a comment "negative seats".  That means the shuttle has passed Mach 3
and the ejection seats are no longer considered useful.  I'm not sure just
how fast Challenger was moving when it blew, but it was at least close to
Mach 3 based on the position-and-velocity calls earlier.  And even a fully
automatic ejection system probably wouldn't have helped, considering how
quickly it happened.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 27 Jan 86 16:41:52 mst
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!hao!cisden!boulder!phillips@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Tom Phillips)
To: ucdavis!space
Subject: Re: Joy rides
Newsgroups: net.space
In-Reply-To: <8601222243.AA04061@s1-b.arpa>
Organization: ConTel Information Systems, Denver


an hour?  $200.  yea! let's go! where do i send the check?

-- 

						Tommy Phillips
  From the banks of the great grey-green greasy Limpopo River,
all set about with fever-trees.

				cisden!phillips

------------------------------

X-Sent: to SU-AI.ARPA by IMSSS.FRONSTAD.EDU via ETHERNET with PUPFTP; 1986-Feb-02 00:32:02 PST (=GMT-8hr)
X-Mailer: EMACS -> PSL (FORMAT+SEND-ALL) -> PUPFTP
Date: 1986 February 02 00:03:07 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM@imsss> (this host known locally only)
To: jrv@mitre-bedford.arpa
Cc: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
Subject: bridges not yet crossed
Sender: REM%IMSSS@su-score.arpa (for undeliverable-mail notifications)
Reply-To: REM%IMSSS@SU-SCORE.ARPA

J> Date: 29 Jan 86 08:11:57 EST (Wed)
J> From: James R. Van Zandt <jrv@mitre-bedford.arpa>
J> 1. How long should we wait before launching another shuttle,
J>    if we CANNOT find the cause for the explosion?

Good question for speculation, but let's not cross our bridges before
we reach them. Indeed NASA released films of flame on side of right
SRB for about ten seconds before the explosion, which could have been
first cause. Second cause may be that the flame heated up the
detonation device that was supposed to blow up the shuttle in case it
was out of control headed toward populated area. If true, doubly
ironic that (1) detonation device actually was immediate cause of loss
of orbiter (2) huge chunks landed despite detonation (3) SRBs
continued from scene of detonation as if nothing happened, not even
going much out of control for a while, requiring their own detonation later.

J> 2. Should we build another shuttle, or the next generation spacecraft?
Yes.

------------------------------

X-Sent: to SU-AI.ARPA by IMSSS.FRONSTAD.EDU via ETHERNET with PUPFTP; 1986-Feb-02 00:31:25 PST (=GMT-8hr)
X-Mailer: EMACS -> PSL (FORMAT+SEND-ALL) -> PUPFTP
Date: 1986 February 01 23:23:45 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM@imsss> (this host known locally only)
To: Hans.Moravec@rover.ri.cmu.edu
Cc: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
Subject: loncrete
Sender: REM%IMSSS@su-score.arpa (for undeliverable-mail notifications)
Reply-To: REM%IMSSS@SU-SCORE.ARPA

HPM> Date: 25 Jan 86 20:21:18 EST
HPM> From: Hans.Moravec@rover.ri.cmu.edu
HPM> Subject: lunarcrete
HPM> ...
HPM>     The 40 grams of dirt will be delivered next week to his lab at
HPM> Construction Technology Laboratories in Skokie, said Lin. It was dug
HPM> up during the Apollo 16 mission in 1972.
HPM> ...
HPM>     Stan Sadin, a deputy director in NASA's office of aeronautics and
HPM> space technology in Washington, confirmed today that Lin's research
HPM> could lead to the establishment of a lunar concrete factory and
HPM> ''putting an outpost ... in the spirit of an Antarctic outpost'' on
HPM> the moon.

Horay!

HPM> But he said that probably wouldn't happen until after the year 2000.

Boo! The Russians sent robot landers to the Moon before Apollo 11.
Surely by now both nations are capable (modulo loss of Challanger and
consequent delay in all launches, and lack of oldstyle boosters except
some the military have and are building) of sending robot landers
which could start building an experimental remote-control
concrete-processing station as soon as Lin (no relation to our LIN I
presume) gets the procedure worked out on Earth. So, except for
funding and launch vehicles, why can't we start by 1988 instead of
waiting until men can land on Moon after 2000?

HPM>    Lin said his research could save NASA millions of dollars because
HPM> ''it will be much cheaper'' to make concrete on the moon than to
HPM> transport it from Earth.

You bet your tooting! Concrete is heavy stuff in the quantities
typically used to build habitat and factories. (On the other hand,
they make boats out of concrete sometimes.)

HPM>    For the past eight months, Lin, 52, has made concrete with simulated
HPM> lunar dirt that is twice as strong as the earthly stuff.

Hey, that's pretty damn good! Maybe they can make some on Moon for
Earth use, just put in a big bubble and float it down to Earth, just
like my earlier proposal for foam-steel containing hydrogen etc.?

------------------------------

Date: 31 Jan 86 16:05:17 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!hao!noao!terak!mot!anasazi!will@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Will Fuller)
Organization: Anasazi, Phoenix Az.
Subject: Crator Counts (cc)
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

No trees on the moon, the craters built them up into crates...
Now that we have *lots* of pretty pictures of various and
sundry planets and satelites throughout the solar system,
whats the latest and greatest in crator counting? Do the
statistics clearly show a variance as a function of distance
from the sun? Is there some sort of "hot" belt characterized
by heavy bombardment?
-- 
William H. Fuller
{decvax|ihnp4|hao}!noao!terak!anasazi!will

------------------------------

Date: 31 Jan 86 16:33:49 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!harvard!think!mit-eddie!cybvax0!frog!john@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (John Woods, Software)
Organization: Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA
Subject: Re: Ejection seats
References: <667@ihwpt.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> While watching the news coverage about the shuttle disaster
> I couldn't help but notice how most of the commentators
> made a big deal about the shuttle's lack of ejection seats.
I didn't watch the TV coverage much, and didn't hear the ejection seat
issue discussed to death (the Channel 2 (PBS Boston) News commentator raised
the question to one guest, was told it wouldn't have helped and were bagged
because they were too heavy and too unreliable, and let it drop), but from
what I heard from almost all the commentators, such stupidity would not have
been unbelievable.
> The news people should stick to reporting the news and not to try
> to second guess NASA engineers.
AMEN!
>  10 to 1 they will have ejection seats on the next shuttle.
Not too likely, since the later shuttles were designed without them.  Only
Columbia was designed to have them (and they took them out).
>   I am also appaled at the networks treatment of the families involved.
> There is no reason to show over and over the grief of the families
> as they realize what is happening.  How do they expect people to feel.
> 
Again, I didn't see much TV coverage, but what I did see I did not find
excessive (which surprised me no end).  The TV people seemed content with
showing the same films over and over, rather than continually trying to
wrench new agony out of the families.  As a side note, however, notice that
the newspeople were banned from Concord High School, and asked to leave town
by the mayor, because they WERE pestering the school children for new agony.
Overall, I'd give the TV and radio news coverage a 2 out of 10, but
setting their average to a 5 would turn that into about an 8.5 or so...
--
John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (617) 626-1101
...!decvax!frog!john, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw%mit-ccc@MIT-XX.ARPA
This space dedicated to Challenger and her crew,
Francis R. Scobee, Michael J. Smith, Ellison S. Onizuka, Judith Resnik,
Ronand E. McNair, Gregory B. Jarvis, and Crista McAuliffe.
"...and slipped the surly bonds of Earth to touch the face of God."

------------------------------

Date: 31 Jan 86 03:44:45 GMT
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!oberon!smeagol!earle@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Greg Earle)
Organization: Spacecraft Data Systems, JPL, Pasadena, CA
Subject: Re: Mt Shasta on Uranian moon!!
References: <8601261231.AA04077@s1-b.arpa>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> When are we gonna get that damn ion rocket developed so we can send
> Mariner/Viking/Galileo-class spacecraft (orbiter/lander) to all the outer
> planets without having to wait ten years to get the craft to the very outer
> ones via gravity-assist from the nearer ones? 
(a) They're working on it.
(b) You (and everyone in net.spaceland) should be grateful for what you got,
because it so happens that the relative positioning of Jupiter-Saturn-Uranus,
that allowed Voyager to make it to Uranus in 'only' 8.5 years, only happens
once in *175* years, and it's happening *now*.  Without a major-league 
improvement in propulsion systems (and they have to operate with low mass
fuel supplies, so as to not make the thing a huge fat blimpo when it takes 
off), you and I are not likely to see *any* outer planet missions within our
remaining lifetime.  It would normally (given random relative positions)
take up to *30* years to get to Uranus, much less get to Neptune at all.
	Greg Earle
	JPL
	sdcrdcf!smeagol!earle (UUCP)
	ia-sun2!smeagol!earle!csvax.caltech.edu (ARPA)

------------------------------

Date: 2 Feb 86 09:28:58 GMT
From: brahms!weemba@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Matthew P. Wiener)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Subject: Re: Mt Shasta on Uranian moon!!
References: <8601261231.AA04077@s1-b.arpa>, <578@smeagol.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <578@smeagol.UUCP> earle@smeagol.UUCP (Greg Earle) writes:
[in response to someone's question as to why we don't head out to Uranus
again as soon as possible]
>because it so happens that the relative positioning of Jupiter-Saturn-Uranus,
>that allowed Voyager to make it to Uranus in 'only' 8.5 years, only happens
>once in *175* years, and it's happening *now*.
I believe that refers to the Jupiter-Saturn-Uranus-Neptune configuration.
I do not have figures, but surely a single slingshot Earth to Jupiter to
Uranus does not have an unreasonably rare launch window or long journey.
I think the only real delay is money and will.
ucbvax!brahms!weemba	Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720

------------------------------

Date: 1 Feb 86 07:25:02 GMT
From: sun!chuq@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Organization: Third Person, Omniscient
Subject: Re: Press parasites? Net parasites
References: <8601290324.AA02523@s1-b.arpa>, <1378@ames.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> The following commentary is not unique to the net, but can be
> found in the print, the airwaves, and the wires:
> 
> I am tired of everybody beginning to
> say, "It's clear . . ." when it is `clear' to me that many people do not
> know what they are talking about.  We have a penant for causality and
> determinism.  We have all seen a single set of footage and have picked up
> on little artifacts.  Important pieces of information are missing
> and what might appear to be a `cause' might in reality be an after
> effect of something greater yet unseen.
I agree with Gene on this completely. I've been quite disappointed with the
quality of the information coming across the net on the disaster. With few
exceptions, they seem to break down into three categories:
    o initial reactions: "The Challenger blew up today. At this point there
    don't seem to be survivers" -- I can understand the sentiment, but four
    days after the fact, net-propogation means I'm still seeing them
    outdated or incorrect information and all.
    o "Let's rename net.columbia" -- May I ask what this accomplishes?
    Renaming a group is a non-trivial operation on this network, it usually
    takes months to get things straight, and I'm not sure it is a reasonable
    thing to do based on a short term emotional reaction. IF people spent
    the time they took writing these kinds of messages and wrote messages to
    their senators or the president, maybe the NASA budget would have a
    better chance of being set at a level where they can accomplish things.
    o "I've watched the videotape, and it seems to me..." -- A lot of
    immediate experts have watched the tapes and have solved all of mankinds
    problems. Hell, I watched the video tapes as well, and I certainly
    didn't see stuff that obvious. The people who BUILT the thing watched
    the tapes, and it doesn't seem like they say it, either. Let's tone down
    the backseat quarterbacking a bit and try to work with facts, shall we?
One of the things I've noticed is that a lot of writers seem to lack
perspective on the shuttle. It isn't just a large plane, folks. I was lucky
enough to be able to visit an open-house with the Enterprise years ago, and
until you've seen that thing, you simply can't imagine what it is like.
Imagine tires larger than you are. Imagine a cargo bay large enough to
swallow a Greyhound bus with room to spare. Imagine putting this on a 15
story building full of gasoline and riding it to the stars. Until you've
been near a shuttle and come to grips with the size, the complexity, and the
majesty, I don't see how anyone can look at a videotape and understand it. I
cried years ago from the overwhelming grace of the Enterprise, and I cried
again this week when Challenger went down. These comments are not from one
that doesn't care, but from someone who thinks its time to start looking
forward again. Let's learn from mistakes, not dwell on them.
I've been a long time (but silent) supporter of the space program. The
shuttle crash brings home the fact that NASA has been starved for funds
since the Nixon reign. I've decided it is time to stop my silent approval,
and start working to get NASA what I feel it deserves. If you approve of the
space program, I suggest you do, too. I'm putting together letters that will
go to the President, my elected representatives in the senate and the house,
the head of NASA, and whoever else I decide ought to see a copy, demanding
not only a continuation of NASA funding, but a ramp up to make space a
commercially viable place for industry. I'm also considering putting away my
long standing problems with the L5 society and supporting them in their
support of the Space program. The Space foundation is another thing I'm
looking at. 
It is my opinion that now is a critical time in the space program. Reagan
has come out in favor of continued space funding, but there are many who
feel that NASA's money can be much better spent on things like food stamps
(i.e., direct benefits that get them re-elected). Those that favor space
will need all the support they can get. I suggest we give it to them, and
leave the discovery of the cause of the disaster and the solution to that
problem where it belongs -- with the experts.
chuq
-- 
:From catacombs of Castle Tarot:        Chuq Von Rospach 
sun!chuq@decwrl.DEC.COM                 {hplabs,ihnp4,nsc,pyramid}!sun!chuq
FidoNet: 125/84
My uncle told me all of this. It must be true, because I know my uncle, and he
is as honest as me.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #105
*******************


0,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA06623; Sat, 8 Feb 86 19:01:23 PST
	id AA06623; Sat, 8 Feb 86 19:01:23 PST
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 86 19:01:23 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8602090301.AA06623@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #106

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 106

Today's Topics:
			     She Went...
		       Re: Television coverage
			      questions
		      Accelerator Momentum Loss
			Shuttle Privatization
			   Challenger crew
	    re: what happened to Challenger, continued...
			    Re: Joy rides
		       Re: Columbia Replacement
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun 2 Feb 86 04:01:21-CST
From: AI.Hassan@mcc.arpa
Subject: She Went...
Sender: AI.CLIVE@mcc.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: AI.Hassan@MCC.ARPA

To a teacher...

                              McAuliffe

                      And the train whistles wee
                     In the snow of frozen dreams
                               She went
                     Riding on the world's hopes
                                 High
                               She went
                     So much love, so much faith
                               She went
                       For the wonder of it all
                               She went
                        So we may go, as high
                           She went further
                             She has gone
                                Higher

Music
Guitar:Chord Progression in the key of Em
       4/4, Moderate Tempo
       Arpeggio

   [0] [Em / Em7 / Em6] 
   [2] Em / Em7 / Em6 / Am6 / Em / Em7 / Em6
   [3] C / D   / G-(C)-G
   [4] Dm7    / G7 / C
   [5] Em    / D  / G-(C)-G-CM7
   [6] Em   / C  / Dsus4-D
   [7] G   / C  / G
   [8] Em / Gc-G-Ga-G 
[Coda] G^-D^-G^^-GM7

Legend:

X^  = Chord X taken at the first octave harmonic
X^^ = Chord X taken at the second octave harmonic
(X) = Hammer on chord X
Xy  = Chord X alter with note y
Xm  = X minor
Xmn = X minor n-th (n a number)
X   = X major
XMn = X major n-th (n a number)

                                                   Words and Music
                                                by Hassan Ait-Kaci
                                                 Round Rock, Texas
                                  Around 2:00 am, January 29, 1986

------------------------------

Date: 31 Jan 86 19:59:42 GMT
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!alan@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Organization: System Development Corporation R&D, Santa Monica
Subject: Re: Television coverage
References: <11627@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <11627@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> okamoto@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU (Doctor Who) writes:
>
>The ONLY video coming out from the launch site was NASA's official
>news feed.  So don't go blaming the networks for their supposed
>morbid curiosity of the crowd's bemoaning the loss of the Challenger.
>
>Jeff Okamoto		..!ucbvax!okamoto
I watched the NASA feed from ignition to 4 hours after the explosion. It
not once showed the crowd or any people at all.
Okamoto,  what in the world prompted you to post what you did ???
	Al Algustyniak

------------------------------

To: rem%imsss@su-score.arpa
Cc: space@mc.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: questions
Date: 02 Feb 86 15:33:09 EST (Sun)
From: James R. Van Zandt <jrv@mitre-bedford.arpa>

> Second [of the shuttle explosion] cause may be that the flame heated up the
> detonation device that was supposed to blow up the shuttle in case it
> was out of control headed toward populated area.  If true, doubly
> ironic that (1) detonation device actually was immediate cause of loss
> of orbiter (2) huge chunks landed despite detonation 

The pieces may have been large, but wouldn't have caused NEARLY as much
damage as a crash of the full external tank with its fuel.

                          - Jim Van Zandt

------------------------------

Organization: The MITRE Corp., Bedford, MA
To: MCGRATH%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu
Cc: space@mc.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: Accelerator Momentum Loss
Date: 02 Feb 86 15:33:37 EST (Sun)
From: James R. Van Zandt <jrv@mitre-bedford.arpa>

------------------------------
> The second [solution] is to decelerate payloads from beyond LEO to
> sub-orbital speeds.

Where do you let them land?  Do they all have to be small enough to burn
up in the atmosphere, or can you steer them to where they won't hurt
anything?

> The problem here is that you do not want to be
> required to lose mass from the space environment to the earth. 

Why not?  There are a lot of rocks up there.

> Moreover, it is unlikely that you could balance the traffic in the
> early stages of use.

True.

> Another solution is possible.  If a charge is placed on the
> accelerator, then it becomes a gigantic charged particle moving in the
> earth's magnetic field.  We know that in this case a force is exerted
> on the particle, a force that can be used to transfer angular momentum
> from the field to the particle, thus making up for the momentum lost by
> the payload acceleration.  Note that no mass is needed to accomplish
> any of this, only a power plant which may not even be physically
> coupled to the accelerator.

Space isn't a vacuum, only a very tenuous plasma.  I'll bet the charged
particles in the solar wind would gradually discharge the accelerator,
requiring constant recharging.

Also, this would not make up for the loss of orbital ENERGY.

                       - Jim Van Zandt

------------------------------

Date: 2 Feb 86 19:34:54 GMT
From: vger!al@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  ( Informatix)
Organization: UC Santa Cruz, CIS Dept.
Subject: Shuttle Privatization
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In the last few years several private organizations have tried to
purchase one or more shuttle orbiters to operate for profit.
Prudential Insurance lead one of these attempts and Astrotech
International is still trying.  With federal dollars being scarce and
given the recent loss of Challenger, perhaps it is time to privatize
part of the shuttle fleet if industry is still interested.  One
attractive approach is to sell Columbia or Discovery to a private
organization for the cost of building an additional orbiter.  This way
investors can get an immediate return and the funds to increase the
shuttle fleet are made available.  Should the private party miss
payments to Rockwell for the new orbiter, the government could
re-possess the privatized shuttle; thus, the government minimizes
risk.  If several firms wanted to take advantage of this deal, then
additional orbiters could be built; although the government should
probably keep control of at least one orbiter (probably Atlantis).

------------------------------

To: space@dewey.udel.edu
Subject: Challenger crew
Date: Sat, 01 Feb 86 22:37:58 -0500
From: Frank Hollander <hollande@dewey.udel.edu>

	I haven't seen it mentioned yet, but I think this is very
important.  I think that the "makeup" of the Challenger crew has,
and will have a lot to do with how the public responds to the
tragedy.
	It don't want to sound too much like James Watt, but we
had 2 women, a black, an Asian, and a teacher.  All U.S. citizens;
a great set of heroes.  Consider how the public would have responded
to the crew being all-white male?  Or perhaps if the shuttle had been
lost during an all-military mission.  Look around you and see how
people care (or don't care) about the 3 men who died 19 years ago.
If a shuttle had to explode, then this was (perhaps) the ideal mission
for it to happen.  With the teacher on board, the public awareness
was high.  I think that now the space program has the best chance of
succeeding (or failing) by the strength of its own merit.  This
tragedy brings the space program down to human proportions, which
keeps the public more interested.  Whether the interest is positive
or negative will have much to do with the future of the U.S.
space program
	So far, the naysaying has been (I think) superficial.  Let
us hope that it stays that way in the days, weeks, months, and years
ahead.  Let us pick up the pieces and go on.

					Frank Hollander

------------------------------

Date: 31 Jan 86 17:39:40 GMT
From: tektronix!teklds!athena!grahamb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Graham Bromley)
Organization: Tektronix, Beaverton OR
Subject: re: what happened to Challenger, continued...
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Since about 6pm last night, one network claims it has inside
information that NASA officials are concentrating on the 'strong
possibility' that a rupture occurred in the right hand solid rocket,
at one of the seams near the front, facing the tank. This would
release a 6000 degree F jet of flame onto the tank surface. The
scenario fits the TV sequence well. The observed orange flames on  the
left side would be incandescence from the burning main tank skin
wrapping around and to the rear of the tank, as you would expect  in
the airstream. This scenario would also explain why the final
explosion, seen in slow motion as an intense white glow, starts toward
the front, whereas the initial orange flames are toward the rear. The
fuel in the solid rocket would have burnt up to just about the
position of the suspect seam at the time of explosion.

You would not expect the solid rocket casing to necessarily dis-
integrate as soon as a rupture occurred, because it is designed to
withstand the heat and pressure of fuel burning inside from rear to
front.  It seams quite feasible that the liquid tank would explode
before a rupture in the solid rocket would destroy the solid itself.
The liquid tank has relatively fragile aluminum skin and would
clearly be penetrated very quickly by what amounts to a gigantic
blowtorch.

Apparently the solid rockets arrive at Canaveral in four pieces and
are assembled there, using an 'on-site splice joint'. These solid
rockets had been flown before.

I hope this turns out to be the cause; it would be a relatively
straightforward design error or assembly error rather than a major
design oversight, and could probably be corrected soon. Perhaps
stronger seams and some sensors and telemetry to detect ruptures  of
the solids, which I believe is currently lacking.

(An aside. Many people have said that all the telemetry appears
normal, right up to instant of the explosion, and so the cause may
never be found. But if all the telemetry was normal, it had to be
something that wasn't even covered by telemetry, which doesn't  leave
much.  Things like fuel line ruptures, main engine failures,
overheating etc.  would all have shown up in the telemetry data. The
entire main engine/fuel pumps/fuel lines/main tank system is thorougly
monitored because it is considered most likely to  experience
failures. Several non-catastrophic failures have been  detected in
this system on previous flights.)

If most of the forward sections of the suspect solid rocket  casing
are recovered from the ocean, the cause of the disaster may be proven
conclusively within a few weeks.

------------------------------

Date: 31 Jan 86 22:13:29 GMT
From: tektronix!uw-beaver!uw-june!entropy!dataio!pilchuck!ingrid@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (the Real Swede)
Organization: Data I/O Corp., Redmond WA
Subject: Re: Joy rides
References: <8601222243.AA04061@s1-b.arpa>, <8601280027.AA06488@orca.TEK>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> $1000 for a quick ride out of the atmosphere
> $7500 for an orbital trip
> $30K for round-trip to the moon
> 
> Another interesting question is: How much would you expect to get paid
> to live and work a) in orbit, or b) on the moon?
>
There's a company here in Seattle that's taking reservations for
citizens who (yes even in the wake of last week's tragedy) wish to
be Shuttle passengers. Brace yourselves, though...it's 50,000.00$ a
crack...some person called up the morning of the crash, and ordered
five reservations. Mabye it stirred up some sort of resolve.

------------------------------

Date: 1 Feb 86 23:20:03 GMT
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA
Subject: Re: Columbia Replacement
References: <860129202758.780479@HI-MULTICS.ARPA>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <860129202758.780479@HI-MULTICS.ARPA> Cargo@HI-MULTICS.ARPA ("David S. Cargo") writes:
> (3) NASA will have Rockwell refit the Enterprise to make it fully
>operational.  Nobody has mentioned this one.  Is it even possible?  I
>don't know how far the Enterprise is from being an operational orbiter,
>instead of a boiler plate shuttle replica.  Anybody have any ideas?
	I have it from a reliable source(someone actually involved in
shuttle construction/maintenence) that refitting the Enterprise would
cost as much or more than building a complete new shuttle. So this is
highly unlikely.
-- 
				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)
UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen
ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #106
*******************


0,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA08679; Sun, 9 Feb 86 03:01:20 PST
	id AA08679; Sun, 9 Feb 86 03:01:20 PST
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 86 03:01:20 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8602091101.AA08679@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #107

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 107

Today's Topics:
			    Re: Joy rides
			  Re: Ejection seats
   Re: Comparison between Challanger-plane crashes, auto crashes...
		   Re: Ejection seats -- calm down.
	 how to improve space program - miscellaneous musings
		      Re: Photographing Halley's
     Better estimate for time to replace Challanger (5yr -> 3yr)
		     Shuttles, Lotteries and Gods
		       Re: Joy ride into space
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 1 Feb 86 23:38:49 GMT
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA
Subject: Re: Joy rides
References: <8601222243.AA04061@s1-b.arpa>, <8601280337.AA06255@pwa-b.UUCP>, <648@wjvax.wjvax.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <648@wjvax.wjvax.UUCP> mel@wjvax.UUCP (Melchor R. Tolentino) writes:

>After yesterdays tragedy, I was wondering if anyone out there has changed
>their minds on joyrides to space. It's amazing how we all took the success  
>of the space shuttle for granted. I guess it reflects the mentality of todays
>'space generation'.
	Its still really quite safe - as has been pointed out it has
the best safety record of any new transport technology!

>By the way, sign me up . I'll still go.
	Around here there was talk of printing up T-shirts that say:
         still
	I   want  to go!
	  ^
	If they are made I will probably buy on.
	(Actually I would probably not pass the physical - I have
severe sinusitis due to allergies)
-- 
				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)
UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen
ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa

------------------------------

Date: 1 Feb 86 23:32:05 GMT
From: cbosgd!ukma!sean@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Sean Casey)
Organization: The White Tower @ The Univ. of KY
Subject: Re: Ejection seats
References: <667@ihwpt.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <667@ihwpt.UUCP> gjl@ihwpt.UUCP (g licitis) writes:
>The news people should stick to reporting the news and not to try
>to second guess NASA engineers.  10 to 1 they will have ejection seats
>on the next shuttle.
Your second sentence contradicts your first.  Think about the implications
of ejection seats:
1. They don't work at shuttle speeds.
2. They are only viable for about a minute into the flight, unless you
   make the crew wear pressure suits.
3. The shuttle can ditch into water if necessary, and anything that would
   preclude this is probably going to happen too fast to eject anyway.
4. How the h*ll do you construct a blowaway canopy for a space shuttle?
The reason NASA is not speculating is because they don't want people jumping
to conclusions.  They want facts supported by evidence.  Let's show the same
scientific approach.  I doubt very few of us here have all but the most
superficial knowledge of shuttle construction and operation.  I don't mean
to get down on everyone, but I really believe that we shouldn't over-speculate.

Sean Casey                             UUCP:  sean@ukma.UUCP   or
915 Patterson Office Tower                    {cbosgd,anlams,hasmed}!ukma!sean
University of Kentucky                 ARPA:  ukma!sean@ANL-MCS.ARPA
Lexington, Ky. 40506-0027            BITNET:  sean@UKMA.BITNET

------------------------------

Date: 1 Feb 86 21:14:31 GMT
From: decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!rochester!ray@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Ray Frank)
Organization: U. of Rochester, CS Dept.
Subject: Re: Comparison between Challanger-plane crashes, auto crashes...
References: <8601301631.AA04783@s1-b.arpa>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

There has been a lot of discussion about why the nation has mourned
the death of seven people aboard a space craft while the death of
hundreds or even thousands in plane and auto crashes goes almost
unnoticed.  I've asked myself this same question many times,
especially since I feel such a terrible sense of loss almost as though
I knew each of the astronauts personally.

I've come up with only a few answers for myself.  It seems that we all
need heros in one sense or another.  These astronauts were to me heros
who lived inordinary lives and took inordinary risks.  There is a vast
difference  between hopping on a plane and going to grandma's house
with only a billion in one chance of not getting there and hopping
aboard a space shuttle.  Also, this is the first such disaster for our
space program.  If planes had flown for 30 years without an in air
accident, such an accident would  certainly make headlines for weeks.

And finally, when we lose a loved one, we cannot expect a stranger to
feel the same sense of loss.  For me, it is like that with the
astronauts, I feel as though I knew them, especially the teacher, who
has been in the public light quite a lot lately.  If she had boarded a
commercial airline and I witnessed the plane exploding in the air, and
feeling that she didn't have a chance in a million of surviving, I
think I would feel as I do now; sorrow and a sense of loss.  As for a
plane crash where people are killed, what  spares me the same intense
sorrow that their loved ones would feel is that for me those people
never existed, I never knew them, never saw them.  I didn't know what
their smile was like or how they waved goodbye.  Please no one out
there take this the wrong way.  Each life is precious, it is only that
we are sometimes directly affected and sometimes indirectly affected
by the loss of human life, I suppose it is nature's way of sparing us
constant sorrow for the death every day of so many people.

I would like to see more comments on this subject.  For me, my sorrow
is still somewhat confusing to me.  I still find it difficult to
accept that this has happened.
  ray

------------------------------

Date: 2 Feb 86 14:30:35 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!rcj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Curtis Jackson)
Organization: AT&T Technologies, Burlington NC
Subject: Re: Ejection seats -- calm down.
References: <667@ihwpt.UUCP>, <2612@ukma.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <2612@ukma.UUCP> sean@ukma.UUCP (Sean Casey) writes:
>In article <667@ihwpt.UUCP> gjl@ihwpt.UUCP (g licitis) writes:
>>The news people should stick to reporting the news and not to try
>>to second guess NASA engineers.  10 to 1 they will have ejection seats
>>on the next shuttle.
>
>Your second sentence contradicts your first.  Think about the implications
>of ejection seats:
>
>	/* LOTS MORE GOOD REASONS FOR NO EJECTION SEATS, FLAMES, ETC. */
>
OK, let's not go overboard -- let's all try to read entire articles in context
before flaming!  What gjl@ihwpt.UUCP meant, if you read the entire article,
was that because of all the attention given to the ejection seat issue by
the Marching Morons (news media); pressure from an ill-informed public would
probably be so high that NASA would put in ejection seats on the shuttle just
to shut them up and get out of the "limelight".  Even the last sentence
was slightly tongue-in-cheek when taken in context of the entire article.
Except for *very* blatant boo-boos without any context allowing them to be
read in a different light no matter how you look at them, let's try to be
a little more tolerant.  A good rule of thumb is to edit your reply, escape
to a shell (assuming Unix because I'm lazy), and wait 1/2 hour before going
back into the editor and making sure that is exactly what you wish to send.
I know, I know, I don't always do it either; but I try!
Just in case anyone missed it, late last night NASA released more footage
of Challenger showing a "mysterious plume" of flame erupting from the
lower part of the right-hand SRB -- this plume could easily have acted as
a 6000F degree blowtorch right on the thin external tank.  Someone here
suggested this to me only 1/2 hour after the explosion, but later reports
from everywhere seemed to discount the SRBs as a potential cause -- up til
now, that is.
More as we hear it, and thanks for your time on the above,
-- 
The MAD Programmer -- 919-228-3313 (Cornet 291)
alias: Curtis Jackson	...![ ihnp4 ulysses cbosgd mgnetp ]!burl!rcj
			...![ ihnp4 cbosgd akgua masscomp ]!clyde!rcj

------------------------------

Date: 2 Feb 86 06:06:46 GMT
From: tektronix!teklds!athena!grahamb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Graham Bromley)
Organization: Tektronix, Beaverton OR
Subject: how to improve space program - miscellaneous musings
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Here are some offhand suggestions of what the space program
needs. Nothing too serious, read on if you care to.
1. Realise that more accidents are going to happen, some cata-
   strophic given the nature of the business. Perfect safety is 
   impossible. Some frequency of fatal accidents has to be 
   acceptable.
2. Recognise that the technological competitiveness and long-
   term stature of the U.S. are going to be much affected by 
   all space efforts, manned and otherwise.  (Already happening. 
   Hardly anyone said "stop the program!" after the disaster. 
   Compared to the wining about preempted sports programs and 
   soap drivels during Apollo, the silence was deafening).
   
3. The space program is worth a major national investment.
   Nothing else will so further a preeminent role for the U.S. in
   world affairs in the coming decades and 21st century, both
   economically and politically.
4. The current method of competing in the world arena with the
   other side, namely producing vast arsenals of massive bombs
   which can never be used, is absurdly expensive, ineffective and 
   dumb.  Some level of these things is necessary for basic 
   deterrence; but the other side has proven that it will ALWAYS 
   match any such advantage, given a few years to catch up. There's
   a better way.
5. The influence of the two powers is increaingly determined 
   by the visibility of their technological prowess and economic 
   performance. The east has continued to lose influence in the
   world since the 50's because their system manifestly DOESN'T
   WORK (well). While the east cannot be outclassed forever in
   terms of megatonnage or laser battle stations, they can and
   have been hopelessly outclassed by technological and economic
   superiority of a non-militiary nature. Nothing provides a
   better opportunity to increase this advantage than the space
   program.
6. Intra-solar-system operations, particularly earth orbit,
   the moon, Mars and asteroids will be the new frontier for
   the 21st and 22nd centuries. The U.S. can effectively claim
   much of this bounty for itself if it will only apply the
   necessary resources NOW.
7. Spend 10% of the federal budget on space programs, i.e.
   increase the NASA budget by about ten times. Start a crash
   program to build a fleet of twenty operational shuttles.
   Expect to lose five of them by 2000.
8. Simultaneously, start crash programs to send unmanned
   vehicles to the Moon, Mars and asteroids, with a view to
   manned operations in these areas next century.
9. Make LONG TERM plans for space efforts. These should
   include a space station (major facilities); possibily
   a lunar orbital station and lunar base; Mars orbit
   station (or On Phobos or Demos like the Russkies plan,
   that's why they're going to land a vehicle on one);
   and the jewel, a manned Martian base by 2050. (Wish
   I could live to see it).
  
You can't conquer the near solar system on a measly $7 billion
a year.

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 2 Feb 86 16:09:27 cst
From: ihnp4!stolaf!umn-cs!ncs-med!bcg@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Brian C. Grande)
To: umn-cs!space
Subject: Re: Photographing Halley's
Newsgroups: net.space
References: <8601151959.AA11727@s1-b.arpa>
Organization: National Computer Systems, Mpls

Responding!!!
	All I can suggest is checking some of the astro magazines at
the library.  There may also be an L5 modem in your area where you
could put in a request and/or find some free advice.
		good luck, hope to try it myself
				-brian

Brian C. Grande                     ...ihnp4!umn-cs!ncs-med!bcg
National Computer Systems           Work 612-893-8158
Health Systems Division             Home 612-938-2437
5700 Green Circle Drive
Minnetonka, MN  55343

------------------------------

X-Sent: to SU-AI.ARPA by IMSSS.FRONSTAD.EDU via ETHERNET with PUPFTP; 1986-Feb-03 01:34:10 PST (=GMT-8hr)
X-Mailer: EMACS -> PSL (FORMAT+SEND-ALL) -> PUPFTP
Date: 1986 February 03 01:17:12 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM@imsss> (this host known locally only)
To: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Better estimate for time to replace Challanger (5yr -> 3yr)
Sender: REM%IMSSS@su-score.arpa (for undeliverable-mail notifications)
Reply-To: REM%IMSSS@SU-SCORE.ARPA

First, erratum in my earlier message:
R> I would think that since they already know how to build one (learned
R> 1975-81) and how to test them (learned 1979-1985), they could just
R> hire a lot of additional manpower and put work on a 2-hour shift and
R> do all the tasks in parallel from specs already worked out, ...
"2-hour" should read "24-hour" (per day). Sorry for typo.

Now an update. In "Washington Week in Review" on January 30 they
estimated $2.5E9 (instead of $2.0E9) and 3 years (instead of 5 years)
to build one replacement STS orbiter. That means 2.5 weeks instead of
3 weeks of California Lottery proceedings, a trivial increase, and 2
years sooner, a big improvement. Maybe if we throw some more money at
it we can get it down to 2 years instead of 3 or 5?

------------------------------

Date: 2 Feb 86 20:51:44 GMT
From: cbosgd!osu-eddie!green@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Shuttles, Lotteries and Gods
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa
From: green (Jeffrey Greenberg)

1,000 people have been killed in South Africa in the past year.
Still, I watched TV all day when the shuttle vaporized.
People invest in lotteries and join armies when times are poor.
From space, the earth can be viewed from a distance.
	("The ladder extends us beyond ourselves, hence its importance.
	But where does one place a ladder in space?"
		Edmond Jabes, The Book of Questions)
jeffrey greenberg
osu faculty
614-263-0065
cbosgd!osu-eddie!green
and after march 15: ihnp4!allegra!phri!dolphy!jmg
-- 
jeffrey greenberg
614-263-0065
cbosgd!osu-eddie!green
and after march 15: ihnp4!allegra!phri!dolphy!jmg

------------------------------

Date: 1 Feb 86 19:07:07 GMT
From: decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!rochester!rocksanne!sunybcs!sue@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Sue Wroblewski)
Subject: Re: Joy ride into space
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Considering that my friends and i have seriously considered paying $100
just to go skydiving, my threshold for a space trip would be much
higher than that.  i would say, a few thousand dollars or so.
-- 
   Sue Wroblewski
   SUNY @ Buffalo, CS Dept.
UUCP:  {burdvax, rocksvax, bbncca, decvax, rocksanne, watmath}!sunybcs!ugsue
Csnet: ugsue@buffalo
Arpa:  ugsue%buffalo.csnet@csnet-relay
A person is not rewarded for having brains, only for using them.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #107
*******************


0,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA16686; Tue, 11 Feb 86 07:01:38 PST
	id AA16686; Tue, 11 Feb 86 07:01:38 PST
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 86 07:01:38 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8602111501.AA16686@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #108

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 108

Today's Topics:
			   SRB Burnthrough
			    satellite book
			 Cost of New Orbiter
			  Re: Re: Joy rides
		       Re: Columbia Replacement
      Antimatter as Rocket Fuel, SETI, US Electricity Production
			    Re: Joy rides
			   Buy an Orbiter?
		  Re: Space Shuttle Children's Fund
		   Sensors and real-time RE:shuttle
		       Re: Thermonuclear Device
		  Re: Cost of a replacement shuttle
			   SDI laser recoil
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 2 Feb 86 14:59:58 GMT
From: ihnp4!aicchi!dbb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Burch)
Subject: SRB Burnthrough
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

On CNN this AM I saw footage of what could only have been burnthrough
of the Starboard SRB.  This was from NASA tracking footage taken to
the north of the Cape, and impounded until yeterday evening.  If this
is found to be the cause, we should remember that analysis of earlier
recovered SRB's showed evidence of burnthrough, and that it was stated
at the time that only seconds had separated the flight vehicle from
the catastrophe that we just witnessed.
-- 
-David B. (Ben) Burch
 Analyst's International Corp.
 Chicago Branch (ihnp4!aicchi!dbb)
"Argue for your limitations, and they are your's"

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 3 Feb 86  8:23:51 EST
From: Dick Koolish <koolish@bbncd2.arpa>
Subject: satellite book
To: space@s1-b.arpa

The American Radio Relay League (ARRL) publishes a book called
'The Satellite Experimenter's Handbook' by Martin Davidoff.
It has some sections on orbital calculations.  I had to track it down
through a ham radio store, no normal book stores or electronics
stores had it.

I have converted the Tom Clark satellite orbit program to C, and have
made it take a file of satellite elements so that you don't have to
modify the program for each satellite.  I used it when the shuttle
was in a high inclination orbit and visible from the Northeast.

------------------------------

Date: 3 Feb 1986 08:26:40-EST (Monday)
From: "Josh Knight"   <JOSH%YKTVMH.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu>
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Cost of New Orbiter

Article in today's NY Times said that a new orbiter would cost
$2 billion and take a year to complete.  Mentioned "spare parts".
This was a continuation of a page 1 article to page A12.  All
the noise about one of the SRB's being the cause seems to rest
on new pictures and a 4% thrust drop 13.5 seconds before the
explosion.  There is a lot of written about what the abort
possibilities would have been had the orbiter been separated
from the SRB's and main tank before the explosion.

			Josh Knight
			IBM T.J. Watson Research Center
josh@yktvmh.BITNET,  josh.yktvmh@ibm-sj.arpa

------------------------------

Date: 3 Feb 86 00:01:01 GMT
From: ihnp4!stolaf!mmm!umn-cs!crickman@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Robin Crickman)
Organization: Computer Science Dept., U of Minn, Mpls, MN
Subject: Re: Re: Joy rides
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

------
> In article <8601280337.AA06255@pwa-b.UUCP> space@ucbvax.uucp writes:
> >At $100, I would almost certainly take it.  At $1000, almost certainly not.
> After yesterdays tragedy, I was wondering if anyone out there has changed     > their minds on joyrides to space.  
> 
>               Mel Tolentino (Watkins-Johnson Co.  San Jose, Calif.)
I will still pay $1000.  Maybe more.
John Hasler (guest of ...ihnp4!umn-cs!crickman)

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 3 Feb 86 06:02:05 PST
From: ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: ihnp4!space
Subject: Re: Columbia Replacement
In-Reply-To: your article <860129202758.780479@HI-MULTICS.ARPA>

Enterprise has already been donated to the Smithsonian and stripped of
any usable parts.  It's too old to be easily updated to the current
design, so it would be easier to build a new one.  The assembly line
has been kept open because NASA hoped for a 5th operational shuttle.
				Dave Newkirk, ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn

------------------------------

Posted-Date: Mon 3 Feb 1986 08:48:52 EST
Date: Mon 3 Feb 1986 08:48:52 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Antimatter as Rocket Fuel, SETI, US Electricity Production
To: Henry Spencer <decvax!linus!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu>
In-Reply-To: decvax!linus!utzoo!henry's message of 23 Jan 86 01:35:05 GMT
Cc: space@mc.lcs.mit.edu

An additional comment on using antimatter for rocket fuel:

As Forward points out, the way to use antimatter as fuel is to use it
to heat much larger quantities of normal matter.  In large spaceships
there's another way: use it as an igniter for small fusion explosions.
It might be possible to implode DT fuel onto a tiny antimatter pellet
and get (almost) completely clean fusion explosives.  The fusion
reaction products can be directed magnetically (as in Daedalus or Hyde's
fusion rocket) and can be mixed with normal matter (water, say) to
vary the exhaust velocity.

I think the US energy consumption in 1940 was somewhat larger than you
say.  A modern US power plant produces (say) 2 gigawatts of electricity.
If running that plant for a decade produces 1000 years worth of
electricity at 1940 rates, the power production then was only 20 MW!
This is clearly false; we already had some pretty big hydroelectric plants
back then.  Electricity consumption had been (until recently) growing
at about 7% a year, so over 50 years would go up only about thirty times.

------------------------------

Date: 2 Feb 86 23:12:57 GMT
From: decwrl!pyramid!pesnta!valid!markp@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Mark P.)
Organization: Valid Logic, San Jose, CA
Subject: Re: Joy rides
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Considering that I enjoy such things as motoring at 100MPH plus and jumping
out of airplanes (with a parachute, please), I could justify several K$ for
an orbit as the ULTIMATE RIDE.  Of course, that figure jumps dramatically
as ability to pay rises.  Hopefully that includes a landing ( 8-) ).
			Mark Papamarcos @ Valid Logic
			{hplabs,pyramic,...}!pesnta!valid!markp
Sometimes you just gotta say, "What the heck." (sic.)

------------------------------

Date: 2 Feb 86 23:54:34 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!topaz!harvard!bbnccv!bbncc5!mfidelma@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Miles Fidelman)
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman, Cambridge, MA
Subject: Buy an Orbiter?
References: <8602010203.AA01808@s1-b.arpa>, <11643@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, <3211@sun.uucp>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

So far, I've seen suggestions that:
	- contributions be made to buy a new orbiter
	- the California lottery fund a new orbiter
How about either:
	- a national lottery 
	- a stock corporation - sell shares on the public exchanges, use
	  the money to buy a new orbiter - lease the orbiter to paying
	  customers on a flight-by-flight basis - the venture might not
	  fully recoup its investment, but I'll bet a lot of individuals
	  would like to own a piece of a shuttle, and some of the corporations
	  and governments that fly satellites would like to put up another
	  orbiter (this might also work as a limited partnership - pass back
	  the losses, etc.)
Miles Fidelman (mfidelman@bbncc5.ARPA)

------------------------------

Date: 3 Feb 86 03:57:27 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!mcvax!vmucnam!imag!lifia!felix@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Francois Felix INGRAND)
Organization: LIFIA-IMAG, Un. of Grenoble, France
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle Children's Fund
References: <221@hadron.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <221@hadron.UUCP> klr@hadron.UUCP writes:
>
>	A trust fund has been established by the American Security
>	Bank in Washington DC.  The funds gathered are to be used
>	to provide financial assistance to the children of the 7
>	astronauts killed in the explosion of the space shuttle.
Is the Social Budget of USA so poor that American people must create a fund
for the astronauts' children? 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Francois Felix INGRAND       (-: Pourquoi tant de haine... :-(     \ | / 
UUCP: ...{mcvax,vmucnam}!lifia!felix               EDIKA            \|/ >
      ...{mcvax,vmucnam}!imag!felix                                ( O: )
                                                                    /|\ >
Disclaimer:  The views and opinions expressed here are mine...     / | \ 
             Please don't tell my employer...

------------------------------

Date: 2 Feb 86 23:46:00 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!topaz!harvard!cmcl2!acf8!schwrtze@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (E. Schwartz group)
Organization: New York University
Subject: Sensors and real-time RE:shuttle
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

After having worked on real-time data aquisition systems that read
sensors and interpret the data performing actions on the results, it
occurs to me that the shuttle systems are perhaps only marginally
better off then what I worked on, in the sense that you only have so
many milliseconds to analize the data  coming from 'n' sensors. I
understand the shuttles first design was to have twice as many sensors
as the current one. Weight considerations and risk factors eliminated
the 50%. Besides the onboard computers only look at a small subset of
the data, most of the rest of it is sent by a Harris machine down to
Houston for display and archival purposes. Maybe a future shuttle
should have more sensors and perhaps rely on very fast ground based
machines to crunch away during launch/reentry. How about TV cameras
pointing along the sides of the SRB's coupled with heat sensors that
are watched inside the crew  compartment. Maybe a camera might have
given the crew time to ditch, I  understand there was a 10sec period
before the explosion where there was a  power drop. A CRAY on the
ground could have sensed the loss and advised  people on board to look
closely at the state of the craft.  We will never forget what happened
and it must not happen again.

Hedley Rainnie.
hedley@alaya.arpa
{seismo|allegra}!cmcl2!alaya!hedley

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 3 Feb 86 08:35:12 pst
From: David Smith <dsmith@hplabsc>
To: hplabs!hao!noao!terak!mot!anasazi!will@ucbvax.berkeley.edu,
        space-incoming@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Re: Thermonuclear Device

Date: 20 Jan 86 17:56:45 GMT
From: hplabs!hao!noao!terak!mot!anasazi!will@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Will Fuller)
Subject: Re: Thermonuclear Device
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> The only "wow" number that I can think of off hand is that the Soviet
> Venera lander was subject to temperatures in excess of the surface
> temperature of the sun (far cry from the interior) when it entered the
> Venusian atmosphere.

National Geographic made the same statement about the shock wave
inches in front of John Glenn's capsule.

		David Smith
		hplabs!dsmith
		dsmith%hp-labs@csnet-relay

------------------------------

To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Re: Cost of a replacement shuttle
Date: 03 Feb 86 13:03:48 EST (Mon)
From: Christopher Byrnes <cb@mitre-bedford.arpa>

  I've heard reports that it will cost about $2 billion to restart the
Shuttle Orbiter production line to build a replacement for Challenger.
Anyone have any figures on how much it would cost to reopen the
production line and build several new shuttles?  Even if there is
never another tragedy, the three remaining shuttles are bound to need
overhauls, etc. in the years to come.  That reduces the present
available fleet of three to even less for perhaps long periods, which
may be unacceptable to government and commercial users.

  At various times over the years there have been reports of interest
in commercially owned shuttles.  Costs and the now hightened
realization of possible lost may have scared some of these people
away.  But no space delivery system (that includes Ariane,
conventional rockets, etc.) is 100% failure-proof.  If NASA decides
that it is in the national interest to reopen the production line,
might there be commercial interests willing to buy one or more
orbiters at less than the quoted $2 billion price tag?  Any new
shuttle may not be ready until after 1990.  Do people still believe
that the market of the 1990's will be so large (with space stations,
very large communications satellites, etc.) that three shuttles and
existing technology expendable booters can service it?

					Christopher Byrnes

					cb@Mitre-Bedford.ARPA
					...decvax!linus!bccvax!cb.UUCP

------------------------------

From: shawn@acc.arpa
Date: 3 Feb 86 10:30:00 PST
Subject: SDI laser recoil
To: "space-incoming" <space-incoming@s1-b.arpa>
Reply-To: <shawn@acc.arpa>

shawn@acc.arpa here
  While most of the talk of SDI is mostly over my head, I've also been
reading the messages about "laser powered" space flight.  In space
flight, a laser is used to push a space ship from earth.  In SDI a
laser is bounced off of an object tthat is amed elsewhere.  OK, so
will the laser push the mirror out of its position with each recoil
and if so, would that push be directed by the angle of the reflected
shot? Do es this have the effect of pushing the mirror all over the
sky and or how do you line up for the next shot?
  One other comment, before I cancelled the SDI project, I'd want to
know exactly why the SU is so very interested in us NOT doing it.
Asside from the escallation theme that is.
  shawn@acc
I can't claim to disclaim anything

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #108
*******************


0,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA19718; Tue, 11 Feb 86 19:01:20 PST
	id AA19718; Tue, 11 Feb 86 19:01:20 PST
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 86 19:01:20 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8602120301.AA19718@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #109

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 109

Today's Topics:
			      Re:  SRB's
			    Re:  loncrete
			  shuttle explosion
			   Shuttle Ditching
		  Challenger Tradgedy and The Future
			   SRB Flame leaks
			 Re: Shuttle Ditching
			Shuttle and the Media
			    Bitter note...
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 3 Feb 86 10:43:25 PST
From: mcgeer%ji@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Rick McGeer)
To: Dale.Amon@fas.ri.cmu.edu
Subject: Re:  SRB's
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa

>Just heard they are saying that it WAS a burn through of the left SRB, and
>that it can be seen from  other camera angles.
>
>Can anyone explain why off earth the thing didn't go tumbling madly
>after seperating? How there was no apparent sign of flame from the side of
>the SRB after seperating?

After NASA released the film, I took another look at my recording of the
explosion; sure enough, after the explosion and before the left SRB exited
from the frame, you could just see a small plume above the rocket flame...
of course, that's not the question you are asking.  My suspicion is that
the acceleration imparted by the plume was very small, and in any case
both the direction of the plume and its position on the rocket was very
close to the exhaust.  Hence, while the plume no doubt imparted some torque
and sideways thrust, it wouldn't be enough to tumble the SRB; if it had been,
it's possible that the torque would have been sufficient to roll the orbiter
a little, and hence would have alerted the crew to danger.

				-- Rick.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 3 Feb 86 11:11:24 PST
From: mcgeer%ji@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Rick McGeer)
To: REM%IMSSS@su-score.arpa
Subject: Re:  loncrete
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa

	Can someone please explain to me why we can't go to the moon
before the year 2000?  In 1962, Kennedy committed us to landing on the
Moon within eight years; we had to invent the technology and run three
programs (Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo), but we did it in seven years
despite a major tragedy that stopped the program for a year.  Now.
The engineering is done.  The Apollo/Saturn design is proven
technology.  Granted the production lines have to be re-tooled to do
it, I still can't undertand why we can't go to the Moon again in five
years.  Anybody?

						-- Rick.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 3 Feb 86 14:30 EST
From: ATTENBERGER%ORN.MFENET@lll-mfe.arpa
Subject: shuttle explosion
To: SPACE@s1-b.arpa

   I am new to this list, so forgive me if this is old stuff.
Has anyone looked into the possibility of the shuttle explosion
being due an electrical discharge between the liquid fuel tank
and the shuttle?  If the shuttle and solid fuel tanks are connected
by grounding straps to the liquid fuel tank, then read no further
and send me an enlightening message.  However the shuttle is
covered with non-conductive tiles, and it seems possible that the
entire shuttle and booster system acts like a capacitor, especially
in low-humidity conditions.  The charging mechanism would be due
to the shuttle having an exhaust, while the liquid fuel section
does not.  If the exhaust stream is highly ionized (I dont know
if it is), then the electrons might stream down the pressure
gradient faster than the more massive ions, leaving the shuttle
with a positive charge relative to the liquid fuel tank.
A large enough spark might weaken a very cold seam or even directly
heat enough liquid hydrogen to rupture the containment system.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 3 Feb 86 16:45 EST
From: "Anthony J. Courtemanche" <acourt@bbn-vax.arpa>
Subject: Shuttle Ditching
To: space@mc.lcs.mit.edu
Reply-To: ac%mit-oz@MIT-MC.ARPA

Although, as said earlier, it is doubtful whether the Shuttle could
survive the deceleration of landing in the Atlantic, it is interesting
to think about what the possible abort scenarios would entail.

First, the media (& NASA photos) say that an abnormal plume eminated
from the right SRB at least 15 seconds before the deadly external tank 
explosion.  Is 15 seconds long enough to initiate an abort?  At least
three events would have to occur:

1) Ground crew interprets visual data, determines that the situation is
deadly, and tells shuttle commander to abort.  My guess is that this
could take up a very significant part of 15 seconds.

2) Shuttle commander receives abort message and initiates abort
sequence.  I don't know how well the Shuttle pilots are trained to
respond to such frightening news, but I would guess that the commander
wouldn't freeze for more than say 0.5 seconds.   Now as far as
initiating the abort sequence, I've heard that this consists of pulling
a lever and pressing a button.  If this is true, I would guess that
this could be done within a second.

3) Shuttle breaks away from external tank soon enough to survive the
explosion.  I have no idea how different the trajectories of the
shuttle and the ET/SRB assembly can be made to be during an abort.
I would guess that in any case, to survive the explosion, the
ET/SRB-Shuttle separation would have to be at least a thousand feet or
so.  Even at this distance, any shock wave effects could still be
dangerous.

Now, even if all the above could be done in time and the Shuttle remain
intact, could the Shuttle obtain an aerodynamic trajectory before
hitting the ocean?  I don't remember the altitude that the Shuttle was
at when the explosion happened, but the Shuttle was on it's back and
this is not a graceful way to start gliding.  Also, correct me if I'm
wrong, but I don't think that any sort of engines are available to help
re-orient the orbiter during the abort (could the de-orbit engines be used?).
Hence, only the control surfaces on the Shuttle could be used to
establish a gliding (as opposed to plummeting) trajectory.

To me, it seems doubtful that an abort could have succeeded in saving
the lives of 7 astronauts or the orbiter.

I am welcome to have any comments on my above reasoning, and I'd like
to know if, in light of what I've said above, there was any reasonable
chance for a safe abort.

--Anthony Courtemanche
ac%mit-oz@mit-mc

------------------------------

Date:     Mon, 3 Feb 86 16:32 ???
From: Sonny Crockett <WELTYC%rpicie.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject:  Challenger Tradgedy and The Future


	In a recent article in Space Digest (V6 #86), Kurt Reisler
mentioned that he was collecting comments in support of the Shuttle
program to send to Congress.  I was having trouble reching him through
UUCP, so I'm posting this.

	The 7 astronauts who died on the Challenger were all aware of
the danger involved.  To any any way hinder the growth of the space 
program would be an insult to these American Heroes.  They gave their
lives for the Space Program, willingly.  In their memory we should REDOUBLE
our efforts, in a tribute to their courage, and the courage of the men
and women who remain in the program.  There are many people who would
give their lives to help promote the importance of the Space Program, and
I count myself as one of them.  If anyone thinks it's too risky to continue,
they should talk to the people who are actually risking their lives.  Ask
them if it is worth it.  If it were me, and God how I wish it were, I know
my answer would be to forge ahead.  Throughout history, the most celebrated
heroes are those with the courage and boldness to face up to danger, and
explore the unkown.  Ask them if it was worth it.  Of course it was.  And
of course it IS.  We salute people who die for their ideals.  I salute the
seven, and I stand ready to die for mine, tomorrow, today, or right now.

				Christopher A. Welty
				RPI/CIE Systems Manager

------------------------------

Date: Mon 3 Feb 86 18:59:06-EST
From: Glenn J. Joyce <GJ0F@te.cc.cmu.edu>
Subject: SRB Flame leaks
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa


I think I remember that on a previous mission Nasa claimed that one
of the SRB's came very close to flaming through to the skin.
For some reason, I think it was within an inch of solid fuel of doing
so. I believe it was STS-5. Could someone confirm this?

I also remember that the SRBs have not operated the same on every
mission. By this I mean sometimes they propelled the vehicle higher
or lower than expected. I know for a fact that on STS-1, the SRBs
propelled Columia 10,000 feet higher than expected.

It is also interesting to note that each SRB's propellant grain
is shaped to reduce the thrust of the booster by 33% exactly 55
seconds after ignition..during the period of Max-dynamic-pressure.

I also saw a report on CNN tonight where they interviewed a Nasa
investigator. His team examined one of the cones of the SRBs that
were recovered. He said that the separation motors in the nose
of the SRB had not been fired, indicating that the computers and
crew did not order them to separate. There are 4 separator motors
in the nose of each SRB that give 21,680 lbs of thrust each. Also
I saw the reverse angle cameras of the lift-off; those views clealy
show SRB flame through between the aft and aft-central SRB segments.

For the person collecting opinions for Sen. Garn: I am for
the program continuing. We cannot stop now. I am also for
a joint grass-roots and government funded drive to construct
another shuttle for the fleet.

Glenn Joyce

"If we die we want people to accept it.....the conquest of space
 is worth the risk."
                                 Virgil "Gus" Grissom after his
                                 Gemini 3 flight.

-------
-------

------------------------------

Date: 4 Feb 86 02:36:24 GMT
From: brahms!weemba@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Matthew P. Wiener)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Subject: Re: Shuttle Ditching
References: <8602032227.AA10998@s1-b.arpa>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <8602032227.AA10998@s1-b.arpa> ac%mit-oz@MIT-MC.ARPA writes:
>3) Shuttle breaks away from external tank soon enough to survive the
>explosion.  I have no idea how different the trajectories of the
>shuttle and the ET/SRB assembly can be made to be during an abort.
>I would guess that in any case, to survive the explosion, the
>ET/SRB-Shuttle separation would have to be at least a thousand feet or
>so.  Even at this distance, any shock wave effects could still be
>dangerous.
If the explosion was caused by an SRB burning into the ET, as seems
likely from the latest news, then presumably the SRBs would travel
separately from the ET, and there would be no explosion.
But I've read on the nets that the ejection cannot occur until the
SRBs have burned out anyway, so the question is moot.
ucbvax!brahms!weemba	Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720

------------------------------

Date: Sat 1 Feb 86 19:18:19-EST
From: "Jim McGrath" <MCGRATH@oz.ai.mit.edu>
Subject: Shuttle and the Media
To: space@oz.ai.mit.edu
Reply-To: mcgrath%mit-oz@mit-mc.arpa
Resent-Date: Mon 3 Feb 86 23:45:58-EST
Resent-From: "Jim McGrath" <MCGRATH%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu>
Resent-To: space%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu


    From: Chris Johnson <JOHNSON%northeastern.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
    The news media is often tacky, tasteless and inconsiderate.  I
    also wonder if they know a reasonable definition of news....  The
    news people broadcast family and friends going from elation to
    tears on the air.  I never thought that this kind of thing was
    news myself.  News is that the shuttle blew up.  News is that
    seven people died.  News is that nobody knows why yet.  News isn't
    millions of people being forced to invade someone's grief....

No, it is not news - it is entertainment.  I hope no one still
believes that the press is some noble institution.  As this episode
illustrates, the press are nothing but glorified snoops.  However,
they are snoops that we (including myself) support, what with our need
for knowledge and human drama.

I watched the entire coverage, and was shocked as to how little was
said during that entire day.  Not only was there little to say besides
the obvious, but it was clear that the media had allowed their space
coverage units to get flabby.  But TV being what it is, no network
could simply say "well, we don't have anything more to add, so back to
our regular programming."  Instead, they had to show the only material
they had available - the family, the accident itself, and earlier
videotape of the crew.


   The news media, true to form, questioned the whole of manned space
   flight and forgets the successes fast....

Actually, with a few exceptions (many on PBS), TV has been very
supportive of the program after the accident.  One anchor (Rather?)
even got in what I would consider commentary, not news, when he stated
that the program must go forward both because it is needed and as a
tribute to the dead.  No one has seriously called for an outside
inquiry (can you imagine the implied respect for NASA being so freely
given to any other government agency?).  Only when NBC speculated on
the impact on SDI were there any down notes voiced.


Jim
-------

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 3 Feb 86 16:59:53 PST
From: mcgeer%ji@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Rick McGeer)
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Bitter note...

	According to this week's TIME, ABC's switchboard fielded over 1,200
complaints from viewers over soap operas pre-empted by the Challenger tragedy.
Grrr.

					-- Rick.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #109
*******************


0,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA20772; Wed, 12 Feb 86 03:01:18 PST
	id AA20772; Wed, 12 Feb 86 03:01:18 PST
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 86 03:01:18 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8602121101.AA20772@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #110

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 110

Today's Topics:
			 SRBs and Challenger
			   Letters to NASA
out-of-date (pre-BOOM) "I'll pay $x to joyride STS" arriving even now
			   A Ticket to Ride
	    Contribution to 'scuttle the Shuttle' debate.
			      Joy Rides
	    Phase conjugation for ground-based telescopes
			    Re: What Now?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

To: risks@sri-csl.arpa
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: SRBs and Challenger
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 86 21:06:59 -0800
From: Mike Iglesias <iglesias@uci.edu>

According to this morning's LA Times:

 - Early shuttle flights had sensors on the SRBs to monitor performance,
   but they were removed to save weights when it was felt that the SRBs
   were performing well.  The sensors monitored pressure, temperature
   and vibration in the SRBs.

 - Two Rockwell officials familiar with the NASA inquiry said that NASA
   data shows that the 3 main engines experienced a power loss just
   before the explosion.  The power loss was noted between one-tenth and
   one-one hundreth of a second before the explosion.  The SRB that
   probably caused the explosion suffered a 3% loss of power (about
   100,000 pounds of thrust) seconds before.

 - NASA noted that even if there were sensors on the SRBs, little can 
   be done to save the crew if there is a problem during the first 2
   minutes during the flight.  They might be able to jettison the SRBs,
   but it would be difficult to stay clear of them and the external
   tank.  And another NASA spokesman said later that the crews don't
   train for that maneuver, and that NASA documents state that such
   an escape is possible only after the SRBs have completed firing.
   The shuttle would have a near-impossible task of ditching in the
   ocean if it was able to stear clear of the SRBs and the ET.

 - Other Rockwell sources said that telemetry shows that the external
   tank experienced an increase in pressure in both the oxygen and
   hydrogen tanks, and that pressure relief valves in both tanks 
   popped to decrease some of the pressure.

Could the crew survived had they known about the problem?  Who knows?
Maybe, if they had known about the SRB problem in time, if they had been 
able to get away from the SRBs and the ET, and been able to ditch successfully
in the ocean.  That's a lot of ifs...

I wonder if NASA is going to think twice about removing sensors after this...


Mike Iglesias
University of California, Irvine

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 3 Feb 86 23:47:39 PST
From: jon@cit-vax.arpa (Jonathan P. Leech)
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Letters to NASA

    I found the following address suggested  for  those  who  wish  to
write to NASA about the Challenger disaster:

    Astronaut Office
    NASA
    Johnson Space Center, CB
    Houston, Tx. 77058

    I can't vouch for this address (yet) but it sounds	reasonable.  I
enclosed a small donation along with my letter; NASA will need all the
help it can  get  to  replace  Challenger  (or	work  on  a  successor
vehicle).

    -- Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu)
    __@/

PS Anyone who wishes to donate money to  NASA  should  be  aware  that
    donations may not be earmarked for a  specific  project;  they  go
    into the agency's general fund.

------------------------------

Date: 1986 February 04 03:03:26 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM@imsss> (this host known locally only)
To: SPACE@mc.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: out-of-date (pre-BOOM) "I'll pay $x to joyride STS" arriving even now
Reply-To: REM%IMSSS@SU-SCORE.ARPA

D> Date: 24-Jan-1986 1133
D> From: decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-amber!dipirro@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
D> Subject: Joy ride into space
D> 	I think your joy-ride threshold is too low. I would be willing to pay
D> $100 for the experience and might even go as high as $300 or $400. I believe
D> that many a yuppie would even be willing to pay more than that.

I notice a lot of messages like this written *before* Challenger blew
up, which are now making their way into the digest. I wonder how man
of these message-authors still feel the same now?

Disclaimer: I disclaim this disclaimer.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 4 Feb 86 07:38 EST
From: SECRIST%OAK.SAINET.MFENET@lll-mfe.arpa
Subject: A Ticket to Ride
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa
Quote: "May your future be limited only by your dreams." -- Christa McAuliffe
Organization: Science Applications Int'l. Corp., Oak Ridge, Tenn.

Hundreds of dollars ?  Standing there on the flight deck watching dawn
over the Pacific Ocean.  For the third time today.  Seeing the blue
Earth silently seemingly hanging off the nose of the shuttle.  Having
one of the clearest views of the heavens ever afforded humanity.
Having the ability to be present in one of the greatest laboratories
since the dawn of man.  And this is only worth, say maybe $100 your
second time up ?!  I'd be so happy I'd be bouncing off of the walls
(heh,heh) !  Name your price and tell me what I can mortgage !

Richard
SECRIST%OAK.SAInet.MFEnet@LLL-MFE.Arpa

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 04 Feb 86 15:09:24 cet
To: SPACE-INCOMING@s1-b.arpa
From: WMORTENS%ESTEC.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: Contribution to 'scuttle the Shuttle' debate.

From:  Uffe K. Mortensen, ESA (The European Space Agency)


REFERENCE : -

>Date: 31 Jan 86 09:54:39 GMT
>From: vger!al@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  ( Informatix)
>Organization: UC Santa Cruz, CIS Dept.
>Message-Id: <324@vger.UUCP>
>
>In article <8601301636.AA04800@s1-b.arpa>, dietz@SLB-DOLL.CSNET (Paul Dietz)
> writes:
>>
>> Some myths:  that the shuttle is a cheap way of delivering cargo to
             ............
>Shuttle, with all of its problems, has a better record than Ariane (an
>unmanned European system) for lifting satellites into orbit.  Until the
>current flight, no shuttle launched satellite had been a complete loss,
>although there were several partial failures.  Ariane, in contrast,
>has deposited quite a number of its payloads into the Atlantic.  Shuttle
>costs to the user are roughly comparable to Ariane.
     ........ etc   ( END-OF-COPY-FROM-REFERENCE )

I find the debate has an emotional trend, so I do not wish to express
any opinion wether to 'scuttle the shuttle' or not ( although the
European Space Agency have a number of running projects, which relies
on services by the shuttle ). But I would like to add the following
more technical items to the debate above, specially concerning the
Shuttle/Ariane comparison:

1)  The user costs are 'roughly comparable' only as long as the cost of
    lost human lifes is not included.

2)  The 24 success, 1 failure present outcome of shuttle launches suggests
    a reliability of .97 of the shuttle launch. To increase this reliability
    to e.g. .99 will not only be very costly ( the curve is *very* steep ),
    but at .99 reliability the problem will only shift from the 25th launch
    to the 69th. The loss of human lifes will still occur, which is difficult
    to justify. Since the Ariane launcher is not meant for 'joy rides' with
    human lifes at risk, the reliability of Ariane is based on pure
    cost/benefit analysis: The price of an increased Ariane reliability
    is only justified as long as it will decrease global costs: In most
    of our satellite programs spare copies of the spacecraft are made anyway
    for other reasons. The current status of the Ariane programme have met
    these reliability constrants well within the cost/benefit predictions.
    ( The reliability of a typical spacecraft like GIOTTO is .90 ).

3)  The robotics issue is not wether AI and robots can replace
    astronauts in EVA, but whether robotics telemanipulators can replace
    EVA activities. ESA has an on-going programme to design such manipulators,
    which will have the same or better dexterity, force, sensing etc
    properties as astronauts in EVA. The point here is to avoid the very
    limited potential of EVA ( the de-compression time etc is tremendous for
    EVA ), whereas ground crew can operate telemanipulators continously.

4)  The scientists here disagree with the claimed micro-gravity of the
    shuttle, astronauts and support systems brings the system far from u-G.
    The SpaceLab flights clearly shows some crystal growth etc possible,
    but the more exiting life-science and material science experiments can
    not be performed with astronauts bumping around next door. In ESA a
    4000 kg spacecraft called EURECA is currently being developed, with
    *real* micro-gravity on board, i.e. no astronauts and attitude control
    which guarentees less than 1e-6 G on board.

-- Uffe K. Mortensen, The European Space Agency.

-- The disclamer is on the reverse side.

------------------------------

Date: 4 Feb 1986 11:50-EST
Sender: MHARRIS@bbna.arpa
Subject: Joy Rides
From: MHARRIS@bbna.arpa
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Cc: MHarris@bbna.arpa

At the 1985 edition of the EAA Fly-In at Oshkosh, the major attraction was
participation by a Concorde, featuring low passes, touch-and-goes (!), and
30-minute "Joy Rides".  The rides cost $450 as I recall, and were sold out
with long waiting lists.  The dollar values people are placing on Shuttle
seem therefore to be quite low.

------------------------------

Date: 4 Feb 1986  17:39 EST (Tue)
From: "Leonard N. Foner" <FONER%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Cc: Foner%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu
Reply-To: Foner%MIT-OZ@MIT-XX
Subject: Phase conjugation for ground-based telescopes
In-Reply-To: Msg of 4 Feb 1986  01:21-EST from Ted Anderson <ota at s1-b.arpa>

If my understanding of PCM's and such is correct, this won't work.
One of the assumptions made in using PCM's is that roundtrip transit
time is very short---short enough that the medium can't really change
its properties in between the original (distorting) trip and the
reflected (antidistorting) trip.  While the atmospheric transit time
is very short, the transit time to anything you would be looking at is
not.  (If the transit time is on the order of seconds or less, you can
assume the atmosphere is static.  But there's very little that is that
close that we need better looks at...  maybe high-definition telephoto
lenses for watching Shuttle launches?)

More to the point, though, where's the PCM?  Clearly not at the
object, since that's what you want to observe.  If you put the mirror
on the ground and put your imager at the top of the atmosphere, then
you have an undistorted path between the PCM and the imager---but why
not then just look UP from your imager at the top of the atmosphere?

I can't think of anywhere you'd put the mirror and imager so that you
could use a PCM for astronomy.  Maybe someone else who's more clever
can come up with a workable scheme.

						<LNF>

------------------------------

Posted-Date: Tue 4 Feb 1986 17:43:19 EST
Date: Tue 4 Feb 1986 17:43:19 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Re: What Now?
To: Craig Stanfill <nike!topaz!harvard!think!craig@ucbvax.berkeley.edu>
In-Reply-To: nike!topaz!harvard!think!craig's message of 30 Jan 86 03:04:42 GMT
Cc: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>    As transportation from earth to orbit for payloads, is
>    the STS economically justified?  I include in this
>    dollar cost, cost due to delay when the STS cannot get
>    off the ground, and cost due to payload loss when the
>    launch vehicle fails (a significant problem with
>    [ARIANE], and now alas with STS).

The STS is much more expensive than was originally hoped.  Launches
currently cost over $2000/lb, ignoring the development and manufacturing
costs of the shuttles themselves.  Ariane is currently undercutting
STS for commerical satellite launches to GEO, forcing NASA to subsidize
commercial payloads.  Ariane can not yet carry very large payloads into
space, but the Ariane-V launcher is under development and will have
a significantly increased payload.  Ariane has been somewhat unreliable,
but this will be improved with experience (since the design can be
changed rapidly).

STS is clearly not optimized for pure cargo launching.  If it were,
it would carry no crew: computers launch and land it anyway, and are
much less massive.  It's not optimized for carrying people into space:
if it were to do that it would be much smaller and not have the large
cargo bay.  It's a hybrid and suffers because of it.

>    Can the shuttle be fixed?  Perhaps NASA will figure out
>    what went wrong, and correct the problem.  But more
>    distressing, the shuttle is very complex.  Will there be
>    more losses as new problems crop up?  STS was built as
>    well as we know how, but it still suffers from many
>    failures.  Most of these failures have resulted in
>    nothing more than delayed flights;  some have come close
>    to causing disaster; now we have a catastrophic failure.
>    But then, who knows how many Saturns we would have lost
>    if we had flown 25 missions with them.

It is unlikely that 25 flights have discovered all the bugs in the STS
system.  Aircraft must be tested for hundreds or thousands of flights
before being used;  by those measures the shuttle is still experimental,
and will stay that way.

There's a statistical technique that can be used to estimate the number
of undiscovered fatal flaws in a system.  The same technique is used,
I believe, to estimate (for example) the number of undiscovered species
of animals in a tropical forest, or the number of words that Shakespear
knew but didn't use.  Studies conducted before the accident by DOD
showed that we could expect to lose one or two shuttles during the
program; that estimate may have been low.

The Wall Street Journal today (2/4/86) reports that NASA has been
pressing hard to make the shuttle lighter so it can carry its design
payload (32 tonnes).  This has been reducing the engineering margin
in many parts of the system, and concerns some contractors.  There have
also been concerns about too much pressure on the service personel
for quick turn-around.  If these concerns are true then NASA may be
forced to relax its economy drive, making shuttle launches more
expensive.

>.  Do we have a choice?  How long can we afford to be
>   without the Shuttle?

DOD has some backup boosters in the pipe, and plans to convert old Titan
ICBM's for satellite launchers.  Even if the shuttle flies again design
changes may make it too heavy to lift payloads into polar orbits where
spy satellites go.

NASA needs the shuttle to launch some science payloads;  for example,
without the shuttle, the Hubble Space Telescope is a billion dollar pile
of junk.  Ditto for Galileo and other payloads designed for the shuttle
cargo bay.

>  Are we willing to risk more orbiters and more crews?

If not, the shuttle is grounded permanently, because more accidents
will happen.

> First, the value of the Shuttle is as a means of perfecting
> space technology.  The fact that payload fees pay for part
> of its cost is icing on the cake.  I don't care much if it
> loses money in the short run; in the long run what we learn
> by flying the Shuttle is more than worth the cost.  

I challenge you to justify these claims.  My opinion is just the
opposite: the shuttle is demonstrably uneconomical and there are
few apparent benefits for using it.  We learn alot about a particular
design by flying it (as flight 51-L demonstrated), but little
general knowledge is produced.

> Second, I think the Shuttle can be fixed, and that it will
> ultimately be reliable.  ...   Commercial airlines have much
> larger safety factors in their design, but noone would
> certify an airliner on the basis of 24 flights.

The remaining 3 shuttles will fly perhaps 200 times (total) before they
are scrapped (assuming they don't blow up or crash first).  It's
not clear that these flights will exercise the system sufficiently
to significantly reduce the probability of a fatal accident.

> Third, there is little alternative to the current STS.
> Designing a new one is out of the question at this point;
> if we did, there is no guarantee that it would be more
> reliable.

But it would be more economical, and could be made unmanned (like
the British HOTOL will be).  It would not be available until the 90's
of course, but that's no reason not to go for a replacement.  NASA says
a replacement orbiter might not be available until '91 or '92 anyway.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #110
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA21850; Wed, 12 Feb 86 08:18:29 PST
	id AA21850; Wed, 12 Feb 86 08:18:29 PST
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 86 08:18:29 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8602121618.AA21850@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #111

*** EOOH ***
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 86 08:18:29 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #111

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 111

Today's Topics:
			 Butterflies in Orbit
		       Re: Scuttle the Shuttle?
		    Re: Did the Challenger wobble?
				Names
       Re: replacement orbiter = 2 weeks of California lottery
		 Re: Speculations on Shuttle Disaster
			  "Challanger seven"
			 Re: SRB Destruction
		       RE: Naming Uranian Moons
	  Re:  Contribution to 'scuttle the Shuttle' debate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:         Tue, 04 Feb 86 21:02:44 EST
From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Reply-To:  ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA
To: space digest <space@s1-b.arpa>
Subject:      Butterflies in Orbit

     A friend (Michael Bishop) recently asked me whether a butterfly
would be able to fly in zero-gee.
     QUESTIONS:
     (1) Does anyone have any good ideas on the subject?
     (2) I recall that one of the shuttle flights had an experiment
involving fruit-flies.  Did anybody look at them to see if they had
any trouble flying?  Does anybody know where I could find the results
of the experiment?  Does anybody know of any other experiments with
flying insects in zero-gee?  (I seem to vaguely recall an experiment
involving bees?
     DISCUSSION
     In general, flying involves a continuous interaction between
lift and gravity.  In ZG, you'd have to fly at zero lift, or else
do nothing but loops.  And, of course, you can't truly glide in
ZG: in a glide the energy you lose to drag is taken out of the gravitational
potential energy, nonexistant in orbit.
On the one hand, butterflies aren't very bright.  Their flight behaviour
is probably hardwired into their little brains, and they thus probably
aren't very adaptable.  On the other hand, butterflies are very small.
They fly at tiny Reynold's numbers (probably in the single digits,
although I haven't done the calculation) where viscous drag is large,
and further, they have low weight.  Thus, I would expect that gravity,
rather than being a major force in their lives, is more a second order
perturbation to them.  And they are smart enough to adapt to various wind
conditions, etc.  So my guess is that they probably could fly, although
they might have some problems, resulting in missed landings, etc.

                                         Geoffrey A. Landis

-------Special note to Bob:  I can't reach you on the net.  Apparently
the mailing exec here automatically capitalizes all addresses.  Why
don't you find a host that recognizes its name when written in all CAPS??

------------------------------

Date: 1 Feb 86 19:14:41 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!mangoe@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Charley Wingate)
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Subject: Re: Scuttle the Shuttle?
References: <8601301636.AA04800@s1-b.arpa>, <324@vger.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <324@vger.UUCP> al@vger.UUCP writes:
>> have you noticed how many problems there have been with
>> experiments in the shuttle cargo bay?  I suspect the vibrations during
>> shuttle launch from the SRB's are damaging the payloads.  
>Launching satellites ALWAYS involves a lot of vibration.  With the shuttle,
>however, you have people on board to fix problems that come up and the
>payload can be returned to Earth for repair and reflight as well.  Try that
>on an expendable booster.
My father, who designs satellite structures, tells me that frequently the
most severe mechanical shocks to the satellite occur during the mounting of
the payload to the vehicle.  It should also be pointed out that a lot of the
failures had to do with payload engines, which is just as much of a problem
with expendables.
C. Wingate

------------------------------

Date: 31 Jan 86 20:14:25 GMT
From: ihnp4!stolaf!umn-cs!mmm!mrgofor@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Michael Ross)
Organization: 3M Company, St. Paul, Minn.
Subject: Re: Did the Challenger wobble?
References: <437@mmm.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

I posted this article the other day:
* While watching my VCR replay of the shuttle disaster, I noticed
* something that others may not have caught. The TV people kept showing
* slow motion footage of the explosion itself - but they didn't think
* to go the other way and speed up the tape rather than slowing it down.
* 
* Using the fast scan on my VCR, I watched the whole flight in fast
* motion. Just before the camera cut to the chase-plane's view, Challenger
* seemed to be wobbling back and forth a little bit. It's too slow to 
* notice at normal speed - but I thought it was fairly easy to see
* at the faster speed. You people out there who have it on tape - try
* it and see. Is it my imagination? Could it hold a clue?
Several people mailed me responses asking if it couldn't have been
the camera wobbling. I obviously did not speak clearly the first time.
I am an amateur photographer, and I know about camera shake - that wasn't
what I saw. The wobbling was more like skewing (what do they call it when
the rear tries to overtake the front - yaw? pitch?) Anyway, it looked
as if it started to steer to the left, then the guidance system compensated
and it steered to the right, then back to the left, etc., as if the pilot
were driving a car and turning the steering wheel back and forth.
	It might be my imagination, but look at it yourself, if you can,
in sped-up mode. You can't see it at normal speed. It's sort of like
applying a "speed filter" - the speed lets you see patterns that would
normally be too slight to notice. 
	--MKR

------------------------------

Date: Tue,  4 Feb 86 23:08:13 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@mc.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: Names
To: rem%imsss@su-score.arpa
Cc: KFL@mc.lcs.mit.edu, Space@s1-b.arpa

    From: Robert Elton Maas <REM@imsss>

    It was suggested today that seven of the Uranian moons discovered this
    month by Voyager 2 be named after the astronauts & technicians &
    passenger who died on the shuttle this week. ...

    Since we haven't staked claim on these moons, what right have we to
    name them after citizens of our nation?

  Traditionally, the discoverer has the right to name his discovery.
Look at the names of the features on the back side of Earth's moon.

    All the other moons have been named after greek mythological beings
    affiliated in myth with the parent body.

  This is true for Jupiter and Saturn.  The five previously known
moons of Uranus (Miranda, Ariel, Umbriel, Titania, and Oberon) are
named for characters in Shakespeare.

    Do we want to start naming moons after real humans of the nation that
    discovered them?

  Why not?  We are running out of mythological names.  Most of them
(including the whole Hindu pantheon) have been used up on asteroids.
Some asteroids now have such pseudo-mythological names as
Rockefelleria (for Nelson Rockefeller) and Geographica (for the
National Geographic Society).
  Another possibility is for the government to auction the right of
naming each moon, and each mountain and each crater on each moon, to
the highest bidder.

    Why not name three more after Grissom/Chaffe/White ...

  Good idea.

    ... or after Russian cosmonauts who have died?

  Let them discover their own moons.

    Wouldn't it be sort of a slap in somebody's face to name the seven who
    died in the worst attempted-human-space-travel accident to date after
    moons that were discovered by the most successful
    unmanned-space-discovery mission to date, at a time when the contrast
    between these two missions is used by some people to argue that manned
    exploration should be totally stopped and everything should be done by
    robotics?

  No.

  Was the Arpanet site OBERON named after the moon, or after the
Shakespeare character?
								...Keith

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 3 Feb 86 09:17:39 pst
From: decwrl!amdcad!cae780!weitek!mmm@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Mark Thorson)
To: cae780!space
Subject: Re: replacement orbiter = 2 weeks of California lottery
In-Reply-To: your article <8602010203.AA01808@s1-b.arpa>

I believe the $1 billion was for the entire lottery collections up to this
point.

Mark Thorson  (...!cae780!weitek!mmm)

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 4 Feb 86 18:48:45 PST
From: ihnp4!ihwpt!knudsen@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: ihnp4!space
Subject: Re: Speculations on Shuttle Disaster

I'm sure aluminum would burn in the presence of pure O2.  I think it's
just above magnesium in the periodic table; Mg is used for flares and
incendiary bombs.  Armor-piercing bullets can actually set the
aluminum hull of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle on fire, and I think the
Exocet missile did the same to the aluminum hull of the british ship
lost off Argentina.

Also, aluminum loses its strength above about 450 F, easily attained
in home ovens!
	mike k

------------------------------

Date:  5 Feb 1986 0503-PST
From: Rem@imsss
Subject: "Challanger seven"
To: SPACE%Angband@su-score.arpa

Gee, a few days after I proposed the term "Challanger seven", I
started hearing it on TV and in the newspaper and now from others on
SPACE.  It could be somebody in the media reads this list, but more
likely it was obvious and others came up with the same idea
independently (except on SPACE where obviously they got the idea from
me).  I sort of feel like Leif Erickson, I did it first but the big
media people came along later and re-discovered America... But it's
trivial so I don't care.  (Hmm, did I misspell it? Sigh.)

I overheard the end of a news story on TV, something about NASA was
hoping to resume launching in June or July but now Reagan has grabbed
control and will force an indefinite delay. This was related to his
appointing a commission to study the explosion, but later stories on
the same commission failed to say anything about indefinite delay,
just that a deadline of four months for reporting back to Reagan was
imposed by Reagan.  Did anyone else hear the "indefinite delay" claim
that I half-heard?

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 4 Feb 86 18:56:17 PST
From: ihnp4!ihwpt!knudsen@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: ihnp4!space
Subject: Re: SRB Destruction

I think you're right -- one destruct channel serves
all 3 objects.
However -- are YOU sure which booster was which?  I had assumed that
the one first seen sticking out the top of the fireball
was the near-side (left) SRB, but who really knows?

Your suggestion of a radar transponder (std eqpt on most
civil aircraft) would certainly solve the problem.
	mike k

------------------------------

Date:    Wed, 5 Feb 86 10:17:22 PST
From: tencati@jpl-vlsi.arpa
Subject: RE: Naming Uranian Moons
To: space@s1-b.arpa

I do not feel that the moons of Uranus should be named after the astronauts
who died.  It was a national tragedy, the country is saddened, but I don't
feel that the United States is any more special in this world than any other
country.  True, it was a NASA probe that discovered the satellites, but I
don't see where that gives NASA or the US the right to name the moons after
something that only affects Americans.  I would like to believe that the new
moons of Uranus belong to mankind (sort of like the movie 2010).  The mexicans
lost over 200 people in an air-related disaster the very next day after 
challenger blew up.

In 100 years, the names of the seven who died will only be alive in history
books.  I think a more fitting memorial is to do something NOW.  Like build
or rename a school for schoolteacher McAuliffe (sp?).  So that today's pupils
remember and honer her memory and what she stood for.  Naming moons of a planet
that noone can see seems silly to me.  Naming a crater on the moon is a nice
idea, but we aren't going to have a moonbase in mine or my grandchildren's 
lifetime.  It's a nice idea, but who is going to fund it.  Let us not only
concentrate on the loss of America's first civilian-astronaut either.  There
were six other brave souls whose lives were just as important as McAuliffe's.
I feel the media is brushing the others aside, giving them "honorable mention",
while McAuliffe get's "star" attention.  The families of the other six are 
grieving just as bad, their loss is just as great.  Most of them left spouses
and children behind.  I think a memorial to all the crew is fitting.  Something
we can all see, and touch, and experience....now while everyone who is alive
can appreciate who those people were, and teach our children about America's
first "space pioneers".

Ron Tencati, JPL-VLSI.ARPA
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
4800 Oak Grove Dr.
Pasadena, Ca. 91109
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 5 Feb 86 10:30:56 PST
From: mcgeer%ji@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Rick McGeer)
To: SPACE-INCOMING@s1-b.arpa, WMORTENS%ESTEC.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: Re:  Contribution to 'scuttle the Shuttle' debate.
Cc: bush@kim.berkeley.edu, mcgeer@ji.berkeley.edu

	Frankly, I doubt very much that Uffe Mortensen's opinions are different
from those of his employer; ESA has a very big stake in the unmanned program.

	OK.  Maybe Waldoes make humans redundant, and when either Ariane or
Eureca can demonstrate that I'll believe.  Until then, with 1980's technology,
we can identify four projects that require human space construction:

1.  SPSs.  Not even Gold will argue that SPSs won't be important within 20
years.  Now most feasible SPS designs call for solar panels on the order of
kilometers across; you aren't going to ship that up in one shot.  Hence we're
going to have to assemble the SPS in orbit.  Well, maybe we'll have Waldoes or
robots capable of that kind of construction within 20 years.  But if we don't
and currently, we *don't*, then we either have human construction crews or we
go without SPSs.  And if we're going to have human construction crews, we'd
better start learning how to do it now.

2.  The Space Station.  All right, Gold and Van Allen probably think it's a
boondoggle, but as a platform for launching planetary probes it can't be
beaten.  Remember that a tremendous percentage of delta-v is used merely in
escaping the Earth's atmosphere.  To launch a larger, more sophisticated probe,
then, we either have to develop larger boosters or assemble the pieces in
orbit; the latter is a better bargain since long-period low thrust orbits make
sense from LEO (hence less damage to components => potential for more delicate
assemblies).  Further, I don't know of any geologist who would be prepared to
argue that he could learn more from a series of unmanned probes in LEO than
a fully-equipped lab manned by geologists in LEO.

3.  Space Manufacturing.  Crystals, Electrophoresis, bubble beams...the list
could go on forever.  Uffe Mortensen claims that the Eureca spacecraft will
be able to perform these experiments better than humans.  Well, maybe, and
I'll believe it when I see it; hell, I'll believe it when I see a credible
design.  But robots and teleoperated mainpulators of that kind of capability
just don't exist today, and waiting for the breakthoughs in NC machine
technology just doesn't seem reasonable to me.

4.  Long-haul Spaceflight.  Even Gold admits that a manned mission to Mars
is desirable, but "can't be done with chemical rockets".  That statement
happens to be wrong, but we have the Nerva-K (and Orion, for that matter)
anyhow.  But any trip to Mars will certainly involve 0-g transit of a year or
more.  This means we have to find out whether we can fly for six months
at a crack; we also have to assemble the ship and launch from LEO.  Both those
things require a permanently manned space station, which in turn requires a
working shuttle right now.

	Can waldoes and robots make humans obsolete in space?  I'd sure like
to believe it, because then robots might make humans obsolete in coal mines.
But the technology doesn't exist yet, and there's no really good reason to
believe that it will exist in the medium term (say, 25 years).  I'm not saying
we shouldn't continue the research -- of course we should.  But I am saying
that we shouldn't predicate our space construction efforts on the availability
of advanced robotic technology until we see the technology.  Hence we should
expect that the Space Station and SPSs will be constructed primarily by humans;
and that in turn means we need to send more shuttles up now.

					-- Rick

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #111
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA00245; Wed, 12 Feb 86 19:16:29 PST
	id AA00245; Wed, 12 Feb 86 19:16:29 PST
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 86 19:16:29 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8602130316.AA00245@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #112

*** EOOH ***
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 86 19:16:29 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #112

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 112

Today's Topics:
			    Re: Joy Rides
			       Joyrides
		       RE: Naming Uranian Moons
			  Re: Halley's Comet
			    Re: What now?
				Names
			Galileo mission delay
			    RE: What Now?
		 Soviet's tribute to Christa and Judy
		    Shuttle Challenger Explosion?
		Re: details of shuttle tank explosion
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Wed, 5 Feb 86 10:50 EST
From: Roy Richter <richter%gmr.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
To: space%mit-mc.arpa@csnet-relay.arpa
Subject:  Re: Joy Rides

I'd pay $1000 for the ten-minute ride.  Make that twenty minutes.

However, I found this in the Feb 86 Changing Times magazine, p.22:

Society Expeditions is taking reservations (for 1992) rides into space.
The company will use two conical vehicles to rocket 20 passengers and a crew
1000 miles into the great beyond.  You get 3 days pre-flight training,
8 to 12 hour ride in space (two meals included).  This is enough for
5-8 orbits, depending on the pattern.  Claimed is a max of 3 g's on liftoff.
The usual tour-guide services are provided (lectures, ``On your left
you see Africa,'' that sort of thing.)

They predict 1000 people/year by the late 1990's.  Start saving now, though:
You can hold a seat with a $5000 deposit, refundable up to one year before
the flight.  $50,000 for the flight, $2000 for pre-flight training.
More info at Society Expeditions, 723 Broadway E., Seattle WA 98102
or 800-426-7994.

Would somebody tell me if this is for real?  According to the low-brows
I've seen respond so far, $50K is out of line.

Roy Richter
Physics Department
General Motors Research Labs

****** Standard disclaimer, of course *****

------------------------------

Date: 5 Feb 86 11:05:56 PST (Wednesday)
From: NNicoll.ES@xerox.com
Subject: Joyrides
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Cc: NNicoll.ES@xerox.com

How much would you pay for a 'fake' space ride, but one complete with 0
gravity?
Consider a 5km long track or tube suspended in the proper parabolic
curve out in the desert someplace and a surplus steam catapult from the
Navy to launch capsules into it with enough force to let you experience
'liftoff' and leave you with enough speed to experience a minute of 0g
as you coast down the other side of the curve.  The rider would wear a
helmet utilizing NASA's 'full field of view' 3D viewing system and
stereo headphones to complete the illusion.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 5 Feb 86 13:22:58 PST
From: mcgeer%ji@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Rick McGeer)
To: tencati@jpl-vlsi.arpa
Subject: RE: Naming Uranian Moons
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa

	I'll bet you $100  to your $10 that we'll have Moonbase during my
lifetime -- I'm 28.

						-- Rick.

------------------------------

Date:  Wed, 5 Feb 86 09:48 CST
From: Slocum@hi-multics.arpa
Subject:  Re: Halley's Comet
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> Halley's  [rhymes with "valleys"]

I heard a radio news program that interviewed a descendant of Halley
who said that everyone has got the pronunciation wrong. He said that
it doesn't rhyme with "valley" or "daily", but rhymes with "volley".
Haw-lee.  He should know, being a descendant.

------------------------------

Date:  Wed, 5 Feb 86 09:49 CST
From: Slocum@hi-multics.arpa
Subject:  Re: What now?
To: space@s1-b.arpa

Here are some random thoughts, rumors, comments, etc. about
what the Shuttle and the recent disaster:

I recall that the Pentagon got a bit of flak last year for getting
funding to build some Titan rockets as backup launch vehicles for
large satellites.  I also heard on the news during the coverage 
last week that some Titans were being taken out of silos and 
refurbished as a part of this project. (Certainly to be replaced. 
Wouldn't want to be vulnerable to instant attack :-)

I also heard a rumor that there are enough spare parts to build a 
complete shuttle, and there is always the Enterprise to use for 
parts.  I should think that putting together a spare part version 
would take about 6 months to a year.

Ariane is booked solid for two years, so there is not going to be much
off-loading of launch capability. I did hear a most annoying 
idea that the US should consider sending their launch capabilites
overseas, as if they were talking about computers or cars.

I think that the US should correct the problem in the Shuttle, and
design a new shuttle.  The next design has the successes and mistakes
of the first to build upon.  After all, the Wright brothers second plane
was much improved over the first.

If the space program got as much support as SDI does, we would be
living in space by now, practically.  I hear that Reagan wants to
double the SDI budget in '87 and again in '88. And similar growth
thereafter.  In '87, the SDI budget will equal the NASA budget, if he
gets his way and also if the NASA budget doesn't get cut.
And this is in three years from the start of the program.
Just think where we could be if NASA's budget had seen that kind of
growth. 

    Brett Slocum
    (Slocum\@HI-MULTICS.ARPA)

------------------------------

Date: Wed,  5 Feb 86 21:59:16 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@mc.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: Names
To: mcgeer%ji@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Cc: KFL@mc.lcs.mit.edu, Space@s1-b.arpa

    From: mcgeer%ji@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Rick McGeer)

    By longstanding tradition, dating back to Galileo, the discoverer of
    celestial bodies has the right to name them.

  Actually, Galilieo's names for the moons of Jupiter (the only things
I can think of that he named) were NOT accepted.  He named them after
the Medici's, a ruling family in Italy at the time.
  Similarly, Herschell's name for Uranas was not accepted - he wanted
to name it for George the Third.
								...Keith

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 6 Feb 86 00:29:55 PST
From: jon@cit-vax.arpa (Jonathan P. Leech)
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Galileo mission delay

    Talking about  the	effects  of  losing  Challenger  on  planetary
science the other night, we thought of a new horrible:

    Galileo (and Solar Polar) will almost certainly slip to  the  next
launch window (June 1987?). Of course, problems with the Centaur upper
stage might have forced a delay anyway, but it seems certain now  (the
President's panel has 120 days to  report,  and  who  knows  how  long
after that it will take to fix the problem?)

    An article in the LA Times today claimed  that  only  Atlantis  is
equipped for carrying Centaur. The launch window  for  Jupiter	is  so
narrow that this would force one or the other to slip yet  another  13
months (the Galileo and Ulysses missions were to launch within 2 weeks
of one another in May). I don't know if this is true,  or  if  another
orbiter could be modified  to  carry  Centaur  in  time  for  the  '87
opportunity if so.

    As	a  side  effect,  the  Amphrite   (sp?)   asteroid   encounter
possibility is lost (although others may open up).   Furthermore,  the
flight plan once at  Jupiter  was  the	result	of  long  negotiations
between the various experiment teams and the navigation team  to  make
best use of the Galilean moons for  course  changes  while  satisfying
science objectives; that will have to be redone also, at great	effort
and time loss, unless they worked out contingency plans for  a	launch
slip already - considering how long  ago  Galileo  was	originally  to
have gone up, it seems quite possible.

    -- Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu)
    __@/

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 06 Feb 86 02:51:40 CST
From: C449499%UMCVMB.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu  (Randy Davis)
To: SPACE@mc.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: RE: What Now?

      nike!topaz!harvard!think!craig@ucbvax.berkeley.edu wrote:

> I think we have a future in space, and the sooner we learn
> the technology needed to conquer space the better.
  I agree. I believe that space represents the "last frontier",
  and that one way to make sure that we don't kill off the entire
  human race in some political/military misunderstanding is to
  learn to live in space and colonize it. In history the pioneers
  have always been the risk takers, but the better prepared they
  were the more often they survived.
>3.  Do we have a choice?  How long can we afford to be
>    without the Shuttle?  The military and civilian space
>    programs are utterly dependent on the Shuttle.
  I seem to recall that the Air Force is reconditioning some of
  titans to lift military payload. However, I don't believe that
  they were close to being ready when the shuttle accident occured.
  I think that NASA is going to have to diversify their launch
  program to use more than just the shuttle.
>First, the value of the Shuttle is as a means of perfecting
>space technology.  The fact that payload fees pay for part
>of its cost is icing on the cake.  I don't care much if it
>loses money in the short run; in the long run what we learn
>by flying the Shuttle is more than worth the cost.
  But being a natural cynic, I can see NASA's budget being cut
  even more if they can't get the shuttle to pay more for itself.
  Congress isn't known for taking a long-range view.
>Third, there is little alternative to the current STS.
>Designing a new one is out of the question at this point;
  But NASA could be planning for the future. I recall that there
  were plans for a 'space tug' that would be able to get into
  medium high orbits where a possible space station could be.
>I think, then, that the following is in order.  First, find
>the specific cause of this failure, and fix it.  Second,
>evaluate the design of the STS, from top to bottom, and try
>to find residual problems before we find one the hard way.
>This might ground us for a year.  Third, build three more
>orbiters.  We'll need them.
  How hard is it to evaluate the design? It may be the long road,
  but in the long run it is the safest bet to make sure that
  make sure that another accident of this sort doesn't happen
  again.
  Will Congress allocate the funds to build three more?
  One can only hope (and write to them). And if they do supply
  the funds, do we go with the design we have now, or do we
  move on to the next phase?

        Randy C. Davis

------------------------------

Date: 3 Feb 86 18:39:09 GMT
From: decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-ajax!fisher@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Burns Fisher ZKO1-1/D42 DTN 381-1466)
Subject: Soviet's tribute to Christa and Judy
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

It seems that the Soviets will name 2 Venusian craters after the two women
on the Challenger crew.  The report I heard said that this was the idea of
the mapmakers who were doing Venusian surface maps when news of the disaster
came in.
Burns
...decwrl!rhea!star!fisher

------------------------------

Date: 3 Feb 86 04:11:06 GMT
From: tektronix!tekig5!tekigm!timothym@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Timothy D Margeson)
Organization: Tektronix, Beaverton OR
Subject: Shuttle Challenger Explosion?
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Hi,
To anyone  in  a position  to  answer the  following questions, I
request your assistance.
I  have  a question  concerning the Challenger's last  payload. I
have heard from an uncertain source that the Hubble telescope was
aboard. Is this true? If so, why no mention of this great loss?
Second, the latest video tape images of the shuttles right engine
show what appears to be fire  (flame)  coming from above the main
nozzle,  about where you would expect to see the  nozzle join the
booster body. Is this a correct assumption?
Third,  what is the shape if the fuel vessels within the external
tank shell?  How far towards the nose  of the tank does  the fuel
extend? 
Fourth,  if the fuel does not extend to  the topmost area  of the
external tank,  what occupies  the  space  from  whence  came the
brightest of the flashes preceding the fireball?
Last, which fuel is on top. The oxygen or hydrogen?
Thanks for all the responses in advance, and please, feel free to
post the answers as I think everyone on the net  would appreciate
hearing this also. E-Mail is fine also.

------------------------------

Date: 3 Feb 86 13:33:29 GMT
From: ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!hjuxa!petsd!pecnos!don@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Don Hopkins)
Organization: Perkin-Elmer SSD, Tinton Falls, N.J.
Subject: Re: details of shuttle tank explosion
References: <806@athena.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> The impression I have is that the orbiter remained largely intact 
> for perhaps 2-4 seconds, still attached to the remnants of the tank, 
> until it presumably disintegrates within the fireball. The tiles on 
> the underside may have deflected the initial effects of intense heat.
> . . . 
Reports I have read indicate that the onboard computers detected a
drop in fuel pressure and shut down the main engines moments before
the explosion.
Name........:  Donald F. Hopkins
Company.....:  CONCURRENT Computer Corporation (A Perkin-Elmer Company)
US Mail.....:  106 Apple St., Tinton Falls, N.J. 07724
Phone.......:  201-758-7268
UUCP..(work):  ...!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!pecnos!don
      (home):  ...!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!pecnos!buslog!don
Disclaimer: The above opinions are only mine and not that of my employer.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #112
*******************


0,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA00975; Wed, 12 Feb 86 23:01:18 PST
	id AA00975; Wed, 12 Feb 86 23:01:18 PST
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 86 23:01:18 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8602130701.AA00975@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #113

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 113

Today's Topics:
		      Re: Shuttle Privatization
		       Re: Scuttle the Shuttle?
		  Re: Space Shuttle Children's Fund
		       Re: Television coverage
		    Re: Phase Conjugate telescope
		       Re: Scuttle the Shuttle?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 3 Feb 86 23:19:01 GMT
From: ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!hou2g!devils1@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (D.DARBY)
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel NJ
Subject: Re: Shuttle Privatization
References: <327@vger.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>In the last few years several private organizations have tried to
>purchase one or more shuttle orbiters to operate for profit.
> . . .
>One attractive approach is to sell Columbia or Discovery to a private

They won't get their hands on Columbia because the government wants it 
for military purposes.  It is currently being prepared to be shipped to it's
new permanent home at Vandenberg.

>If several firms wanted to take advantage of this deal, then
>additional orbiters could be built; although the government should
>probably keep control of at least one orbiter (probably Atlantis).

I thought Atlantis was only a prototype.
    (too much time to think...
     maybe I should do some work.....
              Naaahh !        )
					   dave darby
					   AT&T Bell Labs
					   Holmdel, NJ

------------------------------

Date: 4 Feb 86 09:10:25 GMT
From: nike!caip!lll-crg!well!farren@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Mike Farren)
Organization: Whole Earth Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA
Subject: Re: Scuttle the Shuttle?
References: <8601301636.AA04800@s1-b.arpa>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

I will respond to just one of Paul Dietz' comments, although I disagree
with all of them:
> Repair and maintenance of spacecraft in earth orbit, mining the moon,
> exploration of the planets, manufacturing in low earth orbit are all
> better done by robots and remotely controlled manipulators, simply
> because they don't breath or eat, don't die of radiation from solar
> flares, and can be launched by supposedly less reliable expendable
> boosters, can be controlled from the ground 24 hours a day and can be
> left in space for years.
   It's my understanding from my experience in assisting in the design and 
fabrication of the ACE electronics package in the Galileo spacecraft that
modern microelectronics are MUCH more likely to "die of radiation" than are
human beings.
-- 
           Mike Farren
           uucp: {your favorite backbone site}!hplabs!well!farren
           Fido: Sci-Fido, Fidonode 125/84, (415)655-0667

------------------------------

Date: 3 Feb 86 23:33:32 GMT
From: amdcad!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!eneevax!hsu@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dave Hsu)
Organization: Imperial Widget Research Center, Kingdom of Maryland
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle Children's Fund
References: <221@hadron.UUCP>, <325@lifia.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <325@lifia.UUCP> felix@lifia.UUCP (Francois Felix INGRAND) writes:
>In article <221@hadron.UUCP> klr@hadron.UUCP writes:
>>
>>	A trust fund has been established by the American Security
>>	Bank in Washington DC.  The funds gathered are to be used
>>	to provide financial assistance to the children of the 7
>>	astronauts killed in the explosion of the space shuttle.
>
>Is the Social Budget of USA so poor that American people must create a fund
>for the astronauts' children? 
>
>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>Francois Felix INGRAND       (-: Pourquoi tant de haine... :-(     \ | / 
[flame on, 104%]
The shape of our `Social Budget' is completely irrelevant to the creation of a
fund for the families of deceased astronauts.  They sacrificed their private
lives just to pursue the common dream of all mankind to explore; in the end
they parted with much more than their privacy and it just so happens that some
of us who remain earthbound feel the need to thank the unseen families behind
our most visible heroes.
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with such things, Monsieur Ingrand, but here in the
United States we like to take care of our own.
-dave
the Dream is Alive
-- 
David Hsu	Communication & Signal Processing Lab, EE Department
<disclaimer>	University of Maryland,  College Park, MD 20742
hsu@eneevax.umd.edu  {seismo,allegra}!umcp-cs!eneevax!hsu
"They were the elite, the vanguard of progress.  They would take mankind to
the heights...and perhaps beyond."
			-Arthur C. Clarke, Childhood's End

------------------------------

Date: 5 Feb 86 01:58:46 GMT
From: nike!im4u!oakhill!kvue!mitchell@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Roger Mitchell)
Organization: KVUE-TV, Austin, Tx.
Subject: Re: Television coverage
References: <11627@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>The ONLY video coming out from the launch site was NASA's official
>news feed . . .
Actually, each network (and a lot of local news stations) DO have their own
cameras present at the launch.  The NASA pool feed is provided to reduce the
amount of television hardware present at the KSC (the trucks used by networks
in covering special events are 45 foot long semi-trailors), and because, face
it, shuttle launches just aren't (or weren't) that big to the "average viewer".
However, I believe that the video we were seeing of the families in the
reviewing area was shot by non-NASA photographers, so let us in this business
take "credit" for that somewhat unnecessary intrusion into the families grief.

------------------------------

Date: 5 Feb 86 05:15:27 GMT
From: nike!caip!lll-crg!mordor!jtk@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Jordan Kare)
Organization: S-1 Project, LLNL
Subject: Re: Phase Conjugate telescope
References: <8601272039.AA01149@s1-b.arpa>, <1126@mmintl.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <8601272039.AA01149@s1-b.arpa> ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA writes:
>   >Why won't the phase conjugation technique work in reverse
>   >to build a large earth based telescope that removes the effects
>   >of atmospheric turbulence  ...  could make the Space Telescope
>   >obsolete.
>
>... There are two problems.  First... phase conjugation only works on
>monochromatic, coherent light (or at least light that is very nearly
>so).  More worrisome, though, is the fact that phase conjugation
>doesn't remove the distortion.  It antidistorts, so that repeating
>the passsage through the atmosphere cancels the distortion.
	Phase conjugation using non-linear optics (as discussed
in Sci. American recently) is (currently) limited to monochromatic
light and to some specific types of correction.  There is another
class of correction based on "adaptive optics": mirrors divided
into segments that can be moved (tilted) by electrical signals.
The "rubber mirror" project in the astrophysics group at Lawrence 
Berkeley Labs (where I got my degree) was an attempt to build
such a turbulence-correcting telescope.
	The size c of a "cell" of atmosphere over which starlight
is "coherent" (deflected the same way) is a few inches; the
"coherence time" over which such cells change is a few milliseconds
(and varies from place to place and night to night, just like 
telescope "seeing").  Thus, one needs (d/c)^2 mirror segments
to correct a telescope of size d -- a few tens to hundreds for
a good sized (say 4 meter) telescope -- and each segment must
be repositioned every few milliseconds.  The berkeley project
cheated by only worrying about 1 dimension, using 8 mirror segments
in a line to correct a modest (10 inch, I think) aperture in one
direction only.  The difference in path for different colors of light
is small as long as one is far from the horizon and not using too
broad a band, so the system works for white light.
	The problem is in figuring out where to move the mirrors.
It turns out that this is pretty easy if you are pointed at a bright
star; you just drive the mirrors one at a time to get the brightest
peak in the middle of the image.  The process converges to a "best" image
quite fast, and the electronics required are pretty modest.
	Unfortunately, one rapidly runs out of photons if the "reference"
star is dim (limit is about 8th magnitude, independent of
just about everything one can control, like aperture size), and the 
"field of view" for which the correction is good is very small -- and
there just aren't many things worth looking at that are that close
in the sky to 8th magnitude stars.  So the rubber mirror project got
dropped after proving (by resolving a close binary star) that the
principle worked.  So far, the problems appear to be fundamental.
	If you could supply the reference light, it would
indeed be possible to make diffraction-limited ground based telescopes
(possible, mind you, doesn't mean practical).  But remember that
anything in orbit (even geosync) would move 
rapidly relative to the fixed stars, so
you can't put your beacon on a satellite even if you could afford to.
Meanwhile, we'll just have to live with ten-meter light buckets
and 2000x2000 CCD detectors doing speckle imaging while we wait
(:-() for the Space Telescope.
				Jordin Kare

------------------------------

Posted-Date: Thu 6 Feb 1986 08:22:51 EST
Date: Thu 6 Feb 1986 08:22:51 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Re: Scuttle the Shuttle?
To: David desJardins <brahms!desj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu>
In-Reply-To: brahms!desj's message of 31 Jan 86 05:22:30 GMT
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa

>  But there are a lot of
> things that it can do quite well that no current or previous space
> transportation system could even aspire to do.

Name one that justifies the cost of the shuttle system (vague
references to philosophical principles not allowed).  And no ranting
against bean-counters, either.

>  The real question is not whether the shuttle is advancing
> the exploitation of space (obviously it is) but whether it is doing
> so more effectively and economically than the alternatives.  I wait
> to see your proposed alternatives.

It's not obvious to me that the shuttle is advancing the exploitation of
space.  It's not making the launching of unmanned satellites any
cheaper.  It's not a cheap enough launcher to make space manufacturing
economical.  It has been (and is) soaking up money that could be spent on
other more worthwhile endeavors:

  - Development of cheaper launchers
  - Unmanned probes to look for easily accessible extraterrestrial
    resources (Earth co-orbital asteroids, lunar polar ice deposits)
  - Development of space qualified teleoperator systems

>  As far as I know nobody
> has had any success in space operations using "robots and teleoperated
> manipulators." .I will put the ball back in your court; you are making a
> positive assertion here, that these things can be done.  Do you have one
> shred of evidence to back this up?

Are not ALL the planetary probes robots?  And is not the shuttle arm
a teleoperator?  It doesn't matter that the person controlling it is in
the shuttle cabin or on the ground (except for a small speed-of-light
delay).  NASA is planning an remote controlled orbital maneuvering
vehicle for low orbit retrieval tasks and (I think) a remote controlled
orbital transfer vehicle.  Teleoperated submarines are being used in
the oil industry today, and have been used to manipulate radioactive
substances for years.  The technology drivers for teleoperated systems
(sensor technology, electronics, communications) are developing
explosively, while the technology driver for manned space presence
(cheap launch systems) is developing slowly.

>    This doesn't really make sense, as I'm sure you're aware.  If all the
> vehicle is going to do is deploy satellites in earth orbit it makes far
> more sense to just launch the satellite and not the whole orbiter.  And
> the loss rate would be a lot higher than 4% without onboard human control,
> if the operation could be managed at all.

The shuttle does have one advantage currently: it can launch much larger
payloads in one piece than expendable rockets.  I doubt, however, that
the loss rate would change significantly with no humans on board, given
sufficiently sophisticated remote control.  Leaving people out might improve
the economics of the shuttle (although I'm told the major weight is
in the wings and airframe).

>   Even if it were possible it would mean abandoning:
>-- All repair operations in earth orbit
>   (e.g. Landsat, Solar Max, and many more).
>-- All recovery operations in earth orbit 
>   (e.g. the Long Duration Exposure Facility).
>-- All servicing operations in earth orbit.
>   (e.g. inspection and maintenance of Hubble Telescope)
>-- All human-directed experimentation and observation in earth orbit.
>   (e.g. many biology, manufacturing, physics experiments)
>-- All experimation and study of humans in earth orbit.
>   (e.g. studies of human response to weightlessness, human efficiency
>   in weightlessness) 
>-- All plans for possible space station construction.

Let me address these one at a time:

(1) Satellite repair.  This is a sparse market (for STS).  If
satellites are designed properly there's no reason why one couldn't do
it with teleoperators (as will have to be done in geosynchronous orbit
anyway, where most satellites are).  The economics of satellite repair
are dubious when the satellite has to be relaunched (as those two
comsats with failed boosters will have to be).

(2) Recovery operations in earth orbit.  LDEF was deployed and will be
recovered with the shuttle arm -- a teleoperator!

(3) Servicing in earth orbit.  There appears to be no good reason why
you couldn't service a properly designed space telescope (say) by remote
control.  I believe a teleoperator with the proper appendages (screw
drivers, grippers, refueling attachments, etc.) could be more efficient than
a person in a bulky spacesuit.  Servicing in geosynchronous orbit will
require teleoperators.

(4) Human-directed experimentation.  I said spacelab had produced some
good science.  I heard on the news the other night, however, that preparing
a science payload for the shuttle is five times (!) more expensive than
for an unmanned launcher.  And it's seriously debatable whether it's worth
the cost.  It certainly won't lead to space based manufacturing on any
worthwhile scale until launch costs are reduced dramatically.
	
(5) Experimentation and study of humans in orbit.  This should be a
means to an end, not an end in itself, and if human presence is
deemphasized in the near term there's no reason to do this now.

(6) Space station construction.  Yes, I believe teleoperators COULD do
this, and besides, it makes no sense to build a space station until
launch costs are reduced to the point that humans make more sense in
space.

I too believe in the use of space; I want my grandchildren to be born
in space.  I just think the shuttle is a waste of effort and is not
moving us towards worthwhile long term goals in space.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #113
*******************


0,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA03162; Thu, 13 Feb 86 07:46:32 PST
	id AA03162; Thu, 13 Feb 86 07:46:32 PST
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 86 07:46:32 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8602131546.AA03162@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #115

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 115

Today's Topics:
		       Re: Television coverage
		 Re: Joy rides - Barnstorming reborn?
		 Technology Failures (from mod.risks)
		       Re: Scuttle the Shuttle?
			"Destruction" of SRB's
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 3 Feb 86 14:49:34 GMT
From: amdcad!lll-crg!seismo!rochester!ray@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Ray Frank)
Organization: U. of Rochester, CS Dept.
Subject: Re: Television coverage
References: <11627@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> The ONLY video coming out from the launch site was NASA's official
> news feed.  So don't go blaming the networks for their supposed
> morbid curiosity of the crowd's bemoaning the loss of the Challenger.
> 
> The New Number Who,	okamoto@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
> Jeff Okamoto		..!ucbvax!okamoto

You are forgetting one thing.  It was the callous news networks that
were responsible for showing the crowd's bemoaning the loss of the
shuttle over and over and over and over ......, not NASA.  At first it
was news and then it was a money maker for the networks.  This is just
another case of irresponsible journalism exercised so ofter by the
American news media.  I am ashamed of them.  This reminds me of the
nighttime soap opera that was on years ago called:
America Held Hostage, Day N.
They call it Nightline now.
 
ray

------------------------------

Date: 4 Feb 86 01:27:38 GMT
From: amdcad!amdahl!ems@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (ems)
Organization: Circle C Shellfish Ranch, Shores-of-the-Pacific, Ca
Subject: Re: Joy rides - Barnstorming reborn?
References: <8601222243.AA04061@s1-b.arpa>,, <8601240756.AA23383@brahms>, <357@mcgill-vision.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> > Are you seriously implying that most people would turn down a chance to
> > go to space even if it cost 100 dollars?  Personally,  I think there
> > are many people who would think money was no object, they would
> > pay more just to get a chance for a ride.  People already
> > pay 100s of dollars for short plane trips
> 
>      I  think  your  analogy  with   planes  is  stretched   (charitably
> speaking).   I pay $200 for a plane  trip  not for the trip,  but to get
> from  point  A  to  point  B.  The  trip  itself  usually  is  not  even
> particularly enjoyable.
> 
>      There  would  probably be  a brief spate of  people willing  to pay
> whatever  it takes, tapering off to a trickle.  In a decade  or two such
> trips  will be as commonplace and boring  as plane rides are now.    (My
> prediction only!)
Hmmm.  Maybe you are right.  In the beginning we had barnstormers
giving rides that went nowhere; from it grew commercial airlines
that went somewhere...  I always wanted to go barnstorming ...
BTW, every day in San Francisco folks pay a large sum for helecopter
rides that go nowhere.  Ditto for Hawaii.  The cost of a chopper is
measured in HUNDREDS of dollars per hour.  The price for the rides?
I don't know, but to recover costs it ought to be in the hundreds range...
-- 
E. Michael Smith  ...!{hplabs,ihnp4,amd,nsc}!amdahl!ems
This is the obligatory disclaimer of everything.

------------------------------

Date: 3 Feb 86 17:11:51 GMT
From: ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtgzz!ecl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (e.c.leeper)
Organization: AT&T Information Systems Labs, Holmdel NJ
Subject: Technology Failures (from mod.risks)
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

This is being reposted from mod.risks.  I have given a summary of loss-of-life
incidents only at the beginning for some perspective on the Challenger
accident.  By the reasoning that many people/Luddites are giving we should be
banning pacemakers, microwaves, anti-theft devices, weather buoys, all
computers and software, robots (so much for unmanned missions!), autopilots,
medical computers, and of course cars and cigarettes.  Needless to say,
I think this reasoning is a load of horse puckey!
						Evelyn C. Leeper
						...ihnp4!mtgzz!leeper
*****************************************************************************
*[Summary: loss of life incidents only                                      *
*-------------------------- SYSTEM + ENVIRONMENT ---------------------------*
*!S Arthritis-therapy microwaves set pacemaker to 214, killed patient       *
*!S Retail-store anti-theft device reset pacemaker, man died.               *
*!$ Deaths of 3 lobstermen in storm not predicted by NWS; unrepaired buoy   *
*------------------------------- SOFTWARE ----------------------------------*
*!$ 1983 Col. River flood, faulty data/model?; 6 deaths                     *
*-------------------------- HARDWARE/SOFTWARE ------------------------------*
*!  Michigan man killed by robotic die-casting machinery                    *
*!  Japanese mechanic killed by malfunctioning Kawasaki robot               *
*!? Chinese computer builder electrocuted by his smart computer.            *
*     (This is from the WEEKLY WORLD NEWS, a trash rag if ever there was one*
*     so I suspect it's not even true. -ecl)                                *
*-------- COMPUTER AS CATALYST, HUMAN FRAILTIES, OR UNKNOWN CAUSES ---------*
*!!$ KAL 007 shot down, killing 269; autopilot left on wrong frequency      *
*!!$ Air New Zealand crashed; computer error detected/fixed, pilots not told*
*!  Woman killed daughter, tried to kill son and self; "computer error"     *
*    blamed for false report of their all having an incurable disease       *
*!$$ Shuttle Challenger explosion, 7 killed.  Cause not yet known.          *
*****************************************************************************
       SOME COMPUTER-RELATED DISASTERS AND OTHER EGREGIOUS HORRORS
             Compiled by Peter G. Neumann (31 January 1986)
The following list is drawn largely from back issues of ACM SIGSOFT Software
Engineering Notes [SEN], references to which are cited as (SEN vol no), where 
vol 11 = 1986.  Some incidents are well documented, others need further study.
Please send corrections/additions+refs to PGNeumann, SRI International, BN168, 
Menlo Park CA 94025, phone 415-859-2375, Neumann@SRI-CSL.ARPA.
Legend: ! = Loss of Life; * = Potentially Life-Critical; 
        $ = Loss of Money/Equipment; S = Security/Privacy/Integrity Flaw
-------------------------- SYSTEM + ENVIRONMENT ------------------------------
!S Arthritis-therapy microwaves set pacemaker to 214, killed patient (SEN 5 1)
!S Retail-store anti-theft device reset pacemaker, man died.  (SEN 10 2, 11 1)
*S Auto speed changed by interference from CB transmitter (SEN 11 1)
*S Failed heart-shocking devices due to faulty battery packs (SEN 10 3)
*$ Three Mile Island PA, now recognized as very close to meltdown (SEN 4 2)
*$ Crystal River FL reactor (Feb 1980) (Science 207 3/28/80 1445-48, SEN 10 3)
!$ Deaths of 3 lobstermen in storm not predicted by National Weather Service --
    3 mos unrepaired weather buoy; $1.25M award (SEN 10 5) [NY Times 13 Aug 85]
** SAC/NORAD: 50 false alerts in 1979 (SEN 5 3), incl. a simulated attack whose
    outputs accidentally triggered a live scramble [9 Nov 1979] (SEN 5 3);
** BMEWS at Thule detected rising moon as incoming missiles [5 Oct 1960] 
    (SEN 8 3).  See E.C. Berkeley, The Computer Revolution, pp. 175-177, 1962.
** Returning space junk detected as missiles.  Daniel Ford, The Button, p. 85
** WWMCCS false alarms triggered scrams [3-6 Jun 1980] (SEN 5 3, Ford pp 78-84)
** DSP East satellite sensors overloaded by Siberian gas-field fire (Ford p 62)
** 747SP (China Air.) autopilot tried to hold at 41,000 ft after engine failed,
    other engines died in stall, plane lost 32,000 feet [19 Feb 85] (SEN 10 2)
** 767 (UA 310 to Denver) four minutes without engines [August 1983] (SEN 8 5)
*  F18 missile thrust while clamped, plane lost 20,000 feet (SEN 8 5)	
*  Mercury astronauts forced into manual reentry (SEN 8 3)
*  Cosmic rays halve shuttle Challenger comm for 14 hours [8 Oct 84] (SEN 10 1)
*  Frigate George Philip fired missile in opposite direction (SEN 8 5)
$  Hurricane Gloria in NY closes Midwest Stock Exchange (SEN 11 1)
$S Debit card copying easy despite encryption (DC Metro, SF BART, etc.)
$S Microwave phone calls easily interceptable; portable phones spoofable
$S Sputnik frequencies triggered garage-door openers
------------------------------- SOFTWARE ------------------------------------	
!$ 1983 Colorado River flood, faulty data/model? Too much water held back
   prior to spring thaws; 6 deaths, $ millions damage [NY Times 4 Jul 1983]
*$ Mariner 1: Atlas booster launch failure DO 100 I=1.10 (not 1,10) (SEN 8 5)
*$ Mariner 18: aborted due to missing NOT in program (SEN 5 2)
*$ F18: plane crashed due to missing exception condition, pilot OK (SEN 6 2)
*$ F14 off aircraft carrier into North Sea; due to software? (SEN 8 3) 
*$ F14 lost to uncontrollable spin, traced to tactical software (SEN 9 5)
*$ El Dorado brake computer bug caused recall of all El Dorados (SEN 4 4)
$$ Viking had a misaligned antenna due to a faulty code patch (SEN 9 5)
$$ First Space Shuttle backup launch-computer synch problem (SEN 6 5 [Garman])
*  Second Space Shuttle operational simulation: tight loop upon cancellation of
    an attempted abort; required manual override (SEN 7 1)
*  Second Shuttle simulation: bug found in jettisoning an SRB (SEN 8 3)
*$ Delays of two Discovery shuttle launches due to backup computer outage 
    [most recently 25 Aug 85] (SEN 10 5) [NY Times 26 August 1985]  
*  Shuttle STS-6 bugs in live Dual Mission software prevented aborts (SEN 11 1)
*  Gemini V 100mi landing err, prog ignored orbital motion around sun (SEN 9 1)
*  F16 simulation: plane flipped over whenever it crossed equator (SEN 5 2)
*  F16 simulation: upside-down F16 deadlock over left vs. right roll (SEN 9 5)
*  Nuclear reactor design: bug in Shock II model/program (SEN 4 2)
*  Reactor overheating, low-oil indicator; two-fault coincidence (SEN 8 5)
*  SF BART train doors sometimes open on long legs between stations (SEN 8 5)
$  IRS reprogramming delays; interest paid on over 1,150,000 refunds (SEN 10 3)
$  $32 BILLION overdraft at Bank of New York (prog counter overflow) (SEN 11 1)
*S Numerous system intrusions and penetrations; implanted Trojan horses; 414s;
    intrusions to TRW Credit Information Service, British Telecom's Prestel,
    Santa Clara prison data system (inmate altered release date) (SEN 10 1).
    Computerized time-bomb inserted by programmer (for extortion?) (10 3)
    PC Graphics program Trojan horse (ArfArf) wiped out users' files (SEN 10 5)
*$ Union Carbide leak (135 injuries) exacerbated by program not handling
    aldicarb oxime plus operator error [NY Times 14 and 24 Aug 85] (SEN 10 5)
*  Multipatient monitoring system recalled; mixed up patients (SEN 11 1)
*  Pacemaker locked up when being adjusted by doctor (SEN 11 1)
*  Diagnostic lab instrument misprogrammed (SEN 11 1)
 S Chernenko at MOSKVAX: network mail hoax [1 April 1984] (SEN 9 4)
 S VMS tape backup SW trashed disc directories dumped in image mode (SEN 8 5)
*$ C&P computer crashes 44,000 DC phones (SEN 1 1)
$  1979 AT&T program bug downed phone service to Greece for months (SEN 10 3)
$  Demo NatComm thank-you mailing mistitled supporters [NY Times, 16 Dec 1984]
$  Slow responses in Bankwire interface SW resulted in double posting of tens 
    of $millions, with interest losses (SEN 10 5)
$  Program bug permitted auto-teller overdrafts in Washington State (SEN 10 3)
 - Quebec election prediction gave loser big win [1981] (SEN 10 2, p. 25-26)
 - Other election problems including mid-stream corrections (HW/SW) (SEN 10 3)
 - SW vendor rigs elections? (David Burnham, NY Times front page, 29 July 1985)
 - Alaskan DMV program bug jails driver [Computerworld 15 Apr 85] (SEN 10 3)
 - Vancouver Stock Index lost 574 points over 22 months -- roundoff (SEN 9 1) 
 - Gobbling of legitimate automatic teller cards (SEN 9 2, another SEN 10 5)
-------------------------- HARDWARE/SOFTWARE ---------------------------------
!  Michigan man killed by robotic die-casting machinery (SEN 10 2, 11 1)
!  Japanese mechanic killed by malfunctioning Kawasaki robot (SEN 10 1, 10 3)
    [Electronic Engineering Times, 21 December 1981]
!  Chinese computer builder electrocuted by his smart computer. (WWN headline: 
   "Jealous Computer Zaps its Creator" after he built newer one!!)  (SEN 10 1)
*  FAA Air Traffic Control: many computer system outages (e.g., SEN 5 3)
*  ARPANET ground to a complete halt [27 Oct 1980] (SEN 6 1 [Rosen])
*$ Ford Mark VII wiring fires: flaw in computerized air suspension (SEN 10 3)
$S Harrah's $1.7 Million payoff scam -- Trojan horse chip (SEN 8 5) 
$  Great Northeast power blackout due to threshold set-too-low being exceeded
$  Power blackout of 10 Western states, propagated error [2 Oct 1984] (SEN 9 5)
$  NY Stock Exch. halted for 41 minutes; drum channel errors killed primary
    and backup computer systems [24 Feb 72]
 - SF Muni Metro: Ghost Train reappeared, forcing manual operation (SEN 8 3)
*$ Computer-controlled turntable for huge set ground "Grind" to halt (SEN 10 2)
*$ 8080 control system dropped bits and boulders from 80 ft conveyor (SEN 10 2)
 S 1984 Rose Bowl hoax, scoreboard takeover ("Cal Tech vs. MIT") (SEN 9 2)
-------- COMPUTER AS CATALYST, HUMAN FRAILTIES, OR UNKNOWN CAUSES -------------
!!$ Korean Airlines 007 shot down [1 Sept 1983], killing 269; autopilot left on
    HDG 246 rather than INERTIAL NAV? (NYReview 25 Apr 85, SEN 9 1, SEN 10 3)
!!$ Air New Zealand crashed into mountain [28 Nov 1979]; computer course data
    error had been detected and fixed, but pilots not informed (SEN 6 3 & 6 5)
!  Woman killed daughter, tried to kill son and self; "computer error" blamed 
    for false report of their all having an incurable disease (SEN 10 3)
*  Unarmed Soviet missile crashed in Finland.  Wrong flight path? (SEN 10 2)
*$ South Pacific Airlines, 200 aboard, 500 mi off course near USSR [6 Oct 1984]
*S San Francisco Public Defender's database accessible to police (SEN 10 2)
*  Various cases of false arrest due to computer database use (SEN 10 3, 11 1)
*  Avionics failed, design used digitized copier-distorted curves (SEN 10 5)
$  .5M transaction became $500M, due to "000" convention; $200M lost (SEN 10 3)
$  Possible fraud on reinsurance -- message time stamp faked??? (SEN 10 5)
$  N-step reinsurance cycle; SW checked only N=1 and 2 (SEN 10 5)
*  FAA Air Traffic Control: many near-misses not reported (SEN 10 3)
!$$ Shuttle Challenger explosion, 7 killed.  Cause not yet known. [29 Jan 86]
---------------- ILLUSTRATIVE OF POTENTIAL FUTURE PROBLEMS -------------------
*S Many known/past security flaws in computer operating systems and application
    programs.  Discovery of new flaws running way ahead of their elimination.  
*  Expert systems in critical environments: unpredictability if (unknowingly) 
    outside of range of competence, e.g., incompleteness of rule base. StarWars
$S Embezzlements, e.g., Muhammed Ali swindle [$23.2 Million], Security Pacific 
    [$10.2 Million], City National Beverly Hills CA [$1.1 Million, 23 Mar 1979]
    [These were only marginally computer-related, but suggestive.  Others
    are known, but not publically acknowledged.]
---------------------- REFUTATION OF EARLIER REPORT --------------------------
* "Exocet missile not on expected-missile list, detected as friend" (SEN 8 3)
   [see Sheffield sinking, reported in New Scientist 97, p. 353, 2/10/83]; 
   Officially denied by British Minister of Defence Peter Blaker
   [New Scientist, vol 97, page 502, 24 Feb 83].  Rather, sinking abetted by
   defensive equipment being turned off to reduce communication interference?

------------------------------

Date:     Thu, 6 Feb 86 12:33 ???
From: Sonny Crockett <WELTYC%rpicie.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa
Subject:  Re: Scuttle the Shuttle?

	I must agree with most of what Devid desJardins said in his
response to Paul Dietz's flame on scuttling the shuttle.  I'm sure
Paul expected many responses, even some angry ones.  But I would rather
comment on some of what Dave said (the little that I don't agree with):

	Dave said that we should get our priorities straight:  we don't
really mourn the loss of life in the Challenger tragedy, but the loss
to the space program of productivity and money:

>   One more comment for the record.  There was an article from the LA Times
>which began with something like "While the seven lives lost in the accident
>are of course the primary concern..." and then went on to talk about the
>impact on the space program.  This is absurd.  The next day 21 people died
>in Mexico in a plane crash and I don't think most network news programs
>even mentioned it.  Three maintenance workers died in a room full of pure
>nitrogen in the early days of the shuttle program, and it was essentially
>ignored by the public and the news media.  And those were not people who
>had chosen, with full knowledge of the danger, to take a rather large risk.

	That's exactly why there is a big difference.  These people knew
what the risks were.  There were not afraid to take these risks.  People
who die in plane crashes and cars and from cigarettes (and all the other
things that kill people) do not consider themselves to be taking any risks.
No one thinks "he was brave for driving here", or "you flew? How wonderfully
corageous!" (Unless it was a flight to Libya).  These people died doing
something they believed in, promoting the future of man in space, something
they thought was important enough to die for.  No one dies in a plane crash
because they think flying a plane is an important ideal to follow.
	Secondly, the reason that many of us do care considerably, and were
affected by the deaths of the "Challenger Seven" was because we felt close
to them.  If someone you know dies in a plane or car accident, then you do
feel the loss, and you will mourn.  Well, the astronauts were close to many
of us, they were our heros.  My dream since childhood, and I am not alone, was
to be one.  I still yearn to join the space program.  So when these men and
women whom I admired, and even idolized at times, died, I felt the loss of
their lives as if they had been family or close friends.  Don't ever tell me
I mourn the loss of the dollars more than I mourn the loss of life.  You are
WAY out of line.

					-Christopher A. Welty
					 RPI/CIE Systems Manager

------------------------------

Date:  6 Feb 1986 18:46-EST 
From: Jon.Webb@ius2.cs.cmu.edu
To: space@mc.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: "Destruction" of SRB's

I've seen a lot of discussion here of the "destruction" of the solid
rocket boosters by the range safety officer and how if they had not
been destroyed we might have learned something from them (this same
speculation appeared in the press).  It's possible that this
speculation is just out of date (because of delays through usenet) but
if people are still thinking that, be reassured.  "Destroying" the
SRB's means setting off explosives that rip the top off the rocket,
thus making it immediately lose forward thrust.  The rest of the
rocket, where the leak apparently occured, should be in good shape.  In
fact, it seems that removing the forward thrust is just what you want
to do; it makes it more likely that something recognizable will be left
when the rocket finally hits the water.

Jon

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #115
*******************


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 AA07101; Fri, 14 Feb 86 10:16:29 PST
	id AA07101; Fri, 14 Feb 86 10:16:29 PST
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 86 10:16:29 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8602141816.AA07101@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #116

*** EOOH ***
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 86 10:16:29 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #116

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 116

Today's Topics:
		       Re: scuttle the shuttle?
			 Manned vs. Unmanned
			Shuttle ejection seats
		       Re: scuttle the shuttle?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted-Date: Thu 6 Feb 1986 17:07:47 EST
Date: Thu 6 Feb 1986 17:07:47 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Re: scuttle the shuttle?
To: vger!al@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Cc: space@mc.lcs.mit.edu

>Actual cost to a user is more like $1500/lb.  Contrary to making space
>manufacturing uneconomical, only the shuttle makes space manufacturing
>POSSIBLE (except for the now defunct Salyut).

NY Times reports $2000 to $2500/lb.  Where do your figures come from,
and what assumptions are you making (is amortization of the orbiter included,
for example, and how large is the payload?).  Cost to the *user* is also
a little misleading, since it doesn't include the cost NASA incurs to
subsidize launching rates.

The ability to make things in space is worthless if the product costs
more than you can sell it for.

> No industry in the history
> of the world has been established without people there to set it up.

The satellite communications industry works very well even
though no person has ever been to geosynchronous orbit.  And the history
of ground based industries are clearly irrelevant, since life support and
transportation are so cheap down here.

>The shuttle can put the people and the equipment up
>to do all of the the initial, necessary startup work for establishing
>orbital factories.  No other space system in use today, with the possible
>exception of the Soviet system, can do that.  At any price.  That goes
>for any near terms plans that I am aware of as well.

You can do microgravity experiments in unmanned satellites (fit them with
a heat shield and retrorockets).  Indeed, some microgravity work needs
a better environment than the shuttle can provide and would have to be
done in free flyers.  Also, doing research for space manufacturing would
be more reasonable if we could expect to have cheaper launcher soon (but
we're not going to).

>  McDonnell Douglas and 3M are both seriously working
>  on orbital processing. 

McDonnell Douglas's partner, Ortho Pharmaceuticals, has pulled out of
the continuous flow electrophoresis project because it claims it
can make the drugs just a cheaply on the ground.  My impression of the
3M work was that it was research at this stage, and that NASA has been
unable to get 3M to commit to using the space station (please correct
me if I'm wrong on this second point).

>  Almost every flight lately has had some kind of materials
> processing experiments, many of which have gone very well.  Japan and
> Europe are extremely interested in this area.  Some reports claim that
> a substantial fraction of the all of the semi-conductor material used
> by the Soviets come from Salyut.

No doubt experiments have gone well (and why not conduct the
experiments, when NASA heavily subsidizes them), but that's not
the same thing as setting up space manufacturing.  Such experiments
can be valuable even if you don't intend to do space manufacturing,
because they let you identify what effect convection is having on
your ground-based process.

Rumors about the Soviets are interesting but hardly persuasive.
Crystallizing silicon in orbit makes little sense, so you probably
have this garbled.

> Shuttle, with all of its problems, has a better record than Ariane (an
> unmanned European system) for lifting satellites into orbit.  Until the
> current flight, no shuttle launched satellite had been a complete loss,
> although there were several partial failures.  

Not true.  One shuttle launched satellite failed after being injected
to its transfer orbit (this wasn't the first TDRS). Ariane has been
unreliable, but that happens with any system on its first flights.
The later Arianes will have the problems fixed and will (asymptotically)
become more reliable.  If you criticize Ariane for teething problems
you must also, in all fairness, criticize the PAM, IUS and the shuttle
itself for reliability problems.

> Launching satellites ALWAYS involves a lot of vibration.  With the shuttle,
> however, you have people on board to fix problems that come up and the
> payload can be returned to Earth for repair and reflight as well.  Try that
> on an expendable booster.

But much more vibration when you use monster solid rockets.  The record
of people on the shuttle fixing external experiments in the cargo bay has
not been exceptional.

> Shuttle initiated satellite repair on orbit, satellite retrieval, and has
> given a lot of people hands on experience with the problems of working in
> space.  Construction techniques have been verified by actual experiment.
> With the return of the long duration exposure facility we will get a good
> look at the long term effects of low earth orbit on many materials. Something
> we can only get if we RETURN things from space, which only the shuttle can
> do.  All of these substantially further real exploitation of space.  In 
> addition, shuttle capabilities are critical to space station, and various
> commercial projects to establish industry in space.

Of course material can be returned to earth without the shuttle: simple
ablatively cooled capsules (both manned and unmanned) have been used for
years.  The utility of people doing EVAs in low orbit is debatable; the
expertise does not easily extend to where it would be more useful
(geosynchronous orbit).  I don't believe space manufacturing is currently
economically viable, so I don't buy the space station argument.

About teleoperation: because people are adaptable, they can do things
(like doing unanticipated repairs on satellites) that would be hard
for a machine to accomplish.  However, the important question is: is
the extra adaptability humans possess worth the considerably higher
costs incurred in putting them in space?  If teleoperators can
accomplish 90% (say) of the things people can do, people should probably
stay on the ground for a while.

The need for adaptability can be reduced by proper design.  For
example, a communications satellite can be designed in a modular
fashion so that spare parts may be plugged in with little dexterity.
This is analagous to redesigning a product so that robots may put it
together easily rather than build extremely capable robots that can
mimic human assembly techniques.

There has been considerable work in teleoperated manipulators on
remote controlled submersible vehicles, motivated by their applications
in off-shore drilling and in the military.  The latest issue of High
Technology (Feb. 1986) has an interesting article on the technology.

> Here in the Bay area they though human pilots were unnecessary for the
> extremely simple problem of controlling subway cars.  They were wrong, the
> automatic systems on BART have been the source of never ending problems.
> People are very good at controlling vehicles, we should use them.

The time critical parts of a shuttle flight are already computer
controlled (lift-off and landing).  The in-orbit part can be handled
simply by sending shuttle telemetry to (say) a ground based cabin mockup.
You'd need the TDRS satellites in orbit for this to work.

------------------------------

Date: 3 Feb 86 02:39:26 GMT
From: decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!k.cs.cmu.edu!dep@ucbvax.  (David Pugh)
Subject: Manned vs. Unmanned
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

    The Challenger disaster has raised the manned vs. unmanned debate to
new heights. More people than ever are beginning to wonder whether we really 
should be sending men and women into space. Perhaps, they wonder, we should
wait until it is safer. After all, Voyager shows that people don't really need 
to send people into space. Right?
				WRONG!
    Voyager didn't prove anything. All it had to do was sit and watch the 
greatest show in the solar system. People have done and will be (hopefully!)
doing  far more difficult jobs (repairing satellites, producing new medicines,
etc.).
    Now, and for the forseeable future, people are needed in space to repair 
satellites and to conduct 'shotgun' research (conducting a wide variety of
experiments where the astronaut is responsible for setting the experiments
up). The technology to have waldos (mechanical arms which are controlled
from the ground) do any but the simplest of these jobs simply isn't there.
Consider:
    o	The best waldos available today have little, if any, feedback. This
	means that jobs which are easy to do by hand are difficult, if not 
	impossible to do with a waldo.
    o	The best mechanical 'hands' available today are crude, not having
	anywhere near the flexibility of a human hand (even one encased in a
	heavy glove).
    o	Any waldo used in space will have to be controlled by a radio link. 
	But, NASA no longer has world-wide radio coverage. This means that
	either:
		The waldo is used for only the 15-30 minutes out of each
		orbit it is in radio contact.
		The commands to the waldo are relayed through a satellite
		in geosynchronous orbit. This may not be practical, since
		it means that there will be a 1/2 second delay due to
		speed of light lag.
    Using robots to do repair work is even farther in the future than using
waldos. With the technology available today, it is considered a major
accomplishment to just have a robot pick the right tool up, much less use
it correctly.
    'Shotgun' research is just as, if not more, valuable than repairing 
satellites.  Consider how expensive it would be to send design a payload that 
will take a picture of Halley's comet. It was much less expensive to simply 
hand a camera to one of the astronaughts and ask him or her to take the picture.
A lot of important research that has been done on the space shuttle would
have simply been too expensive to do before we began routinely sending
people into orbit.
    Cost has always been the bottom line. Having people in orbit has allowed
us to recover two satellites, repair two satellites and perform an incredible
amount of research. Without people in orbit, these missions would either have 
been impossible, or far more expensive. In the long run, because of their 
ability to perform research cheaply and their to fix things when they go wrong 
(Columbia, the satellite you just launched isn't working. Could someone go out
and kick it? :-), manned launches will be cheaper than unmanned ones.
    As for waiting until space travel is safer...space travel will never
be perfectly safe (but, neither will driving to work). Obviously we should
try to make it as safe as possible. But when is it safe enough? A reasonable
answer would be: that it is safe enough when there are people willing to do
it. Even following the Challenger disaster, there is no shortage of people
willing to work in space. I say: let's give them the chance.
[I realize I may be preaching to the converted...but I'm planning to send 
a similar letter to Ronnie and would like all the feedback I can get]
							--David Pugh
							  dep@k.cs.cmu.edu
BTW: For those who haven't written to the President yet, here's his
address:
		President Ronald Reagan
		White House
		1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
		Washington, D.C. 20500
Now you have no excuse...start writting!

------------------------------

Date: 6 Feb 1986 22:18-EST
From: Suzanne.Woolf@g.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: Shuttle ejection seats
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

	 At least part of the reason there are no ejection seats on the
	 space shuttles goes like this:

	 Ejection seats are big, heavy, bulky, awkward things.  They
	 weigh a lot and they take up a lot of room in a craft designed
	 for space and weight efficiency.  Too many of them get in the
	 way.

	 Now, it's quite possible to put them in the cockpit, for the
	 pilot and flight commander.  In fact, I believe NASA did so
	 for several of Columbia's earlier flights.  However...if you
	 have a crew of seven (instead of two or three) you're not
	 going to provide ejection seats for everyone; too big, too
	 heavy, and under most emergency scenarios, quite useless.
	 Therefore, instead of providing a couple in the cockpit, you
	 decide that if you can't save everyone in one of those rare
	 situations where an ejection seat would help, you're not going
	 to leave open the problem of who to save.

	 This isn't a bad idea; how the hell do you think Scobee would
	 feel if he were alive today because he had an ejection seat,
	 but his crew didn't and weren't?

						
					--Sue Woolf,
						CMU-CSD

	(And, of course, the obligatory disclaimer of any knowledge of
	 any comments posted under my name, which almost certainly have
	 nothing to do with anything conceived of by my employers.)

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 6 Feb 86 20:04:45 PST
From: mcgeer%ji@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Rick McGeer)
To: dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa, vger!al@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: scuttle the shuttle?
Cc: space@mc.lcs.mit.edu

	Why wouldn't LEO EVA expertise transfer to GEO?  And, while I expect
that while repair activities must be done in GEO, it's not clear to me that
the large majority of space construction activities must be done in GEO, or
even should be.

	Also, while I believe that you are sincere, I have yet to see the
teleoperators of the required complexity.  And, further, if you redesign the
product so that robots and/or teleoperators can build them, you're simply
trading the cost of putting people in orbit for the increased cost of
teleoperators and machine design.  Further, the costs are not only in
the increased costs of each product, but also in the products that you decide
you can't make because they don't come in snap-together pieces.

	Finally, remember Skylab?  I'm damned gald we didn't have a robot
trying to repair *that*; it never would have had any power.

						-- Rick.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #116
*******************


0,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA09287; Fri, 14 Feb 86 19:01:20 PST
	id AA09287; Fri, 14 Feb 86 19:01:20 PST
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 86 19:01:20 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8602150301.AA09287@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #117

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 117

Today's Topics:
		       Re: Scuttle the Shuttle?
		    Re: Did the Challenger wobble?
	  cause of Challenger disaster pretty much confirmed
		      Re: Challenger [our loss]
			 Re: Shuttle Ditching
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 7 Feb 86 04:00:07 GMT
From: brahms!desj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (David desJardins)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Subject: Re: Scuttle the Shuttle?
References: <8602061514.AA06010@s1-b.arpa>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <8602061514.AA06010@s1-b.arpa> dietz@SLB-DOLL.CSNET (Paul Dietz)
writes [> = Paul, >> = my original response]:
>>But there are a lot of things that it [the shuttle] can do quite well that
>>no current or previous space transportation system could even aspire to do.
>
>Name one that justifies the cost of the shuttle system (vague
>references to philosophical principles not allowed).  And no ranting
>against bean-counters, either.
   Several are given below, with discussion of your claims that they
could be performed in other ways.  I believe that they are worth (ten
times) the money we are spending.  But it would be foolish for me to try
to convince you or anyone else of this--obviously you attach less value
to these things than I do.  I am just thankful that the majority of the
American people agree with me, and are even willing to spend more on
the shuttle program (according to Gallup polls).

>>The real question is not whether the shuttle is advancing
>>the exploitation of space (obviously it is) but whether it is doing
>>so more effectively and economically than the alternatives.  I wait
>>to see your proposed alternatives.
>
>It's not obvious to me that the shuttle is advancing the exploitation of
>space.  It's not making the launching of unmanned satellites any
>cheaper.  It's not a cheap enough launcher to make space manufacturing
>economical.  It has been (and is) soaking up money that could be spent on
>other more worthwhile endeavors:
>  - Development of cheaper launchers
>  - Unmanned probes to look for easily accessible extraterrestrial
>    resources (Earth co-orbital asteroids, lunar polar ice deposits)
>  - Development of space qualified teleoperator systems
   It is advancing it in the sense that we are learning by doing.  One
day we will have a cheaper launch system, and its development is going to
be completely dependent on the lessons that are being learned from the
shuttle program (and continued improvement in technology, of course).
Everybody would love to have a way of delivering cargo to earth orbit for
$10K/ton, but we don't know any way to do this.  If we did don't you think
we would build it??
   Let me also point out the rather obvious fact that in general one
project does not "soak up" money from other projects.  NASA is not in a
position to scrap the shuttle program, but even if it were there certainly
is not the slightest reason to believe that they could somehow take that
money and go spend it on whatever they want.  This is not the way our
government operates.

>>As far as I know nobody has had any success in space operations using
>>"robots and teleoperated manipulators."  I will put the ball back in
>>your court; you are making a positive assertion here, that these things
>>can be done.  Do you have one shred of evidence to back this up?
>
>Are not ALL the planetary probes robots?  And is not the shuttle arm
>a teleoperator?  It doesn't matter that the person controlling it is in
>the shuttle cabin or on the ground (except for a small speed-of-light
>delay).  NASA is planning an remote controlled orbital maneuvering
>vehicle for low orbit retrieval tasks and (I think) a remote controlled
>orbital transfer vehicle.  Teleoperated submarines are being used in
>the oil industry today, and have been used to manipulate radioactive
>substances for years.  The technology drivers for teleoperated systems
>(sensor technology, electronics, communications) are developing
>explosively, while the technology driver for manned space presence
>(cheap launch systems) is developing slowly.

   All planetary probes built to date are one-shot, *extremely* expensive,
single-purpose devices which only measure and record their environment;
they do not even attempt to manipulate it.  As for the shuttle arm; as
far as I know not a single thing has been accomplished with it without
the intervention of humans in spacesuits.
   I'm not sure what point you mean to make with "NASA is planning...."
If any of these things is in more than a very preliminary R&D stage I
would be very surprised.  And to the extent that they are doing these
things it seems that they are doing exactly what they want.  Or are you
making the illogical claim that the things that they are doing serve as
evidence that they could be doing much more if they wanted to?
   The reason that cheap launch systems are developing slowly is that
they are extraordinarily difficult to build.  The reason that we stopped
building Saturn V's is that they cost $300M or so each (in 1986 dollars).
The ESA has spent a lot of money on Ariane with mixed results.  What makes
you think that it is possible to launch sizable payloads substantially
more cheaply than we are doing now?

[Paul Dietz's responses to my list of things that could not be done
without humans in space follows, with my responses:]
>(1) Satellite repair.  This is a sparse market (for STS).  If
>satellites are designed properly there's no reason why one couldn't do
>it with teleoperators (as will have to be done in geosynchronous orbit
>anyway, where most satellites are).  The economics of satellite repair
>are dubious when the satellite has to be relaunched (as those two
>comsats with failed boosters will have to be).
   You say "there's no reason why one couldn't do it [repair satellites]
with teleoperators."  You have no evidence for this, as far as I can
tell, and I don't know of any knowledgeable person in the field who
agrees with you.  The complicated operations performed by astronauts
testing and repairing satellites can't even be duplicated by robots on
earth, much less in space!  It's just not possible, your wild claims
to the contrary.
   BTW, the *vast* majority of all satellites are in low earth orbit.
>(2) Recovery operations in earth orbit.  LDEF was deployed and will be
>recovered with the shuttle arm -- a teleoperator!
   I am not familiar with the specific procedures for deploying and
recovering LDEF.  I assume that it is specifically designed with an
adaptor for recovery by the shuttle arm, but even so I would expect that
the planned recovery operation involves a suited human stabilizing the
satellite.  Certainly humans will be required to fasten it into the
cargo bay for reentry.  And even in cases when the procedure is planned
to involve no direct human intervention past experience would seem to
indicate that there is a substantial probability that humans in suits
will in fact be required to assist the operations.
>(3) Servicing in earth orbit.  There appears to be no good reason why
>you couldn't service a properly designed space telescope (say) by remote
>control.  I believe a teleoperator with the proper appendages (screw
>drivers, grippers, refueling attachments, etc.) could be more efficient than
>a person in a bulky spacesuit.  Servicing in geosynchronous orbit will
>require teleoperators.
   Let me make the obvious point that just because you don't seem to
understand why these things are so difficult to do doesn't in fact make
them possible.  If you were to talk to those who actually do this work
perhaps you would get a better idea of what is possible and what is not.
In any case, if you wish us to accept your assertion that these things
can be done you are going to have to produce at least a few shreds of
evidence to this effect.
   By the time we can get objects of this size into geosynchronous orbit
why won't we be able to get people there as well??
>(4) Human-directed experimentation.  I said spacelab had produced some
>good science.  I heard on the news the other night, however, that preparing
>a science payload for the shuttle is five times (!) more expensive than
>for an unmanned launcher.  And it's seriously debatable whether it's worth
>the cost.  It certainly won't lead to space based manufacturing on any
>worthwhile scale until launch costs are reduced dramatically.
   I can't debate the value of these experiences, nor can I argue with
such an august source as (let me guess) the ABC News.  But the claim which
you make with such certainty I will question; I can easily imagine the
possibility of producing new pharmaceuticals in space, or semiconductor
crystals, or metal alloys or composites, of such value that their
manufacture in space could be worthwhile.  Or study of new materials
produced in space could lead to discovery of methods to achieve the same
results on Earth.  I'm not claiming that these things necessarily will
happen, but I don't see how you can be so quick to rule them out even as
possibilities.
>(5) Experimentation and study of humans in orbit.  This should be a
>means to an end, not an end in itself, and if human presence is
>deemphasized in the near term there's no reason to do this now.
   Why is (say) planetary exploration a worthwhile objective, but
study of the human race is not??
>(6) Space station construction.  Yes, I believe teleoperators COULD do
>this, and besides, it makes no sense to build a space station until
>launch costs are reduced to the point that humans make more sense in
>space.
   Again, I'll believe this when you produce some evidence.  I'd be
willing to bet you couldn't find a single person working on the space
station who would agree with you.
   Don't you want a space station at which to base your teleoperators? :-)
>I too believe in the use of space; I want my grandchildren to be born
>in space.  I just think the shuttle is a waste of effort and is not
>moving us towards worthwhile long term goals in space.
   The key question here is: what are the alternatives?  If you could
present viable alternatives we could discuss them.  But if all you can
come up with are fantastic claims about the potential of teleoperators,
with no evidence to back them up, I think I am going to have to vote
to stay with something that works.  Even if we could build the extra-
ordinarily complicated systems you describe they would certainly cost
*more* than the shuttle, not less...
   -- David desJardins

------------------------------

Date: 3 Feb 86 17:24:28 GMT
From: decvax!linus!philabs!ttidca!ttidcb!cushner@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Jeffrey Cushner)
Organization: Transaction Technology, Inc. (CitiCorp), Santa Monica
Subject: Re: Did the Challenger wobble?
References: <437@mmm.UUCP>, <439@mmm.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

NASA should hire you!  The shuttle DID actually wobble as the SRB lost
thrust for 12 seconds or so before the blast.  The 3 main engines and
the other SRB swiveled to maintain the proper trajectory.
Unfortunately, the crew members had no idea that this was happening.
This was read in today's LA Times.

==============================================================================
			 Jeff Cushner @
			 Citicorp-TTI
			 Santa Monica CA 90405
			 (213) 450-9111 x2273
	      {randvax,trwrb,vortex,philabs}!ttidca!ttidcb!cushner
    *********************************************************************
    ** The above comments do not necessarily reflect the opinions of   **
    ** Citicorp-TTI and if the corporation wants them to, they'll have **
    ** to pay through the nose for the rights!                         **
    *********************************************************************

------------------------------

Date: 3 Feb 86 20:32:21 GMT
From: tektronix!teklds!athena!grahamb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Graham Bromley)
Organization: Tektronix, Beaverton OR
Subject: cause of Challenger disaster pretty much confirmed
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Anyone who has seen the NASA film released Sunday has little doubt
that a massive rupture in the RH solid rocket was responsible. A long
plume of exhaust becomes visible near one of the rear seams. This
rapidly spreads all around the circumference of the seam. The plume
must be at least 100 feet long. It burns for about TEN SECONDS before
the liquid fuel goes off (that liquid tank was pretty tough). I would
guess the suddenness of the final explosion was caused by the
self-destruct package igniting.

You know, I don't think anyone watches the vehicle with a finger on
the panic button, otherwise he would have hit it for sure. The
assumption is that a potential disaster will be revealed on the CRT's
long before an observer would see anything. The launch director was
still watching his data long after the explosion. This reminds me of
airline pilots who occasionally fly into things because they don't
look out the window.

Sensors designed to detect a sudden pressure drop in the SRB's were
removed to save weight (a few lbs?) after several flights  indicated
they weren't necessary, the SRB's being considered the  safest part of
the system at that point. Aaaaaaaaarggghhh!!!  I'm glad I don't work
for Morton-Thiokol.

(An aside. Even if an abort had been triggered, the outcome would
probably have been the same. Several commentators have pointed out
that the SRB's must be expended before an abort -  they can't be
turned off, and you clearly can't detach them safely while still
burning. The orbiter would very likely have crashed into the sea).

------------------------------

Date: 3 Feb 86 22:50:41 GMT
From: decvax!mcnc!ncsu!uvacs!rwl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Ray Lubinsky)
Organization: U.Va. CS in Charlottesville VA
Subject: Re: Challenger [our loss]
References: <8601300054.AA02860@s1-b.arpa>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> But with respect to the comments on the press, it is interesting to note that
> most programming was inturrupted for most of the day on the loss of 7 people.
> Yet when a jumbo jet crashes with the loss of 300, we get a few bulletins and
> first mention on the 6 o'clock news.   It reminds of what Mr. Spock said in
> one of the Star Trek episodes (to paraphrase): "You humans are strange.  You
> can mourn the loss of a single person, but you cannot feel the death of
> millions."

There are some of us that view the efforts of space exploration as a
major goal for the human race: a chance for our civilization to
survive and grow.  True, the Challenger crew were humans like the
victims of other disasters, but the role that they filled was
singularly important.  Maybe you could say that they and their fellow
Shuttle crews are the new American heroes.  I can't speak for you, but
I can't feel the same way about the fate of total strangers as of
people for whom I have some empathy.  In a way, the shuttle crew were
not total strangers because of their role, because we have followed
their flights with so much interest and hope.  The tragedy is both in
the deaths of the people and the setback to effort of exploration.
It's reassuring that public opinion has not been soured by this
incident, despite the morbid way the news networks persued the
question of the future of manned space flight.

Ray Lubinsky		     University of Virginia, Dept. of Computer Science
			     uucp: decvax!mcnc!ncsu!uvacs!rwl

------------------------------

Return-Path: <ittatc!decvax!mcnc!ekp>
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 86 11:11:36 est
From: Edward Pavelchek <sdcsvax!dcdwest!ittatc!decvax!mcnc!ekp@ucbvax.berkeley.edu>
To: mcnc!space
Subject: Re: Shuttle Ditching
Newsgroups: net.space
In-Reply-To: <8602032227.AA10998@s1-b.arpa>
Organization: Shipley Co.

Speaking from a position of relative ignorance, I would like to raise
the following points about shuttle aborts:
   
   The SRBs cannot be turned off, therefore the suttle would have to
   survive the exhaust.

   Suppose the shuttle decelerates from drag at 1G, and the SRBs can
   power the tank away at 3G.  Then at least 4 seconds are required to
   let the shuttle reach your 1000 foot separation (which I think is
   generous, but not *safe*.

   There should be no trouble attaining proper glide characteristics
   aerodynamically.  Being miles up, at Mach 3, an intact shuttle could
   do 'loops', or whatever.  Getting to a specific point is made more
   difficult by time consumed in rolling over, etc, but I suspect that
   only a very limited window avoids the ocean.

   Survival in a ditching may be determined by the payload (better glide
   if nothing else).  I see lots of problems in trying to empty the
   cargo bay.

   To detach from the ET without igniting fuel will require sealing the
   lines at the ET, waiting for them to drain, and then blowing the
   shuttle free.  This may require a significant amount of your
   remaining allotment.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #117
*******************


0,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA10259; Fri, 14 Feb 86 23:01:21 PST
	id AA10259; Fri, 14 Feb 86 23:01:21 PST
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 86 23:01:21 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8602150701.AA10259@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #118

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 118

Today's Topics:
			   SRB burn through
			  Re: Ejection seats
       Re: replacement orbiter = 2 weeks of California lottery
		     Re: Voyager_2 Radio Emission
			      Lunarcrete
		  Re: Space Shuttle Children's Fund
		       Re: Television coverage
		       Re: Television coverage
		       Re: Columbia Replacement
		  Re: Space Shuttle Children's Fund
		  Re: Space Shuttle Children's Fund
		   Raising funds for a new shuttle
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 4 Feb 86 01:58:08 GMT
From: trwrb!trwspp!spp3!brahms@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Bradley S. Brahms)
Subject: SRB burn through
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

With what now appears to be true, the right SRB seems to be a fault.  I
seem to remember the on one of the original flights of the columbia, NASA
noted that at least one of the SRBs came very close to burning through the
outer skin.  If this is true, where there ever any corrective measures
taken at the time?
			-- Brad Brahms
			   usenet: {decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!trwrb!trwspp!brahms
			   arpa:   Brahms@usc-eclc
P.S.	Also, in seeing part of the original NASA select replay again, it
looks like the plum of fire on the right SRB is visible after the blow up.
Can someone verify this?

------------------------------

Date: 3 Feb 86 23:40:43 GMT
From: sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA
Subject: Re: Ejection seats
References: <667@ihwpt.UUCP>, <2612@ukma.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <2612@ukma.UUCP> sean@ukma.UUCP (Sean Casey) writes:
>
>Your second sentence contradicts your first.  Think about the implications
>of ejection seats:
>
>1. They don't work at shuttle speeds.
>2. They are only viable for about a minute into the flight, unless you
>   make the crew wear pressure suits.
>3. The shuttle can ditch into water if necessary, and anything that would
>   preclude this is probably going to happen too fast to eject anyway.
>4. How the h*ll do you construct a blowaway canopy for a space shuttle?
>
Not to mention:
5. Due to the great speed of the shuttle(well over mach 1), wind shear
   would smash the ejection seat into the shuttles tail(or wings or ...)
-- 
				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)
UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen
ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa

------------------------------

Date: 4 Feb 86 02:02:33 GMT
From: trwrb!trwspp!spp3!brahms@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Bradley S. Brahms)
Organization: TRW, Redondo Beach  CA
Subject: Re: replacement orbiter = 2 weeks of California lottery
References: <8602010203.AA01808@s1-b.arpa>, <11643@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <11643@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> desj@brahms.UUCP (David desJardins) writes:
>In article <8602010203.AA01808@s1-b.arpa> REM%IMSSS@SU-SCORE.ARPA writes:
>>This past week the California lottery earned 1 billion dollars.
>>That's half the replacement cost of the Challanger.
>>California could divert two weeks of lottery money to buy California's
Wrong!  The 1B figure is for all California lottery sales from inception
of the first lottery to the current date.
			-- Brad Brahms
			   usenet: {decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!trwrb!trwspp!brahms
			   arpa:   Brahms@usc-eclc

------------------------------

Date: 3 Feb 86 19:53:18 GMT
From: sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!oberon!smeagol!jplgodo!steve@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Steve Schlaifer x3171 156/224)
Organization: Jet Propulsion Labs, Pasadena, CA
Subject: Re: Voyager_2 Radio Emission
References: <824@decwrl.DEC.COM>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <824@decwrl.DEC.COM>, biro@pipa.DEC writes:
> 
> .......
> Has anyone hear the recording, and are the moons of Uranus in the
> plane of N and S poles or are they Perpendicular to the poles.
> 
I have not heard the recording so I cannot comment on that.  The Uranian
moons all orbit in a plane perpendicular to the poles even though the poles
are tipped over almost into the ecliptic plane.
-- 
...smeagol\			Steve Schlaifer
......wlbr->!jplgodo!steve	Advance Projects Group, Jet Propulsion Labs
....group3/			4800 Oak Grove Drive, M/S 156/204
				Pasadena, California, 91109
					+1 818 354 3171

------------------------------

Organization: The MITRE Corp., Washington, D.C.
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Lunarcrete
Date: 07 Feb 86 08:54:36 EST (Fri)
From: Duke Briscoe <duke@mitre.arpa>

I think that the recipe for lunarcrete involves taking hydrogen from
Earth to the moon, and forming water from lunar oxygen extracted from the
rocks.

------------------------------

Date: 4 Feb 86 09:59:03 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!rcj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Curtis Jackson)
Organization: AT&T Technologies, Burlington NC
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle Children's Fund
References: <221@hadron.UUCP>, <325@lifia.UUCP>, <505@eneevax.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <505@eneevax.UUCP> hsu@eneevax.UUCP (Dave Hsu) writes:
>[flame on, 104%]
>The shape of our `Social Budget' is completely irrelevant to the creation of a
>fund for the families of deceased astronauts.  They sacrificed their private
>lives just to pursue the common dream of all mankind to explore; in the end
>they parted with much more than their privacy and it just so happens that some
>of us who remain earthbound feel the need to thank the unseen families behind
>our most visible heroes.
>
>  /* another vicious attack followed here */
>
I tried this earlier, let me try again:
The phrase "The Dream is Alive" describes a real-life phenomenon.  The
astronauts did not "sacrifice" their personal lives because, as you hinted
above, their families lived the Dream, too.  That is evident in their
unanimous reaction that the Dream must continue despite Challenger.
The families, as I pointed out before, do *not* need your money.  Their
Dream, the Dream that they as families sacrificed so much for, the Dream
that is still alive in their hearts despite their tragic loss -- this Dream
is what needs your money, your effort, your voice, your vote, and (most
of all), your heart.  And mine.
You write documentation 'til 5am and you can get *real* mushy, too.
-- 
The MAD Programmer -- 919-228-3313 (Cornet 291)
alias: Curtis Jackson	...![ ihnp4 ulysses cbosgd mgnetp ]!burl!rcj
			...![ ihnp4 cbosgd akgua masscomp ]!clyde!rcj

------------------------------

Date: 3 Feb 86 22:53:25 GMT
From: ihnp4!ihwpt!gjl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (g licitis)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Subject: Re: Television coverage
References: <11627@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> The ONLY video coming out from the launch site was NASA's official
> news feed.  So don't go blaming the networks for their supposed
> morbid curiosity of the crowd's bemoaning the loss of the Challenger.
> 
> The New Number Who,	okamoto@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
> Jeff Okamoto		..!ucbvax!okamoto
It wasn't NASA that kept repeating the clip every couple of minutes.
Not only did the networks think that the clips of the families reaction
was newsworthy but they must think that it helps boost their ratings.
Here it is nearly a week after the accident and I still see the same
clips.
			Gunars Licitis
			AT&T Bell Labs
			Naperville Il.

------------------------------

Date: 4 Feb 86 15:01:56 GMT
From: calma!sivax!jim@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Jim Boman)
Subject: Re: Television coverage
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

To the author of this dribble:
> You are forgetting one thing.  It was the callous news networks that were
> responsible for showing the crowd's bemoaning the loss of the shuttle over and
> over and over and over ......, not NASA.  At first it was news and then it was
> a money maker for the networks.  This is just another case of irresponsible
> journalism exercised so ofter by the American news media.  I am ashamed of them.
> 
> This reminds me of the nighttime soap opera that was on years ago called:     
> America Held Hostage, Day N.  They call it Nightline now.
Please explain WHY you think that showing the crowd at the launch was an
example of "irresponsible" journalism, and please explain what it is about
the reportage of unfortunate events that makes the news media "callous".
And, if I may be permitted to get my digs in, it is thinking of people
who hold your views that would prefer that TV and the press suppress 
information at their discretion, and only show us, perhaps, what the 
government would like us to see? Why don't you go to Canada or the
Soviet Union if you'd like to have your information controlled.

------------------------------

Date: 4 Feb 86 08:03:38 GMT
From: sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!oberon!spencer@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Randy Spencer)
Organization: U. of So. Calif., Los Angeles
Subject: Re: Columbia Replacement
References: <860129202758.780479@HI-MULTICS.ARPA>, <988@psivax.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> >don't know how far the Enterprise is from being an operational orbiter,
> >instead of a boiler plate shuttle replica.  Anybody have any ideas?
> 
> 	I have it from a reliable source(someone actually involved in
> shuttle construction/maintenence) that refitting the Enterprise would
> cost as much or more than building a complete new shuttle. So this is
> highly unlikely.
I don't really know the facts of any re-fit, however when I was home at
christmas I saw the Enterprise.  It is sitting at Dullas airport and is
there (supposedly) as part of the Smithsonian's Air and Space Museum.
It is not really on exhibit, but it is *in* the museum, how can they
take it back and retrofit it?
==============================================================================
Randal Spencer      Student DEC Consulting - University of Southern California
UUCP: ...sdcrdcf!oberon!spencer                         Office: (213) 743-5363
Arpa: Spencer@USC-ECL  or  Spencer@USC-Oberon          Bitnet: Spencer@USCVAXQ
Home: 937 N. Beverly Glen Bl. Bel Air California 90077          (213) 470-0428
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 4 Feb 86 17:43:51 GMT
From: sun!rmarti@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Bob Marti)
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle Children's Fund
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <505@eneevax.UUCP> Dave Hsu @ Imperial Widget Research Center,
Kingdom of Maryland writes:
>   In article <325@lifia.UUCP> felix@lifia.UUCP (Francois Felix INGRAND)
>   writes:
>>
>>	Is the Social Budget of USA so poor that American people must create
>>	a fund for the astronauts' children?
>
>   [flame on, 104%]
>   The shape of our `Social Budget' is completely irrelevant to the creation
>   of a fund for the families of deceased astronauts.  They sacrificed their
>   private lives just to pursue the common dream of all mankind to explore;
>   in the end they parted with much more than their privacy and it just so
>   happens that some of us who remain earthbound feel the need to thank the
>   unseen families behind our most visible heroes.
>
>   Perhaps you are unfamiliar with such things, Monsieur Ingrand, but here
>   in the United States we like to take care of our own.
Well, wait a minute ...   I was under the impression that the fund for the
astronauts' families was primarily established because it is obviously almost
impossible for astronauts to get life insurance.  Now I know you Americans
don't like to be criticized, but I think that Francois does have a point:
To me it looks like you guys spend billions of dollars on space flights,
but it seems you don't even make sure that the people who are sticking their
necks out have decent insurance.  Surely something could have been done about
that on the government level a long time ago.  Or am I missing something?
-- Bob Marti

------------------------------

Date: 4 Feb 86 15:21:13 GMT
From: decvax!cca!dee@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Donald Eastlake)
Organization: Computer Corp. of America, Cambridge
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle Children's Fund
References: <221@hadron.UUCP>, <>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Of course all the astronauts government provided life insurance,
except for Christa MacAuliffe (sp?).  Also Llyods of London offers
all astronausts a free $1,000,000 life insurance policy for each
launch and Christa is the only one of the seven to take them up on
it.  But it is a free country and how can you stop people who want
to do something from setting up a Trust fund for the astronauts
children?
-- 
	+1 617-492-8860		Donald E. Eastlake, III
	ARPA:  dee@CCA-UNIX	usenet:	{decvax,linus}!cca!dee

------------------------------

Date:  Fri, 7 Feb 86 10:37 CST
From: "David S. Cargo" <Cargo@hi-multics.arpa>
Subject:  Raising funds for a new shuttle
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

There are some discussions about space that have blended to give me an
idea.  1) Someone has asked how much people would be willing to pay to
go into space [a quick joy ride as it were].  2) Someone else brought up
the question about how much money the California lottery had raised.
Therefore, why not start a "Space Shuttle Lottery." Sell tickets for
chances to either ride on the shuttle, or else receive some appropriate
sum in cash.  (Certainly not $2E9 :-) While $2E9 is lots of money, if it
doesn't have to be raised all at once, that is it can be spread over a
few years, it might be possible to raise a good portion of it this way.
Could probably even do some things like inscribe the names of people
buying more than $100 in tickets on a satellite to be put in HEO.
 While this competes with other fund-raising efforts, I think it might
have broader appeal, since offers a chance for getting something back.
 Oh, yeah.  Let's name the replacement shuttle the Enterprise II, and
then we can get all those Star Trek fans to buy LOTS of tickets.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #118
*******************


0,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA11392; Sat, 15 Feb 86 03:01:24 PST
	id AA11392; Sat, 15 Feb 86 03:01:24 PST
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 86 03:01:24 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8602151101.AA11392@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #119

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 119

Today's Topics:
		       Re: scuttle the shuttle?
		    Re: Phase Conjugate telescope
			    Re: Oh My God
		       Re: Manned vs. Unmanned
			Force-fight mechanism
  erratum on California lottery acknowledged, Koppett corrected too
     Back to lunar orbit (or better) in 5 years if we get money?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted-Date: Fri 7 Feb 1986 09:13:27 EST
Date: Fri 7 Feb 1986 09:13:27 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Re: scuttle the shuttle?
To: Rick McGeer <mcgeer%ji@ucbvax.berkeley.edu>
In-Reply-To: Rick McGeer's message of Thu, 6 Feb 86 20:04:45 PST
Cc: space@mc.lcs.mit.edu

> Why wouldn't LEO EVA expertise transfer to GEO?

 Because it's hard to keep people in GEO.  Teleoperator technology would
extend easily, perhaps all the way to the moon.

> it's not clear to me that
> the large majority of space construction activities must be done in GEO, or
> even should be.

Maintenance of large structures will take place in GEO.  Construction
using extraterrestrial materials should be done in high orbit.  Very
large structures cannot be built in low orbit because of air drag.

> 	Also, while I believe that you are sincere, I have yet to see the
> teleoperators of the required complexity.  And, further, if you redesign the
> product so that robots and/or teleoperators can build them, you're simply
> trading the cost of putting people in orbit for the increased cost of
> teleoperators and machine design.  Further, the costs are not only in
> the increased costs of each product, but also in the products that you decide
> you can't make because they don't come in snap-together pieces.

I don't believe modular design will add more than a fraction to the
cost of any product.  I'm not suggesting each and every transistor
be in a separate box.  Launching costs are so high that the redesign
cost (or, rather, the cost of making new designs modular) would
be insignificant.

The current absence of teleoperators of the required complexity is more
an indication of lack of demand rather than inherent impossibility.  On
earth most remotely controlled machines are for observation or bulk
manipulation (submersible recovery vehicles, mining machines), not
for delicate operations.  

The rapid advance of electronics, communication technology and robotics
tells me that teleoperator technology get cheaper quickly.  Rocket
technology is evolving slowly, and has much less spinoff potential.

> 	Finally, remember Skylab?  I'm damned glad we didn't have a robot
> trying to repair *that*; it never would have had any power.

Current teleoperators couldn't have repaired Skylab, but the Skylab failure
was hardly a typical failure mode.  Replacement of defective or burned out
electronics, replenishment of expendable fluids and replacement of worn
mechanical parts would, I think, account for 90% of maintenance
activities in space.  There's no sense treating rare cases as typical.

------------------------------

Date: 31 Jan 86 23:17:43 GMT
From: decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!cmcl2!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Frank Adams)
Organization: Multimate International, E. Hartford, CT
Subject: Re: Phase Conjugate telescope
References: <8601272039.AA01149@s1-b.arpa>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <8601272039.AA01149@s1-b.arpa> ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA writes:
>   >Why won't the phase conjugation technique work in reverse
>   >to build a large earth based telescope that removes the effects
>   >of atmospheric turbulence  ...  could make the Space Telescope
>   >obsolete.
>
>     I've been thinking about this, and I can't think of a good way to
>make it work.  There are two problems.  First, as far as I know (but
>I'm not an expert by any means) phase conjugation only works on
>monochromatic, coherent light (or at least light that is very nearly
>so).  More worrisome, though, is the fact that phase conjugation
>doesn't remove the distortion.  It antidistorts, so that repeating
>the passsage through the atmosphere cancels the distortion.
>It sure sounds like there must be a way to use this phenomenon
>to cancel out the twinkling of starlight, but it certainly isn't
>obvious (at least to me) how.
My knowledge here is derived mostly from the recent Scientific American
articles.  Based on that, I think it can be done, but I doubt that it
does any good.  One could in this way replace the camera and data
transmission facilities in orbit, but I don't see how to replace the
lenses and mirrors.  That is, once one has an image available, one can
use this technique to transmit it to ground; but the hard part in astronomy
is getting the image.
Also, I'm not sure the anti-distortion works properly over those distances.
The technique involves sending a light beam from Earth up to the orbiter,
and then back down again.  If the orbiter is 300 km up, the round trip takes
.002 seconds.  In that time, the atmosphere is moving; whether it moves
enough to noticeably distort the final image I am not sure.
Frank Adams                           ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
Multimate International    52 Oakland Ave North    E. Hartford, CT 06108

------------------------------

Date: 31 Jan 86 23:41:47 GMT
From: decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!cmcl2!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Frank Adams)
Organization: Multimate International, E. Hartford, CT
Subject: Re: Oh My God
References: <8601281921.AA01471@s1-b.arpa>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <8601281921.AA01471@s1-b.arpa> dietz@SLB-DOLL.CSNET (Paul Dietz) writes:
>What will happen next?  Some predictions:
>
>The shuttle program is in very serious trouble, and stands a good
>chance of being transfered to the military or being cancelled entirely.
>Work will start immediately on a replacement vehicle, probably a smaller
>scramjet-based TAV.  The Europeans will go ahead with Hermes and HOTOL.
>The space station will be postponed or suspended pending the development
>of a replacement vehicle.  NASA may feel compelled to invest heavily
>in space robotics.
>
>NASA will probably survive, unless it comes out that NASA has been
>hushing up internal uneasiness about shuttle reliability.  In that case
>the civilian space program is very likely dead.
>
>What a nightmare.
I don't want to downplay the tragedy, which is very real, but there is a
good chance that the U.S. space program will come out this stronger, not
weaker.
First of all, up till now, the astronauts have always seemed to be sort of
fake heros.  While those who examined the risks realized that they were
always substantial, NASA's (essentially) perfect record led to a public
perception that the risks were really rather minor.  Well, now everybody
knows better.  Future astronauts, and even past astronauts, will be
perceived as the heros they are.
I expect there will also be a call to build not one new shuttle, but two.
There was some movement to build a fifth shuttle as a "spare" even before
this happened.  As long as the shuttle program continues, the arguments
for this are stronger than ever.  And I think the program will continue;
the arguments for it are strong enough to overcome the level of risk
associated with it; that level of risk is not new, and has always been
appreciated by space scientists and astronauts.
Frank Adams                           ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
Multimate International    52 Oakland Ave North    E. Hartford, CT 06108

------------------------------

Date: 4 Feb 86 19:58:29 GMT
From: decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!cmcl2!lanl!jlg@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Subject: Re: Manned vs. Unmanned
References: <740@k.cs.cmu.edu>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <740@k.cs.cmu.edu> dep@k.cs.cmu.edu (David Pugh) writes:
>    As for waiting until space travel is safer...space travel will never
>be perfectly safe (but, neither will driving to work). Obviously we should
>try to make it as safe as possible. But when is it safe enough? A reasonable
>answer would be: that it is safe enough when there are people willing to do
>it. Even following the Challenger disaster, there is no shortage of people
>willing to work in space. I say: let's give them the chance.
It is safe enough when people want to go AND government or private
industry want to risk the capital to build the equipment.  I agree
with you though, it seems safe enough to me right now.  The problem
is to convince the money people.
J. Giles
Los Alamos

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 07 Feb 86 10:52 PST
From: Dave Platt <Dave-Platt%LADC@cisl-service-multics.arpa>
To: Space <Space@s1-b.arpa>
Subject: Force-fight mechanism
References: K. Richard Magill's comments in Risks 2.6
Randomness: Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes.

That would depend upon the design of the mechanism.  If the hydraulic
force/fight function is performed within one monolithic block (with,
for example, one source of hydraulic pressure, and internal pressure
arbitrarion), then you're quite correct... it would probably constitute
a single point-of-failure for that portion of the shuttle system.

It's quite possible, however, to design such a mechanism so that it
is not a single POF.  One sample design:  each computer sends its
signals to a completely separate hydraulic controller (independent
pressure supplies, etc.).  The outputs of the four controllers are
combined only through the actuator itself (e.g., each one pushes the
actuator, and if one unit fails then the other three will push it
through the actuator, rather than directly).  So... the single POF
in this situation would be the actuator... which is a big, physical
hunk of matter.  If its hinges or couplings were to freeze up, then
the actuator would be a single POF for that engine (I suppose), but
then the computers would automatically swivel the actuators on the
other engines to make up for any off-symmetric thrust due to the
frozen actuator.

I believe that the shuttle does have multiple source of hydraulic
pressure.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 7 Feb 86 11:58:12 PST
X-Date-Last-Edited: 1986 February 07 11:14:18 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM@mc.lcs.mit.edu>
To: trwrb!trwspp!spp3!brahms@ucbvax.berkeley.edu,
        "mcgeer%ji"@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Cc: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
Subject: erratum on California lottery acknowledged, Koppett corrected too
Sender: REM%IMSSS@su-score.arpa (for undeliverable-mail notifications)
Reply-To: REM%IMSSS@SU-SCORE.ARPA

M> Date: Sat, 1 Feb 86 17:23:37 PST
M> From: mcgeer%ji@berkeley.edu (Rick McGeer)
M> Subject: Re:  replacement orbiter = 2 weeks of California lottery
M> 	Good idea; of course, there are statutory problems...

I was going to inquire about the problems (I have an idea but want
more info), but it turns out it's moot, see below...

R> This past week the California lottery earned 1 billion dollars.

T> From: trwrb!trwspp!spp3!brahms@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Bradley S. Brahms)
T> Date: Mon, 3 Feb 86 18:08:04 pst
T> Subject: Re: replacement orbiter = 2 weeks of California lottery
T> 	Wrong!  The 1B figure is for all California lottery sales from
T> inception of the first lottery to the current date.

That's what I get for believing the sloppy newscasts on TV. Thanks for
correcting me. I'm glad we all have this forum for bouncing our ideas
before we take the embarassing step of writing a letter to an editor
of a newspaper that thousands will read. I stand corrected. I
misunderstood the news report.

So, back to the drawing board... how do we get funding for three more
STS orbiters to replace Challanger and augment the fleet to where it
can handle the demand, for design of a new better shuttle or orbit
launch system, for in-space testing of the ion rocket, for all the
planetary and astronomical missions we want, etc.

By the way, a few days after otherwise-excellent newspaper columnist
Leonard Koppett referred to the "Viking 2" passing by Uranus, many
times in one article, he issued a correction:

LK> ... I must acknowledge a ... mistake ... made. Letter writers have
LK> noted that when I wrote a starry-eyed (sorry about that) column last
LK> week about the space probe glomming Uranus, I called it Viking II
LK> instead of Voyager II. Somehow, this error slipped through all 427
LK> copy readers we use to protect our thousands of writers from such blunders.

LK> My mistake was, of course, due to carelessness, inattention, the
LK> aging process and the mind's trick of dredging up an inappropriate
LK> similarity without being aware of the substitution. (Awareness would
LK> make you correct it.) But it was not, this time, the product of
LK> ignorance, as so many of my other mistakes are. My fingers (who do
LK> have minds of their own) simply typed the wrong word and the reading
LK> process didn't catch it.

LK> But I dwell on this only to point out how it confirms my column of
LK> Jan. 14, "The persistence of human fallibility," about our tendency to
LK> mess thing up sooner or later. If I claimed, vehemently enough, that
LK> it was our computer that changed Voyager to Viking for dark reasons of
LK> its own, I could probably persuade some of you of my innocence; but I
LK> am too honest a person to try.

Now I ask, have you ever heard so verbose an apology for an error in a
newspaper?? My respect for Leonard Koppett is renewed. He makes
utterly stupid mistakes once in a while, but admists them, unlike
Reagan and most other people in the public light. (Ann Landers comes
close sometimes.)


Disclamer: I'm not perfect, but if I had a big staff and circulation
of thousands I wouldn't make such blunders as Leonard Koppett made the
other day, referring several times to the 'Viking 2' which passed by
Uranus this week.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 7 Feb 86 13:20:04 PST
X-Date-Last-Edited: 1986 February 07 11:58:04 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM@mc.lcs.mit.edu>
To: "mcgeer%ji"@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Cc: SPACE@mc.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: Back to lunar orbit (or better) in 5 years if we get money?
Sender: REM%IMSSS@su-score.arpa (for undeliverable-mail notifications)
Reply-To: REM%IMSSS@SU-SCORE.ARPA

M> Date: Mon, 3 Feb 86 11:11:24 PST
M> From: mcgeer%ji@berkeley.edu (Rick McGeer)
M> Subject: Re:  loncrete
M> 	Can someone please explain to me why we can't go to the moon
M> before the year 2000?  In 1962, Kennedy committed us to landing on
M> the Moon within eight years; we had to invent the technology and
M> run three programs (Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo), but we did it in
M> seven years despite a major tragedy that stopped the program for a
M> year.  Now.  The engineering is done.  The Apollo/Saturn design is
M> proven technology.  Granted the production lines have to be
M> re-tooled to do it, I still can't undertand why we can't go to the
M> Moon again in five years.  Anybody?

I agree. If we could get the money, we could go into lunar orbit again
within 5 years. (Manned landing is another matter. The LEM was a trick
rather than a winning idea for general use. Perhaps a few LEM landings
would still be a good idea, but mostly we should send astronauts and
enginers etc. into LLO = Low Lunar Orbit or else L4/L5, and send
automated equipment to surface of Moon for assembly into remote
control mining and tossing-to-orbit. Maybe have automated landings
until everything is there, then have one or two manned landings to
assemble the equipment and start it running, then return to
remote-control operation so you don't have to carry lots of food and
other supplies. Later when the automated facility has produced a
surplus of raw materials in LLO and orbiting manufacturing facilities
have made a surplus of useful products, you could install some more
equipment on the surface to grow food and stuff like that, and maybe
establish a permanently-manned surface colony.)

So, can we get together and propose some general scenerios for
bootstrapping to use of lunar materials, and get somebody who is
expert on details to critique our ideas?

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #119
*******************


0,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA12888; Sat, 15 Feb 86 07:01:22 PST
	id AA12888; Sat, 15 Feb 86 07:01:22 PST
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 86 07:01:22 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8602151501.AA12888@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #120

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 120

Today's Topics:
		       Re: Debris search query
		Quantum action-at-a-distance (& FTL?)
		  SRBs & Morton Thiokol's monopoly.
     Re: Next generation shuttle: electrically assisted take-off?
			 Re: Buy an Orbiter?
		       Re: Columbia Replacement
			  Re: teleoperators
	   shuttle safety etc. - don't blame the engineers
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 7 Feb 86 09:49:50 pst
From: decwrl!amdcad!amd!paulw@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Paul Woods)
To: amdcad!space
Subject: Re: Debris search query
Newsgroups: net.space
Organization: AMD, Santa Clara, CA

  The object that they thought was to be the crew compartment
turned out to be an old helicopter.  This info was released a
couple of days after they first found the site via sonar.  Once
they sent cameras down, after the ocean calmed down, they verified
that the object was not part of the Shuttle.   Many false sightings
can occur for this area includes the down range graveyard of Nasa's
rocket program.  Thus, many old and defective rockets and their
parts are spread out there in the ocean.  I believe Time, or one of
the other magizes, has a good article that mentions this.

paulw

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 07 Feb 86 15:29 PST
From: Dave Platt <Dave-Platt%LADC@cisl-service-multics.arpa>
To: Space <Space@s1-b.arpa>
Subject: Quantum action-at-a-distance (& FTL?)
Randomness: LISP:  To call a spade a thpade.

Concerning the discussions in this newsgroup of about a month ago,
concerning particle-pair correlations... there have been a couple
of articles in Science News recently on this topic, and interested
Spacenetters may want to dig them up.

A brief summary: experiments by Alain Aspect (U. of Paris-South, Orsay,
France) seem to show that quantum-mechanical correlations do exist
(see Science News 1/11/86, page 28).  The big question now seems to be:
are these phenomena a genuine example of "action at a distance" (a
concept rejected by modern physics), or is there some form of real
information-passing going on between the two particles in a pair
(a "cue ball" on the pool table of physics, so to speak)?

Jean-Pierre Vigier (Institut Henri Pointcare, Paris) is planning an
experiment to test a theory largely associated with the name of David
Bohm of Birbeck College (U of London, England) which invokes a "cue ball"
(information carrier) in the form of a quantum potential (analogous
in some respects to an electrical or gravitational potential).  The Bohm
potential is derived from the basic equation of quantum mechanics (The
Schrodinger equation).  In the case of quantum-mechanical correlations,
the Bohm potential acts to provide the information contact between
the particles that maintains the correlation.

The interesting thing, according to the Bohm theory, is that the
quantum potential must propagate itself faster than "c"... in fact
it propagages at 7.57c!  Thus, the potential would violate the
precept of special relativity that says that no information can travel
faster than "c"... but it savs a more important principle: the
reductionism of physics (the ability to reduce an object under study
to its parts, and study them in isolation).  If action-at-a-distance
does actually occur, apparently reductionism goes out the window, and
one can have a system whose properties do not result from the sum
of its parts.

(from Science News v129, 2/1/86).

------------------------------

Date:           Fri, 7 Feb 86 10:12:00 PST
From: "Niket K. Patwardhan" <bilbo.niket@locus.ucla.edu>
To: space@s1-b.arpa, ota@s1-b.arpa
Subject:        SRBs & Morton Thiokol's monopoly.

I read in the LA Times that NASA has been trying very hard to break Thiokol's
monopoly on the technology of SRB manufacture. Could there be something here?

------------------------------

Date: 4 Feb 86 18:16:00 GMT
From: amdcad!amdahl!ems@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (ems)
Organization: Circle C Shellfish Ranch, Shores-of-the-Pacific, Ca
Subject: Re: Next generation shuttle: electrically assisted take-off?
References: <8602010854.AA02457@s1-b.arpa>, <328@vger.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <328@vger.UUCP>, al@vger.UUCP ( Informatix) writes:
> 
> > For an example, let's suppose this is Mount Kenya, a 5 Km
> > tall mountain on the equator (the most efficient place to launch
> > from, at least if you want equatorial orbits.)
> 
> Africa is pretty unstable politically, Otrag  (Ortag?) had to abandon
> launch attempts in Africa as the result of a revolution.  In addition,
> you need a lot of support services to launch satellites, better stick
> to well developed industial countries, although Ariane seems to have
> done OK in South America.  Also, a nearby seaport is extremely useful
> for many payloads.
> 
A small point:  French Guianna (or however it is spelt...) is an
anomally in the world of colonies.  It is legally a 'District' of
France.  To the french, districts are somewhat like states are to
the US.  French Guianna *is part of France*; and therefor part of a
well developed industrial country.  (Unless some political change
has taken place in the dozen or so years since I learned of this
state of affairs...)
-- 
E. Michael Smith  ...!{hplabs,ihnp4,amd,nsc}!amdahl!ems
This is the obligatory disclaimer of everything.

------------------------------

Date: 4 Feb 86 18:24:23 GMT
From: amdcad!amdahl!ems@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (ems)
Organization: Circle C Shellfish Ranch, Shores-of-the-Pacific, Ca
Subject: Re: Buy an Orbiter?
References: <8602010203.AA01808@s1-b.arpa>, <11643@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, <1458@bbncc5.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <1458@bbncc5.UUCP>, mfidelma@bbncc5.UUCP (Miles Fidelman) writes:
> 
> How about either:
> 
> 	- a national lottery 
> 	- a stock corporation - sell shares on the public exchanges, use
> 	  the money to buy a new orbiter - lease the orbiter to paying
> 	  customers on a flight-by-flight basis - the venture might not
> 	  fully recoup its investment, but I'll bet a lot of individuals
> 	  would like to own a piece of a shuttle, and some of the corporations
> 	  and governments that fly satellites would like to put up another
> 	  orbiter (this might also work as a limited partnership - pass back
> 	  the losses, etc.)
> 
> Miles Fidelman (mfidelman@bbncc5.ARPA)
Is there any reason (technical, legal, or otherwise) other than
financial why a private company could not go to Rockwell and order a
shuttle?  Does NASA own the 'copyright'?   I would be willing to buy
stock in a startup company doing space ventures.  Are there any?
-- 
E. Michael Smith  ...!{hplabs,ihnp4,amd,nsc}!amdahl!ems
This is the obligatory disclaimer of everything.

------------------------------

Date: 31 Jan 86 18:02:56 GMT
From: trwrb!trwspp!spp1!ritter@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Phillip A. Ritter)
Organization: TRW, Redondo Beach  CA
Subject: Re: Columbia Replacement
References: <860129202758.780479@HI-MULTICS.ARPA>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <860129202758.780479@HI-MULTICS.ARPA> Cargo@HI-MULTICS.ARPA ("David S. Cargo") writes:
>...I can see three options for NASA...
> (3) NASA will have Rockwell refit the Enterprise to make it fully
>operational.  Nobody has mentioned this one.  Is it even possible?  I
>don't know how far the Enterprise is from being an operational orbiter,
>instead of a boiler plate shuttle replica.  Anybody have any ideas?
I believe that Rockwell was asked by the DoD in the early '80s about making
the Enterprise a fully operational shuttle.  At that time they were concerned
about not having enough shuttle capacity, relying on NASA, etc. (the DoD is
very paranoid).  I am not sure, but I believe that the results of the report
were positive and the cost would not be too much more than two or three times
what Columbia's overhaul cost.
Anyone from Rockwell care to confirm or deny?
Phil Ritter
-- 
Phillip A. Ritter

------------------------------

Posted-Date: Fri 7 Feb 1986 17:09:36 EST
Date: Fri 7 Feb 1986 17:09:36 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Re: teleoperators
To: Rick McGeer <mcgeer%ji@ucbvax.berkeley.edu>
In-Reply-To: Rick McGeer's message of Fri, 7 Feb 86 12:02:52 PST
Cc: dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa, space@mc.lcs.mit.edu

>> Because it's hard to keep people in GEO.  Teleoperator technology would
>>extend easily, perhaps all the way to the moon.

>As far as I can see, the only difference is in delta-vee, and robots and
>teleoperators pay the same that people do.

The difference is people have to be supplied with shielding, food,
water, air, and have to be brought back after a while (so the delta-V
isn't the same).

>Granted you don't want to do much construction at 100 nm, it doesn't follow
>that you want to do all or most in GEO.  HEO, 200-1000 nm up, might well be
>preferable.

I'll buy that for things built from earth-launched materials.  At what
altitude will the space station be?

>"I don't believe...". This argument is really about marginal cost, and neither
>you nor I have the figures.  The teleoperator/robot people have an advantage;
>they have fixed NASA manned costs to shoot at.  Paul, I will happily buy your
>argument, if you can tell me, with firm numbers, what the
>teleoperator-constructed Space Station will cost.   Until then, you're
>betting on the efficiency of an untried technology, a bet few of us would
>care to make without more information.

Yet we are willing to build the space station on very vague arguments
for its utility.  There's a double standard here.

I'm really arguing plausibility.  Human EVA in low orbit is very
expensive: I estimate very roughly around $100,000/man-hour of useful work 
when and if a space station is built (I'd like to the see the NASA number).
A $10 million teleoperator system will pay for itself in well under a year,
even if it is ten times less efficient than a man in a space suit.  Away
from the station an advantage would be even greater.

Let's take a crack at estimating the cost.  A teleoperator on a space
station will have (say): two direct drive robot arms with replacable end
effectors, a carousel device for holding the effectors, several CCD TV
cameras, a communications system (fiber optic or microwave), a control
computer, a power supply (fuel cells, batteries or direct wiring to the
station), and a frame to hold it all together and hold spare parts.
Also, it would need a ground interface: computers, input
devices, video and graphics displays.  I see no reason why such a device
couldn't be built for more than a few hundred thousand dollars (ignoring
development costs).  Even if space qualification multiplies that
by ten it should still make sense for EVA in low orbit.
Development costs are harder to estimate.  

To get a firm estimate of costs we need to know what the space station
will be used for (one can't, after all, predict how much a factory
will cost if you don't know what it's making).  Given what we know
about products that can be economically made in a space station,
I'd say extremely inexpensive teleoperators could make them just as well
as humans.

>No one thinks that such machines are impossible in any physical sense. I think
>that they're probably beyond current ME and CS technology.  I could be wrong.
>But I don't think increased demand is going to solve the problem for you;
>mechanical linkages really don't have terrific economies of scale.

You misunderstand.  I wasn't arguing that economies of scale will make
teleoperators cheap; rather, I was arguing that they hadn't been
developed because it hadn't been worth anyone's while to do so
for terrestrial applications.  Also, I'm not arguing for extremely
capable teleoperators that can fully replace humans with no loss
of efficiency; rather, I want remote-controlled dumb manipulators
that may not even have tactile feedback (although I'm willing to
take any additional functionality that's feasible).

------------------------------

Date: 4 Feb 86 22:05:15 GMT
From: tektronix!teklds!athena!grahamb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Graham Bromley)
Organization: Tektronix, Beaverton OR
Subject: shuttle safety etc. - don't blame the engineers
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Whichever way you look at it the shuttle system doesn't allow
much room for error. The crew can survive only if the entire
orbiter can be flown to a safe landing. This is rather like an 
ejection seat which will only work on sunny Tuesdays with the 
aircraft straight and level below 200 knots.
The orbiter can't abort before the SRB's are expended; how could 
they be safely detached while still burning? (You can't throttle 
a solid rocket). Separation from the tank is in any case complex 
and relatively slow. And there's no way out of the orbiter itself,
if for example the landing phase goes awry. You'd think that during 
the last minute or so of flight it would at be possible to jump out 
of the thing the old fashioned way, you know, head first with a 
parachute. Nope.
The fact is that NASA has done an extremely competent job under the 
circumstances the politicians forced it to work under.  The Apollo 
vehicles were fundamentally more sound than the shuttle will ever 
be, because the rule of the game was: "here's what we want. How much 
will it cost?".  With the shuttle, replace that with: "here's what 
it will do.  This is what it will cost. Go do it!". What you end up 
with is a vehicle which is half solid, half liquid powered; is not 
entirely reusable, and short lived anyway; has an inadequate payload 
and for low orbits only; is as expensive to run as 1960's disposable 
rocket technology, and has virtually no abort or last-chance crew 
escape capability. (SRB sensors, among others,  were removed to enable 
the shuttle to carry a bit heavier load). The entire system was from 
the start unsound, brilliantly put together, a testimonial to just how 
incredibly complex yet workable a kludge can be if only the engineers 
are good enough (no sarcasm intended).  As a programmer, I've often 
been amazed at how a huge morass of totally unstructured code 
mutilated by years of uncontrolled patching has functioned for years 
because a bunch of competent and dedicated programmers held it together.
That is what happens on a far greater scale whenever a shuttle is 
readied for flight. If that sounds extreme, look at the list of 
problems that have plagued every shuttle flight.
Some guy called Webb (a Congressional adviser) hit the nail on the 
head on the McNeil-Lehrer new hour last night (Monday 2/4). He
claims that the fundamental problem is the way programs like the
shuttle are conceived and funded.
The concept of solid rockets for a shuttle vehicle is just plain
wrong. Severe vibration. Very high, uncontrollable temperatures. No 
abort. No throttling. (Why has the abort phase NEVER BEEN TESTED? 
One guess.) The cheapest way to blast 100 odd tons into orbit is 
about all you can say for them.  The NASA engineers originally wanted 
to build a FULLY REUSABLE vehicle, ALL LIQUID ENGINES (can be turned 
off or throttled down), possibly even air breathing jets for initial 
climb. Sure it would have cost more to design, but it would have cost 
much less to operate after initial shakeout flights, with far greater 
capabilities,  genuine reusability and longer operating life.  The 
problem is that the entire program has never been funded as a program, 
but rather on a year to year basis. This year we've got this much so 
we'll do that, this year we've only got this much so we can only do 
that. Penny wise, pound foolish as they used to say where I grew up. 
Save a billion this year and blow ten or twenty times that over the 
life of the program for lesser results (not to mention loss of lives 
and cargoes). 
Having worked in and around scientific research in universities I can 
testify that it's a case of the same problem. The average academic 
scientist constantly worries about his survival for the next year - 
what can I kludge up right away to get another year's funding? Round 
and round in a tight circle like a mouse on a wheel, with maybe a few
% of the effort applied to something you could honestly call useful 
science.  Then there's the pitiful spectacle of perfectly good Saturn 
V boosters turning to rust because the current edict denied the cost 
of fuel to fly them, and the threat to turn off reception of Voyager 
signals because something would be subtracted from the year's budget 
to run the reception stations. Ad nauseam.
I won't blame the engineers for the shuttle problem, regardless
what happened, or for the problems to come (there'll surely be 
others, perhaps bad as this). When a politician or perhaps a society 
tells an engineer that due to this year's budget, force is no longer 
equal to mass times acceleration,  what you get is an unabortable
semi-reusable-for-a-few-flights shuttle with a couple of big fire-
crackers bolted on the side.
I know how it feels to be told to develop some god-awful complex lump 
of software in three months with no support because some nerd might 
get a feather in his cap for saying it can be done. Then comes the 
inevitable question when it turns out that 2+2 is indeed equal to 4:
"you mean you can't do that? You said you could. We can't understand 
this. Whose fault is it?".
Perhaps the task of Reagan's blue ribbon investigative panel should be 
to take a long hard look at the realities of exploring the inner solar 
system, which is what this is all about. At just how difficult and 
expensive it is going to be.  How long will it really take, what 
resources are we really willing to apply to this program. They might 
consider asking a few good aerospace engineers for their opinions too. 
Then have the backbone to say yes or no,  not 'yes, but we want you to 
change the laws of physics'.
Anyone concur? No need to flame me if you don't!

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #120
*******************


0,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA16844; Sat, 15 Feb 86 19:02:14 PST
	id AA16844; Sat, 15 Feb 86 19:02:14 PST
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 86 19:02:14 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8602160302.AA16844@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #121

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 121

Today's Topics:
			 Re: Shuttle Ditching
		       Re: Television coverage
	       Re: Has Shuttle disaster killed Galileo?
Re: out-of-date (pre-BOOM) "I'll pay $x to joyride STS" arriving even now
			  Re: teleoperators
		       Re: scuttle the Shuttle?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 4 Feb 86 23:55:32 GMT
From: bellcore!petrus!magic!science!bambi!steve@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Steve Miller)
Organization: Bell Communications Research Inc., Morristown, NJ
Subject: Re: Shuttle Ditching
References: <8602032227.AA10998@s1-b.arpa>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> 1) Ground crew interprets visual data, determines that the situation is
> deadly, and tells shuttle commander to abort.  My guess is that this
> could take up a very significant part of 15 seconds.
Navy pilots launching from aircraft carriers are trained to respond
instantly to the command "Punch out" from the air boss.  I have seen
films of pilots being given this command.  The air boss has maybe
one to three seconds immediately after launch to identify an
emergency, and then give the command.
> Now, even if all the above could be done in time and the Shuttle remain
> intact, could the Shuttle obtain an aerodynamic trajectory before
> hitting the ocean?
Challenger was about nine miles up and moving nearly 2000 mph.  At this
speed, even the thin air at that height provides adequate control
for aerodynamic surfaces to orient a large aircraft.
	-Steve Miller ihnp4!bambi!steve

------------------------------

Date: 4 Feb 86 13:34:17 GMT
From: bellcore!petrus!sabre!zeta!epsilon!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxii!tw8023@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (T Wheeler)
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Piscataway N.J.
Subject: Re: Television coverage
References: <11627@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>,, <15019@rochester.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

To me, the most agravating part of the coverage was the stupid
questions asked by reporters at the hastily called news conferences.
At the one called at the White House barely 15 minutes after the
explosion, Larry Speakes told the assembled reporters that the
President had not made a statement, but had just stood in front of the
TV set with a shocked and pained look on his face (just as most of the
rest of us did).  When the questions started, the first three were
"What did the President say?"  The twits had just heard Speakes say he
did not say anything.  The fourth question was "How does the President
think this will effect the shuttle program?"  Now, how stupid can you
get?  If they ever have brain transplants, I want one from a newsman.
They have never been used.

Latter in the day, my 15 year old son started keeping a talley of the
ratio between stupid questions and good questions.  The stupid (I mean
inane) questions outnumbered the good questions 5 to 1.  What does
this tell us about the quality of news types reasoning power?  I will
leave that up to you folks.  As far as I am concerned, they have shown
that once again they should all be classed somewhere lower than a
snakes patootie.  I think the classification "professional" should be
dropped from the lexicon when refering to the news media.

T. C. Wheeler

------------------------------

Date: 3 Feb 86 22:34:18 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Subject: Re: Has Shuttle disaster killed Galileo?
References: <895@h-sc1.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> I understand that the Galileo probe has a two-week launch window in March.
I think it's in June, actually.
> The next window will be in two years. 
There is a launch window for Jupiter about once a year, since Jupiter
orbits fairly slowly and Earth's own motion dominates the window timing,
but they're not all equally good.  In particular, the arrival velocity
varies some, and low arrival velocity is important for missions like
Galileo that are doing more than just a flyby.  It may well be that the
1987 window is a poor one.
> Since it is very unlikely that the
> Shuttle program will be reinstated by then,
> does this mean that Galileo is dead?
No, but delayed almost certainly.  It would be a minor miracle to get the
Ulysses and Galileo launches off on time in June, even if the Challenger
problem is diagnosed and fixed quickly.  (Ulysses too wants to go into
the Jupiter launch window.)  The schedule was looking tight as it was,
with some problems in getting the Centaur G-Prime upper stage ready for
the shuttle cargo bay.
It's not as if Galileo hasn't been delayed plenty already... :-<
> Is there any way that this probe could be launched by other rockets in time?
I doubt it very much.  It's a big, heavy probe, with a high velocity needed;
Shuttle plus Centaur-G-Prime is the heaviest booster the US has right now.
The few heavy expendables the US has are all earmarked for other things, and
I'm not sure Galileo would fit under their payload shrouds anyway -- it was
really designed for Shuttle launch.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 7 Feb 86 07:34:45 pst
From: Jim Gillogly <sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!randvax!jim@ucbvax.berkeley.edu>
To: randvax!space
Subject: Re: out-of-date (pre-BOOM) "I'll pay $x to joyride STS" arriving even now
Newsgroups: net.space
In-Reply-To: <8602041137.AA13581@s1-b.arpa>
Organization: Banzai Institute

I'm still willing to go $1K.  If it'll cost more, let's talk.  Please advise
where to send cash and pick up flight suit.

For permanent residence in lunar colony, would you take my house?  I've got
a swimming pool...
-- 
	Jim Gillogly
	{decvax, vortex}!randvax!jim
	jim@rand-unix.arpa

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 7 Feb 86 18:00:47 PST
From: mcgeer%ji@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Rick McGeer)
To: dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
Subject: Re: teleoperators
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa

>>> Because it's hard to keep people in GEO.  Teleoperator technology would
>>>extend easily, perhaps all the way to the moon.
>
>>As far as I can see, the only difference is in delta-vee, and robots and
>>teleoperators pay the same that people do.
>
>The difference is people have to be supplied with shielding, food,
>water, air, and have to be brought back after a while (so the delta-V
>isn't the same).

But the delta-V per pound is, and so we're arguing about the relative weight
of 2 * human + life support vs (hypothetical) robot.  Clearly this discussion
isn't going anywhere until we get a realistic spec for a robot.  Anyway, given
the kinds of robots you're talking about you'd have to haul them back for
repairs every so often.

>
>>Granted you don't want to do much construction at 100 nm, it doesn't follow
>>that you want to do all or most in GEO.  HEO, 200-1000 nm up, might well be
>>preferable.
>
>I'll buy that for things built from earth-launched materials.  At what
>altitude will the space station be?

I think that the space station's going to be somewhere between 100 and 200 nm.
Can't be too high since it's going to be supplied by the Shuttle, which orbits
at a little over 100nm.

>
>>"I don't believe...". This argument is really about marginal cost, and neither
>>you nor I have the figures.  The teleoperator/robot people have an advantage;
>>they have fixed NASA manned costs to shoot at.  Paul, I will happily buy your
>>argument, if you can tell me, with firm numbers, what the
>>teleoperator-constructed Space Station will cost.   Until then, you're
>>betting on the efficiency of an untried technology, a bet few of us would
>>care to make without more information.
>
>Yet we are willing to build the space station on very vague arguments
>for its utility.  There's a double standard here.

There's a big difference.  You know and I know that there's a lot of stuff
we can do from a space station, manned or unmanned: we can assemble and launch
manned or unmanned planetary probes of much greater sophistication than those
launched from earth surface; we can assemble SPSs; we can conduct long-period
biological experiments in lab conditions; and we can begin crystal-growth
and pharmaceutical manufacture.  No one will argue with the utility of any of
these activities.  Your argument, put bluntly, is that robots and teleoperators
can do these things; I'm saying produce the teleoperator/robot, and then I'll
consider it.  I'm also saying that we know that a manned space station can do
all of these things.

>
>I'm really arguing plausibility.  Human EVA in low orbit is very
>expensive: I estimate very roughly around $100,000/man-hour of useful work 
>when and if a space station is built (I'd like to the see the NASA number).
>A $10 million teleoperator system will pay for itself in well under a year,
>even if it is ten times less efficient than a man in a space suit.  Away
>from the station an advantage would be even greater.

I'd like to see the NASA number, too.  I'd also like to see the basis of
your estimate.  Counting the cost of lifting materials other than life-support
to orbit is cheating.

>
>Let's take a crack at estimating the cost.  A teleoperator on a space
>station will have (say): two direct drive robot arms with replacable end
>effectors, a carousel device for holding the effectors, several CCD TV
>cameras, a communications system (fiber optic or microwave), a control
>computer, a power supply (fuel cells, batteries or direct wiring to the
>station), and a frame to hold it all together and hold spare parts.
>Also, it would need a ground interface: computers, input
>devices, video and graphics displays.  I see no reason why such a device
>couldn't be built for more than a few hundred thousand dollars (ignoring
>development costs).  Even if space qualification multiplies that
>by ten it should still make sense for EVA in low orbit.
>Development costs are harder to estimate.  

Well, I think that the software alone would cost you (easily) a million
bucks (ten man-years at $100K/yr, which is probably an underestimate).  A B-1B
is a lot less sophisticated, and last time I looked the estimate for one of
those was a cool billion.  The Canadarm cost in the tens of millions, didn't
it?  And you're going to need a far better manipulator than that.


>
>To get a firm estimate of costs we need to know what the space station
>will be used for (one can't, after all, predict how much a factory
>will cost if you don't know what it's making).

Agreed.

>Given what we know
>about products that can be economically made in a space station,
>I'd say extremely inexpensive teleoperators could make them just as well
>as humans.

Doubtful.

>
>>No one thinks that such machines are impossible in any physical sense. I think
>>that they're probably beyond current ME and CS technology.  I could be wrong.
>>But I don't think increased demand is going to solve the problem for you;
>>mechanical linkages really don't have terrific economies of scale.
>
>You misunderstand.  I wasn't arguing that economies of scale will make
>teleoperators cheap; rather, I was arguing that they hadn't been
>developed because it hadn't been worth anyone's while to do so
>for terrestrial applications.  Also, I'm not arguing for extremely
>capable teleoperators that can fully replace humans with no loss
>of efficiency; rather, I want remote-controlled dumb manipulators
>that may not even have tactile feedback (although I'm willing to
>take any additional functionality that's feasible).

Hmm.  There's plenty of demand for such machines now.  Seabed mining, oil
drilling in the North Sea, on-earth construction, coal mining are all
activities which humans can't do or which are dangerous for those that do
them.  I suspect that the reason that we don't see more teleoperators is that
the problem is just Too Damn Hard.

							-- Rick.
>
>

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 7 Feb 86 14:47:35 PST
From: mcgeer%ji@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Rick McGeer)
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Re: scuttle the Shuttle?

>> Why wouldn't LEO EVA expertise transfer to GEO?
>
> Because it's hard to keep people in GEO.  Teleoperator technology would
>extend easily, perhaps all the way to the moon.

As far as I can see, the only difference is in delta-vee, and robots and
teleoperators pay the same that people do.

>
>> it's not clear to me that
>> the large majority of space construction activities must be done in GEO, or
>> even should be.
>
>Maintenance of large structures will take place in GEO.  Construction
>using extraterrestrial materials should be done in high orbit.  Very
>large structures cannot be built in low orbit because of air drag.

Granted you don't want to do much construction at 100 nm, it doesn't follow
that you want to do all or most in GEO.  HEO, 200-1000 nm up, might well be
preferable.

>
>> 	Also, while I believe that you are sincere, I have yet to see the
>> teleoperators of the required complexity.  And, further, if you redesign the
>> product so that robots and/or teleoperators can build them, you're simply
>> trading the cost of putting people in orbit for the increased cost of
>> teleoperators and machine design.  Further, the costs are not only in
>> the increased costs of each product, but also in the products that you decide
>> you can't make because they don't come in snap-together pieces.
>
>I don't believe modular design will add more than a fraction to the
>cost of any product.  I'm not suggesting each and every transistor
>be in a separate box.  Launching costs are so high that the redesign
>cost (or, rather, the cost of making new designs modular) would
>be insignificant.

"I don't believe...".  This argument is really about marginal cost, and neither
you nor I have the figures.  The teleoperator/robot people have an advantage;
they have fixed NASA manned costs to shoot at.  Paul, I will happily buy your
argument, if you can tell me, with firm numbers, what the
teleoperator-constructed Space Station will cost.   Until then, you're
betting on the efficiency of an untried technology, a bet few of us would
care to make without more information.

>
>The current absence of teleoperators of the required complexity is more
>an indication of lack of demand rather than inherent impossibility.  On
>earth most remotely controlled machines are for observation or bulk
>manipulation (submersible recovery vehicles, mining machines), not
>for delicate operations.  

No one thinks that such machines are impossible in any physical sense.  I think
that they're probably beyond current ME and CS technology.  I could be wrong.
But I don't think increased demand is going to solve the problem for you;
machanical linkages really don't have terrific economies of scale.

>
>The rapid advance of electronics, communication technology and robotics
>tells me that teleoperator technology get cheaper quickly.  Rocket
>technology is evolving slowly, and has much less spinoff potential.

Well, I agree about the evolution of electronics and communication: I'm not
so sure about the ME side of it.  The point is that we don't *know* that
teleoperator technology is going to do it for us, or compete with manned
spaceflight.  When we know it, with numbers, then I'll consider your argument.
Until then, sorry.

>
>> 	Finally, remember Skylab?  I'm damned glad we didn't have a robot
>> trying to repair *that*; it never would have had any power.
>
>Current teleoperators couldn't have repaired Skylab, but the Skylab failure
>was hardly a typical failure mode.  Replacement of defective or burned out
>electronics, replenishment of expendable fluids and replacement of worn
>mechanical parts would, I think, account for 90% of maintenance
>activities in space.  There's no sense treating rare cases as typical.

When the "rare case" would have sunk a $100M space station, I think we should
at least consider it.  By analogy, when we design computers, we design for 90%
of the cases -- but we also have a backup (generally software trap handlers)
for the other 10%.  Even if I accepted -- which I don't -- your argument that
90% of maintenance activities could be done by robots & teleoperators, we'd
still need (a few) men for the other cases.  And we still have to learn space
construction now, if for no other reason than to gain experience in designing
teleoperators.

							-- Rick.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #121
*******************


0,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA18022; Sat, 15 Feb 86 23:02:15 PST
	id AA18022; Sat, 15 Feb 86 23:02:15 PST
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 86 23:02:15 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8602160702.AA18022@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #122

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 122

Today's Topics:
		       Re: Debris search query
			 SPACE Digest V6 #95
	     Naming moons and other astronomical objects
		Need info on Progress missions, please
			     Why we care
		    Re: Did the Challenger wobble?
		  Re: Space Shuttle Children's Fund
			  To The Challenger
			    Re: Joy rides
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 7 Feb 86 16:03:46 pst
From: decwrl!glacier!oliveb!barb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Barbara Jernigan)
Posted-Date: Fri, 7 Feb 86 16:03:46 pst
To: oliveb!space
Subject: Re: Debris search query
In-Reply-To: your article <8602062032.AA07148@s1-b.arpa>

The big debris, I believe, was a helecopter (they also found a light
plane).  The big problem, to be honest, is that there is a *lot* of
space junk out there.  Canaveral (sp) (The Cape) has been operating a long time.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1986  00:25 EST
From: MINSKY%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Cc: Space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #95
In-Reply-To: Msg of 5 Feb 1986  06:19-EST from Ted Anderson <ota at s1-b.arpa>

One problem I see is that the shuttle shortage will now cause a schedule
delay of at least four months.

During that interval, there will be rescheduling plans for all future
missions.  Everyone will claim priority.  The new high-power TV satellites,
for example, will compete with the science missions.

My concern is with Galileo, the mission to explore Jupiter more
intensely.  The launch window for this comes only once a year, and I recall
that it is early summer or late spring.

Unless the science community prepares now for an intense lobbying effort,
Galileo will surely be postponed an entire year or so, and perhaps more.


(On the other hand, I'd hate to see it get blown up, since there is not likely to be a replacement available.)

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 8 Feb 86 01:34:27 PST
X-Date-Last-Edited: 1986 February 07 09:08:10 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM@mc.lcs.mit.edu>
To: KFL@mc.lcs.mit.edu
Cc: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Naming moons and other astronomical objects
Sender: REM%IMSSS@su-score.arpa (for undeliverable-mail notifications)
Reply-To: REM%IMSSS@SU-SCORE.ARPA

K> Date: Tue,  4 Feb 86 23:08:13 EST
K> From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
K> Traditionally, the discoverer has the right to name his discovery.
K> Look at the names of the features on the back side of Earth's moon.

But a little more discretion is done for planets and moons and stars
than is done for mere craters.

K> The five previously known moons of Uranus (Miranda, Ariel, Umbriel,
K> Titania, and Oberon) are named for characters in Shakespeare.

Since prior moons of Uranus are named after Shakespeare characters,
perhaps continue that pattern?

R> Do we want to start naming moons after real humans of the nation that
R> discovered them?

K> Why not?  We are running out of mythological names.  Most of them
K> (including the whole Hindu pantheon) have been used up on asteroids.

Despite Voyager discovering many more moons of outer planets, there
are still an order of magnitude fewer moons than asteroids, so we
could think carefully about moons while still naming asteroids more
casually.

K> Some asteroids now have such pseudo-mythological names as
K> Rockefelleria (for Nelson Rockefeller) and Geographica (for the
K> National Geographic Society).

That's getting awful silly. Better we should go the telephone books of
the major cities of the world and name asteroids after the most common
names.

K> Another possibility is for the government to auction the right of
K> naming each moon, and each mountain and each crater on each moon, to
K> the highest bidder.

Good idea for asteroids and craters, if the IAU will permit it. There
are frauds going around whereby private companies who have no right to
any star discovery are selling gullible people a star named after
them, but I think it would be reasonable for Palomar to auction rights
to name any star that first appeared on their survey plates and for
USA and USSR to auction rights to name any crater they discovered on
Moon (Luna) or Calisto et al. What would IAU likely decide if this
proposition were put to them? (Palomar could fund itself and several
other observatories if the idea caught on, perhaps saving Mt. Wilson
from budgetary extincton; USA could balance the budget maybe; USSR
could become capitalistic and stop hating us so much, compete with
trade like Japan instead of via cold war).

R> Why not name three more after Grissom/Chaffe/White ...
K> Good idea.

By the way, so far no USA astronaut has ever died in space. G/C/W died
on ground and the recent 7 died about 10 miles up, very far from space
(50 or 100 miles up and beyond). So it seems fair to put all ten of
them in same name boat.

K> Was the Arpanet site OBERON named after the moon, or after the
K> Shakespeare character?

I don't know. Where is it located? Maybe ask Postmaster@OBERON?

------------------------------

Date: 3 Feb 86 14:09:51 GMT
From: ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dave Newkirk)
Subject: Need info on Progress missions, please
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

My brother is compiling a list of information on Soviet space station
activity and needs some information about Progress flights in early
1984.  This information should be in Spaceflight magazine.
	Progress 19 re-entry time
	Progress 21 launch & re-entry time, mission description
	Progress 22 launch & re-entry time, mission description
Thanks for any info you can send.
-- 
				Dave Newkirk, ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn

------------------------------

Date: 4 Feb 86 18:28:32 GMT
From: decvax!linus!philabs!ttidca!ttidcc!hollombe@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (The Polymath)
Organization: The Cat Factory
Subject: Why we care
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Below is a message I posted to our local bulletin  board  on  1/28/86.  I'm
posting  it because I've repeatedly heard (not here) the question raised as
to why we feel such strong emotion over the death of seven astronauts  when
hundreds  of  people  die on the highways each day.  The second half of the
message is my attempt at an answer.
==============================================================================
From hollombe Wed Jan 29 10:29:34 1986
To: vox
Subject: Shuttle
I also watched the explosion on a VCR using extreme slow  motion  of  NBC's
slow  motion.  There's  no question it was the main tank that blew.  In one
frame you can distinctly see the  start  of  the  major  explosion  at  the
forward  tip  of  the tank.  This was preceded by flames at the rear of the
tank and one or two minor explosions near the center between the  tank  and
the Shuttle.
The Shuttle was doing Mach 3 at the time and the main tank is very fragile.
Even  a  minor  compromise  of  its  integrity  at  that  speed would allow
aerodynamic forces to tear it to shreds. [Personal speculation:  The  minor
explosion  blew  a  hole in the side of the tank which allowed external air
pressure to collapse the nose.]
That seems to be what happened.  Why is still anyone's guess and likely  to
be  for  some  time.  Last  I  heard the search planes had reported finding
pieces of Shuttle in the ocean off the cape.
As to why the depth of feeling expressed -- one could as well ask about the
feelings  expressed  over  Kennedy's  assassination.  I  think  it's partly
because the astronauts were our personal representatives in space.  Many of
us  would have been willing to sacrifice our careers, plans, or part of our
anatomy to go where they went.  We couldn't all go, so they  went  for  us.
This time, they died for us.
It's also partly because the  Shuttle  is  "our  bird".  We,  the  American
People,  built it with our hopes, dreams, and tax money.  Some of us worked
on it directly (I still have "Team Member -- Space Shuttle" license  frames
on  my  car), but all of us contributed something.  It hurts to see a piece
of that go down in flames.
-- Polymath
==============================================================================
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe)
Citicorp(+)TTI
3100 Ocean Park Blvd.     Geniuses are people so lazy they
Santa Monica, CA  90405   do everything right the first time.
(213) 450-9111, ext. 2483
{philabs,randvax,trwrb,vortex}!ttidca!ttidcc!hollombe

------------------------------

Date: 4 Feb 86 17:49:05 GMT
From: cbosgd!ukma!sean@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Sean Casey)
Organization: The White Tower @ The Univ. of KY
Subject: Re: Did the Challenger wobble?
References: <437@mmm.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <437@mmm.UUCP> mrgofor@mmm.UUCP (Michael Ross) writes:
>While watching my VCR replay of the shuttle disaster, I noticed
>something that others may not have caught. The TV people kept showing
>slow motion footage of the explosion itself - but they didn't think
>to go the other way and speed up the tape rather than slowing it down.
Just before the explosion, there was a 10% loss of thrust in one of the
SRBs.  I suggest that what you are seeing is perhaps the loss of thrust
and the compensation applied.
Sean
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Casey                UUCP:  sean@ukma.uucp          CSNET:  sean@uky.csnet
University of Kentucky    ARPA:  ukma!sean@anl-mcs.arpa
Lexington, Kentucky     BITNET:  sean@ukma.bitnet
     "Wherever you go, there you are."

------------------------------

Date: 4 Feb 86 17:03:24 GMT
From: decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!mcvax!vmucnam!imag!lifia!felix@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Francois Felix INGRAND)
Organization: LIFIA-IMAG, Un. of Grenoble, France
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle Children's Fund
References: <221@hadron.UUCP>, <325@lifia.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>From imag!vmucnam!mcvax!bu-cs!dml Tue Feb  4 06:05:51 1986
>From me
>>Is the Social Budget of USA so poor that American people must create a fund
>>for the astronauts' children? 
>
>I feel very sorry for you.  I hope that there are not many people
>like you that do not care or have sympthay for those who have
>suffered a great loss.
I post the response on the net before our "transmission cable" became hot.
First my question was serious, I do not know very well the american Social
System but I feel very sorry too, to think that you have to make a fund to help
these childrens.
Second, these childrens, which suffered a great loss indeed, and you could be
sure that I have sympathy for them, looks for me like the childrens or people
which loose parents or friends in such a catastrophe. The tomorow of the
shuttle catastrophe, there were a Airplane Crash in South America: 27 deads...
Be sure that I have a lot of sympathy for them too. But Medias seem to have
forgotten them... And American Fund too.
Third, Do you really think that it is money that these childrens need?
Do you really think that sympathy can only be Dollars. Excuse me but I
feel sorry for you, to see that the only think that you can do for them is to
make a Fund. I understand that we can make a fund like AFRICA AID, of "LES
RESTAURANTS DU COEUR" in France. But here, is it the best solution? I doubt.
I apologize for my poor English, and my response would be more precise if it
was written in french.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Francois Felix INGRAND              Pourquoi tant de haine... 
UUCP: ...{mcvax,vmucnam}!lifia!felix               EDIKA      
      ...{mcvax,vmucnam}!imag!felix

------------------------------

Date: 4 Feb 86 17:21:08 GMT
From: trwrb!trwrba!aero!homeier@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Peter Homeier)
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
Subject: To The Challenger
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

The following was written by a friend, Patricia Harper Cummings of
South Pasadena, California.
TO THE CHALLENGER
We had come to think of you as the Space Titanic, hadn't we?  Somehow,
along the way, we had forgotten that you were part of an imperfect world,
a world where both victories and tragedies exist.  You were our Disneyland
in the Sky - someday we might even have a chance to go ourselves, or our
children, on the ultimate vacation to the cosmos.  On Tuesday we cheered
as you carried seven of us with you.  And we trusted you to bring them
back, but you failed us.  Or did we fail you?  In that smoke and in those
ashes that we watched in horror and disbelief drift sadly down into the
sea, we watched our hero, our false god and our fantasies fall as well.
You who had become our symbol of national pride, of triumph and of
adventure, perhaps you were meant to be something else.  We will search to
find that now - your true identity - for we will now search with hearts
united in devastation.  Perhaps then you will be resurrected in our
wounded spirits into that which you were destined to be: a reminder of our
finitude, a call to try again, and an invitation to a new mission with our
sights fixed even Higher next time.
Patricia Harper Cummings
-- 
Peter Homeier                                  ______
Arpanet:    homeier@aerospace                 / o    \_/
UUCP:       ..!ihnp4!trwrb!aero!homeier       \___)__/ \
The Aerospace Corporation, M1-108
El Segundo, CA 90245
Disclaimer:  Anything expressed above is my personal opinion, and not
             the position of the Aerospace Corporation.

------------------------------

Date: 6 Feb 86 00:48:10 GMT
From: nike!caip!lll-crg!well!farren@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Mike Farren)
Organization: Whole Earth Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA
Subject: Re: Joy rides
References: <8601222243.AA04061@s1-b.arpa>, <8601280027.AA06488@orca.TEK>, <2737@amdahl.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <2737@amdahl.UUCP>, ems@amdahl.UUCP (ems) writes:
> > Another interesting question is: How much would you expect to get paid
> > to live and work a) in orbit, or b) on the moon?
> >
> Paid?  You mean I would get paid?  I'd do it for free.
    I think the proper question is:  How much would you pay to live and ...
-- 
           Mike Farren
           uucp: {your favorite backbone site}!hplabs!well!farren
           Fido: Sci-Fido, Fidonode 125/84, (415)655-0667

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #122
*******************


0,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA19452; Sun, 16 Feb 86 03:01:34 PST
	id AA19452; Sun, 16 Feb 86 03:01:34 PST
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 86 03:01:34 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8602161101.AA19452@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #123

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 123

Today's Topics:
   Re: Better estimate for time to replace Challanger (5yr -> 3yr)
			 dexterity of robots
			    Re: Joy Rides
	     Question about Shuttle SRB fuel reaction....
		   Re: 5 YEARS TO REPLACE ORBITER?
		 What's story behind Kennedy/Canavral
		   Shuttles, Ladders and Lotteries
			   SRB destruction
			 Re: SRB destruction
			joking about a tragedy
			 Re: SRB burn through
			 Re: SRB burn through
		       Re: The Press parasites
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 4 Feb 86 18:46:19 GMT
From: decwrl!pyramid!pesnta!valid!jao@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (John Oswalt)
Organization: Valid Logic, San Jose, CA
Subject: Re: Better estimate for time to replace Challanger (5yr -> 3yr)
References: <8602030937.AA08032@s1-b.arpa>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> to build one replacement STS orbiter. That means 2.5 weeks instead of
> 3 weeks of California Lottery proceedings, a trivial increase, and 2
Please stop exhibiting your numerical illiteracy on the net.  Wherever
did you get the idea that the California lottery took in $1 billion/week?
Just pause to think about that: $40 per man, woman, child and illegal
alien in California every week? -- doesn't make sence.
-- 
John Oswalt (..!{hplabs,amd,pyramid,ihnp4}!pesnta!valid!jao)

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 8 Feb 86 11:32:49 est
From: dms@mit-hermes.arpa (David M. Siegel)
To: jlg%lanl.UUCP@harvard.harvard.edu
Cc: space@mc.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: dexterity of robots

    Date: 1 Feb 86 06:52:48 GMT
    From: ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!cmcl2!lanl!jlg@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
    Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory

    I keep fairly close tabs on AI and robotics.  There is no way with
    today's technology to build an automaton that could have repaired
    the Solar MAX satellite.  Much less - capture and return disabled
    satellites.  Teleoperation doesn't help this much, the problem is
    at least partly one of dexterity.

I'm working on a project that attempts to duplicate the dexterity of a
human hand, and you might be surprised at what has already been
achieved. The hand, a joint project between the University of Utah and
the MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab, has 3 fingers and an opposing
thumb. Each finger has 4 degrees of freedom, giving the hand a total
of 16 joints. Soon it should be equipped with a large number of
tactile sensors, giving it a primitive (compared with humans) sense
of touch. 

While we still have a while to go before a device like the Utah/MIT hand
could be used to repair a satellite, the time is not so far in the
future. And if a billions dollars (half the cost of a shuttle) where
put into the project, I'd guess that a dexterous teleoperator version
could be built in a handful of years.

-Dave

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 8 Feb 86 09:25:05 cst
From: bellcore!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!raha@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Bob Hettinga)
To: ihnp4!space
Subject: Re: Joy Rides
References: <8602051936.AA01329@s1-b.arpa>

Guess a) who's designing and building the space ship and b) what the name of
the ship is?

a) Gary Hudson (SSI's first rocket designer -- the first one blew up)

b) The Phoenix.  An appropriate name, I think.  Nice toy to look at too.
Maybe he can do it...

Bob Hettinga

------------------------------

Date: 0  0 00:00:00 EST
From: "MAARTEN L. NEDERLOFF" <maarten@wharton-10.arpa>
Subject: Question about Shuttle SRB fuel reaction....
To: "space" <space@s1-b.arpa>
Reply-To: "MAARTEN L. NEDERLOFF" <maarten@wharton.ARPA>

	I and several of my colleagues have been discussing the solid
rocket boosters extensively since the shuttle disaster.  Does anyone have
a more detailed description of the chemical process used to fuel the
SRB's?  I have heard it's an adaptation of the thermite reaction, and if
so, what is used to trigger the boosters upon launch?

	I'd appreciate whatever information you can send me.  Thanks.

					Maarten Nederlof
					University of Pennsylvania
					MAARTEN@WHARTON.ARPA

------------------------------

Organization: The MITRE Corp., Bedford, MA
To: SPACE@mc.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: Re: 5 YEARS TO REPLACE ORBITER?
Date: 08 Feb 86 21:30:35 EST (Sat)
From: James R. Van Zandt <jrv@mitre-bedford.arpa>

> * Government procurement takes a minimum of 3 months to buy ANYTHING
> costing more than a few hundred dollars.  Items worth more than a few
> thousand generally take 6 months to a year, and 18 months is not
> unheard of.  This is for stuff that you just get off the shelf.  You
> can imagine the paperwork involved in procuring a shuttle - completely
> independent of the actual construction work.  I would guess two to
> three years of PURE PROCUREMENT DELAY in getting another shuttle. 
> After working as a contractor for NASA for almost 7 years, I know of
> what I speak.

I can't disagree with you.  The longer I work with the government, the
more I wonder...how in &^%$^#@ did we finish the Apollo program so fast?

                                  - Jim Van Zandt

------------------------------

Date: 4 Feb 86 22:39:01 GMT
From: cbosgd!gatech!gt-oscar!is15bbe@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (GT1295B MCCORMICK)
Subject: What's story behind Kennedy/Canavral
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

What's the story behind the name changes at the Cape?  Wasn't it
originally Cape Canavral(sp?) then Kennedy then back?
I understand why the changed it to Kennedy, but why back?
   Thanks
                                                "Why me?"
                                                "Because you're perfect."
William B. McCormick
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!gt-oscar!is15bbe

------------------------------

Date: 5 Feb 86 02:42:20 GMT
From: cbosgd!osu-eddie!green@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (jeffrey greenberg)
Organization: Ohio State Univ., CIS Dept., Cols, Oh.
Subject: Shuttles, Ladders and Lotteries
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

1,000 people have been killed in South Africa in the past year.
Still, I watched TV all day when the shuttle vaporized.
People invest in lotteries and join armies when times are poor.
From space, the earth can be viewed from a distance.
	("The ladder extends us beyond ourselves, hence its importance.
	But where does one place a ladder in space?"
		Edmond Jabes, The Book of Questions)

jeffrey greenberg
614-263-0065
cbosgd!osu-eddie!green
and after march 15: ihnp4!allegra!phri!dolphy!jmg

------------------------------

Date: 5 Feb 86 16:40:38 GMT
From: bellcore!petrus!sabre!zeta!epsilon!mb2c!gbr@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Jerry Ruhno)
Organization: Michigan Bell, Southfield, MI
Subject: SRB destruction
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> One aspect of the SRB self-destruct mechanism which has bothered me the
> most is the fact that a single action will destroy BOTH SRB's ........
    I have read a lot of interesting on the SRBs which really surprised me.
  First of all if one SRB is destroyed then both are. I think they send a
  signal to each but if one receives a destruct signal then it sends a
  signal to the other one incase the other SRB didn't recieve the orginal.
  (I my be wrong but that's what I remember the reporter saying.)
    Another interesting fact is that in the SRB the fuel is burning the
   entire length of the rocket. When they send a destruct signal to the
   SRBs it DOES NOT BLOW UP THE WHOLE THING!! I never realized this.
   What is does is blow off the top of the rocket. Now with the fuel
   burning the entire length it ends up burning at both ends. This
   stops the forward motion of the rocket and it falls to the ocean.
   If it survives the fall and they can find it, NASA will be able 
   to tell alot from it. As of Wed. Feb 5 NASA has said they think
   they found one of them but needs a closer look.
					Jerry Ruhno
					epsilon!mb2c!gbr

------------------------------

Date: 5 Feb 86 20:22:47 GMT
From: bellcore!petrus!karn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Phil R. Karn)
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Inc
Subject: Re: SRB destruction
References: <463@mb2c.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

It is depressing to see the sheer volume of misinformation coming from
people who really ought to know better. Before you answer somebody's
question with an air of authority, check your references! Then quote
them.
This applies almost as much to the news media as it does to this group.
Two errors in particular come to mind:
1. Contrary to the New York Times, nitrogen tetroxide is NOT such an "exotic
material that it isn't listed in the Merck Index." The writer may have been
confused by the fact that what rocket engineers call "nitrogen tetroxide" is
actually a equilibrium mixture of N2O4 and NO2, nitrogen dioxide. The former
is colorless, the latter reddish-brown, and the proportions depend on
temperature.  Chemists are more likely to call it "nitrogen dioxide", which
definitely *is* in the Merck Index.
2. The range safety systems on the SRBs do NOT "blow the ends off".  A look
in any of the many detailed press kits given out by NASA and Rockwell would
reveal that the range safety system consists of a linear shaped charge
running almost the entire length of the SRB inside a cable duct. Detonating
this charge splits the case open lengthwise.  Linear shaped charges are
used in a number of places around the shuttle vehicle, not all of them
for destruct systems. For example, most of the SRB nozzle is routinely
cut off by a linear shaped charge before the booster hits the water
in order to reduce the impact loads.

------------------------------

Date: 4 Feb 86 19:20:07 GMT
From: tektronix!uw-beaver!uw-june!entropy!dataio!pilchuck!ingrid@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (the Real Swede)
Organization: Data I/O Corp., Redmond WA
Subject: joking about a tragedy
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

I posted a short, 3 line message last week concerning
my initial thoughts on the shuttle tragedy. One thing
is really bugging me, though. There's a bunch of onion
heads in net.jokes who are writing ridiculously sick puns
and so-called humour concerning the crash. Besides the
fact that this is no joking matter, the so-called humour
is of the lowest grade, and would get booed off any low-rent
comedy house. I was gonna post one of the jerk's articles; but
I thought it in poor taste. One of the jokes, though, is number
3822 in net.jokes...so I welcome your flaming him.
A co-worker and I who flamed a guy at Boeing's bad-taste shuttle
joke got re-flamed by the entire net.joke sickie constituency.
Oh well, I'll just remove the group from my reader list. I'd just
like to see some others comment on this. Or write to the jokers.
thanks for listening.
ingrid
(...uw-beaver!entropy!dataio!pilchuck!ingrid)

------------------------------

Date: 5 Feb 86 16:48:30 GMT
From: decwrl!pyramid!ut-sally!ut-ngp!dlnash@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Donald L. Nash)
Organization: UTexas Computation Center, Austin, Texas
Subject: Re: SRB burn through
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> With what now appears to be true, the right SRB seems to be a fault.  I
> seem to remember the on one of the original flights of the columbia, NASA
> noted that at least one of the SRBs came very close to burning through the
> outer skin.  If this is true, where there ever any corrective measures
> taken at the time?
>
> 			-- Brad Brahms
> 			   usenet: {decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!trwrb!trwspp!brahms
>			   arpa:   Brahms@usc-eclc
>
One of the SRBs did come close to burn through on a previous mission,
but it was (you guessed it) on the Challenger, not the Columbia.  I read
an article in the local newspaper describing the the things which
happened to the Challenger.  That craft almost seemed cursed from the
beginning, if one believes in such things.  I don't remember if NASA
took any corrective measures or not.
					Don Nash
UUCP:  ...!{ihnp4,allegra,seismo!ut-sally}!ut-ngp!dlnash
APRA:  dlnash@ngp.UTEXAS.EDU

------------------------------

Date: 5 Feb 86 23:40:15 GMT
From: ucdavis!deneb!ccs025@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Johan)
Organization: University of California, Davis
Subject: Re: SRB burn through
References: <2916@ut-ngp.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> 
> One of the SRBs did come close to burn through on a previous mission,
> but it was (you guessed it) on the Challenger, not the Columbia.  I read
> an article in the local newspaper describing the the things which
> happened to the Challenger.  That craft almost seemed cursed from the
> beginning, if one believes in such things.  I don't remember if NASA
> took any corrective measures or not.
> 
> 					Don Nash
> 
> UUCP:  ...!{ihnp4,allegra,seismo!ut-sally}!ut-ngp!dlnash
> APRA:  dlnash@ngp.UTEXAS.EDU
   Question: Do the SRB's stay with the same shuttle all the time?
 Obviously they are interchangeable since the ET is always
 different.  It would seem a waste to have two for every
 shuttle, but with redundancy and quick turn around times 
 always high on NASA's list it would not surprise me.
 Does anyone know the history of the Challenger's SRB casings?
          Thanks
-- 
                   Martin Van Ryswyk
	 {dual,lll-crg,ucbvax}!ucdavis!deneb!ccs025     uucp
           ucdavis!deneb!ccs025@ucbvax.berkley.edu      arpa

------------------------------

Date: 4 Feb 86 04:37:00 GMT
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiucdcsb!carroll@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: The Press parasites
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Yeah, but the press went beyond that. 15 minutes after the accident, they are
hounding Larry Speakes about what it will mean to the entire future of the
space program. Right. RR has figured everything that quick. And they hounded
him about "what did the Prez say/feel?". Isn't that the sort of thing you
said they didn't do anymore? And the continual questions about ejection seats
were not in bad taste, just stupid. Or, asking Mr. Speakes about what is going
on, and listening to him state for the third or fourth time that all that they
knew they had gotten from TV (this was just after the incident, not more than
20 minutes, and they wanted him to explain the entire accident and wrap it
up). Ridiculous. They weren't even listening to what he was saying.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #123
*******************


0,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA21044; Sun, 16 Feb 86 07:01:22 PST
	id AA21044; Sun, 16 Feb 86 07:01:22 PST
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 86 07:01:22 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8602161501.AA21044@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #124

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 124

Today's Topics:
			    Re: questions
		  Re: Press parasites? Net parasites
		 Re:  nameing Uranian moons after th
		    Re: Did the Challenger wobble?
			     Re: Shuttle
			New Booster Possible?
		Poem found at NASM in DC Sunday 2/2/86
		       Re: Thermonuclear Device
	    Re: Remotely Controlled Manipulators in Space
		       Re: Television coverage
	    Re: donations, Gramm-Rudman, and a commentary
		       Re: unanswered questions
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 4 Feb 86 22:50:20 GMT
From: ihnp4!ihlpa!animal@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (D. Starr)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Subject: Re: questions
References: <8601291312.AA09715@mitre-bedford.ARPA>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> Two questions for discussion...
> 
> 1. How long should we wait before launching another shuttle,
>    if we CANNOT find the cause for the explosion?
Doesn't look like this will be a problem; there seems to be a new defect
uncovered in the shuttle design with each morning's paper.  A more serious
problem is:
	1(a).  What do we do if it turns out that the shuttle design
		is fatally flawed--that we cannot, for any reasonable
		expenditure, get the chance of catastrophic failure 
		below ~1-2%?
> 
> 2. Should we build another shuttle, or the next generation spacecraft?
From a crass political standpoint, the best thing to do would be to rise
up in national righteousness and immediately build a replacement while there
is still lots of public enthusiasm for carrying on.  From the more practical
point of view, the three remaining shuttles are sufficient to carry out the
real purpose of the program--finding out (the hard way) how one goes about
building a good space shuttle.  I think we ought to take the latter course,
sell shuttle space (for satellites, etc.) for rock bottom with the understanding
that there will be delays and risks, and learn all we can with the goal
(and commitment) of deploying a real "commercial airliner" quality space
shuttle by 1993.
Dan Starr
**INSERT YOUR STANDARD DISCLAIMER HERE **

------------------------------

Date: 10 Feb 86 05:09:00 GMT
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiucdcsb!carroll@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Press parasites? Net parasites
References: <1378@ames.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

<- I agree totally. I think NASA is the most concerned and the most qualified
to deal with this, so I'll wait for them to figure it out.

------------------------------

Date: 4 Feb 86 04:55:00 GMT
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiucdcsb!carroll@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re:  nameing Uranian moons after th
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

The death of the Challenger crew was tragic, but I think that naming
satellites after them is a bit much. I would vote for naming the Uranus
moons traditionally. Anyway, I think that the International Astronomical
Union decides what to call things.

------------------------------

Date: 4 Feb 86 04:39:00 GMT
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiucdcsb!carroll@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Did the Challenger wobble?
References: <437@mmm.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Thinking back to basic flight theory...
Taking the Z axis to be vertical, and X to be the direction of motion,
Rotation about
	Z is "yaw"
	X is "roll"
	Y is "pitch".
So I guess you mean pitch.

------------------------------

Date: 4 Feb 86 04:45:00 GMT
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiucdcsb!carroll@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Shuttle
References: <817@decwrl.DEC.COM>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

I disagree. Most (if not all) of what I have heard is positive, of the vein
"This is indeed terrible, but we must push forward. All things have their
price". RR said it, Garn/Nelson/Glenn said it, most of the new casters said it,
in fact I haven't heard ANYONE say "This is too high a price". I don't think
it is; sign me up for the next flight.

------------------------------

Date: 5 Feb 86 15:26:37 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!mangoe@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Charley Wingate)
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Subject: New Booster Possible?
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Question for those in the know:  would it be possible to contrive a new
largish booster out of (say) MX parts?  How about Minuteman parts?  If it's
possible (actually and politically), how long would it take to make
something like that available?
C. Wingate

------------------------------

Date: 4 Feb 86 18:50:32 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!rlgvax!hadron!klr@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Kurt L. Reisler)
Organization: Hadron, Inc., Fairfax, VA
Subject: Poem found at NASM in DC Sunday 2/2/86
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

We went to see the Astronauts Memorial at the National Air and Space
Museum (NASM) in Washington DC on SUnday.  The attached poem had been
left there that morning.  There were also numerous flowers and a St.
Christopher medal that someone had left.  I spoke with the NASM
information office, and she says that items like these are being left
there daily.  They collect them each night, and more appear the next
morning.  
 
    THE EIGHTH SEAT
 
    Making your way among Golden Adventures
    You sought out the trail that would bring you fulfillment -
    Sought out the trail that would lead to your dreams -
    Dreams you made real as they challenged your spirit.
    Willow-winding paths chosen ever so carefully
    So much left to fate (will it deal with us kindly?)
 
    Star-Chasers all, you have captured our vision -
    Took us along as you crept ever higher
    To seek out the trail that would lead to your dreams -
    Though we stayed behind, all our souls rode with you,
    You faced the danger as we watched below,
    Oh, how could we know?
 
    Cautiously Onward you trekked ever deeper
    Into the recesses of life's Golden Caverns
    Ever revealing the farther you travelled
    The warmer the glimmer of life's Golden Secrets -
    Life's Golden Secrets not many can see,
    You shared them with me.
 
    Godspeed, Precious Seven, we long to reach upward
    To bring you back home and hold you to breast.
    You've tempered our judgement with terrible wisdom -
    Wisdom we'll use as we finish your quest.
    Star-Chasers all, as I search the night sky,
    I know you'll never die.
 
 
                    Richard Bell
                      Arlington, Virginia

------------------------------

Date: 31 Jan 86 18:31:00 GMT
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiucuxc!uiucuxf!spk328@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Thermonuclear Device
References: <477@anasazi.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

We could always just set up a base on the moon, and throw rocks.
(BIG rocks)...non-nuclear, and has about the same effect as a small
atomic bomb. Also very hard to stop.
 
Benjy Mouse
University of Illinois

------------------------------

Date: 4 Feb 86 23:09:01 GMT
From: ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!hropus!riccb!rjnoe@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Roger J. Noe)
Organization: Rockwell International - Downers Grove, IL
Subject: Re: Remotely Controlled Manipulators in Space
References: <8602020218.AA04732@s1-b.arpa>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <8602020218.AA04732@s1-b.arpa> Paul Dietz writes:
> The problem with using [remote manipulators] in space is the
> nonnegligible feedback delay imposed by the speed of light . . .
Well, that's ONE of the myriad problems.  What about maintenance and
repair of the machines?  Or ordinary servicing, including refueling (if
any)?  Another minor problem [sarcasm] is the design and realization
of these machines.  Certainly we should be able to replace humans
with teleoperators in every dangerous "mundane" occupation (e.g. coal
miner, test pilot, saturation deep-sea diver, fire fighter, police
officer, cat bather, and inner-city school teacher to name just a few)
long before we'll be able to create teleoperators that function even in
low Earth orbit.  I guess it'll be a while before we even see such
things happening on the surface of the Earth, much less in space.
> . . . a "seed" manufacturing facility . . . could be put in place . . .
> The facility would be capable of reproducing itself . . .
What, you just drop it on the lunar surface and it installs itself?
That would be multiplying the complexity of the thing considerably.
And of course you build in a Junior Alchemy set so that it can transform
lunar soil into titanium.  Oh, not impossible maybe, but certainly
a couple centuries into the future.  And many quadrillions of dollars.
> . . . it probably would be more efficient (and safer) for the human
> to be close (< .05 light seconds) to the manipulator (and inside a
> habitat) than for the human to be in a space suit.
No argument there, but it does pose some technological challenges in
the areas of dexterity, adaptability, etc.
> This research would probably be the single most important near term
> contribution a computer scientist/roboticist could make to the space
> program.
You have a rather elongated definition of "near term."  How about a
computer scientist becoming an astronaut to understand better what
needs to be done with data management systems to better assist people
in space?  That's my goal.
--
	Roger Noe			ihnp4!riccb!rjnoe

------------------------------

Date: 5 Feb 86 20:11:54 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!hao!woods@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Greg Woods)
Organization: High Altitude Obs./NCAR, Boulder CO
Subject: Re: Television coverage
References: <11627@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, <15019@rochester.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> You are forgetting one thing.  It was the callous news networks that were
> responsible for showing the crowd's bemoaning the loss of the shuttle over and
> over and over and over ......, not NASA.  At first it was news and then it was
> a money maker for the networks.  This is just another case of irresponsible
> journalism exercised so ofter by the American news media.  I am ashamed of them.
  I hate to tell you this, but we are just as bad as the media. It is no
coincidence that there are 50 times more articles in net.columbia since
the disaster than there were before. (One or two a day previously based on
nearly a hundred per day since the fatal morning). The media only deliver what 
the people want to see. Based on number of contributions, we are certainly
a lot more interested in discussing the shuttle program now that we've
had a disaster. Why should the media be expected to be any different?
--Greg

------------------------------

Date: 8 Feb 86 17:41:57 GMT
From: nike!topaz!harvard!gcc-milo!john@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (John Allred)
Organization: General Computer Company, Cambridge Ma
Subject: Re: donations, Gramm-Rudman, and a commentary
References: <1385@ames.UUCP>, <1948@hao.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <1948@hao.UUCP> woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) writes:
>   Another commentary: Gramm-Rudman was declared unconstitutional this morning.
>Unfortunately, this will NOT have any effect on the funding crisis for 
>government agencies in fiscal 1986, including NASA and HAO.
Not quite.  The provision of Gramm-Rudman that called for the comptroller 
general to cut the budget was ruled unconstitutional.  However, the Appeals
court stayed their ruling, pending an appeal to the Supreme Court.
-- 
John Allred
General Computer Company 
uucp: seismo!harvard!gcc-milo!john

------------------------------

Date: 9 Feb 86 03:26:47 GMT
From: nike!topaz!harvard!bucsd!bzs@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Barry Shein)
Organization: Boston Univ Comp. Sci.
Subject: Re: unanswered questions
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate)
>I think that NASA is completely justified in restricting the information
>that is being released.
>...
>As far as I am concerned, NASA should clam a lid on everything until they
>have a solid report to make.
>...
>There is too much
>misinformation being injected into the net, and given that, there's the
>equal likelyhood of net speculation being back-converted into wild rumors.
Hopefully the parts edited out don't predjudice this, the full article is
obviously available to all...
I don't understand the obsession with 'misinformation' and 'speculation',
you never go on to explain just what harm is being caused by the current
situation.
I agree the press can act like idiots (eg. see the Larry Speakes press
conference 15 minutes after the disaster, unbelievably stupid questions)
but what real harm does it do? Especially in the long run as the facts
do come out?
I think lack of information is precisely what encourages speculation
and therefore conclude the opposite: NASA should be as frank and open
as possible as any information from them will hopefully be perceived
as authoritative, like the 'green cannister' info, the facts I believe
straightened people's paranoia out real fast.
I can see the annoyance with half-brained speculation, but isn't suppression
of conversation and berating anyone who is not completely correct far more
damaging and dangerous in the long run? I think so. Remember, you just don't
need all the facts to draw a rational conclusion, mainly just a rational
mind to know what you know and what you don't. I couldn't explain exactly
what is in one of those green cannisters, but I think I now believe that
no one is trying to hide something from me and that the stuff is dangerous,
and it's just an unfortunate thing, nothing more, nothing less.
I would prefer, by far, to separate the wheat from the chaff than to try
to interpret silence and censorship, any day.
	-Barry Shein, Boston University

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #124
*******************


0,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA25205; Sun, 16 Feb 86 19:01:27 PST
	id AA25205; Sun, 16 Feb 86 19:01:27 PST
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 86 19:01:27 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8602170301.AA25205@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #125

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 125

Today's Topics:
		  Re: Shuttle Challenger Explosion?
		  Re: Shuttle Challenger Explosion?
		      Re: Electromagnetic Launch
			      Joy rides
		       Future of Space Program
		       Re: Manned vs. Unmanned
			    Uranus's axis
		     Re:  Future of Space Program
	       What to do next on Mars, rover feasible?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 5 Feb 86 03:00:46 GMT
From: decvax!linus!alliant!gottlieb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Bob Gottlieb)
Organization: Alliant Computer Systems, Acton, MA
Subject: Re: Shuttle Challenger Explosion?
References: <661@tekigm.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <661@tekigm.UUCP> (Timothy D Margeson) writes:
>I  have  a question  concerning the Challenger's last  payload. I
>have heard from an uncertain source that the Hubble telescope was
>aboard. Is this true? If so, why no mention of this great loss?
According to Aviation Leak, the Challenger was carrying a Tracking and
Data Relay Satellite/Inertial Upper Stage payload as primary payload.
The Hubble Telescope was not in the payload, but it needs 2 TDRS satellites
in to work properly.
No other payload was mentioned.
Argument is now underway as to whether we should build a new shuttle (2-4
years to complete), or start the TAV (Trans-Atmospheric Vehicle). I think
both - It'll take 5-8 years to build the first TAV.
-- 
						-- Bob Gottlieb
UUCP: ...!linus!alliant!gottlieb
Mail: Alliant Computer Systems Corp, 42 Nagog Park, Acton, MA 01720
Phone: (617) 263-9110
Foot:  "You can't get there from here".
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I don't know what I'm doing, and Alliant isn't responsible either, so there!"

------------------------------

Date: 5 Feb 86 20:12:28 GMT
From: decvax!linus!axiom!paul@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Paul O`Shaughnessy)
Organization: Axiom Technology, Newton MA
Subject: Re: Shuttle Challenger Explosion?
References: <661@tekigm.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In reply to some of the recent questions:
The Challenger's payload was a large NASA communications sattelite to
be used when the shuttles were out of good range of ground based stations.
The Hubble telescope was not on board, and had been scheduled in one of 
the February or March flights.
Cutaway diagrams of the external liquid fuel tank reveal that the liquid
hydrogen is in a tank extending from the base to about 1/3 from the nose
and the liquid oxygen is in a tank occupying the remainder of the nose.
There is some open space between the tanks, and the point of the cone is
also not filled.  This is because the tanks themselved are cylindrically
shaped with round ends.  I assume that the most severely explosive area 
would be between those tanks, but the stiffness and strength of the tanks
are largely provided by the pressurized liquid inside them.  Once breached,
they might come apart very quickly under the stress of flight.  I don't
know anything about how these materials would mix or explode under these 
conditions, so it's difficult to make much sense of the flashes coming
from the external tank just before the explosion.
What does seem much more obvious is that the starboard solid rocket booster
had a burn-through or crack near its base some seconds before the explosion.
If the plume was on a surface facing the liquid tank, then the flames could 
have breached the hydrogen tank.

------------------------------

Date: 5 Feb 86 01:41:57 GMT
From: tektronix!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!eder@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dani Eder)
Organization: Boeing Aerospace Co., Seattle, WA
Subject: Re: Electromagnetic Launch
References: <8602010854.AA02457@s1-b.arpa>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>      There have recently been several postings relating to
> electromagnetic launch from the Earth's surface.
> Why not use an accelerator boost for a next-generation shuttle?
> For an example, let's suppose this is Mount Kenya, a 5 Km
> tall mountain on the equator (the most efficient place to launch
> from, at least if you want equatorial orbits.)
> 
>                                     --Geoffrey A. Landis
>                                       Brown U.
[extensive calculations deleted from above article]
     The basic idea of electromagnetic accelerators to launch things off
the Earth is quite sound.  I have a few comments to make on your idea.  In
general, your launch facility will be expensive and you would want to
minimize it's cost and maximize the number of payloads you pump through
it so as to spread the cost around.
     This tends to drive you to as small a launcher as possible and as
small a payload size as possible, with a high launch rate.  At least for
the first launcher you build.  If your electrical efficiency is high, you
will want to do as much of the acceleration as possible electrically, and
minimize the chemical rocket part.  A limiting factor is atmospheric heating
as you leave the gun at high Mach numbers.  A last point I would like to 
make is you do not have to limit yourself to mountains.  With modern
structural materials one can build towers that literally extend out of
the atmosphere.  As an example, T300/934 Graphite/Epoxy composite, which
is used in airplanes, has a density of 0.057lb/in^3 and a compressive
strength of 215800 lb/in^2.  If we divide strength by density we get the
height of a column of graphite/epoxy that just barely can support it's
own weight.  It is 3.786 million inches or 59.7 miles.  If we taper the
tower, we can make it taller.  You also want to work at less than theoretical
strength, but the order of magnitude is correct.
     The cost driver on electromagnetic launchers seems to be the power
supplies.  You need a Gigawatt pulse on the order of seconds long.  Fortunately
the magnetic fusion folks are already developing such power suppllies for
their own experiments.  Thus, at present all the key technologies are in
hand or under intensive development.  It remains for some far sighted
individuals to do a convincing demonstration for the world.  It would give
people the idea that rockets are not the only way to get into space.
Reaching for the stars!/Dani Eder/Boeing/Advanced Space Transportation
ssc-vax!eder

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 9 Feb 86 10:35:59 est
From: dms@mit-hermes.arpa (David M. Siegel)
To: space@mc.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: Joy rides

This discussion is silly. The cost of joy rides will be quite high for
the long term future; even the $50,000 price someone quoted seems low.
NASA charges around 10 million to launch a satellite, and they can fit
2 of them in the cargo bay. (Even this 20 million doesn't cover the
cost of the flight.) Say they can fit 50 people in a modified cargo
bay: that would put the cost at around $400,000 per person, assuming
NASA wanted to charge at around the same rate they do for satellites.

I should also add that since (wealthy) people are willing to spend 50
grand on a boat cruise, a market for 100 grand space trips probably
exists. But for a 100-10000 dollar space trip, forget it.

------------------------------

Posted-Date: Sun 9 Feb 1986 09:59:15 EST
Date: Sun 9 Feb 1986 09:59:15 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Future of Space Program
To: mcgeer%ji@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa

The Feb. 10 issue of Newsweek mentions Thomas Paine (chairman of the 
National Commission on Space).  He was going to mail the first draft
of the commission's report to the White House on the day of the
disaster.  According to Newsweek, the report would have recommended
that NASA build an unmanned cargo launcher capable of lifting payload
into orbit at $200/lb (is this the much discussed Heavy Lift Vehicle?)
and work on either a second generation shuttle or a transatmospheric
vehicle, with a five year competition between the systems at the
beginning of development (the winner comes on line around 2000).
The shuttle disaster may modify these plans; the commission may
recommend speeding the development of the new launchers (clap clap).

Teleoperators: I'm still convinced teleoperators are going to be vital
for high orbit and lunar applications, but their superiority is debatable
(or dubious) for some low orbit applications (especially those that can
be performed inside a space station).  I'm also convinced that using men
in space doesn't make much sense until launch costs are reduced (except to
practice for the day when they are reduced).  I think the shuttle arm
and experience on earth with unmanned submarines demonstrates
that for *some applications* teleoperators are superior, and my gut
feeling is that many or most applications in space will be of this type.
Just how many is something I have to admit I can't answer now. 

Space station:  If and when that $200/lb launcher gets going space
manufacturing is really going to start making sense. Should
construction of the space station be delayed until this cheap launcher
is available, or should the full station be built with the
shuttle?  More likely (and sensible) is to build a small prototype
station with the shuttle to get our feet wet, then expand it when the
cheap launcher comes on line.

------------------------------

Date: 5 Feb 86 18:59:11 GMT
From: sun!idi!oliveb!oliven!barb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Barbara Jernigan)
Organization: Olivetti ATC; Cupertino, Ca
Subject: Re: Manned vs. Unmanned
References: <740@k.cs.cmu.edu>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In the manned vs. unmanned debate, a lot of argument has passed back
and forth about feasibility, mobility, etc.  For me, the primary 
reason that robots (at least current technology) could not replace
humans is that they cannot *think*.  By this I mean they have no
powers of free association -- of insight -- wherein true steps in
knowledge (forward and backward -- look at history) may be taken.
True, a robot held camera probably doesn't wiggle as much -- but it
also doesn't have the instantaneous capacity for -- "Hey, look over
there!"  And I've yet to meet an inventive machine.
There are a lot of things that can be bound and measured -- but
there are as many, if not more, elements that are *unconsciously*
measured by humans in the 'simple' matter of existing.  
Machines do what they do, and do it fairly well.  They are no replacement
for humans, however.  Manned space exploration *MUST* continue.  (Just
think how much more we might have discovered if HUMANS had been sent to
Mars -- in terms of impulse, mobility, and serendipity.)  Pictures and
data are nice -- but they aren't nearly as helpful as being there.  And
I want to *be* there -- I want humankind to *be* there.
We dare not put all our eggs in one basket.  Unmanned missions will
continue (I'm not real thrilled about sending humans into the Venusian
and Jupiteran atmospheres -- at least not yet).  But so must manned.
Otherwise we'll be a one-legged man -- getting around all right, but 
not nearly as well as we could.
That's my fifty-cents worth.
Barb
------
You will do foolish things . . .
                           . . . so do them with enthusiasm!
                                                            -- Colette

------------------------------

Date: 5 Feb 86 17:57:04 GMT
From: decwrl!pyramid!pesnta!valid!jao@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (John Oswalt)
Organization: Valid Logic, San Jose, CA
Subject: Uranus's axis
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

I know that Uranus's axis of rotation is tilted ~90 degrees from the
normal, perpendicular-to-ecliptic axis.  This means that the axis
lies in the plane of the ecliptic, but which way does it point?  
Does it point at the sun, or is it tangent to the orbit, or some
angle in between?
-- 
John Oswalt (..!{hplabs,amd,pyramid,ihnp4}!pesnta!valid!jao)

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 9 Feb 86 18:23:33 PST
From: mcgeer%ji@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Rick McGeer)
To: dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa, mcgeer@ji.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re:  Future of Space Program
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa

Well, why didn't you say so in the first place?  Actually, Paul, I've been
holding out on you a little; in some sense, it should be easier for robots
to work in space than on earth.  Since there's no atmospheric resistance or
gravity in orbit, the results of any action will be easy to calculate; and
since   (in general) the putative robot will be working in a vacuum, it
shouldn't have the earthbound robot's problem of the cluttered workbench.
Of course, there are other (more serious)  problems, some of them unique to
space.

Be of good cheer.  In general, teleoperators are going to make much more sense
in space than on earth.  Fortunately, I suspect that we're going to see a
revolution in teleoperators Real Soon Now.  DARPA's Strategic Computing
Initiative is trying to develop robot tanks.  Pretty soon, it's going to
dawn on those guys that AI just hasn't got it.  And then some other bright
laddy is going to point out to the DARPA folks that a teleoperated tank is
just as good as a robot tank, and then we'll have a big emphasis on real-time
programming, hard communications, and linkages -- which is what I think we
ought to be doing instead of wasting time and monay on AI...

					-- Rick.

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 9 Feb 86 18:29:24 PST
X-Date-Last-Edited: 1986 February 09 17:55:12 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM@mc.lcs.mit.edu>
To: "dietz%slb-doll.csnet"@csnet-relay.arpa
Cc: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
Subject: What to do next on Mars, rover feasible?
Sender: REM%IMSSS@su-score.arpa (for undeliverable-mail notifications)
Reply-To: REM%IMSSS@SU-SCORE.ARPA

D> Date: Wed 8 Jan 1986 10:08:31 EST
D> From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
D> Subject: we could have roved Mars in 1980 I claim using 1976 HPM method

Glad to get your reply. I put up a proposition, and you debated it.
I'd like this to continue as a brainstorming debate (via SPACE digest
so others can contribute ideas and critique/rebuttals) until we have
come to agreement about what should be done on the matter of Mars. 

D> Getting the cart to move in a straight line is not the problem.  The
D> problem is avoiding boulders, holes and cliffs, which needs fast
D> response or a very slow rover.

I go for a slow rover, which is infinitely better than no rover at all.
Boulders are easy. You have a feeler that bumps into it, immediately
stopping the rover and waiting for reply from Earth before proceeding.
Even if the rover bumps smack-dab into the boulder, if it has a
spring-loaded bumper (such as on automobiles) it doesn't get
destroyed. Holes and cliffs are more dangerous and harder to detect.
Let me propose some ideas for you to critique:

(1) Be very paranoid. Proceed slowly, using radar or laser to detect
any depression of any size in the path ahead of the rover. Just before
reaching the depression (say 2 feet from gully and 10 feet from total
drop-off cliff), stop and await instructions from Earth. Proceeding
slowly is needed, even with good software, so that on slippery (sandy)
terrain the rover won't slide over the edge. When already on a
downslope, the rover should be extra careful. Perhaps when it notices
it is slipping it could jam an anchor/hook into the soil to hang on
for dear life.

(2) Have terrain map and avoid all very-rocky or gully-full terrain
when moving large distances, swinging around into "interesting" terain
at the very end of a journey to take measurements. Radar mapping
similar to that used on Venus and for Earth's ocean-bottoms etc., high
resolution, for the portion of terrain currently between the rover and
its next target location, by an orbiter at the same time as the
roving, could provide high-resolution mapping of the relevant part of
Mars without spreading its ability too thin across the whole planet.
Either a fleet of criss-crossing orbiters, or a few maneuverable
orbiters (ion rockets with solar power) could maintain surveillance
over the piece of terrain of interest. The rover could run at high
speed over known-flat terrain, slowing to paranoid mode when crossing
unavoidable strips of rough terrain or when nearing the target region.

D> Perhaps robotic drone aircraft make more sense.  The control computer
D> could be placed in a synchronous satellite and could control several
D> aircraft during a mission.  Aircraft don't have to dodge rocks or
D> holes, and we can get a topographic map from a radar orbiter.

Both continued flight and takeoffs/landings are energy expensive
compared to either orbiting craft or ground-roving craft. I don't see
aircraft as reasonable until we have developed a very large energy
supply in Mars vicinity.

D> No sample taking, however, except perhaps from penetrators carried by
D> the drones.

I'd prefer the rover if possible. Lots and lots of sample "taking" (we
don't really take, we just borrow the sample, measure it, then return
it) so that we could determine the mineral content at thousands of
different locations around the planet in the course of a few years of
roving. I don't see that being feasible with penetrator-dropping; too
expensive to carry thousands of penetrators to Mars, and besides you
can't exactly pick your samples that way, you just take pot luck in
some vicinity (unless you drop thousands of teeny-rovers, even more
infeasible).

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #125
*******************


0,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA26696; Sun, 16 Feb 86 23:01:28 PST
	id AA26696; Sun, 16 Feb 86 23:01:28 PST
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 86 23:01:28 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8602170701.AA26696@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #126

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 126

Today's Topics:
			     TDRS and STS
		    life insurance for astronauts
		       Re: Television coverage
		       Re: SRB Telemetry Clues
		       Re: Television coverage
	     Statistics of crater counts on various moons
			    Re:  loncrete
		   Re: Future of the Space Program
		       Re: Scuttle the Shuttle?
		       Re: SETI vs. starflight
		  Re: Space Shuttle Children's Fund
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 3 Feb 86 17:23:50 GMT
From: cbosgd!ukma!sean@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Sean Casey)
Organization: The White Tower @ The Univ. of KY
Subject: TDRS and STS
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

What does TDRS and STS stand for?
Sean
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Casey                UUCP:  sean@ukma.uucp          CSNET:  sean@uky.csnet
University of Kentucky    ARPA:  ukma!sean@anl-mcs.arpa
Lexington, Kentucky     BITNET:  sean@ukma.bitnet
     "Wherever you go, there you are."

------------------------------

Date: 3 Feb 86 23:54:39 GMT
From: ihnp4!mmm!cipher@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Andre Guirard)
Organization: 3M Company, St. Paul, Minn.
Subject: life insurance for astronauts
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

I read somewhere once that astronauts have the highest life-insurance
rates of any profession.  Does anybody out there in net-land know if
this is really the case?  Are the rates going up as a result of the
recent explosion of the shuttle _Challenger_?  Please respond via
e-mail as I do not read this newsgroup regularly.
-- 
===+===						Andre Guirard
 /@ @\						The eyes have it.
/_____\						ihnp4!mmm!cipher
( @ @ )  Beanies ahoy!
 \ _ /
  `-'

------------------------------

Date: 4 Feb 86 15:18:17 GMT
From: amdcad!lll-crg!seismo!rochester!ray@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Ray Frank)
Organization: U. of Rochester, CS Dept.
Subject: Re: Television coverage
References: <11627@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, <15019@rochester.UUCP>, <15051@rochester.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> 	
> 	"As the networks pre-empted soap operas and game shows, they 
> 	also dropped commercials for the afternoon, costing collectively 
> 	up to $1.7 million an hour."
> 
> Give us a break, Ray.
> 
> 	Emil Rainero
You have a point there which I must of course counter with another point:  How
much money did Nightline make directly due to America Held Hostage Day N?  The
networks will turn a siatuation into a buck where ever they can.  
ray

------------------------------

Date: 5 Feb 86 20:45:32 GMT
From: tektronix!tekred!joels@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Joel Swank)
Organization: Tektronix, Beaverton OR
Subject: Re: SRB Telemetry Clues
References: <8602011714.AA03500@s1-b.arpa>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> It looks like proper software could have saved the shuttle.  The proper
> course would have been to jettison the SRB's as soon as one acted up.
> Unfortunately, SRB's have varying thrust, so perhaps NASA didn't want
> to jettison one for just a 4% variation.  Even so, the shuttle could
> have tried to get away when all the main engines failed, although it's
> not clear enough time remained for it to get clear.
   The SRBs cannot be jettisoned before burn is complete, and burn cannot
be stopped. One astronaut was quoted as saying: "If the SRBs fail, it's
just curtains."

------------------------------

Date: 4 Feb 86 03:19:50 GMT
From: amdcad!lll-crg!seismo!rochester!emil@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Emil Rainero)
Organization: U. of Rochester, CS Dept.
Subject: Re: Television coverage
References: <11627@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, <15019@rochester.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <15019@rochester.UUCP> ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) writes:
>> Let's remember one thing before everybody else starts flaming about
>> the callous news coverage by the networks (ie, the "elation-to-tears"
>> of the crowd, etc, etc, ad nauseum).
>You are forgetting one thing.  It was the callous news networks that were
>responsible for showing the crowd's bemoaning the loss of the shuttle over and
>over and over and over ......, not NASA.  At first it was news and then it was
>a money maker for the networks.  This is just another case of irresponsible
>journalism exercised so ofter by the American news media. I am ashamed of them.
I quote from USA Today, Wed. January 29
	
	"As the networks pre-empted soap operas and game shows, they 
	also dropped commercials for the afternoon, costing collectively 
	up to $1.7 million an hour."
Give us a break, Ray.
-- 
	Emil Rainero
	UUCP:	{allegra, cmcl2, decvax, harvard, seismo}!rochester!emil
	ARPA:	emil@rochester.arpa
	USmail:	Emil Rainero, Dept. of Comp. Sci., U. of Rochester, NY 14627.
	Phone:  Office: (716) 275-5365   Home: (716) 473-1150

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 9 Feb 86 19:14:54 PST
X-Date-Last-Edited: 1986 February 09 18:41:33 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM@mc.lcs.mit.edu>
To: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Statistics of crater counts on various moons
Sender: REM%IMSSS@su-score.arpa (for undeliverable-mail notifications)
Reply-To: REM%IMSSS@SU-SCORE.ARPA

U> Date: 31 Jan 86 16:05:17 GMT
U> From: ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!hao!noao!terak!mot!anasazi!will@ucbvax.berkeley.
edu  (Will Fuller)
What a horribly long USENET path!!
U> Now that we have *lots* of pretty pictures of various and
U> sundry planets and satelites throughout the solar system,
U> whats the latest and greatest in crator counting? Do the
U> statistics clearly show a variance as a function of distance
U> from the sun? Is there some sort of "hot" belt characterized
U> by heavy bombardment?

For the most part I think the variations you seek are swamped by
varying times at which the various moons solidified and started
keeping permanent record of impacts. Even icy moons like Callisto were
liquid during the very early heavy bombardment, in fact the
bombardment may have been the mechanism to keep them warm. The
heaviest bombardment was the very early time, so a slight variation in
time of solidification (a few million years one way or other) could
cause a great difference in number of craters that have occurred since
then (solid earlier -> early ones still there; solid later -> early
ones in liquid didn't stick, only few recent ones show). It's probably
not possible for a moon to be solid from day one thus keep a record of
*all* impacts since day one, thus there is probably *no* unbiased
count of impacts. However by factoring out gravitational purturbations
from parent planet and size of moon (internal radioactive decay as
well as heat retention) and other factors, it may be possible
eventually go get some idea of where the meteor swarms predominated,
but I would doubt it would be easy.

Once we land on all the moons (with robot craft presumably; those
outer moons are damn cold) and take material samples, we may be able
to radioactively date the "rocks" (water-ice, frozen ammonia, etc.)
like we did with the moon rocks, after which we'll able to time the
individual meteors and thus get a distribution in time instead of just
a gross count. At that time we'll be able to compare impact counts AT
CORRESPONDING TIMES on various moons, and test your theory.

------------------------------

Date: 6 Feb 86 03:58:40 GMT
From: ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtgzz!ecl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (e.c.leeper)
Organization: AT&T Information Systems Labs, Middletown NJ
Subject: Re:  loncrete
References: <8602031911.AA16591@ji.berkeley.edu>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> 	Can someone please explain to me why we can't go to the moon before the
> year 2000? . . .

We can't go to the moon in five years because we (the collective populace of
the United States) don't want to.  If we wanted to we could.  As Lawrence of
Arabia said of Aqaba, I say, "[The moon] is that way.  It only takes going
there."
					Evelyn C. Leeper
					...ihnp4!mtgzz!ecl

------------------------------

Date: 4 Feb 86 04:31:00 GMT
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiucdcsb!carroll@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Future of the Space Program
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Challenger was going very close to 2,000 mph, which is above Mach 3. I doubt
anyone is going to survive ejection into a windstream that's moving that fast.
I can't really see surviving much over Mach 1.

------------------------------

Date:  Sat, 8 Feb 86 10:41 CST
From: Slocum@hi-multics.arpa
Subject:  Re: Scuttle the Shuttle?
To: space@s1-b.arpa

I'm sorry this is so long, but the things you said struck a chord.

Your first two myths have been dealt with earlier, but I feel I must 
comment on your third myth : that manned missions can accomplish things
that robots can't.  Your refutation of this says that robots and
teleoperators can do anything we want for at least the rest of the century.

If you look at the current levels of automation in the space program,
you would realise that they are very primitive in terms of what they
can actually do.  Our probes can manage to get where they want to go
and either sit and take pictures (in the case of landers), or fly by
and take pictures (in the case of fly-bys).  The complexity of actions
are very limited : adjust course from directions from earth, move
camera, change craft attitude, etc.  Even Viking, which was extremely advanced, had a lot
of trouble extending a simple arm to get a soil sample.  
The only reason it worked at all was because somebody on earth sent the
right signal, after much trial and error.

The major limitation of current probes is that they cannot perform actions that
were not designed for.  The original designers must take everything
into account before the thing gets built.  

All of these tasks were directed by people on the ground.  A very major
leap forward in research must take place before any kind of autonomous
action can be programmed in to one of these probes.  The state of the
art in Artificial Intelligence is not even close to providing the
capability needed to build the Mars Rover that has been proposed.
Give them five years and maybe so.  But even then, the range of action
will still be severely limited.

The shuttle was designed
for a human operator, not a cockpit full of computers.  It would
probably be more expensive to refit the shuttles for automated flight
than it would be to build the next generation of shuttle. And besides,
the technology doesn't exist.  Sure, Viking did fine. But that was
in a smaller gravity well, dropping straight down, opening a parachute.

Now, I'm not advocating that humans should be sent to probe the planets.
That job is currently being adaquately addressed by remote probes,
limited though they are.  But more complex tasks, such as building
the space station or lunar bases, mining asteroids, retrieving and repairing 
satellites, etc. can only be performed by humans at this time or in the
near future (before 2000).  

If you are satisfied to watch the universe unfold on the television,
that's fine. Remote probes are all you need.  But if you want to
personally watch the universe fold, or to give your children a chance
to do so, then the human space program is the way to go.

   Brett Slocum
   (Slocum@HI-MULTICS)

------------------------------

Date: 10 Feb 86 12:59:01 GMT
From: brahms!gsmith@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Gene Ward Smith)
Subject: Re: SETI vs. starflight
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <6315@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
>Robert Forward,who has studied the matter [starflight] professionally as a USAF
>consultant on advanced space propulsion, says that antimatter propulsion
>is within our reach with today's technology.  Antimatter production would
  I must confess to a very considerable lack of knowledge about star travel.
But this posting brought to mind a book I read recently, "The Flight of the
Dragonfly" I think it was called. It was by Robert Forward, and it featured
aliens with vast mathematical abilities. Apparantly, Forward had the idea
when writing this book that he knew something about mathematics, and 
nobody told him differently. The result was my nomination for the funniest
sf novel since "The Butterfly Kid". Gag me with a functor! I thought I 
would die laughing. Anyway, I was wondering, does someone out there know
enough about this to tell the rest of us if Forward is talking through his
hat again (it kind of sounds like it to me, but as I say, I really don't
know) or does he know what he is talking about (this time).
>"Their" absence here is a considerable mystery, which has occasioned much
>debate in recent years, but the "extreme cost" of interstellar travel just
>does not suffice as an explanation.
  Maybe "they" are a long way away?
>"Antimatter rockets will take us to the stars.  *This is no longer
>science fiction*." -- Forward
  Thank God it's not science fiction -- that way it stands a chance of
being true. :-}
ucbvax!brahms!gsmith    Gene Ward Smith/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720
ucbvax!weyl!gsmith      "When Ubizmo talks, people listen."

------------------------------

Date: 5 Feb 86 03:14:48 GMT
From: pur-ee!ecn-pc!wdm@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Tex)
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle Children's Fund
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <505@eneevax.UUCP> hsu@eneevax.UUCP (Dave Hsu) writes:
>In article <325@lifia.UUCP> felix@lifia.UUCP (Francois Felix INGRAND) writes:
>>In article <221@hadron.UUCP> klr@hadron.UUCP writes:
>>>
>>>	A trust fund has been established by the American Security
>>>	Bank in Washington DC.  The funds gathered are to be used
>>>	to provide financial assistance to the children of the 7
>>>	astronauts killed in the explosion of the space shuttle.
>>
>>Is the Social Budget of USA so poor that American people must create a fund
>>for the astronauts' children? 
>>
>>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>>Francois Felix INGRAND       (-: Pourquoi tant de haine... :-(     \ | / 
>
>[flame on, 104%]
>The shape of our `Social Budget' is completely irrelevant to the creation of a
>fund for the families of deceased astronauts.  They sacrificed their private
>lives just to pursue the common dream of all mankind to explore; in the end
>they parted with much more than their privacy and it just so happens that some
>of us who remain earthbound feel the need to thank the unseen families behind
>our most visible heroes.
>
>Perhaps you are unfamiliar with such things, Monsieur Ingrand, but here in the
>United States we like to take care of our own.
 
    Don't blame him, it is probably difficult to live in a country that 
    sits on the sidelines and watches while we explore space.  After all,
    they think it is pretty neat that they have a booster that can but
    a satellite into orbit.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #126
*******************


0,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA28417; Mon, 17 Feb 86 03:01:30 PST
	id AA28417; Mon, 17 Feb 86 03:01:30 PST
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 86 03:01:30 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8602171101.AA28417@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #127

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 127

Today's Topics:
		  Re: Space Shuttle Children's Fund
		 Re: Shuttle escape question answered
			      Re: SRB's
		  Re: Space Shuttle Children's Fund
	 Re: "Long Term Implications of Challenger Accident"
			     SRB O-rings
		 Re: Gravity Slings to Outer Planets
		 NASA address, new orbiter financing
			  Re: Uranus's axis
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 10 Feb 86 11:07:53 GMT
From: brahms!gsmith@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Gene Ward Smith)
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle Children's Fund
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <469@ecn-pc.UUCP> wdm@ecn-pc.UUCP (Tex) writes:
>    Don't blame him, it is probably difficult to live in a country that 
>    sits on the sidelines and watches while we explore space.  After all,
>    they think it is pretty neat that they have a booster that can but
>    a satellite into orbit.
  Do I detect a hint of chauvinism here? Does anybody still remember
Sputnik? I think it is prtty neat that the Europeans havn't had any
fatalities in thier space program as yet.
ucbvax!brahms!gsmith    Gene Ward Smith/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720
ucbvax!weyl!gsmith      "When Ubizmo talks, people listen."

------------------------------

Date: 5 Feb 86 07:38:16 GMT
From: ihnp4!ihuxx!eec3@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (e. cumberland)
Subject: Re: Shuttle escape question answered
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> liftoff.  That is an AVERAGE speed of 500 mph (assuming it went straight up,
> which it did not).  If you assume linear acceleration (not true either, but
> what the hell), that means that the shuttle was going 1000 MPH when it blew. 
> Want to guess at the chances of surviving an ejection at 1000MPH at 52000 feet?
The speed of the Challenger at the moment of the blast was quoted in
the news as 1997 MPH.  Although the air is much less dense at 52000
feet, to be thrust into the air stream passing at that speed would
probably have the same result as hitting a brick wall at 70.  
				Edwin E. Cumberland III

------------------------------

Date: 5 Feb 86 08:18:52 GMT
From: ihnp4!ihuxx!eec3@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (e. cumberland)
Subject: Re: SRB's
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> Just heard they are saying that it WAS a burn through of the left SRB, and
> that it can be seen from  other camera angles.
> 
> Can anyone explain why off earth the thing didn't go tumbling madly
> after seperating? How there was no apparent sign of flame from the side of
> the SRB after seperating?
> 
The pictures of the SRB burnthrough show the fame at what appears to
be a horizontal seam in the SRB.  If this seam was seriously
weakened by the burnthrough then may be it was blown off by the
explosion, and the upper portion continued on???
				Edwin E. Cumberland III

------------------------------

Date: 5 Feb 86 11:22:38 GMT
From: decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!mcvax!ukc!dcl-cs!craig@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Craig Wylie)
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle Children's Fund
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <505@eneevax.UUCP> hsu@eneevax.UUCP (Dave Hsu) writes:
>In article <325@lifia.UUCP> felix@lifia.UUCP (Francois Felix INGRAND) writes:
>>In article <221@hadron.UUCP> klr@hadron.UUCP writes:
>>>
>>>	A trust fund has been established by the American Security
>>>	Bank in Washington DC.  The funds gathered are to be used
>>>	to provide financial assistance to the children of the 7
>>>	astronauts killed in the explosion of the space shuttle.
>>
>>Is the Social Budget of USA so poor that American people must create a fund
>>for the astronauts' children? 
>>
>>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>>Francois Felix INGRAND       (-: Pourquoi tant de haine... :-(     \ | / 
>
>[flame on, 104%]
>The shape of our `Social Budget' is completely irrelevant to the creation of a
>fund for the families of deceased astronauts.  They sacrificed their private
>lives just to pursue the common dream of all mankind to explore; in the end
>they parted with much more than their privacy and it just so happens that some
>of us who remain earthbound feel the need to thank the unseen families behind
>our most visible heroes.
>
I feel you must have misunderstood the comment from Francois Ingrand. He means
that it must surely be the responsibility of the Goverment (who are
responsible for the program on which the 7 died) rather than the
responsibility of the people who so spectacularly watched them die. Yes
it was a terrible tragedy and yes it is nice of you to think of the children.
It was a job - with its risks, what about the guy who dies on the oil rig
supplying energy to the nation or the Red Indian who died because he
complained about selling millions of square miles of land for trifles ?
>Perhaps you are unfamiliar with such things, Monsieur Ingrand, but here in the
>United States we like to take care of our own.
>
Perhaps you should see the comment above, when you supply free education,
free medical care and goverment subsidised housing then you can 
be insulting, until then you are not taking care of your own at all.
It is a great shame that inorder to move the people to 'taking care of their
own' the people have to see 7 people die in an explosion on Television.
People die all the time pushing forward frontiers and working for a greater
ideal, dieing on TV shouldn't be the pre-requisite for acknoledgement.
Craig.
-- 
UUCP:	 ...!seismo!mcvax!ukc!dcl-cs!craig| Post: University of Lancaster,
DARPA:	 craig%lancs.comp@ucl-cs 	  |	  Department of Computing,
JANET:	 craig@uk.ac.lancs.comp		  |	  Bailrigg, Lancaster, UK.
Phone:	 +44 524 65201 Ext. 4146   	  |	  LA1 4YR
Project: Cosmos Distributed Operating Systems Research

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 9 Feb 86 23:30 PST
From: Gloger.es@xerox.com
Subject: Re: "Long Term Implications of Challenger Accident"
In-Reply-To: "Ed Turner's message of 30 Jan 86 17:39:49 GMT"
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Cc: Gloger.es@xerox.com

Ed Turner made the coment that, "Much greater risks and losses [than
Challenger's] have been accepted for the initial exploration of all
historic frontiers ...."  "Piermarini" observed "... but do we stop the
manufacture of automobiles when there's an accident?"  I sympathize
entirely with the sentiments in these and many similar comments made in
this forum.

However, there seems here to be a staggering lack of recognition of the
terrible consequences of the fact that this particular "exploration of
frontiers" is being done by the government, that if the manufacture of
automobiles was done by the government then you could be sure that it
would be stopped whenever there's an accident.  You might say that then
there would be almost no automobiles, and you would be all too painfully
correct, as witness those parts of the world where automobiles are made
only by the government.

Does anybody remember the last time in history when a government
operation successfully "explored a historic frontier?"  Yeah, me
neither.

Paul Gloger

------------------------------

Date: 10 FEB 86 09:58-EST
From: MEHARP01%ULKYVX.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
To: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
Subject: SRB O-rings

It looks to me like they may have someone to nail after all.  I saw
on the news where the committee has discovered some internal NASA
flaming about the O-ring seals on the SRB's eroding after use.  The media
is trying to portray this as the result of a cover-up scheme because of
some remarks about it being a "budget item."

I am going to be really disillusioned with the program if this turns out to
be the case.  My first thought when I saw what they were talking about is that
those seals should have been replaced as part of the refurbishment process
after recovery.  Is anyone out there familiar with what exactly IS done
in refurbishment?  I know the fuel is repacked and it's cleaned up but I can't
believe it isn't more stringent than that.  They did show one guy from NASA
(Jesse Moore, i think) saying that it was indeed an "analmolus (sp) item and
thoroughly worked."  This would tend to clear them at first glance, but why
were they not replaced?  Are the gaskets expensive or difficult to replace?

One other thing that seems to have faded into the ambient noise is an item
I heard about Morton-Thiokol saying that the SRB's low end operation and
storage temperature was around 40 degrees Farenheit.  Was this dismissed
as a cause outright, could it have contributed or was the report wrong?

Michael Harpe
University of Louisville

Internet: MEHARP01%ULKYVX@WISCVM.WISC.EDU

------------------------------

Date:         Mon, 10 Feb 86 13:53:22 EST
From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Reply-To:  ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA
To: space digest <space@s1-b.arpa>
Subject:      Re: Gravity Slings to Outer Planets

>[in response to a question as to why we don't head out
>to Uranus again as soon as possible]
>>because the relative positioning of Jupiter-Saturn-Uranus,
>>that allowed Voyager to make it to Uranus in 'only' 8.5 years,
>>only happens once in *175* years...
>I believe that refers to the Jupiter-Saturn-Uranus-Neptune
configuration. ...surely a single slingshot Earth to Jupiter
Uranus does not have a rare launch window ...

    The Earth-Jupiter-Uranus alignment condition is not all that
common.  Jupiter-Uranus alignment comes slightly less than once
every Jupiter year (12 years).  Only a portion of these will
come at a time favorable to Earth-Jupiter alignment.  Further,
it was my understanding that Voyager needed gravity slings from
both Jupiter AND Saturn to get to the outer planets.  This is
considerably more rare than just the Jupiter-Uranus alignment.
Saturn-Uranus alignments are  slightly less often than once every
Saturn year, 45 years, and not very many of these will occur in
synchronism with the Jupiter-Saturn alignment *and* the Earth
Jupiter alignment.   Only the fact that there is some amount
of midcourse alignment allowing less-than-completely-perfect
alignment makes the alignment condition as *often* as once every
175 years.
                          --Geoffrey A. Landis

------------------------------

Date:     Mon, 10 Feb 86 16:41 EST
From: Steve Dourson - Delco <dourson@gmr>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa
Cc: dourson@gmr
Subject:  NASA address, new orbiter financing

I recently learned that letters and cards of condolence can be
sent to:
	NASA
	Johnson Space Center
	ATTN: Astronaut Office /CB
	Houston Texas 77058

Regarding manned space flight or not, all I can say is that I
continue to support it, and would back that support with my own
life anytime.  That is, I would go on the next flight up.  Say when!

To finance a replacement orbiter, has NASA considered going directly
to the public?  I would be willing to make a personal cash contribution
to help finance a replacement orbiter.  Yes, it would be only one part
in one or two million, but if enough people felt the same way, it
could be significant.  

Does NASA accept private contributions?  If so, anyone aware of the
procedure, please post.  I can't bring those people or their ship back.
This much I can do, and am willing.
Thanks.

Stephen Dourson
February 10, 1986

------------------------------

Date: 9 Feb 86 02:33:52 GMT
From: sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!oberon!smeagol!jplgodo!steve@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Steve Schlaifer x3171 156/224)
Subject: Re: Uranus's axis
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <111@valid.UUCP>, jao@valid.UUCP (John Oswalt) writes:
> I know that Uranus's axis of rotation is tilted ~90 degrees from the
> normal, perpendicular-to-ecliptic axis.  This means that the axis
> lies in the plane of the ecliptic, but which way does it point?  
> Does it point at the sun, or is it tangent to the orbit, or some
> angle in between?
Right now, the spin axis is pointing more or less directly at the sun.  As
Uranus moves around the sun, however, the spin axis keeps its same orientation
in space.  This means that in about another quarter of its orbital period
the spin axis will be at right angles to the direction to the sun.
Similarly, in about half of its orbital period from now, the spin axis will
again be pointing at the sun but with the opposite end in the sunward 
direction.  
The orbital period of Uranus (a Uranian year) is about 84 Terran years.
-- 
...smeagol\			Steve Schlaifer
......wlbr->!jplgodo!steve	Advance Projects Group, Jet Propulsion Labs
....group3/			4800 Oak Grove Drive, M/S 156/204
				Pasadena, California, 91109
					+1 818 354 3171

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #127
*******************


0,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA00636; Mon, 17 Feb 86 07:01:37 PST
	id AA00636; Mon, 17 Feb 86 07:01:37 PST
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 86 07:01:37 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8602171501.AA00636@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #128

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 128

Today's Topics:
		       Re: scuttle the shuttle?
		  Government Funding for Exploration
	       Re: What's story behind Kennedy/Canavral
	    Re: sending [some,all] [men,women] to the moon
		       RE: Naming Uranian Moons
	  Re: Long Term Implications of Challenger Accident
		      Re: Electromagnetic Launch
   Re: Comparison between Challanger-plane crashes, auto crashes...
	       The Canadian Press - almost a retraction
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 11 Feb 86 03:08:54 GMT
From: vger!al@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  ( Informatix)
Subject: Re: scuttle the shuttle?
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <8602070221.AA08568@s1-b.arpa>, dietz@SLB-DOLL.CSNET (Paul Dietz) writes:
> 
> NY Times reports $2000 to $2500/lb.  Where do your figures come from ...
Shuttle pricing has been set at about $73 million/launch by the administration.
Maximum payload is supposed to be 65,000 pounds but I don't think 
that's a practical figure for a while yet.  Thus, $1500/lb is a rough,
conservative figure for what real customers will really have to pay.  Cost
is MUCH lower for get away specials - I think its $10,000 for 40 lbs.
but I don't have the data in front of me.
> Cost to the *user* is also
> a little misleading, since it doesn't include the cost NASA incurs to
> subsidize launching rates.
Misleading perhaps, but a very practical figure if you want to do work.  To
figure out the 'real' cost (whatever that truely means) requires far more
data than I'm ever likely to get or want to go through.  The size of the
check I'd have to write to launch a satellite is the most valuable number.
Note that Ariane is also subsidized - as are many terrestrial industries.
> 
> The ability to make things in space is worthless if the product costs
> more than you can sell it for.
> 
No, because the next generation launch costs will be less, and we'll have
a head start knowing some of what works and what doesn't from shuttle
experience.
> 
> You can do microgravity experiments in unmanned satellites (fit them with
> a heat shield and retrorockets).  
Some experiments may be practical, but as far as I can tell only a small
percentage of the work that has actually been done has been on unmanned
spacecraft - here, USSR, and Europe.  Perhaps you know why this is?
> 
> >  McDonnell Douglas and 3M are both seriously working
> >  on orbital processing.
> 
> McDonnell Douglas's partner, Ortho Pharmaceuticals, has pulled out ...
3M took their place.
> The later Arianes will have the problems fixed and will (asymptotically)
> become more reliable.
Ariane lost two or three of their first flights - entirely.  A few months
ago they dumped a couple more satellites into the Atlantic.  I'm very
glad Ariane is around - but their reliability has been very poor.  The
next flight has been significantly delayed while they figured out
what went wrong (recent delays have been for other reasons).  Ariane was
developed about the same time as the shuttle and has had at least as
many problems - demonstrating that unmanned launchers have serious problems
just as manned launchers do.
> If you criticize Ariane for teething problems
> you must also, in all fairness, criticize the PAM, IUS and the shuttle
> itself for reliability problems.
Space flight is extremely difficult.  Problems are to be expected.  
I only mentioned Ariane's problems to illustrate the fact that 
unmanned launchers
have problems as serious as the shuttle (except for loss of life).
> The utility of people doing EVAs in low orbit is debatable; 
You should tell that to Solar Max and Leasat users - EVA saved their
satellites.  You might try explaining that to those involved with
Skylab - which was salvaged by unplanned EVA.  Russians involved with
Salyut - which was also (temporarily) rescued by EVA would also
be interested in that statement.
> expertise does not easily extend to where it would be more useful
> (geosynchronous orbit).  
The only problem with geosynchronous EVA's (other than getting there) is
the radiation environment.  As far as I know no solution has been found,
but they're still trying.
> I don't believe space manufacturing is currently
> economically viable, so I don't buy the space station argument.
It probably isn't, but it may could be in five or ten years if we work
the problem.  Shuttle, with all its flaws, allows us to work the problem
in situ, now.
> 
> About teleoperation: because people are adaptable, they can do things
> (like doing unanticipated repairs on satellites) that would be hard
> for a machine to accomplish.  However, the important question is: is
> the extra adaptability humans possess worth the considerably higher
> costs incurred in putting them in space?  If teleoperators can
> accomplish 90% (say) of the things people can do, people should probably
> stay on the ground for a while.
But is it 90%? or is it 10%?  You need good data to make the trade properly.
People aren't as expensive as some think.  All of the basic problems
have well know solutions and the weight penalty isn't really all that
great.  You need more reliability in the launch and life support systems
but you require less reliability in the payloads.  Much of the cost
of the shuttle is due not to the people, but to excessive requirements
placed on the vehicle by DOD (the military).  Correct me if I'm
wrong, but the size of the payload bay, the 65,000lb payload weight
requirement, once around landing, and much of the cross-range were
requirements that DOD added.  These requirements severely strained the
state of the art and added enormously to shuttle's cost.  Other problems
have been caused by DOD; for example, TDRSS would have been launched 
long ago if a problem hadn't occured in the secure channel - which only
DOD requires.  Another reason for shuttle's cost over-runs was anemic
funding in the early stages.  This is happening the space station right
now - and its causing some of the same basic problems.  
> 
> The need for adaptability can be reduced by proper design.  For
Of course it can, but proper design doesn't always actually get done.
Everyone, including desingers, make mistakes.  People on orbit can
help bail you out of some of those mistakes.

------------------------------

Date: 11 Feb 86 03:39:04 GMT
From: brahms!desj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (David desJardins)
Subject: Government Funding for Exploration
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <860210-065500-1155@Xerox> Gloger.es@XEROX.COM (Paul Gloger) writes:
>..........
>Does anybody remember the last time in history when a government
>operation successfully "explored a historic frontier?"  Yeah, me
>neither.
   I can't recall a case when anyone *except* a government "explored
a historic frontier."  From the discovery and exploration of the New
World, to the development of the American West, to trips to the North
and South Poles, to exploration of the sea floor, to the modern-day
exploration of space, every activity that I can think of has been
directly sponsored by a government.
   Perhaps Paul can clarify what he is talking about?
   -- David desJardins

------------------------------

Date: 9 Feb 86 13:49:53 GMT
From: ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtgzy!ecl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (e.c.leeper)
Subject: Re: What's story behind Kennedy/Canavral
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

First it was Cape Canaveral.  Then it the rush of re-naming places after
Kennedy's assassination (sound familiar?), it was re-named Cape Kennedy.
The residents of that area never really bought into the new name; Canaveral
had some meaning for them (I believe it is an Indian name).  Eventually a
compromise was stuck: The *Kennedy* Space Center is located at Cape
*Canaveral*.
Let this be a lesson to those who rush headlong into renaming things.
					Evelyn C. Leeper
					...ihnp4!mtgzz!ecl
					(or ihnp4!mtgzy!ecl)
******************************************************************************
*	       Get a Usenetter on the ballot at Confederation!               *
*	Nominate MARK R. LEEPER for Hugo for Best Fan Writer in 1986!        *
******************************************************************************

------------------------------

Date: 10 Feb 86 15:55:39 GMT
From: ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtgzy!ecl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (e.c.leeper)
Subject: Re: sending [some,all] [men,women] to the moon
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

(For the benefit of newcomers: this is based on a long discussion of someone's
.signature file in net.women which said, "If we can send a man to the moon,
why can't we send all of them?")
I have a better idea.  Let's send everyone who *wants* to go to the moon.
The rest of you turkeys can stay here.
In case the preceding isn't clear enough, I'll spell it out.  I'm sick of this
whole discussion.  It is stupid, assinine, and childish.  But most of all, it
implies that going to the moon is a bad thing.  While everyone is so busy
deciding who's sexist, who's racist, and what's humorous, no one seems to care
that there are a *lot* of people (men AND women) who would give their eyeteeth
to go to the moon.  Some have given more.  I doubt that Resnick or McAuliffe
would think very much of *any* of these arguments.
There is a saying, "The meek will inherit the earth; the rest of us are going
to the stars."  It's not the meek; it's the short-sighted, and Lord knows this
group has its share.
					Evelyn C. Leeper
					...ihnp4!mtgzz!ecl
					(or ihnp4!mtgzy!ecl)

------------------------------

Date: 10 Feb 86 07:37:00 GMT
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiucdcsb!dollas@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: RE: Naming Uranian Moons
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

   Accepting such a bet is not much of a problem, but how can one collect the
money if you lose (he,he) ????
   Anyway, it's good that you plan to be around for a long time. You are 
aware -I am sure- that space station and Moonbase are quite different
things, and even a space-station in not going to have a full-fledged
implementation until, say, the turn of the century (when you will be 42).
Not only we do not presently have the technology (propellants to carry us
back and forth at a reasonable cost comes to mind), but most importantly,
we probably have better things to do with the research money (and SDI is
*not* one of them). Maybe in 40-50 years things will be different, it is
rather hard to extrapolate this early. At any rate I would be willing to
bet you that within the next two decades there will be no Moonbase.
   I am not against a Moonbase, I am just not sentimental about endeavors
that -pride aside- are ahead of their time (read: too costly for the
resulting benefits). 
   Apostolos Dollas
        USENET:	...!{pur-ee,ihnp4}!uiucdcs!dollas 
        CSNET:	dollas%uiuc@csnet-relay.arpa
        ARPA:	dollas@uiuc.arpa
(The usual disclaimer goes here - except for SDI which I still do not like
 for purely scientific reasons)

------------------------------

Date: 10 Feb 86 16:36:22 GMT
From: decwrl!pyramid!ut-sally!utastro!ethan@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Ethan Vishniac)
Subject: Re: Long Term Implications of Challenger Accident
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <941@lanl.ARPA>, jlg@lanl.ARPA (Jim Giles) writes:
> In article <731@astrovax.UUCP> elt@astrovax.UUCP (Ed Turner) writes:
> ... The European discovery, exploration,
> >and eventual occupation of the New World began in Columbus's time and owed
> >nothing the the much earlier, abortive Norse/Viking efforts.  ...
> >
> Read your history again.  Columbus made several visits to Norway, Denmark,
> etc., before he began to seek funding for a westward venture to Asia.  It
> is thought by some historians that this is where Columbus came by the idea.
> He certainly used the Norse histories to bolster his own claims.
> 
It's interesting, but not really relevant, to know that Columbus was
inspired by the Viking voyages (BTW- what is your source for this?).
Ed's point is that Columbus didn`t gain any technological advantage
from the previous trips, just the knowledge that he might strike land.
We know where to find objects in our solar system.  The relevant
question is: is this a reasonable way to get to them?  Like Ed I feel
that it is a very real, and regrettable, possibility that the political
will and technological expertise will not be found in our lifetimes.
-- 
"These are not the opinions    Ethan Vishniac
 of the administration of      {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan
 the University of Texas,      ethan@astro.UTEXAS.EDU
 but they are the opinions     Department of Astronomy
 of your favorite deity, who   University of Texas
 is in daily communication 
 with me on this (and every 
 other) topic.

------------------------------

Date: 11 Feb 86 00:06:53 GMT
From: amdcad!amdahl!drivax!holloway@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Bruce Holloway)
Subject: Re: Electromagnetic Launch
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>	(I wonder how many stories tall you'd have to go to get to geostationary
>orbit? That would be some elevator panel! :=)
>-- 
>			Michael Shannon {apple!mikes}
You'd want to get off somewhere near floor 7,744,000. Build this elevator,
and five'll get you ten that some nut will run a marathon up the fire stairs.

------------------------------

Date: 11 Feb 86 00:17:38 GMT
From: amdcad!amdahl!drivax!holloway@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Bruce Holloway)
Subject: Re: Comparison between Challanger-plane crashes, auto crashes...
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <1275@pucc-i> afb@pucc-i (Michael Lewis) writes:
>
>     I can't remember exactly which Apollo mission it was, but sometime in 1967
>there was an oxygen fire on the launch pad which took the lives of Gus Grissom
>(there is a building on Purdue's campus and an Air Force base in Northern 
>Indiana named after him) and two other astronauts whose names elude me. 
The three astronauts were Grissom, White, and Chaffee(sp?).

------------------------------

Date: 10 Feb 86 16:10:40 GMT
From: calma!sivax!jim@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Jim Boman)
Subject: The Canadian Press - almost a retraction
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

THE WHAT I MEANT WAS DEPARTMENT:
What I meant was....when I mad e the comment about the Canadian media
being "controlled" was this: Any time the government tries to control ANY
aspect of the media, that media is in effect, controlled. To clarify:
Canadian news is NOT controlled. Canadian entertainment IS. The Canadian
Radio and Television Commission acts as a watchdog agency over the Canadian
print and electronic media to ensure that they follow the "Canadian Content"
regulations. Basically that states that a certain percentage of all broad-
cast time must have Canadian Content.....that means, for example, that
say 30% of songs on a radio station must be written by, sung by, produced by
etc. a Canadian. Candians put up with that type of control. Would you put
up with the same regulations regarding your news? What's this have to do
with space? Nothing, but due to the deluge of mail I received, I thought
replying here was appropriate.
Jim Bauman
sivax

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #128
*******************


0,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA05487; Mon, 17 Feb 86 19:01:43 PST
	id AA05487; Mon, 17 Feb 86 19:01:43 PST
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 86 19:01:43 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8602180301.AA05487@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #129

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 129

Today's Topics:
		       Re: Television coverage
		       Re: Scuttle the Shuttle?
			  Re: Uranus's axis
		   Re: Future of the Space Program
			    Re: Joy Rides
		 Re: Speculations on Shuttle Disaster
		       Re: Television coverage
			    Re: Joy rides
		     New British Orbital Vehicle
	     Idiotic flaming about the Shuttle Trust Fund
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 10 Feb 86 18:06:51 GMT
From: decwrl!pyramid!pesnta!lsuc!mnetor!utcs!wagner@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Michael Wagner)
Subject: Re: Television coverage
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

I'm glad someone else remarked on this first.  Sometimes I feel that I 
jump in too quickly.  But the remark lumping Canada and the Soviet Union
into the same basket w.r.t. news censorship was, at first blush,
unsubstantiated and un-called-for.  But alas, he gave, as illustration
of his point, a joke that I fear will be misunderstood outside the
"local viewing area".  To recap.....
In article <11456@watnot.UUCP> jjboritz@watnot.UUCP (Jim Boritz) writes:
>>   (some else (the attributation is lost) wrote) 
>> government would like us to see? Why don't you go to Canada or the
>> Soviet Union if you'd like to have your information controlled. 
>
>I would really like to know where you get off even implying that there is 
>less control of the news in your "free" country than there is in Canada.
	(then follows comments saying that sensationalism is overdone
	in news broadcasts)
> 
>By the way, you must be extremely naive if you think that journalism is not
>controlled to some extent in the US, or anywhere else in the world.
Incidentally, there is one card in the Trivial Persuits game which is
not in the American version, although it is in the (original) Canadian
one.  It asks (I'm paraphrasing) how pregnant Nancy Reagan was when she
walked down the aisle with Ronny.  It was suppressed, I suppose, because
it would make Ronny look like a hypocrite from both sides of the M+M
(moral majority) line.  But hey, cummon, it's only a game.....
Now, Channel 7 (Eyewitness) News in Buffalo is a standing joke in Toronto.
Every evening (well, all right, sometimes in the spring or fall they miss
a an evening and cut in some other attraction instead), they show seven
cute little wooden cottages burning to the ground in Cheektawaga or 
Tonawanda (sp?).  In Toronto, where all houses built in the last n years
must be at least brick exterior, it's hard to imagine so many houses
going up in smoke.  The explanation is always that the poor family, with
faulty furnace, turned the heat up to high, and the place caught fire.
Now, I've basically stopped watching their news (it gets depressing),
but in the last few years I've made friends in Buffalo.  Contrary to my
expectations, there isn't always a conflagration burning somewhere on the
horizon.  In fact, no one I've asked has ever seen *any* of the houses
shown on Ch7 news every night.  Maybe it's all done with little models...
Anyways...now you know why the next line might be funny.  Maybe you had to
be there.
> 
>Q: If 10,000 UFO's flew over Buffalo, which ones would be reported?
> 
>
>A: The ones that were on fire.
>
>
>"Time it was and what a time it was..." - Paul Simon Bookends
> 
>Jim Boritz @ watnot 
Michael Wagner (@ utcs)

------------------------------

Date: 10 Feb 86 19:41:08 GMT
From: sun!idi!oliveb!oliven!barb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Barbara Jernigan)
Subject: Re: Scuttle the Shuttle?
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>>(sorry, I've lost the name):
>>(5) Experimentation and study of humans in orbit.  This should be a
>>means to an end, not an end in itself, and if human presence is
>>deemphasized in the near term there's no reason to do this now.
> C.Wingate:
> Sure there is.  The knowledge we gain in the near term is the basis for
> whatever we choose to do in the long term, and thus provides the basis for
> more efficient investigation and design in the future.
>>I, too believe in the use of space; I want my grandchildren to be born
>>in space.  I just think the shuttle is a waste of effort and is not 
>>moving us towards worthwhile long term goals in space.
Before we can fly, we have to crawl.  Before we can play a complex piano
concerto, we must spend years playing five-finger exercises.
You claim to believe in the use of space, but that the shuttle is a dead-
end -- more, a waste of effort.  This is only true if the shuttle *becomes*
an end, not a step along the way.
At this point, in our babbling infancy of space exploration, *anything* we
learn about space -- good and bad -- can be useful.  There are many, many
years of exploration, of experimentation, of discovery, before we can
even begin to consider ourselves space-wise.  
Consider mountain climbing -- Everest-class.  Many groups failed to attain
the top, either by pursuing a dead-end route or lack of preparation (some
foreseeable, some unforeseeable).  In the short-term, the attempt would be
considered a failure, often a costly one.  But in the long-term vision,
each party *learns* from their experience, and that knowledge, when shared, 
helps in the next attempt -- at least they won't (one hopes) make the
same mistakes.
There are few of us who would argue that the Shuttle is the end-all of
space vehicles.  Indeed, many of us consider it a kludge.  But it *is*
a step -- perhaps not *exactly* in the right direction -- but the path
is not a straight one.  Note the 'Spam-in-a-can' attitude of the first
years of our 'space-conquest' -- we learned a great deal, not the least 
of which was that isn't how we should do things in the long term.
If you want your grandchildren to be born in space (I wouldn't mind if my
*children* were born in space -- though I think it unlikely with a budget
devised by a less-than-optimally-sympathetic committee), we have to continue
putting men and women in space *now*.  If only for momentum -- though I
believe the benefits are more than that.
I leave it for others to list the many, many benefits of our manned
space program (though my favorite is the proof that space is no longer a 
province of the elite -- any of us in reasonable health may harbor *realistic* 
dreams of venturing forth).  I say only that we need the experience *now*, not 
shelve the manned program and *maybe* pick it up in an unforeseeable future 
(besides, the government has a nasty habit of:  if you don't spend it this 
year, you ain't gonna get it next year).
In a brief note to Eugene Miya, I confirmed that we need a balance of manned
and unmanned missions.  It is not a 50-50 balance, more a 60-40 or 75-25
*in* *favor* of *unmanned* missions.   But I still believe, if *humans*
want to live in space within the next generation -- and I *know* at least
*some* of us want that very much (but is *some* enough in a democracy?  is
a hard question to ponder) -- we need to continue with a manned
program.
I doubt that I have convinced anyone here [I'm sorry, my argument was much 
cleverer -- or, at least, passionate -- on Friday, but was, alas, lost to
the ether (I need a tape recorder in my car) (I know, I know, I shouldn't
apologize ;-)] -- I'm not even sure that was my hope, as I have sincere
doubts about the ability of argument to convince anybody.  We believe what
we want to believe, and not necessarily for the reasons logic would give us.
But I have said what I feel, and that (as the reader breathes a sigh of
relief) will have to be enough.                         (For now  ;-)
Barb
"Brigadier, a straight line may be the shortest distance between two
points, but it is by no means the most interesting!"

------------------------------

Date: 9 Feb 86 02:27:49 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Uranus's axis
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> I know that Uranus's axis of rotation is tilted ~90 degrees from the
> normal, perpendicular-to-ecliptic axis.  This means that the axis
> lies in the plane of the ecliptic, but which way does it point?  
> Does it point at the sun, or is it tangent to the orbit, or some
> angle in between?
All of the above, depending on when you catch it.  The axis points in
a (roughly) fixed direction in space as the planet goes around the sun.
At the moment Uranus's south pole points roughly at the sun; half an
orbit later, the north pole will point at the sun.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 9 Feb 86 02:01:21 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Future of the Space Program
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> Challenger was going very close to 2,000 mph, which is above Mach 3. I doubt
> anyone is going to survive ejection into a windstream that's moving that fast.
> I can't really see surviving much over Mach 1.
Most ejection systems are spec'ed for a limit circa Mach 1.  Mind you, that's
where they are officially supposed to be usable, not where you might survive
if you were desperate and had no choice.  Capsule-based systems have been
built for Mach 3, but that's a slightly different story.
I don't *think* anyone has ever tried a Mach 3 ejection.  There have been
supersonic ejections, which usually result in serious injury but have been
survived.  (Not that a *subsonic* ejection is all that safe, mind you...
things like spinal injuries are not uncommon.)
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 9 Feb 86 02:34:07 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Joy Rides
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> Society Expeditions is taking reservations (for 1992) rides into space...
> Would somebody tell me if this is for real?  According to the low-brows
> I've seen respond so far, $50K is out of line.
It's for real, but if you put down your deposit now you are gambling that
the vehicle they are planning on using will be funded to completion and
will work.  There is reason to hope that it will.  There is also reason to
fear that it might not; it's a high-risk investment just now.  On the other
hand, if you wait and see, you may find yourself at the end of a rather long
lineup; apparently there have been a *lot* of reservations made, and deposits
paid, already.
If I had $5000 that I could spare just now, and expected to have
$50K available by 1992 or thereabouts, I'd book one.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 9 Feb 86 02:25:30 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Speculations on Shuttle Disaster
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> I'm sure aluminum would burn in the presence of pure O2.
> I think it's just above magnesium in the periodic table;
> Mg is used for flares and incendiary bombs.
Aluminum actually burns fiercely and is hard to extinguish, but its
saving grace is that it doesn't ignite easily.  Consider thermite:
powdered aluminum plus powdered iron oxide.  Ignite it -- not easy --
and you get white-hot molten iron plus aluminum oxide, at 5000+ F.
The aluminum is doing all the burning; the iron is just along for
the ride.  Once started, thermite will burn underwater.  But even
burning magnesium isn't hot enough to *ignite* thermite; fairly
extreme measures are needed.
> ...I think the Exocet missile did the same [set it on fire] to the aluminum
> hull of the british ship lost off Argentina.
HMS Sheffield's hull and superstructure were steel, actually.  Some British
warships do have aluminum structures, and there was some confusion about the
matter in the news media.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 9 Feb 86 19:40:50 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!utcsri!utai!lamy@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Jean-Francois Lamy)
Subject: Re: Television coverage
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <192@sivax.UUCP> jim@sivax.UUCP (Jim Boman) writes:
>government would like us to see? Why don't you go to Canada or the
>Soviet Union if you'd like to have your information controlled. 
May I ask for some substantive evidence for your analogy?  NBC,ABC,CBS, PBS
and ETV are all available in Canada, CTV gets a lot of newstape from those
networks, Global gets a lot from Turner's CNN, which is available on pay TV,
anyway.  Even state television is so much controlled by the government that it
recently made public scandals which led to the resignation of a minister and
seriously damaged the government's credibility... CBC runs a lot of newstape
from the BBC, and in Quebec you can even get the evening news from France.
If I'm going to be restricted in what I hear, that's the way I want to be
restricted :-).
-- 
Jean-Francois Lamy              
Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto,         
Departement d'informatique et de recherche operationnelle,  U. de Montreal.
CSNet: lamy@toronto.csnet  UUCP: {utzoo,ihnp4,decwrl,uw-beaver}!utcsri!utai!lamy
EAN: lamy@iro.udem.cdn     ARPA: lamy%toronto.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.arpa

------------------------------

Date: 10 Feb 86 20:58:23 GMT
From: ihnp4!mmm!mrgofor@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (MKR)
Subject: Re: Joy rides
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <547@ssc-vax.UUCP> gml@ssc-vax.UUCP (Gregory M Lobdell) writes:
>
>On the subject of Joy rides, if the object is weightlessness, how
>about parabolic plane rides. NASA uses it to train astronauts, and
>from the films that I've seen it looks pretty fun.
>I wanna go for a ride!!!
>
>Gregg Lobdell
>Boeing Aerospace
>Seattle, WA 
>{decvax,ihnp4}!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!gml
Yes, it does look like fun. However, it costs a lot of money to fly it,
and when NASA sends it up for 40 parabolas, it flies 40 parabolas, whether
the people inside are begging to stop or not. They don't call it the
"Vomit Comet" for nothing, y'know.
--MKR

------------------------------

Date: 10 Feb 86 20:26:25 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!gamiddleton@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Guy Middleton)
Subject: New British Orbital Vehicle
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

I heard on the BBC last week that British Aerospace will be building a
vehicle to compete with the Shuttle.  It will both take off and land
aerodynamically, and will be built in two stages, just like the old (and
new) TAV ideas.  Does anybody know any more about it?
 -Guy Middleton

------------------------------

Date: 11 Feb 86 00:03:04 GMT
From: decvax!cwruecmp!hal!ncoast!allbery@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Brandon Allbery)
Subject: Idiotic flaming about the Shuttle Trust Fund
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Expires:
Quoted from <1641@shark.UUCP> ["Re: Space Shuttle Children's Fund"], by galenr@shark.UUCP (Galen Redfield)...
+---------------
| Sure they did.  They didn't care if anyone even noticed.  They did it for
| totally selfless reasons.  They didn't think it would be heroic, exciting, or
| interesting.  They weren't even thinking about succeeding.  They just wanted
| to pursue the common dream of all mankind.  (I did not realize that starving
| people in Ethiopia wanted to explore.  Thanks for pointing that out, Dave.)
+---------------
Oh, did those beastly Shuttle crewmembers ruin your day by becoming conspicuous instead of staying nice and quiet
and getting in the media and causing people to set up a trust fund so their
kids can become conspicuous and get in the media and generally make you look
at the real world?
May I remind *you* that America is made of all kinds?  If you want your
country to feel terrible that our system is such that we would give such
coverage to such a miniscule event as the explosion of a Space Shuttle with
the first ``average person'' (i.e. not a Senator or an astronaut) as
crewmember, then move the h*ll out of the U.S., where people are *allowed* to
have compassion.  Not that they're forced, just don't try to tell those of
us who *do* how wrong we simply MUST be, in order to be what you require us to
be.
Followups of this message go to net.flame.  I probably should have held back,
but I get a little sick and tired of hearing people tell me how I'm supposed
to think, feel, and act about everything.
One of those terrible people who feel that the people who were killed in the
Shuttle explosion actually *deserve* some memorial from We, The People,
--Brandon
-- 
In mid-winter, all of us Midwesterners would *love* a taste of California...
	(r-r-r-rumble) (SHA-A-KE!!!)		      ...but not *that* badly!
decvax!cwruecmp!ncoast!allbery  ncoast!allbery@Case.CSNET  ncoast!tdi2!brandon
(ncoast!tdi2!root for business)      6615 Center St. #A1-105, Mentor, OH 44060
Phone: +01 216 974 9210      CIS 74106,1032      MCI MAIL BALLBERY (part-time)

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #129
*******************


0,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA07400; Mon, 17 Feb 86 23:01:47 PST
	id AA07400; Mon, 17 Feb 86 23:01:47 PST
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 86 23:01:47 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8602180701.AA07400@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #130

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 130

Today's Topics:
			Cost of a new shuttle
			      Joy rides
			 space shuttle stock
			       Spinoffs
			 Re: Buy an Orbiter?
			  Shuttle explosion
		  Re: Space Shuttle Children's Fund
	       Re: Cost of a new shuttle (actually B-1)
			  Cray during launch
			Aftermath: what next?
	       Re: Cost of a new shuttle (actually B-1)
		  Re: Shuttle Challenger Explosion?
		     Re: bridges not yet crossed
	       Re: Cost of a new shuttle (actually B-1)
		      Re; shuttle assembly line
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 11 Feb 86 11:08:25 est
From: dms@mit-hermes.arpa (David M. Siegel)
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Cost of a new shuttle

For sake of comparison, the price of a B1 bomber is around 1 billion,
and the plan is to build 100 of them. How about building 90 B1
bombers and 5 more shuttles?

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 11 Feb 86 11:13:59 est
From: dms@mit-hermes.arpa (David M. Siegel)
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Joy rides

This discussion is silly. The cost of joy rides will be quite high for
the long term future; even the $50,000 price someone quoted seems low.
NASA charges around 10 million to launch a satellite, and they can fit
2 of them in the cargo bay. (Even this 20 million doesn't cover the
cost of the flight.) Say they can fit 50 people in a modified cargo
bay: that would put the cost at around $400,000 per person, assuming
NASA wanted to charge at around the same rate they do for satellites.

I should also add that since (wealthy) people are willing to spend 50
grand on a boat cruise, a market for 100 grand space trips probably
exists. But for a 100-10000 dollar space trip, forget it.

------------------------------

Date: 11 Feb 1986 14:46:55-EST
From: rachiele@nadc.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: space shuttle stock


I think a corperation is a great idea (even though I can't spell it).  I would
be willing to invest some small amount of money (~$1000 ) to own a piece of a space shuttle.  But wouldn't there be an operating
loss?  Can operating a shuttle actually be profitable (or at least break-even)?
           Jim

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 11 Feb 86 21:33:15 cet
To: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
From: EINAUDI%ICNUCEVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: Spinoffs

MAILBOOK: ALL
HELO ICNUCEVM.BITNET
TICK 2216
VERB ON
MAIL FROM:<EINAUDI@ICNUCEVM>
RCPT TO:<SPACE@ANGBAND>
DATA
Date: TUESDAY 11 Feb 1986 21:22:16 SET
From: Alessandro Berni <>
      (Tel  +(39)10-6859290)
To:   SPACE@ANGBAND
Subject: About Spinoffs

I don't believe there should be particular problems for sending copies of
NASA's Spinoffs book.
I received myself a couple of years ago a copy of the corrent issue from
the public affairs office at JSC without asking for it precisely.
May i suggest (in case there are no more copies left at the public affairs
office) to contact:

Director, Technology Utilization and Industrial Affairs Division.
P.O. Box 8757
Baltimore-Washington International Airport.
Maryland 21240


Alessandro Berni
Genoa, Italy.

------------------------------

Sender: "Henry P. Cate3.EIS"@xerox.com
Date: 11 Feb 86 10:24:10 PST (Tuesday)
Subject: Re: Buy an Orbiter?
From: Cate3.EIS@xerox.com
To: Space@s1-b.arpa


     Does anyone know of a way to buy stock in a corporation which is
trying to get into space?  I'm willing to invest half my net worth in
such a venture. 
     There are a number of private companies trying to get into space.
But because of the government's wish to protect the public from
themselves, it is hard for the average person to invest in such
ventures.  Either you have to work for the company in which case it is
assumed you know what you are doing.  Or you are rich and can afford
losing your investment. 
     About the closest I can think of right now is buying stock in
ComSat or Beoing.  Is there anything closer currently being traded, or
about to be offered?
     
     Henry III

------------------------------

Date:           Tue, 11 Feb 86 10:13:09 PST
From: "Niket K. Patwardhan" <bilbo.niket@locus.ucla.edu>
To: space@s1-b.arpa, ota@s1-b.arpa
Subject:        Shuttle explosion

According to Aviation Week, the SRB leak caused a failure of the lower supports,
causing the SRB to become detached at that point. From rate gyro information,
they now believe that the SRB then rammmed the top of the external fuel tank,
The top of the SRB was damaged, and a photo showing the drogue parachutte
spilling out is provided.

	An interesting thing was that just prior to the explosion, the shuttle
flew through a wind shear, and all five engines immediately swivelled to cocompensate. The thrust levels then reduced (normal part of the program), and
then built back up. During this build up the SRB didn't get up to normal power,
and the shuttle engines swivelled, but AWST says this was not dramatic, and the
shuttle itself stayed on course.

	If anybody is interested in the actual numbers, I would suggest you get
hold of a copy of this weeks issue: it has some pretty good photos too.

------------------------------

To: Space-Incoming@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle Children's Fund
Cc: ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!mcvax!vmucnam!imag!lifia!felix@ucbvax.berkeley.edu,
        cb@mitre-bedford.arpa
In-Reply-To: Your message of Tue, 11 Feb 86 07:15:33 PST.
	     <8602111515.AA16904@s1-b.arpa>
Date: 11 Feb 86 16:55:36 EST (Tue)
From: Christopher Byrnes <cb@mitre-bedford.arpa>

>Is the Social Budget of USA so poor that American people must create a fund
>for the astronauts' children? 
  The "Social Budget of USA" is able to provide survivor benefits to
the dependents of the lost shuttle crewmembers.  I read that the
details are personal information and so are considered confidential,
but the NASA employees and the military employees have survivor
benefits.  Naturally these are no compensation for the loss of a loved
one nor can they make up for the loss of earning power that a skilled
pilot or scientist can earn, so it's understandable that people wish
to set up and contribute to a fund of the astronaut's children.
Incidently, regular life insurance doesn't cover accidents in space
(Christa McAuliffe received a special policy from a space insurance
company as a gift).  Something for all you joyriders to consider.

					Christopher Byrnes
					The MITRE Corporation
					Burlington Road
					M. S. A425
					Bedford, Mass. 01730

					cb@Mitre-Bedford.ARPA
					...decvax!linus!bccvax!cb.UUCP
to set up and contribute to a fund for the astronaut's children.

------------------------------

Date: 12 Feb 86 02:13:51 GMT
From: brahms!desj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (David desJardins)
Subject: Re: Cost of a new shuttle (actually B-1)
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <8602111608.AA14971@hermes> dms@MIT-HERMES.ARPA (David M. Siegel)
writes:
>For sake of comparison, the price of a B1 bomber is around 1 billion,
>and the plan is to build 100 of them. How about building 90 B1
>bombers and 5 more shuttles?
   I am getting really sick of people posting numbers to the net which
are off by orders of magnitude.  The estimated cost of each B-1 is more
like $100 million.  Please, the next person who decides to post a letter
saying "we could build a new shuttle for the cost of ...," get your
numbers right.  Thanks.
   -- David desJardins

------------------------------

Date: 11 Feb 1986 1655-PST
From: Rem@imsss
Subject: Cray during launch
To: SPACE%Angband@su-score.arpa

Hmmm, if 5 minutes time on a Cray costs less than 10 million dollars,
and it will prevent loss of another 2000 million dollar orbiter,
then it sounds like a good idea, providing NASA knows what software
to run on it to make effective use of it. Anybody have Cray cost figures?
-------

------------------------------

Date: 4 Feb 86 17:39:16 GMT
From: ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!benn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (T Cox)
Subject: Aftermath: what next?
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

[]
Challenger blew up.  Therefore we should stop trying.
	is analogous to
I fell down.  Therefore I should stop trying to walk.
Wrong conclusion, bozos.  Try again.
==========
Unrelated topic:  Looks, from today's [Tuesday's] paper, one 
week exactly after the disaster, that NASA has been withholding
information and/or lying to the public.  I sympathize with the
idea of being quiet until you have something to say, but as
an aspiring public relations professional with a career PR 
professional for a father, I can tell you that NASA did wrong.
They are now [today, anyway] coming across as less than honest.
First rule of public relations [and indeed of life] :
	
	Build trust through honest communications.
NASA has not.  I would tend to blame their stand-in acting
director, who is not that experienced at this stuff.
If I'm right, and I'm afraid I am, what will this do to NASA
and to the shuttle program -- and to manned space projects?
Thomas Cox
-- 
...ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!benn
   ...but I will defend to the death your right to ... you said *WHAT*?

------------------------------

Date: 12 Feb 86 03:45:13 GMT
From: brahms!weemba@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Matthew P. Wiener)
Subject: Re: Cost of a new shuttle (actually B-1)
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <11815@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> desj@brahms.UUCP (David desJardins) writes:
>In article <8602111608.AA14971@hermes> dms@MIT-HERMES.ARPA (David M. Siegel)
>writes:
>>For sake of comparison, the price of a B1 bomber is around 1 billion,
>>and the plan is to build 100 of them. How about building 90 B1
>>bombers and 5 more shuttles?
>
>   I am getting really sick of people posting numbers to the net which
>are off by orders of magnitude.  The estimated cost of each B-1 is more
>like $100 million.
Yes, but what is the *actual* cost?  Much more than $100 million, I'm sure!
ucbvax!brahms!weemba	Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720

------------------------------

Date: 5 Feb 86 23:18:31 GMT
From: sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Stanley Friesen)
Subject: Re: Shuttle Challenger Explosion?
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <661@tekigm.UUCP> timothym@tekigm.UUCP (Timothy D Margeson) writes:
>Hi,
>
>To anyone  in  a position  to  answer the  following questions, I
>request your assistance.
>
>I  have  a question  concerning the Challenger's last  payload. I
>have heard from an uncertain source that the Hubble telescope was
>aboard. Is this true? If so, why no mention of this great loss?
	False, it did have the only device the US was sending up to
view Halley's Comet though. So that is the end of *that*.
>
>Second, the latest video tape images of the shuttles right engine
>show what appears to be fire  (flame)  coming from above the main
>nozzle,  about where you would expect to see the  nozzle join the
>booster body. Is this a correct assumption?
	Actually, I think it was a little higher up than that.
>
-- 
				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)
UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen
ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa

------------------------------

Date: 5 Feb 86 22:50:36 GMT
From: sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Stanley Friesen)
Subject: Re: bridges not yet crossed
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <8602020835.AA05414@s1-b.arpa> REM%IMSSS@SU-SCORE.ARPA writes:
>
>J> 2. Should we build another shuttle, or the next generation spacecraft?
>Yes.
	Not a bad idea! Do *both*!! AND design a new unmanned satelite
launching system as well. Maybe a couple more deep space probes.
-- 
				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)
UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen
ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa

------------------------------

Date: 12 Feb 86 02:19:10 GMT
From: brahms!desj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (David desJardins)
Subject: Re: Cost of a new shuttle (actually B-1)
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <8602111608.AA14971@hermes> dms@MIT-HERMES.ARPA (David M. Siegel)
writes:
>For sake of comparison, the price of a B1 bomber is around 1 billion,
>and the plan is to build 100 of them. How about building 90 B1
>bombers and 5 more shuttles?
   I am getting really sick of people posting numbers to the net which
are off by orders of magnitude.  The estimated cost of each B-1 is more
like $100 million.  Please, the next person who decides to post a letter
saying "we could build a new shuttle for the cost of ...," get your
numbers right.  Thanks.
   -- David desJardins

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 11 Feb 86 20:52:21 pst
From: tim@aids-unix.arpa (Tim Edwards)
To: space@mc.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: Re; shuttle assembly line


> The assembly line
> has been kept open because NASA hoped for a 5th operational shuttle.
> 				Dave Newkirk, ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn
> 

it was my understanding that Rockwell had retooled the shuttle production
facility for the b1 bomber.  if this is indeed the case, it could raise
serious political obstacles to obtaining a replacement orbiter. (i.e. which
one do you think mr. reagan would rather have, a replacement orbiter or
a bunch of shiny new b1's?) anyone have any info on this?


tim@ads-unix       advanced decison systems
		   mtn. view, ca


/* the above views are mine only and my employer would probably claim to
   have never heard of me
 */

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #130
*******************


0,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA09126; Tue, 18 Feb 86 03:01:26 PST
	id AA09126; Tue, 18 Feb 86 03:01:26 PST
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 86 03:01:26 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8602181101.AA09126@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #131

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 131

Today's Topics:
			     Laser recoil
		  Re: Reactions to Shuttle Disaster
		  Re: Shuttle Challenger Explosion?
		  Re: Cost of a replacement shuttle
		 Re: Shuttle escape question answered
    Re: Antimatter as Rocket Fuel, SETI, US Electricity Production
			    Re:  loncrete
		    Re: Did the Challenger wobble?
		       Re: The Press parasites
			 Re: Shuttle Ditching
		      Re: joking about a tragedy
			    Re: Joy rides
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 12 Feb 86 00:47:11 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@mc.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: Laser recoil
To: shawn@acc.arpa
Cc: KFL@mc.lcs.mit.edu, Space@s1-b.arpa

    From: shawn@acc.arpa

      While most of the talk of SDI is mostly over my head, I've also been
    reading the messages about "laser powered" space flight.  In space
    flight, a laser is used to push a space ship from earth.

  Not exactly.  The laser is used to vaporize reaction mass in the
rocket.  Unless you are talking about a REALLY REALLY POWERFUL LASER
and a lightsail, as has been suggested by Robert Forward.

    In SDI a laser is bounced off of an object tthat is amed elsewhere.  OK, so
    will the laser push the mirror out of its position with each recoil
    and if so, would that push be directed by the angle of the reflected
    shot?

  The momentum of light is very small.  It is equal to the energy
content of the light divided by the speed of light.  300 megawatts of
light would only impart one kilogram meter per second per second of
momentum to the laser.  If the laser satellite has a mass of 1000
metric tons, and the laser emits 100 megawatts of light for 100
milliseconds, the velocity of the satellite will change by only
3*10^-8 meters per second, i.e. ONE METER PER YEAR.
  I am an SDI researcher with a defense firm.  (Usual disclaimers
apply.)
								...Keith

------------------------------

Date: 1 Feb 86 03:51:00 GMT
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiucdcsb!carroll@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Reactions to Shuttle Disaster
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

It's hardly NASA's fault that they have nothing to say about what went
wrong. If they figure it out within the next month, I will be amazed. It's
just too complex to look at some raw telemetry data and say, "Yup, that's
what did 'er".

------------------------------

Date: 5 Feb 86 17:00:51 GMT
From: decvax!linus!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Shuttle Challenger Explosion?
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> ...I have heard from an uncertain source that the Hubble telescope was
> aboard. Is this true?...
Fortunately, no.  The payload was the second Tracking and Data Relay
Satellite, plus assorted odds and ends.  Losing a TDRS is a considerable
pain, but nothing like losing the space telescope would be.  The Hubble
telescope was originally set to fly late this summer.
> Second, the latest video tape images of the shuttles right engine
> show what appears to be fire  (flame)  coming from above the main
> nozzle,  about where you would expect to see the  nozzle join the
> booster body. Is this a correct assumption?
Actually it seems to be about at a joint between two of the booster
segments, which is extremely suspicious.
> Third,  what is the shape if the fuel vessels within the external
> tank shell?  How far towards the nose  of the tank does  the fuel
> extend? ...
The tank is essentially full, with only minor unused volumes.  The
oxygen tank is in the nose, and is almost spherical.  The rest of the
tank is hydrogen.  (Liquid hydrogen has a very low density and hence
is very bulky.)
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 5 Feb 86 17:10:51 GMT
From: decvax!linus!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Cost of a replacement shuttle
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> Anyone have any figures on how much it would cost to reopen the
> production line and build several new shuttles? ...
Getting the line going again would probably drop the price per orbiter
to about the $1e9 apiece price that has been cited for the existing ones.
The next major price drop comes at about quantity 10, when it becomes
worthwhile to make more use of volume-production techniques.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 5 Feb 86 00:51:00 GMT
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!convex!ctvax!kerry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Shuttle escape question answered
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

The velocity of Challenger at the time of the explosion was made public.
In fact, the launch director gave the last velocity a few milliseconds
after the explosion, of which is was not yet aware. 
I can't remember the exact figure, but it was near 2000 mph at the time of
the explosion. So, ejection seats would have been useless at that speed 
even if the passengers had time to activate them.

------------------------------

Date: 6 Feb 86 01:11:59 GMT
From: decvax!linus!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Antimatter as Rocket Fuel, SETI, US Electricity Production
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> I think the US energy consumption in 1940 was somewhat larger than you
> say...
I'll have to check the numbers; I may have to revise the dates somewhat.
My point remains intact, though, I think:  our ability to control and
manipulate energy has expanded enormously in the very recent past.
> ...Electricity consumption had been (until recently) growing
> at about 7% a year, so over 50 years would go up only about thirty times.
Beware of backward extrapolation of numbers that are quite recent (on the
scale I'm speaking of).  Even if 7% is accurate 50 years back, it cannot
be accurate much beyond that.  We haven't had major power plants for more
than 75 years or so.  A factor of 30 in 50 years gives us 250MW in 1886!
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 5 Feb 86 17:25:14 GMT
From: decvax!linus!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re:  loncrete
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> Can someone please explain to me why we can't go to the moon before the
> year 2000? ... we did it in seven years despite a major tragedy that stopped
> the program for a year.  Now.  The engineering is done.  The Apollo/Saturn
> design is proven technology.  Granted the production lines have to be re-tooled
> to do it, I still can't undertand why we can't go to the Moon again in five
> years.  Anybody?
Because the engineering was done, but is now GONE.  We could not build a
Saturn V today:  all the specialized tooling is gone, and so are most of
the detailed plans and specifications.  We could build something that would
look a lot like a Saturn V, but the imitation would not be accurate enough
that we could trust lives to the old calculations and test results... so
we'd have to start almost from scratch.
If you think this is a national disgrace, I agree.
NASA also is no longer equipped to launch Saturn Vs; much of the KSC support
equipment has been rebuilt for the Shuttle.  Either it would have to be
un-rebuilt, sacrificing a good bit of the Shuttle launch capability, or
new facilities would have to be built from scratch.  Things like the tracking
network would similarly have to be rebuilt.  New personnel would have to be
trained, and so forth.
And on top of all this, Apollo was done when NASA was young and vigorous.
Hardening of the arteries has set in.  To quote Del Tischler, original head
of NASA's propulsion effort:
	[NASA] evolved into what I call management by concurrence.
	The distinguishing characteristic of management by concurrence
	is that approval is necessary at every level of the management
	chain, and at several levels of political support, before
	anything can be done.  Management by concurrence enabled NASA
	to use its organization and full array of management techniques
	to study, define, review, restudy, rereview, and ultimately to
	defer the many mission prospects open to it...
	...I personally and single-handedly wrote the request for
	proposal and specifications for the F-1 engines used in the
	Saturn V vehicle in one continuous 24-hour period, then reviewed
	them with contractors the following morning.  Within the next
	three months several contractors made proposals, which were
	evaluated by NASA personnel, a selection made, a major development
	contract signed and the work started.  Now even minor space
	projects are contemplated for years, and held in abeyance for
	lack of funds for additional years before approval to proceed,
	which may never come...
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 4 Feb 86 02:26:02 GMT
From: decvax!linus!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Frank Adams)
Subject: Re: Did the Challenger wobble?
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <439@mmm.UUCP> mrgofor@mmm.UUCP (Michael Ross) writes:
>* Using the fast scan on my VCR, I watched the whole flight in fast
>* motion. Just before the camera cut to the chase-plane's view, Challenger
>* seemed to be wobbling back and forth a little bit. It's too slow to 
>* notice at normal speed - but I thought it was fairly easy to see
>* at the faster speed. You people out there who have it on tape - try
>* it and see. Is it my imagination? Could it hold a clue?
>
>Several people mailed me responses asking if it couldn't have been
>the camera wobbling. I obviously did not speak clearly the first time.
>I am an amateur photographer, and I know about camera shake - that wasn't
>what I saw. The wobbling was more like skewing (what do they call it when
>the rear tries to overtake the front - yaw? pitch?) Anyway, it looked
>as if it started to steer to the left, then the guidance system compensated
>and it steered to the right, then back to the left, etc., as if the pilot
>were driving a car and turning the steering wheel back and forth.
Have you (or anyone) compared this with a successful shuttle launch?  This
may be just the normal operation of the guidance system.
Frank Adams                           ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
Multimate International    52 Oakland Ave North    E. Hartford, CT 06108

------------------------------

Date: 5 Feb 86 22:02:53 GMT
From: tektronix!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!challenger!root@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Operator)
Subject: Re: The Press parasites
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> 
>      It's been about 4 hours since the Challenger blew up and the most 
>disgusting aspect of this whole accident is the way the press has handled it.
>  This is
> usually the problem that most people find with great tragedies.  Nothing 
> bothered us more here at CCCC more than the way that ABC, descretely 
> (said in REAL
> sarcasm), enabled us to view the teacher's parents as the Challenger 
>ascended and then after the explosion.  It's one thing to drag out an 
>apparent accident,
> but another to feed and use upon human emotions as they did.
> 
>      The real tragedy is the injustice done to NASA, after MANY great 
>successes to have this dragged and blown out of proportion.  It's still a 
> great pride
> and joy to watch any shuttle lift off and I wish everyone would make such a 
> big deal when NASA makes a great success and not eat away at them with the
> failures.
> 
>      The whole space shuttle program has been one of the greatest feats in 
>engineering and nobody really cares, but if it messes up, everyone is 
>made sure not to forget it.
> 
>      May those who died rest in peace, but let's not forget the real mission.
I agree completely - the space program does not need the vampires who 
play on the emotions of the people involved.  The pictures of the 
teachers parents were about as necessary to the true picture as would
be a lifetime subscription to the National Enquirer ( and about as much 
class)!!!!!
All I can say is if we had not taken risks, man would never have come out
of the caves.  Please don't let the lives of the seven have been in vain!.
			Mike Fields

------------------------------

Date: 5 Feb 86 17:27:33 GMT
From: decvax!linus!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Shuttle Ditching
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> To me, it seems doubtful that an abort could have succeeded in saving
> the lives of 7 astronauts or the orbiter.
I believe NASA has said that the split-off-from-tank-and-SRBs-and-ditch
abort possibility, which theoretically existed on the first few test
flights but hasn't been included in recent missions, would be "better
than certain death, but not by much".
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 6 Feb 86 18:52:47 GMT
From: alice!ark@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Andrew Koenig)
Subject: Re: joking about a tragedy
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Pilots have long made jokes about aviation problems.
It's one way to relieve the tension.
For instance, here's one that's sometimes told among
pilots of single-engine airplanes:
	What do you do if you're flying at night over
	unfamiliar terrain and your engine quits?
	Answer: you glide until you're low enough that
	your landing light will show you what's down there.
	If you like what you see, go ahead and land.
	If you don't like it, turn the light off again.
People who think this is merely sick humor are missing the point.

------------------------------

Date: 4 Feb 86 01:52:04 GMT
From: decvax!linus!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Frank Adams)
Subject: Re: Joy rides
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <648@wjvax.wjvax.UUCP> mel@wjvax.UUCP (Melchor R. Tolentino) writes:
>
>In article <8601280337.AA06255@pwa-b.UUCP> space@ucbvax.uucp writes:
>>At $100, I would almost certainly take it.  At $1000, almost certainly not.
>>The breakeven point for me is probably around $250.
>
>After yesterdays tragedy, I was wondering if anyone out there has changed
>their minds on joyrides to space. It's amazing how we all took the success  
>of the space shuttle for granted. I guess it reflects the mentality of todays
>'space generation'.
Since the quote above is mine, I might as well respond to this.  Yes, I
would still go.  The risks were there all the time, and I knew it.
Frank Adams                           ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
Multimate International    52 Oakland Ave North    E. Hartford, CT 06108

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #131
*******************


0,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA10575; Tue, 18 Feb 86 07:01:39 PST
	id AA10575; Tue, 18 Feb 86 07:01:39 PST
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 86 07:01:39 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8602181501.AA10575@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #132

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 132

Today's Topics:
		    Re: INFO ON PROGRESS MISSIONS
			   re: TDRS and STS
			 Re: SRB destruction
   Re: Comparison between Challanger-plane crashes, auto crashes...
		  Re: Shuttle Challenger Explosion?
		       Re: Television coverage
		  Re: Space Shuttle Children's Fund
		  Re: Space Shuttle Children's Fund
       more shuttle explosion guesswork (and second-guesswork)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 11 Feb 86 14:30:26 GMT
From: decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-pipa!biro@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: INFO ON PROGRESS MISSIONS
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In reply form 
> list of informaiton on Soviet space station activity
> ... informaiton about Progress flights in early 1984 ...
name        date #      nasa# who   launch  reentry year
                            
PROGRESS 17 1983 085A   14283 USSR  17 AUG  18 SEP  1983
PROGRESS 18 1983 106A   14422 USSR  20 OCT  16 NOV  1983
PROGRESS 19 1984 018A   14757 USSR  21 FEB  01 APR  1984
PROGRESS 20 1984 038A   14932 USSR  15 APR  07 MAY  1984
PROGRESS 21 1984 024A?? 14961 USSR  07 MAY  26 MAY  1984
PROGRESS 22 1984 051A   14996 USSR  28 MAY  15 JUL  1984
PROGRESS 23 1984 086A   15193 USSR  14 AUG  28 AUG  1984
PROGRESS 24 1985 051A   15838 USSR  21 JUN  15 JUL  1985
I  do not  have  any  detail on mission description except for PROGRESS 24, 
it was the  cargo ship to deliver water to the Salyut_7. It also contained 
delivered new chemical batteries,fuel and equipment needed to continue the 
mission. SAYLUT_7 water supply was frozen and one of the first things they
had to do was get the SAYLUT_7 temp. above freezing to thaw it out.  The
crew only had 8 days of water and emergency supplies for 7 to 9 more days.
A Time Line of events for the repair of SAYLUT_7
OCT   2    SAYLUT_7 moth_balled and put into unmaned operation
JUNE  6    SOYUZ T_13 piolted by Vladimir Dzhanibekov and Victor Savinykh
           was orbited
JUNE  8    the ship approached the station and docked
JUNE 10    the first battery was charged, 'jump charged,
JUNE 13    the positioning control system, rendezvous facilities and
           the propulsion motors were tested
JUNE 14    ships water supply predicted to run out and the Emergency 
           supplies of water would only last until the 21 to 23 of June
JUNE 16    enought heat to get the water running   **  crisis had ended **
JUNE 23    PROGRESS 24 linked up with supplies, fuel and equipment needed
           to restore the SALYUT_7 (this would have been the last day of water)
           if water had not been restored on the 14th of July
NOV  13    Voice Transmission Scrambled
NOV  21    SOYUZ T-14 mission was cut short, commonauts returned to earth
I would like to see the report, if you can when it is done
73's John (K1KSY)

------------------------------

Date: 11 Feb 86 19:38:57 GMT
From: decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-crvax1!kaplow@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Reach for the Stars)
Subject: re: TDRS and STS
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

TDRS :== Tracking and Data Relay Satellite. Three of these are supposed
to be placed in Geo orbit so that the shuttle and other space vehicles
will have a constant link to ground stations, as well as each other.
This will eliminate the need for all of the ground stations NASA
currently uses, and will also eliminate those regions around the earth
where a vehicle in low orbit is totally out of touch with ground
controllers. 
STS :== Space Transportation System (i.e. the Space Shuttle)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
And now for a word from my system manager:
All of these duplicate postings to net.space and net.columbia are
generating gobs of excess network traffic, and eating up disk space.
Can't we stop the duplicate postings of everything to both of these
newsgroups, and put all of the shuttle related materials in net.columbia
only. I'm growing tired of reading all of this stuff twice! Thanks. I'm
glad I got this off my keyboard. 
    		Bob Kaplow 
    		Digital Equipment Corp. 
    		Arlington Heights, IL 
    UUCP:   {allegra,decvax,ihnp4,ucbvax}!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-crvax1!kaplow
    ARPA:   KAPLOW%CRVAX1.DEC@decwrl.DEC.COM 
	*   Reach for the Stars   *

------------------------------

Date: 6 Feb 86 17:29:05 GMT
From: ihnp4!ihuxx!rck@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Kukuk)
Subject: Re: SRB destruction
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> 
> > One aspect of the SRB self-destruct mechanism which has bothered me the
> > most is the fact that a single action will destroy BOTH SRB's ........
> 
>     Another interesting fact is that in the SRB the fuel is burning the
>    entire length of the rocket. When they send a destruct signal to the
>    SRBs it DOES NOT BLOW UP THE WHOLE THING!! I never realized this.
>    What is does is blow off the top of the rocket. ...
> 
> 					Jerry Ruhno
> 					epsilon!mb2c!gbr
NBC Nightly News on Tue., Feb 4, described the SRB destruct mechanism as
being made up of a strip of RDX running down the outside length of each
SRB.  This placement is intended (so stated Bob Bazell) to split each
SRB lengthwise.  Who's right?
					Ron Kukuk

------------------------------

Date: 6 Feb 86 15:05:19 GMT
From: pur-ee!pucc-j!pucc-i!afb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Michael Lewis)
Subject: Re: Comparison between Challanger-plane crashes, auto crashes...
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

     I can't remember exactly which Apollo mission it was, but sometime in 1967
there was an oxygen fire on the launch pad which took the lives of Gus Grissom
(there is a building on Purdue's campus and an Air Force base in Northern 
Indiana named after him) and two other astronauts whose names elude me. 
     Perhaps I should've waited 'til I had read all of the current net.space
postings before posting this myself...I have a feeling others have already 
jumped on it...
	       Michael Lewis @ Purdue University

------------------------------

Date: 5 Feb 86 19:24:16 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!utcsri!ubc-vision!alberta!cadomin!andrew@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Andrew Folkins)
Subject: Re: Shuttle Challenger Explosion?
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <661@tekigm.UUCP> timothym@tekigm.UUCP (Timothy D Margeson) writes:
>Hi,
>
>To anyone  in  a position  to  answer the  following questions, I
>request your assistance.
>
>I  have  a question  concerning the Challenger's last  payload. I
>have heard from an uncertain source that the Hubble telescope was
>aboard. Is this true? If so, why no mention of this great loss?
 
  The major payload was TDRS-B, the second tracking and data relay
satellite.  TDRS-C is not finished yet, and I believe there is a
backup so NASA may still get a full system.  The HST and the Galileo
Jupiter probe were scheduled to be launched in the next six months, 
what is going to happen to them is not known (especially as Galileo,
if not launched on schedule, will have to wait more than a year for
the next launch window).
 
>Second, the latest video tape images of the shuttles right engine
>show what appears to be fire  (flame)  coming from above the main
>nozzle,  about where you would expect to see the  nozzle join the
>booster body. Is this a correct assumption?
That's what I saw.
 
>Third,  what is the shape if the fuel vessels within the external
>tank shell?  How far towards the nose  of the tank does  the fuel
>extend? 
 
  The two tanks are ovoids, with the larger LH2 tank on the bottom and
LOX tank on top, extending just about to the top of the ET.  The only
space is underneath the shroud on top of the ET used to streamline the 
tank, about all this contains is plumbing.
 
>Fourth,  if the fuel does not extend to  the topmost area  of the
>external tank,  what occupies  the  space  from  whence  came the
>brightest of the flashes preceding the fireball?
 
 Sorry about another net.i.know.what.happened, but the explosion
seemed to occur when the flames reached the bulkhead separating the
LH2 and LOX tanks.  When the LOX tank ruptured, well, we all know
what happened. 
 
>Last, which fuel is on top. The oxygen or hydrogen?
 
See above.
 
>Thanks for all the responses in advance, and please, feel free to
>post the answers as I think everyone on the net  would appreciate
>hearing this also. E-Mail is fine also.
You're welcome for the response, but I really wish I was talking
about a less depressing subject.
-- 
Andrew Folkins        ...ihnp4!alberta!andrew    
 
"We humans think of ourselves as being rather good at reasoning, but at
best we perform about a hundred logical inferences a second.  We're
talking about future expert systems that will be doing ten million
inferences a second.  What will it be like to put a hundred years thought
in every decision?  Knowledge is power."  - Edward A. Feigenbaum

------------------------------

Date: 6 Feb 86 20:09:32 GMT
From: sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!alan@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Alan Algustyniak)
Subject: Re: Television coverage
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> The ONLY video coming out from the launch site was NASA's official
> news feed.  So don't go blaming the networks for their supposed
> morbid curiosity of the crowd's bemoaning the loss of the Challenger.
> 
> Jeff Okamoto		..!ucbvax!okamoto
>
   Nope!  It was the networks morbid sense of what is news that is at fault,
not NASA.  From TIME 10 Feb 1986, page 42:
	Some viewers were offended at the oft-repeated shots that
	had been taped by WNEV-TV in Boston of School-teacher
	Christa McAuliffe's parents viewing the launch at the
	Kennedy Space Center.
  So don't go blaming NASA when it's the media's fault.
	Al ALgustyniak

------------------------------

Date: 6 Feb 86 13:55:32 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!credmond@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Chris Redmond)
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle Children's Fund
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>>>>
>>>>	A trust fund has been established by the American Security
>>>>	Bank in Washington DC.  The funds gathered are to be used
>>>>	to provide financial assistance to the children of the 7
>>>>	astronauts killed in the explosion of the space shuttle.
>>>
>>>Is the Social Budget of USA so poor that American people must create a fund
>>>for the astronauts' children? 
>>>
>>
>>United States we like to take care of our own.
> 
>    Don't blame him, it is probably difficult to live in a country that 
>    sits on the sidelines and watches while we explore space.  After all,
>    they think it is pretty neat that they have a booster that can but
>    a satellite into orbit.
More to the point, don't blame him: he lives in a country (France)
where the ASSUMPTION is that bereaved children will be taken care of
from public funds, and there's no need to start a special collection.

------------------------------

Date: 6 Feb 86 15:25:14 GMT
From: decvax!mcnc!rti-sel!wfi@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (William Ingogly)
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle Children's Fund
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <328@lifia.UUCP> felix@lifia.UUCP (Francois Felix INGRAND) writes:
>First my question was serious, I do not know very well the american Social
>System but I feel very sorry too, to think that you have to make a fund to help
>these childrens.
First of all, I'm responding to your comments with my own personal
views and feelings about American society and the reasons why we
do things. You will no doubt find that some or even many Americans
will argue with what I have to say in general or in this particular
instance. 
Whatever the shortcomings and limitations of our current social
welfare programs, the suggestion that a fund be set up for the
children was made in a spirit of compassion for the families
involved and as a living memorial for seven people who seem to
many of us Americans to be heroes. Perhaps we're talking about
cultural differences here, Francois. Americans frequently contribute
to one charity or another when a loved one or a friend's loved one
dies or make a contribution in memory of a national figure. This
is neither right nor wrong, it's simply the way we Americans are.
We don't "have to" set up a fund to help these children because
social welfare programs, insurance, etc. won't provide for their
futures; we choose to set up such a fund and contribute to it as
a celebration of the astronauts' sacrifices and as a celebration
of our solidarity as a people in the face of tragedy.
 
>Second, these childrens, which suffered a great loss indeed, and you could be
>sure that I have sympathy for them, looks for me like the childrens or people
>which loose parents or friends in such a catastrophe. The tomorow of the
>shuttle catastrophe, there were a Airplane Crash in South America: 27 deads...
>Be sure that I have a lot of sympathy for them too. But Medias seem to have
>forgotten them... And American Fund too.
The media in this country pay more attention to the shuttle tragedy
than to the crash in South America because it's more newsworthy to
citizens of our country. I'm sure the South American crash received a
lot of coverage in South American countries. And I'm sure you Frenchmen
provide greater coverage to stories that are of particular interest to
the French people or that touch the French people in a special way.
Human tragedy is human tragedy, whether it happens to national figures
like the astronauts or to the faceless people living in the house down
the street. In spite of the seemingly routine nature of space shuttle
flights, I think many Americans have supported the space program, 
have felt that the peaceful exploration of space is a national
priority, and have viewed the astronauts as ambassador/heroes. So the
death of these seven people touched us in a special way.
 
>Third, Do you really think that it is money that these childrens need?
>Do you really think that sympathy can only be Dollars. Excuse me but I
>feel sorry for you, to see that the only think that you can do for them is to
>make a Fund. I understand that we can make a fund like AFRICA AID, of "LES
>RESTAURANTS DU COEUR" in France. But here, is it the best solution? I doubt.
The creation of a memorial fund, as I've pointed out, springs from an
American tradition of people helping other people at a grass-roots
level. At least that's the way it seems to me as an American citizen
who grew up in the heartland. When a neighbor dies of a heart attack,
you make a contribution to a medical charity that supports research
into heart disease in the neighbor's name. If you think this is
evidence of a meanness of spirit in the American people or a poverty
of solutions, you don't understand what we are as a people.
                         -- Cheers, Bill Ingogly

------------------------------

Date: 12 Feb 1986 09:45:19-EST
From: rachiele@nadc.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: more shuttle explosion guesswork (and second-guesswork)



If it is true that there was a SRB burn-through (and it is beginning to look
like that is the case), and NASA did have indications from previous flights that
there could be problems with them, the real problem is clear.  NASA just
plain did not have sufficient funding to meet their commitments (and continue
to exist) and maintain the safety standards we have come to expect of the
space program.  The correct thing to do (in retrospect) would have been to
conpletely re-design the supplementary booster system.  But I don't believe
this was ever an option, because of cost/schedule constraints.
   Don't get me wrong, I don't want to point fingers.  But it is ridiculous
to ask an engineer to "design to cost" when lives are at stake.

              Jim Rachiele

    Disclaimer:  My employer is Ronald Reagan, and I don't think he cares
                  what I say anyway.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #132
*******************


0,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA13516; Tue, 18 Feb 86 19:01:35 PST
	id AA13516; Tue, 18 Feb 86 19:01:35 PST
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 86 19:01:35 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8602190301.AA13516@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #133

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 133

Today's Topics:
	       Shuttle replacements - using spare parts
			 ESA Telemanipulators
		       Re: Columbia Replacement
		       Re: Columbia Replacement
			      CHALLENGER
		  Re: Shuttle Challenger Explosion?
	    VAX/UNIX BSD 4.2 time needed for space station
			    Re: What now?
	    re: donations, Gramm-Rudman, and a commentary
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 5 Feb 86 15:40:42 GMT
From: decwrl!pyramid!ut-sally!seismo!rlgvax!hadron!klr@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Kurt L. Reisler)
Subject: Shuttle replacements - using spare parts
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In the February 3 1986 issue of Aviation Week & Space Technology (page
29), thre is an article entitled "Some Major Structural Components for
Fifth Orbiter Are Available".  It seems that "major structural
assemblies necessary to produce a fifth (replacement - klr) shuttle are
under construction or already ahve been completed and shipped to
Rockwell International for storage at their shuttle assembly facility
in Palmdale, Ca."
These spares are a part of a $110-million spares program that was part
of the 1984 budget.  An addition $40-million was approved by congress
in 1984, and then canceled last summer.
However, "even with the large spare spacecraft elements, production of
the necessary hardware and construction of a new orbiter would take
several years, an estimated total investment of $1.5-billion and a
substantial effort to reassemble a shuttle assembly workforce."

------------------------------

Posted-Date: Wed 12 Feb 1986 10:59:36 EST
Date: Wed 12 Feb 1986 10:59:36 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: ESA Telemanipulators
To: space@s1-b.arpa

I lost Uffe K. Mortensen's return address.  Could he (or someone) send
me a reference to information on ESA's telemanipulator program?  I'd be
very interested in reading about their plans and results so far.

------------------------------

Date: 6 Feb 86 04:18:00 GMT
From: ihnp4!tellab1!tellab3!thoth@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Marcus Hall)
Subject: Re: Columbia Replacement
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>> >  (3) NASA will have Rockwell refit the Enterprise to make it fully
>> > operational.  Nobody has mentioned this one.  Is it even possible?  I
>> > don't know how far the Enterprise is from being an operational orbiter,
>> > instead of a boiler plate shuttle replica.  Anybody have any ideas?
>> 
>> It is not possible. Enterprise, being first, was more a mockup than a real
>> orbiter and is significantly heavier than the production schedules. They
>> would have to significantly reduce payloads to orbit it, and I'm not really
>> sure if it was ever certified as spaceworthy.
>> 
>
>The US Space Shuttle Enterprise has already been donated by NASA to the
>Smithsonian Institute. I've heard the cost of retrofitting the Enterprise
>would exceed the cost of a brand-new orbiter.
Wouldn't the Smithsonian Institute give it back?  I remember that the Saturn V
lying on its side at the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville was
considered "on active standby" when I visited there many years ago.
At any rate, if Rockwell would have to re-tool from B1 production to make
another shuttle, that could drive the cost of a new shuttle higher than the
cost of making Enterprise operational.  I believe that the Discovery is
actually older than Enterprise (I believe that it is frame 098 and Enterprise
is 099 [Not in octal, by the way :-)]).  If Discovery could be built from
an older airframe, perhaps Enterprise could be updated.  Since Columbia just
recently returned from her retrofit, there may be enough facilities remaining
at Rockwell to retrofit Enterprise although not nearly enough to start from
scratch again.
This is just total speculation on my part.  I welcome corrections from those
in the know.  Perhaps it's just wishful thinking?
marcus hall
..!ihnp4!tellab1!tellab2!thoth

------------------------------

Date: 4 Feb 86 06:57:00 GMT
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!okstate.UUCP!uok.UUCP!dwhitney@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Columbia Replacement
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>...I don't know how far Enterprise is from being an operational 
>.shuttle...
Though I have yet to hear this mentioned by any members of NASA or
the networks, this idea to me seems far more sensible than spending
the money involved in a from-scratch shuttle.  If Enterprise weren't
reasonably close to an operational shuttle in terms of design alone,
it wouldn't have served very well as a prototype (i.e. aerodynamics
structure, etc)
From what I understand, Enterprise is simply on display on the West
Coast.  Given the rate at which NASA will fall behind its schedule
each month it waits for the investigations and search teams to 
complete their research and findings into the loss of Challenger, 
it seems that refitting the Enterprise to be the most expedient.
I believe that the main types of refit required would involve
tiling of the shuttle exterior, installation of engines, and of
course, the necessary computer and on-board control systems it
couldn't possibly have by virtue of its "retirement."
Of course, if any of the above information is incorrect or incomplete,
please correct it, because it has been some time since I heard much
about Enterprise.  It merely seems that refitting Enterprise could
not possibly approach the cost of building a scratch shuttle; even
if only the basic framework/structure proved all that could be used,
that would seem to be worth looking into.
David Whitney]
University of Oklahoma
Engineering Computer Network
uok!dwhitney

------------------------------

Date: 29 Jan 86 17:14:00 GMT
From: decvax!cca!ISM780!jimb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: CHALLENGER
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

	I'm still in deep shock, numb.  I don't see how anybody who shared
the dream cannot be in deep pain.  Me?  I'm just going ahead and breaking
into tears every few hours.  But beyond that, this is going to be a hard time
for the space program, already under budget pressues as eugene and others
have mentioned.
	If you love the space program, if you want the space program to be a
memorial to the CHALLENGER and her crew and not the other way around, do
something.  Write.  Write every goddammed letters-to-the-editor column and
political person of import that you can think of.  For the pols, write
ESPECIALLY if you have no economic interest in the space program.  Idealism
baffles the pols (I've worked on both Senate and House staffs), but if
there's enough of it, they finally shake their heads and conclude that it IS
the will of the people.
	Write in your own words, from both the heart and the mind.  Xerox
letter campaigns are discounted by both newspapers and politicos.
	Following is the text of a letter that I sent to a number of places.
I've been reading net.space for months and never had anything that I thought
worth contributing.  My apologies to any who are offended by the length of
this posting or the emotional content, but damn it, this is important.
*******
	When the first lung-fish crawled out of the sea and lay gasping on
the land, many died and many returned to the sea.  When our first half-human
ancestors looked out from the forests and left the safety of the trees for
the unknown savannah, there was danger.  When ancient mariners first began to
sail their fragile ships beyond te sght of shore and into the unknown, there
were risks and losses.
	When mankind began to erect cties that offered greater comfort and
security, and when they raised the great cathedrals to celebrate the greater
glory of God, lives were lost in the quarrys and on the scaffolds.  When
scientists such as Walter Reed first began to confront the mysteries and
uncertainties of contagious diseases in the search for a cure, many succumbed
to the ailments they studied, a price for advancing the knowledge of mankind.
	In any large-scale human endeavor that has worked to the benefit of
mankind, there has been pain and sacrifice and loss.  We stand ow at one of
the pivotal points in history.  We can say "no" to the unknown mysteries of
space, turn our backs, and announce our decline as a civilization.  Or we can
look at the stars, express our grief at the loss of the CHALLENGER and its
crew, and then honor their lives by saying, "We shall continue."
********
			-- Jim Brunet
			   ihnp4/ima/ism780B

------------------------------

Date: 7 Feb 86 06:00:05 GMT
From: allegra!princeton!astrovax!wls@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (William L. Sebok)
Subject: Re: Shuttle Challenger Explosion?
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <158@axiom.UUCP> paul@axiom.UUCP (Paul O`Shaughnessy) writes:
>The Hubble telescope was not on board, and had been scheduled in one of 
>the February or March flights.
No, it was due to fly in October this year.  Many people had expected
it to slip further (it was originally scheduled) for August.  Now
it certainly will do so.
-- 
Bill Sebok			Princeton University, Astrophysics
{allegra,akgua,cbosgd,decvax,ihnp4,noao,philabs,princeton,vax135}!astrovax!wls

------------------------------

Date: 6 Feb 86 18:47:37 GMT
From: decwrl!pyramid!ut-sally!seismo!hao!ames!al@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Al Globus)
Subject: VAX/UNIX BSD 4.2 time needed for space station
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

McDonnell Douglas in Huntsville, Alabama needs some time on a
VAX/UNIX BSD 4.2 to do some space station related work.  If you
know of such a machine at any McDonnell Douglas site, or a
commercial timesharing machine in the Huntsville, Alabama area,
please mail me, call me (Al Globus) at (415) 964-5751; or
better yet, call Amanda Rice at (205) 882-7278 (Amanda will 
be using the machine - I just wrote the program she wants to use).

------------------------------

Date: 7 Feb 86 07:06:00 GMT
From: amdcad!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!mangoe@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Charley Wingate)
Subject: Re: What now?
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>I recall that the Pentagon got a bit of flak last year for getting
>funding to build some Titan rockets as backup launch vehicles for
>large satellites.  I also heard on the news during the coverage 
>last week that some Titans were being taken out of silos and 
>refurbished as a part of this project. (Certainly to be replaced. 
>Wouldn't want to be vulnerable to instant attack :-)
As I recall, the was some flak about a year ago about USAF's plans to take
all the Titans out of service as ICBMs (since their deterence value has
become almost nil, and they present great hazards as far as maintainance is
concerned-- remember the one that blew up because someone dropped a
wrench?).  It certainly makes great sense to convert them to launch
vehicles, considering the shortages that were already causing problems.  I
only wish NASA had been more enthusiastic about the continuation of the
Titan III; my memory is that Matin Marietta practically had a fire sale to
convince people to keep using them.
>Ariane is booked solid for two years, so there is not going to be much
>off-loading of launch capability. I did hear a most annoying 
>idea that the US should consider sending their launch capabilites
>overseas, as if they were talking about computers or cars.
The _Wash. Post_ listed the Ariane schedule recently; the next vacancy is
late in '88.  Considering the problems they are having, I would be reluctant
to use it; and the shuttle at least offers the possibility of getting the
thing back if it fails or doesn't reach the proper orbit.  There's also
something rather parochial about the annoyance expressed above, as the
europeans (and most other nations) are still dependent upon US boosters;
consider how many foreign sattelites the shuttle has attempted to put up,
and then reflect upon the fact that US-made vehicles are responsible for
almost all the smaller launches outside of the USSR.
C. Wingate

------------------------------

Date: 6 Feb 86 08:05:22 GMT
From: decwrl!pyramid!ut-sally!seismo!hao!ames!eugene@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Eugene Miya)
Subject: re: donations, Gramm-Rudman, and a commentary
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

First of all, let me say that I read every one of the 400+ messages posted
to net.space, net.columbia, (briefly) net.challenger, and net.astro
and their ARPA equivalents.  I am certain the powers that be would be
touched by many of your sentiments.  I have responded to some of you
or referred information when appropriate.  I could not respond to
some ARPAnet posted message as the writers did not include a
signature line with return addresses (the Usenet only shows ucbvax!space).
Permit me to make a couple of comments with respect to the events of
the past week.  I do this for the benefit of the people on the net.
The first is on the emergence of charitable causes for the shuttle
and the children of the chew.
We, NASA, just cannot solicit funds.  We cannot earmark funds for
specific programs.  We cannot endorse any of the foundation being
formed for the "benefit" of the children of the Challenger chew,
nor the "building" of another shuttle.  Please use good judgment
if you so desire to send money to any of these private foundations.
I have seen at least two posting regarding the sending of funding to
Code BF, NASA Headquarters.  I have checked out Code BF and this
is the Computroller of Funds for the Agency.  This is not an
endorsement to send funds, merely a reporting of who BF is.  Another
private group for the children, headed by a lawyer, does have
some indirect connection to NASA.  We cannot guarantee that collected
funds from this organization or any others will go to the funding
of a new shuttle, any development, or the children of the chew.
Again please use care.  This is the primary reason I post this message.
On the matter of "speculation:" has C. Wingate pointed out, and I agree,
I am not here to lecture to the net.  But, I must point out that
speculation can become dangerous rumor (numerous, see the evolution
of ideas: terrorism, green boxes, etc.).  Theories are advanced by
many unofficial and former NASA people and contractors.
My division chief, who supports my following the net points out
my words, even with a disclaimer, come from a representative of
the US Government.  As such, I am to use care with what I say.
Others may speak before analysing our problems.  I must air caution.
I am certain that various people on this net and others have been called
by news agencies to provide commentary: this can be a problem
with the numerous theories flying around.  It ceases to become
harmless speculation at a certain point.
People from several local papers have attempted to call me
(because of various computer industry friends ("I have a friend in
NASA...."))  and I have to give the stock answer: I have to refer
people to the Public Information Office for official commentary:
I am not associated with the Shuttle program, and that it is most
appropriate for people to contact those Centers involved in the
program for obtaining information or passing ideas.  I know little
more than many of you do because I am not on a flight project
currently.  CLEARLY, many people on the net rehash what they learned
from the media (no mention of the types of "reports," we see some
different reports, but this is not a coverup [e.g., a special
announcement for the "teacher in space" went out, and I told one
of our secretaries to keep it: ironic history).  I do not think
the media are entirely to blame for the coverage: it is our thrist
for knowledge.  P.S. I am aware that several news agencies read this net.
It was interesting to read about people's conceptions of the color
of hydrogen flames, or naming future shuttles (we lost a plane
recently, the Galileo II, named after the Galileo I, both Convair 990
transports [the first lost with all hands] after a mid air collision for
the I, and a landing gear failure for the II).  I would trust that
NASA tastefully names a next ship, if one gets built.
You are all intelligent people and will figure many of these things
out for yourself.  I recommend council with friends, neighbors and others
(professional), if you find yourself still in a state of shock.
It is a hard thing to watch and listen to people die.
TV covered few instance when tragedies took place.  It's typically
off-line.
A commentary on the Gramm-Rudman bill.  Someone asked how NASA was
affected.  It appears questionable whether we will have summer
openings at our Center (50-50).  Also, we have informed CDC that we must
give up our 4-pipe Cyber 205 as the level of funding for it has dropped to
$0.  I am certain other Centers will be similarly affected.  So yes, we
will be affected.  This is not a call for funding but a point of
information.  I want to give this because this is an example of
something which can be misconstrued.
Please excuse the length of this.  Hope this did not sound "too"
bureaucratic.  I know I did.
--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  {hplabs,ihnp4,dual,hao,decwrl,allegra}!ames!aurora!eugene
  eugene@ames-nas.ARPA

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #133
*******************


0,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA14504; Tue, 18 Feb 86 23:01:21 PST
	id AA14504; Tue, 18 Feb 86 23:01:21 PST
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 86 23:01:21 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8602190701.AA14504@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #134

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 134

Today's Topics:
			   Moon before 2000
			  Re: Uranus's axis
	       Re: What's story behind Kennedy/Canavral
			  Re: Uranus's axis
			   NASA summer jobs
	   Re: replacing a human crew with automatic pilots
		       Re: SPACE Digest V6 #109
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:         Wed, 12 Feb 86 11:43:13 EST
From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Reply-To:  ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA
To: space digest <space@s1-b.arpa>
Subject:      Moon before 2000

A recent posting by Rick McGeer asked about trips to the moon before
2000, and suggested Apollo vehicles.  Coincidentally, I recently looked
into this question (strictly as an amateur), and the following article
is a summary.  Comments and criticisms are welcome, to
ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA    <Geoffrey A. Landis>
SHUTTLE TECHNOLOGY TRIPS TO THE MOON

For a one-shot, it might conceivably be worthwhile to build
some stuff mostly according to the specs from the Apollo
project (although you'd want to take them to Low Earth
Orbit [LEO] in the shuttle).  For example, if somebody saw
something on the moon worth taking a good look at this might
be a fast way to do it.  Mods to make it fit the shuttle
would be extensive, but I think it could be done so that
most of it would be just rearanging the parts, not
engineering new stuff.  Apollo Command module weighed 6
metric tons, the service module 25 tons, and the LM 16 tons.
To boost that much stuff from LEO into trans-lunar orbit
would take, let's see... Delta V=3.2 km/sec, shuttle
specific impulse 460 sec...  something like 47 tons of fuel.
And a booster rocket, say maybe 10 tons?, that's a total
mission mass of 104 tons.  Not bad at all: the shuttle
carries 26 tons payload, so it's only four shuttle flights.

    For anything like a real capability, you'd want to design
new stuff using shuttle-era technology.  After all, Apollo
used 1967 technology: twenty years obsolete!  There are
three things which can make the mission a lot more
reasonable without too  much unproven speculation.

     First, if you have a lunar base, its most important mission would
be to manufacture oxygen.  This isn't that hard: the lunar
crust is silicates, alumina, titania, etc: all oxides.  It
takes a lot of power to break off the oxygen, but presumably
you'd have a power source anyway.  (maybe you only
manufacture fuel when the sun shines).  Shuttle engines burn
about eight kilograms oxygen per kilogram hydrogen: it helps
a lot if you don't have to bring the oxygen with you.  The
other thing you'd do is aerobraking to get rid of excess
velocity at the earth.  This idea got a big publicity boost
when the movie 2010 came out.  The idea is that to get rid
of excess velocity, dip down into the atmosphere and throw
it away into friction.  (probably wouldn't be big balloons
like in 2010, though.  Most aerobrake schemes I've seen,
although I'm no expert, look like rounded-nose cones.)  This
paper by Woodcock and Priest says you can do it for 2.78
shuttle flights per lunar landing without lunar-oxygen, 1.25
shuttle flights per landing with (for a four person landing
party, compared with Apollo's two).  Last, you can make a
new, unmanned launch vehicle using shuttle technology; a
"Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle (HLLV)" or, as Woodcock and
Priest call it, a Cargo Launch Vehicle (CLV).  The idea is
to make a thing using shuttle technology, forget the wings,
forget the crew compartment, and optimize for just getting
mass into orbit.  W&P figure it could lift about three times
as much as the shuttle, cutting costs by about a factor of
two.
  OK.  Ready for a scenario?

  Agenda for Lunar Trip :
   (1) The shuttle (or HLLV) carries liquid oxygen and hydrogen
into orbit.  If done by the shuttle, this is done by
carrying it in a slightly enlarged external tank [ET] (not
very much enlarged, either--about 3%) which is carried into
orbit.  The shuttle itself flies virtually empty.  It's
probably used to rotate space station personnel, give
astronaut candidates training in zero-gee, and give NASA
personnel free trips to keep their moral up (also probably
congressmen, schoolteachers, and whatnot).
  (2) In orbit,
the propellant is pumped into an ET designated for orbital
propellant storage.  There's probably a seperate tank for
hydrogen and for oxygen.  To pump, the new tank is tied to
the old one with a tether, and the two set spinning slowly:
this is to get the liquid down to the bottom of the tank to
allow it to be pumped.  Each of these fuel depot tanks is
shaded from the sun by a large parasol of aluminized mylar.
(It may be worthwhile to shade them from the Earth, too: the
Earth is warm, and will radiate to the tanks.)  This depot
is co-orbital with the space station, but trailing behind it
by maybe a hundred miles, so that outgassing etc. from the
tank doesn't affect whatever it is people are doing in the
space station.
  (3) When you're ready to head out, you fuel
up at the depot, and head for the moon.  The first stage is
an orbital transfer vehicle called ELI (Earth-Lunar
Injection Vehicle), the second stage gets you into lunar
orbit and back, and is called the t-ship.  It carries four,
plus cargo.  (The rest of what you need waits in lunar
orbit).  ELI thrusts at about one g for about 5 minutes.
It is basically a Centaur, or something very much like it.
reconfigured with an aerobraking shell and adaptors to dock
with the t-ship.  It
coasts for about three days en route to the moon.  ELI
seperates off, whips around the moon in the familiar
Apollo-8 figure-eight (interesting numerical coincidence there)
returns to Earth.  It zips through the atmosphere at
11 km/sec, shedding excess energy like mad, possibly making
several passes, and eventually makes a small orbital
correction burn to rendezvous with the space station to
ferry the next passengers.
  (4) The t-ship, also using a Centaur engine or derivitive,
fires its Lunar Orbit Insertion motor to put you into Lunar
orbit, with a burn of about a minute and a half at one g (like
all my burns).  Here you rendezvous with the surface "ferry
shuttle".
  (5) The people waiting to go to Earth get off the
ferry, and you get on.  You fuel the ferry shuttle up with
the Hydrogen you brought along for it.  It already has
oxygen, in fact it has oxygen to  give to the t-ship.  You
then make a de-orbit burn (leaving the transfer ship in
orbit) and, 18 or so minutes later, a landing burn.
  (6) You pop the Champagne.  You're on the moon at last.
  (7) Before leaving, at the surface you fill the ferry shuttle's tanks
with LO2.  Then you take off, and rendezvous with the next
transfer ship in orbit.  You pump the t-ship's tanks full,
and wave bye-bye.
  (8) The t-ship's Lunar Orbit Insertion
motor has mysteriously been renamed the Trans Earth
Injection Motor.  (actually it
was probably called a LOI/TEIM all along).  You fire it
(another burn of about a minute and a half), and leave Lunar
orbit for the trip back home, three or four days.
  (9) At Earth, you do the aerobraking trick to slow your 11 km/sec
down to orbital velocity, then make a correction burn to rendezvous
with the space station.  If there is no lunar base, the
difference is that between missions the ferry shuttle waits
in lunar orbit, and does not keep LO2 on board while
waiting--you have to bring it from home (it would all
evaporate if you tried to store it for long periods between
missions.  Unless, maybe, the ferry had a parasol like the
one in earth orbit.)  Also, the orbit is quite a bit higher
(orbits around the moon tend to decay due to the
perturbation of the earth.)

                              --Geoffrey A. Landis

------------------------------

Date: 7 Feb 86 01:56:10 GMT
From: decwrl!pyramid!ut-sally!seismo!cmcl2!lanl!jp@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (James Potter)
Subject: Re: Uranus's axis
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>I know that Uranus's axis of rotation is tilted ~90 degrees from the
>normal, perpendicular-to-ecliptic axis.  This means that the axis
>lies in the plane of the ecliptic, but which way does it point?  
>Does it point at the sun, or is it tangent to the orbit, or some
>angle in between?
The answer to the last question is:  Yes.

------------------------------

Date: 6 Feb 86 17:53:22 GMT
From: decvax!linus!philabs!cmcl2!lanl!jlg@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Jim Giles)
Subject: Re: What's story behind Kennedy/Canavral
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <188@gt-oscar.UUCP> is15bbe@gt-oscar.UUCP (GT1295B  MCCORMICK) writes:
>What's the story behind the name changes at the Cape?  Wasn't it
>originally Cape Canavral(sp?) then Kennedy then back?
>
>I understand why the changed it to Kennedy, but why back?
It was changes back because most residents (and many other people - me
included) DIDN'T understand why it was ever renamed Cape Kennedy.  Kennedy
wasn't the space program's only (or even main) political supporter.  He
was just unfortunate enough to be assassinated in office.  The change
of the name to Cape Kennedy is much the same (in a bigger way) as the
proposed change of this newsgroup name to net.challenger.
J. Giles
Los Alamos

------------------------------

Date: 7 Feb 86 06:51:24 GMT
From: ucdavis!deneb!u553691091ea@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Tim Underwood)
Subject: Re: Uranus's axis
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> I know that Uranus's axis of rotation is tilted ~90 degrees from the
> normal, perpendicular-to-ecliptic axis.  This means that the axis
> lies in the plane of the ecliptic, but which way does it point?  
> Does it point at the sun, or is it tangent to the orbit, or some
> angle in between?
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> John Oswalt (..!{hplabs,amd,pyramid,ihnp4}!pesnta!valid!jao)
*
 
Uranus' pole points towards the earth/sun at this time.  In about 44 years ( I think it's orbital period is about 176 years) 
, it's pole will point tangent to it's orbit (i.e. it's pole, like ours, points towards some point in space reguardless of it's position in it's orbit). In 88 years Uranus' other pole will point towards the earth. 
As an extra, What is the Ulysses probe? Will it also go to Jupiter?
                                             Tim Underwood
                                             University of California, Davis
                                             Astronomy Club
:wq
 
.
 
A
A
** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***

------------------------------

Date: 6 Feb 86 19:03:20 GMT
From: decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!aplcen!jhunix!ins_bjab@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Jessica A Browner)
Subject: NASA summer jobs
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

   Sorry, I missed the original posting.  Can someone please
   repost it?
   Thanks in advance.
                                                   Jessica    :-)

------------------------------

To: Space-Incoming@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Re: replacing a human crew with automatic pilots
Cc: cb@mitre-bedford.arpa
In-Reply-To: Your message of Wed, 12 Feb 86 08:43:10 PST.
	     <8602121643.AA22131@s1-b.arpa>
Date: 12 Feb 86 13:22:10 EST (Wed)
From: Christopher Byrnes <cb@mitre-bedford.arpa>

  I have a question about the argument for/against replacing a human
shuttle flight crew with automatic pilots.  Several people have argued
that the risk (of life) and expense (of human-rated flight vehicles)
of manned spacecraft do not justify their use in the "simple" delivery
of satellites into orbit and other functions.  Current and near-term
technology is suppose to exist to replace human crews.

  I've also read that the latest generation of commercial aircraft
have automated navigation systems which are so good that the onboard
computers can practically fly the aircraft from airport to airport.
If this is true, why don't some airlines eliminate the flight crews
and use fully automated airplanes?  A significant amount of airline
traffic is freight-only (all those package express companies, etc.),
so the market exists right now.  Passengers may not wish to risk
themselves in a pilotless airplane, but a package won't mind.  Those
package express companies must spend a fortune (and in a highly
competitive industry) on their flight crews and the associated
benefits.  Extra insurance to cover the occasional mistake would be
offset by lower labor costs.

  I suspect the answer is that even the best automated pilot cannot
handle the exceptional situation which might occur in any sort of
flight.  So many things can go wrong so fast that an automatic pilot is no
substitute for a trained human.  Everybody remembers the airline
disasters that the pilots couldn't prevent.  Does everyone remember
the pilots who landed their plane in Cincinnati (saving half the
passengers) despite the interior being in flames, or the pilots who
made a dead-stick landing of a 767 on a racetrack in Canada after the
fuel ran out, or the Eastern pilots who restarted the engines (after
losing oil pressure) shortly before crashing into the Atlantic?

  Several people have pointed out that there may be no way of escaping
or saving a shuttle while the SRB's are still burning.  Suppose NASA's
next accident occurs about 6 minutes into the flight with a billion
dollar payload such as the Hubble Space Telescope in the payload pay?
If a Saturn V (or Ariane 5) class vehicle suffers a loss of power due
to engine failure, your payload winds up in the Atlantic.  With a
shuttle, they might make it to Rota Spain.  Naturally you want a space
transportation system which doesn't fail.  With the growing number of
big-ticket items to be sent into space in the coming decades, the only
alternative to perfection is a system which fails "soft."

(standard disclaimer)			Christopher Byrnes

					cb@Mitre-Bedford.ARPA
					...decvax!linus!bccvax!cb.UUCP

------------------------------

Date:           Wed, 12 Feb 86 10:32:30 PST
From: "Niket K. Patwardhan" <bilbo.niket@locus.ucla.edu>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Subject:        Re: SPACE Digest V6 #109
In-Reply-To:    Message of Tue, 11 Feb 86 19:12:32 PST
                    from "Ted Anderson <ota@s1-b.arpa>"
                    <8602120312.AA19894@s1-b.arpa>

To the person collecting opinions for Congress.

I don't see any reason why private ventures who want to spend their money to
buy a shuttle shouldn't be permitted to do so. As long as NASA had some
shuttles it owned itself, they couldn't really do any damage, (even financially)
since they would have to charge enough to make a profit, while NASA does
not have to. If the extra production lowered the price a great deal, that
would be a benefit to everybody, and NASA can recover some more costs via
royalties. In addition, we would not be in this ridiculous situation where
because of budget limitations, the loss of ONE vehicle is sseriously
threatening the national security. If one of those companies goes under
because their assumptions about the launch market was unjustified, NASA could
turn into a shark and acquiire a shuttle at bargain basement prices.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #134
*******************


0,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA15432; Wed, 19 Feb 86 03:01:16 PST
	id AA15432; Wed, 19 Feb 86 03:01:16 PST
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 86 03:01:16 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8602191101.AA15432@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #135

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 135

Today's Topics:
			 Re: Shuttle Ditching
       Refuting once again the "clean up Earth first" argument
	  Re:  Contribution to 'scuttle the Shuttle' debate.
		       Re: Debris search query
		       Re: unanswered questions
			 VAFB Shuttle Update
----------------------------------------------------------------------

To: ac%mit-oz@mc.lcs.mit.edu
Cc: space@mc.lcs.mit.edu
Reply-To: hester@ICSE.UCI.EDU
Subject: Re: Shuttle Ditching
In-Reply-To: Your message of Mon, 3 Feb 86 16:45 EST.
Date: 12 Feb 86 10:27:14 PST (Wed)
From: Jim Hester <hester@icse.uci.edu>

Re time to abort: if the ground crew decides it should be done, they
could do it themselves, while (perhaps) simultaneously advising the
shuttle commander (he should be able to figure it out for himself
pretty quickly, though).  I'm not advocating stepping on his toes this
way, but it is one possibility that could save a lot of the delays you
mentioned.  As for the physical problems of getting the shuttle far
enough away to survive the explosion, that seems a more difficult
problem.  One thing to remember is that the shuttle is traveling with a
fair speed relative to the air around it so it's manuevering flaps
would have a reasonable effect.  Assuming part of the abort program is
to set everything the shuttle has on traveling "up" (relative to the
shuttle; i.e., away from the booster), I would expect the shuttle to
seperate quickly (recall, the separation speed is is better than
linear, since the shuttle will continue to deviate it's course away).
I don't know if it is good enough in this case, but consider that a bit
academic.  The point is, the shuttle should be ready for the fastest
ditch it can make within the engineering and cost constraints it has.
We cannot predict the time needed to escape in future mishaps; we can
only be ready for the shortest time we can handle.  Saying "It would
have worked" or "it would not have worked" on this particular emergency
is certainly of interest, but we must remember that a conclusion of "it
would not have worked" on this mission is no reason to not prepare for
it in the future.

Re time needed after seperation for shuttle to attain aerodynamic
trajectory:  Same point: The shuttle already has velocity relative to
the air around it, so the fact that it is "upside down" relative to the
Earth is not major.  As long as it is travelling "forward" through the
air it can manuever, and thus can roll to orient with the earth.  I
would expect an abort operation to entail: Everything on the shuttle
automatically set to make the shuttle go "up" relative to itself, to
get away from the booster fastest.  At some point, the shuttle will be
traveling roughly perpendicular to the booster, parallel to Earth's
surface, and upside-down relative to Earth.  If it has enough velocity
left, it can roll and end up gliding.  If not, it can continue turning
"up", or, towards the Earth in a dive to get back enough speed to roll
and begin a glide.  The altitude of ditching does not seem so important
to me as the velocity when ditching (of course, they are directly
related).  Also remember that, while ditching, the shuttle will
continue to gain altitude until it is traveling parallel to the
surface.  I'm not a pilot, but everything I've heard leads me to
believe that the good ones don't care much what their orientation is
relative to Earth, as long as they have control of their ship, which is
dependant only on working controls and instruments, and forward motion
relative to the air around them.  Of course, the shuttle is no stunt
plane, but then the pilot is presumably one of the best.

There is always a time early enough in the liftoff where the shuttle
would stall before being able to get into a controled dive, but I
suspect this case was not in that category: the shuttle was moving
relatively fast.

As an afterthought, if the shuttle is equiped with a less efficient
passenger ejection system, all the abort needs to do is get the shuttle
away from the bomb to give time for the passengers to get out of the
shuttle before it crashes.  I have my doubts about this one, but it
might be worth looking into if they determine that the shuttle can't be
safely landed after an abort.

Again, I am neither an engineer nor a pilot, but I would not rule out
the possibility of mechanically quick aborts, and I tend to think that
the shuttle could usually be adequately handled in the case of an
abort, unless it was quite early in the liftoff.  I am by no means sure
of any of this, I am answering more because I am disturbed that you
conclude the opposite on the basis of speculations and opinions which
appear to be no better informed than mine, nor more complete.  Neither
of us has given arguments anywhere near conclusive, so why don't we
just continue to point out this-and-that pro and con and leave asserting
final conclusions to those who think they are qualified?

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 12 Feb 86 11:26:44 PST
X-Date-Last-Edited: 1986 February 12 11:21:53 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM@mc.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ames!eugene@riacs.arpa
Cc: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Refuting once again the "clean up Earth first" argument
Sender: REM%IMSSS@su-score.arpa (for undeliverable-mail notifications)
Reply-To: REM%IMSSS@SU-SCORE.ARPA

E> Date: Fri, 7 Feb 86 13:37:53 pst
E> From: <ames!eugene@RIACS.ARPA>
E> We must be the meek and at the same time we are travelling thru the
E> stars.  If we cannot take care of our home, our spaceship thru
E> the stars, it's not clear to me that we can take care of any spaceship.

We *are* taking care of our Earth more or less. We aren't perfect, but
we haven't yet totally destroyed it, and we are working on limiting
damage to Earth despite our population increasing to such an extent
that we soon will be the single species with more biomass than any
other. We are trying to avoid creating an ecological disaster
comparable to what the first oxygen-emitting photosynthetic bacteria
created a few billion years ago. -- But some insist that we be
perfect, that we totally cease adversely affecting the environment,
before we leave home to develop resources in space to augment our
feeble resources (energy and minerals) on Earth. By that argument,
since in my one-room apartment I am unable yet to clean some stains
I've somehow created in the kitchen I should never leave the apartment
to go to work or to buy groceries at the supermarket, I should instead
sit in my apartment working hard on cleaning up those stains with the
means at my disposal within my apartment, starving to death because I
haven't proven I can take absolutely-perfect care of my apartment thus
have no right to go out and pollute the rest of the world. If I
adopted that policy I'd die of starvation within a short portion of my
nomal lifespan (measured in weeks) due to running out of food.
Likewise if the human race stays on Earth it'll go extinct within a
short portion of its normal evolutionary span (measured in tens of
years) due to running out of energy and room to live causing desperate
people to try harder to kill each other so they themselves can live,
using chemical/biological warfare and thermonuclear explosives.

------------------------------

Posted-Date: Wed 12 Feb 1986 13:06:28 EST
Date: Wed 12 Feb 1986 13:06:28 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Re:  Contribution to 'scuttle the Shuttle' debate.
To: Rick McGeer <mcgeer%ji@ucbvax.berkeley.edu>
In-Reply-To: mcgeer%ji's message of Wed, 5 Feb 86 10:30:56 PST
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa

> 1.  SPSs.  Not even Gold will argue that SPSs won't be important within 20
> years.  Now most feasible SPS designs call for solar panels on the order of
> kilometers across; you aren't going to ship that up in one shot.

I'm sure he would argue that.  Gold has a radical hypothesis that huge
amounts of abiogenic methane are trapped deep in the earth, and believes
there may be huge amounts of geopressured methane in the deep crust.  If
true, this would mean fossil fuels could supply us with energy for
generations.  Also, the NAS study of an earth-launched SPS concluded
that it wouldn't be competitive with more conventional power sources,
even if launch costs from earth are reduced by orders of magnitude and
cheap, lightweight, efficient GaAs solar cells can be developed.  Face
it, no one is going to build SPS unless it promises *much* lower cost
energy: it's just too risky.  A cheap SPS needs cheap extraterrestrial
material, which means an automated or remote controlled lunar mine.

> 2.  The Space Station.  All right, Gold and Van Allen probably think it's a
> boondoggle, but as a platform for launching planetary probes it can't be
> beaten. 

I suggest that empty space would make just as good a launching platform.
The only sorts of manipulations you would reasonably perform on a probe in
orbit are things like mating together prefab modules and fuel tanks or
loading fuel (chemical or nuclear); that could be done just as well without
a space station.

> Further, I don't know of any geologist who would be prepared to
> argue that he could learn more from a series of unmanned probes in LEO than
> a fully-equipped lab manned by geologists in LEO.

But could we learn more from 8 billion dollars worth of unmanned
scientific instruments in LEO, or from a few hundred million $ in
instruments attached to an $8 billion space station?  It's not obvious
that the much greater expense of the space station buys you much.

>  Hence we should
> expect that the Space Station and SPSs will be constructed primarily by
> humans; and that in turn means we need to send more shuttles up now.

Rick, I think you're being selectively myopic in your projections of
future technology.  By 25 years from now computers should have as many
bits of RAM as the human brain has synapses (assuming costs continue
to go down by a factor of 4 every 3 years or even somewhat slower).
Logic chips should be housing 10**8's of transistors.  If ESA thinks
teleoperators can be made now then what will the situation be when
computing power is 100 to 1000 times (or more) cheaper?  Building an
SPS in space from earth launched material needs launchers to LEO
at around $10/lb, and even then it's just competitive with earth-based
power supplies.  I don't know anyone predicting we'll have launchers
this cheap in 25 years.  The only reasonable scheme for exploiting
lunar resources I've seen needs teleoperators on the moon, otherwise
the system requires far too much mass to be imported from earth.

Your argument seems to be: there's a lot that should be done in space
RIGHT NOW, and there's no time to develop teleoperators.  The
counterargument is that there's little that can be reasonably (read:
ecomonically) done in space right now, or even soon (until somewhat
cheaper launchers are developed), and any big project in space will
be very expensive, so why not use some of the funds to develop
teleoperators?

------------------------------

Date: 7 Feb 86 08:45:10 GMT
From: amdcad!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!mangoe@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Charley Wingate)
Subject: Re: Debris search query
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Will Martin writes:
>In several newscasts earlier this week or over the weekend, I heard
>repeated mention that divers and a submersible were trying to get a
>look at and retrieve a "large piece of debris which might be the
>crew compartment of the shuttle" (paraphrased). Since then, I have heard
>no followups, explanations, or retractions about this. Does anybody
>have the actual facts about this part of the search? Was there really
>a large piece of debris on the ocean floor in that location, and what
>was it? And has it been retrieved? Or was it just more of the content-less
>blathering to fill airtime that we have seen so much of?
I vote for blathering.  I don't recall NASA ever claiming anything about the
supposed find.  It seemed to me that the cabin part was supplied by the
media as pure speculation.  Since NASA has apparently not recovered the
object, I would guess that it turned out to be some other sort of object.
Then again, I could be wrong.
C. Wingate

------------------------------

Date: 7 Feb 86 08:37:27 GMT
From: amdcad!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!mangoe@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Charley Wingate)
Subject: Re: unanswered questions
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

I think that NASA is completely justified in restricting the information
that is being released.  Regardless of the value of speculation on the net
(a subject that I will return to in a minute), the fact is that the media
seem no more responsible and have the ability to cause whomever they single
out  to be damaged greatly.  The apparent implication of the right SRB, for
instance, could be played up in the media so as to injure the Thiokol
division very badly (fortunately we are subsidizing them with table salt),
when it is quite possible that mishandling of the assembled booster by NASA
people could be the culprit.  Conversely, media criticism of NASA could be
devastating.  The media love to second-guess, and to put public officials in
the position of having to defend themselves against whatever charge the
media dig up, regardless of the merit of either.  Even so lofty a paper as
the NYT has been cranking out a lot of misinformation.
As far as I am concerned, NASA should clam a lid on everything until they
have a solid report to make.
As for net speculation:  after reading Eugene Miya's long missive, I am
convinced that the speculation level needs to come down.  There is too much
misinformation being injected into the net, and given that, there's the
equal likelyhood of net speculation being back-converted into wild rumors.
For my part, I am going to refrain from further discussion of the accident
itself.
C. Wingate

------------------------------

From: mike@acc.arpa
Date: 12 Feb 86 14:04:00 PST
Subject: VAFB Shuttle Update
To: "space-incoming" <space-incoming@s1-b.arpa>
Reply-To: <mike@acc.arpa>



The Air Force announced yesterday that it had completed hot flow fuel line 
testing at Vandenberg. The on-going shuttle investigation notwithstanding,
the Air Force is proceeding with preparations for a 15 July launch. The
obvious problem here is that the Orbiter is at the Cape. 

Of particular interest was the press  releases detailed description
of the next phase of testing to occurr at VAFB. It consists of 
stacking  the eight SRB modules on the pad, and twnaging them like
guitar strings, in order to measure the frequency and movement of the
SRB's, (apparently simulating launch stresses). The article explained that 
since the Orbiters main engines fired several seconds before the SRB's
there is not only structural stress transmitted thru to the SRB's, but
the entire vehicle gets shoved several inches in toward the gantry. The 
measurements they are taking get plugged into a math model which will
tell them exactly when and how to fire the SRB's to compensate. 

This discussion of SRB's brings up several interesting and bery pertinent
questions, in light of the explosion and subsequent reports concerning 
the buracracy involved with the SRB/Shuttle decisions.

First, the SRB's that are at VAFB have never flown before. In fact, they are
of a very different design than those flying out of Florida. These
new SRB's are made of a wound resin casing, as opposed to the metallic casings
of the suspect SRB's.

The questions:

1. Why the decision for new SRB's? One reason given was the weight savings; 
   critical because of the Polar orbits to be acheived out of VAFB. But 
   increased payload ratings would have been positive for any flight.

2.  These new SRB's have been at VAFB for at least several (3-4) month's.
   With the documentary evidence of problems with the metallic cased SRB's,
   and with these new SRB's available, why haven't they flown yet?

3.  One final comment, with space flight in general, so very expensive
   wouldn't disposable SRB's represent simplay, an incremental cost
   that was rather insignificant?

4.  As always, hindsight remains 20/20, but if there is any truth to 
    some of the reports/insinuations that are coming out of this incident
    investigation, there would appear to be several, looming
    issues facing some people.


Mike Kane (mike@acc.arpa)

------

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #135
*******************


0,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA16726; Wed, 19 Feb 86 07:02:26 PST
	id AA16726; Wed, 19 Feb 86 07:02:26 PST
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 86 07:02:26 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8602191502.AA16726@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #136

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 136

Today's Topics:
	       DOE revives space-based nuclear reactor
	  Re:  Contribution to 'scuttle the Shuttle' debate.
		  Re: Space Shuttle Children's Fund
		  Re: Space Shuttle Children's Fund
			  The British HTOL.
		       The ESA Olysses Project.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 12 Feb 86 15:19 PST
From: Dave Platt <Dave-Platt%LADC@cisl-service-multics.arpa>
To: Space <Space@s1-b.arpa>
Subject: DOE revives space-based nuclear reactor
Randomness: Any given program, when running correctly, is obsolete.


1,,
From "Research and Development" magazine, 2/86, page 60...

*** EOOH ***
From "Research and Development" magazine, 2/86, page 60...

  "The Department of Energy has revived a program to develop a compact,
   space-based nuclear reactor and has selected the Hanford National
   Laboratory, Richland, WA as the contractor.

   A program to design and build a space-based reactor was begun in
   the 1950s but was dropped in the 1970s.

   The new plans call for development of a 300-kW power reactor by
   1991.  DOE said that the reactor, which could be used for a
   variety of space applications including weapons and radar for the
   Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) program, would be a liquid-
   metal cooled fast-reactor design...

   ... It has been estimated that, with a 6-MW nuclear power
   generating plant on a spacecraft, a five-person crew could travel
   to Mars in about 600 days, stay for 30 days, and return to Earth
   in about 270 days.  Such a reactor would be some 20 times larger
   than the planned 300-kW system.

   Hanford will receive about $300 million from the Federal
   government for the 300-kW project, DOE stated."

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 12 Feb 86 20:02:31 PST
From: mcgeer%ji@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Rick McGeer)
To: dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa, mcgeer@ji.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re:  Contribution to 'scuttle the Shuttle' debate.
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa

	Foo, I must be getting old.  Can't explain my position.

(1) It wasn't NSA, it was OTA, that did the SPS study, and it showed that
SPS would breakeven in 25 years.

(2) I had heard that story about Gold, but I'd hesitated to mention it:
it seemed to much like ad hominem criticism "Gold is the nut that thinks
that the earth's a large methane ball..."

(3) I would be very surprised if we could get 10^8 transistors on a (~)
1 cm x 1 cm chip.  At 1 micron cmos, we can get about 5E5; to get to
1E8, we'd need to go to about 10 nanometer feature size, with appropriate
scaling on things like well size.   At that point, quantum effects start
to really screw you.

(4) AI hasn't done appreciably better in the decade 1975-85, which saw
a hundredfold increase in logic chip densities.  Why do you think that's
going to change?

(5) Manipulators aren't that light.  I'm not at all sure that
human + life-support + fail-safe is all that much heavier than even a dumb
teleoperator.

(6) My argument isn't that there's a lot that needs doing in space RIGHT NOW.
My argument is that there's a lot waiting for us in space, and there will be
more in the future.  For that future, we SHOULD develop teleoperators of
the sort you've mentioned, and of the sort of I've mentioned in messages to
you.  We should also work, hard, on reducing costs to orbit: I agree that
that's the primary task.  We should also develop an manned infrastructure in
space so that we'll be able to do those things I've mentioned, whether the
teleoperators are here or not.

(7) You know and I know that we can't spend $8G/year on unmanned probes,
rocket or rail gun research, or robotics research.  There aren't enough
researchers or projects to demand that kind of an effort.  Hence the question
is, do we get more for $8G of manned spaceflight or a much smaller amount
of spending on other research?  I think the answer is clear.

(8) Your argument and Gold's is based on a false premise, anyway: namely, that
there's some choice between manned and unmanned programs.  There isn't.
NASA will spend $8G in FY 87.  The entire US Gov't will spend $1T that year.
You, Gold, and all the other advocates of unmanned space and related research
could be made happy for an extra $2G, I'm sure.  Now, even in the era of
Gramm-Rudman, I cannot believe that NASA is worth less than 1% of the US
budget.  Instead of arguing that NASA wastes money on manned spaceflight,
you should be arguing that the other projects deserve more.  If you need
examples of Federal waste on a scale sufficient to fund the unmanned program,
I can certainly help you.  I've got a little list...they never will be missed.

						-- Rick.

------------------------------

Date: 7 Feb 86 03:56:13 GMT
From: decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!barmar@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Barry Margolin)
Organization: MIT, Cambridge, MA
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle Children's Fund
References: <221@hadron.UUCP>, <325@lifia.UUCP>, <505@eneevax.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <505@eneevax.UUCP> hsu@eneevax.UUCP (Dave Hsu) writes:
>The shape of our `Social Budget' is completely irrelevant to the creation of a
>fund for the families of deceased astronauts.  They sacrificed their private
>lives just to pursue the common dream of all mankind to explore; in the end
>they parted with much more than their privacy and it just so happens that some
>of us who remain earthbound feel the need to thank the unseen families behind
>our most visible heroes.
>
>Perhaps you are unfamiliar with such things, Monsieur Ingrand, but here in the
>United States we like to take care of our own.
Hmm, did we create such a trust fund for the families of deceased
draftees in the Viet Nam War?  Or how about the families of Americans
killed by terrorists, who were used as unwitting representatives of the
US.  At least the astronauts died admirably, pursuing their dreams, and
they were aware that there were such risks.
Yes, I was horrified at the disaster.  However, I am bothered by the
fact that the entire country seems to think this is the worst disaster
in history.  Most airline disasters kill more people, and victims of
such accidents generally did not expect trouble, yet we do not agonize
over them.  I do not mean to sound unfeeling, I just wish to be
realistic about this.
-- 
    Barry Margolin
    ARPA: barmar@MIT-Multics
    UUCP: ..!genrad!mit-eddie!barmar

------------------------------

Date: 6 Feb 86 08:31:30 GMT
From: decwrl!pyramid!ut-sally!seismo!rlgvax!hadron!jsdy@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Joseph S. D. Yao)
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle Children's Fund
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <325@lifia.UUCP> felix@lifia.UUCP (Francois Felix INGRAND) writes:
>In article <221@hadron.UUCP> klr@hadron.UUCP writes:
>>	A trust fund has been established ...
>Is the Social Budget of USA so poor that American people must create a fund
>for the astronauts' children? 
No, Francois.  The hearts of some Americans are so large, that they
wish to do so.  This is a voluntary trust:  unlike Social Security
and taxes, no one need contribute who does not wish to.  Assez bien?
-- 
	Joe Yao		hadron!jsdy@seismo.{CSS.GOV,ARPA,UUCP}

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 13 Feb 86 13:34:14 cet
To: SPACE-INCOMING@s1-b.arpa
From: WMORTENS%ESTEC.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: The British HTOL.

From: Uffe K. Mortensen, ESA  ( The European Space Agency )
To: Space-incoming s1-b . Arpa
Subject: Re: The British Orbital Vehicle.

Yes it is true that a British Orbital vehicle is being discussed at the moment.

The idea exists since 3 years now, and is called HTOL ( Horisontal Take Off
and Landing ). The driver behind the project is British Aerospace, and the
project has yet to find National and European (ESA) support. The design
proposed is much like the US X-planes, i.e. a 6 mach plane equipped with
special design engines and rocket motors.

The idea was put forward after the discussions on the french project HERMES
had started, ist roumered, that British Aerospace was afraid of loosing
terrain, confronted with the National French acceptance and support of the
HERMES project.

The HERMES design has more similarities with the shuttle, except that HERMES
is much smaller ( no joy rides ! ) and the thermal protection is based on
completely different materials. Another difference is that HERMES will be
mounted on top of the Ariane launcher in stead of next to it.
The is to provide an escape capability is case of booster failure.

                       -- Uffe.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 13 Feb 86 13:37:05 cet
To: SPACE-INCOMING@s1-b.arpa
From: WMORTENS%ESTEC.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: The ESA Olysses Project.

From: Uffe K. Mortensen,ESA (The European Space Agency)

Someone here asked what the Olysses project was, I do not remember who, but
since I have worked in the project for years, I would like to tell the
story :

The Olysses project was originally called ISPM ( The International Solar
Polar Mission ). The plan was to send two spacecrafts, one US/NASA and
one European/ESA, to explore both poles of the sun simultaneously. As only
15 degr around equator of the sun is explored and existing theories of the
suns physics does not fit with measuements, this project has high priority
amongst scientists.

Negotiations with NASA was successfully completed, except that one year
delay had to be included on the ESA side, in order to accommodate some
US budgetary constraints. At that time developments were too far for one
years delay, instead ESA accepted the extra cost due to 'storage' of
spacecraft and project team during one year after the end of spacecraft
development.

So far so good. BUT then came a new president in the US (Carter). Budget
cuts in scientific programs ( due to shuttle budget overruns ? ), made
NASA drop ISPM. Since only one spacecraft would have less than half the
scientific value of the complete ISPM, intense European discussions
followed. The conclusion was to continue : In ESA scienctists estimated
that even only one spacecraft would lead to sufficiently valuable results.
The continued effort was now renamed to OLYSSES, since it was not an
international mission any more. It was however too late to avoid the
one year storage period and associated costs.

In January this year Olysses was then finally taken out of store, the project
team re-assembled and prepraration for shuttle launch in may has been going
on since then. The loss of the Challenger will as you all know, will
inhibit the planned launch.

The orbit of Olysses is a sling-around Jupiter, in order to get out of the
ecliptic, back over the pole of the sun. This leads to a launch window of
about 10 days per year. I.e. next chance for launch will be in one years
time. BUT Olysses also needs the Centaur, and with the loss of the Challenger,
only one Centaur is left. Consequently next years launch window might be
overruled by the Space Telescope launch, priorities being discussed at the
moment. This could cause another 2 years delay added to the initial imposed
one year delay. Manufacturers of mechanisms on Olysses doubt that certain
mechanisms on board will survive all this.

Another consequence of the orbit, is the thermo-nuclear reactor, which
provides power in stead of solar panels. Speculations have started on
wether the RTG ( the nuclear reactor on Olysses ) would have survived
a explosion like with the Challenger flight. The concern is due to
the 11 kg of pure Plutonium contained in the reactor ( do not panic, the
critical mass of this Plutonium isotope is 12.8 kg ). The environmental
effects, if the Shuttle would have exploded in May and broken the RTG,
are not difficult to imagine. The RTG has been extensively tested in order
to ensure integrity in case of launcher failure, but at that time none
had envisaged such violent explosions as seen with the Challenger.

           -- Uffe.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #136
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA20237; Wed, 19 Feb 86 19:01:18 PST
	id AA20237; Wed, 19 Feb 86 19:01:18 PST
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 86 19:01:18 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8602200301.AA20237@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #137

*** EOOH ***
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 86 19:01:18 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #137

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 137

Today's Topics:
		       Re: Scuttle the Shuttle?
			  The Lost Payloads
	     Re: Shuttle Ditching - gliding upside down.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 7 Feb 86 08:05:33 GMT
From: amdcad!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!mangoe@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Charley Wingate)
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Subject: Re: Scuttle the Shuttle?
References: <8602061514.AA06010@s1-b.arpa>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>>  But there are a lot of
>> things that it can do quite well that no current or previous space
>> transportation system could even aspire to do.
>Name one that justifies the cost of the shuttle system (vague
>references to philosophical principles not allowed).  And no ranting
>against bean-counters, either.
The one thing that justifies the shuttle is its ability to rendezvous with
objects in orbit and reload, repair, and retrieve them.  Even if we could
launch the Hubble 'scope off of some unmanned vehicle, we would still need
to go back into orbit to refuel and repair it.  The recovery of the two
failed communications satellites will help to hold down the costs of furhter
insurance, as well as helping to relieve the clutter in orbit.
>>  The real question is not whether the shuttle is advancing
>> the exploitation of space (obviously it is) but whether it is doing
>> so more effectively and economically than the alternatives.  I wait
>> to see your proposed alternatives.
>It's not obvious to me that the shuttle is advancing the exploitation of
>space.  It's not making the launching of unmanned satellites any
>cheaper.  It's not a cheap enough launcher to make space manufacturing
>economical.  It has been (and is) soaking up money that could be spent on
>other more worthwhile endeavors:
>  - Development of cheaper launchers
>  - Unmanned probes to look for easily accessible extraterrestrial
>    resources (Earth co-orbital asteroids, lunar polar ice deposits)
>  - Development of space qualified teleoperator systems
I don't buy these "soaking up" arguments.  For one thing, we would have had
to allocate money to build some unmanned rendezvous/recovery device, thus
severely restricting the funds available.  For another, there are so many
much larger projects which are much more effective "sponges"  (e.g., MX,
space station, SDI).
>>  As far as I know nobody
>> has had any success in space operations using "robots and teleoperated
>> manipulators." .I will put the ball back in your court; you are making a
>> positive assertion here, that these things can be done.  Do you have one
>> shred of evidence to back this up?
>Are not ALL the planetary probes robots?  And is not the shuttle arm
>a teleoperator?  It doesn't matter that the person controlling it is in
>the shuttle cabin or on the ground (except for a small speed-of-light
>delay).  NASA is planning an remote controlled orbital maneuvering
>vehicle for low orbit retrieval tasks and (I think) a remote controlled
>orbital transfer vehicle.  Teleoperated submarines are being used in
>the oil industry today, and have been used to manipulate radioactive
>substances for years.  The technology drivers for teleoperated systems
>(sensor technology, electronics, communications) are developing
>explosively, while the technology driver for manned space presence
>(cheap launch systems) is developing slowly.
As numerous people have pointed out, the speed-of-light delay into orbit is
NOT trivial except in very low orbits.  As for existing teleoperators, none
of them provides the kind of action that direct human manipulation provides.
The shuttle arm, for example, is limited to quite gross motion, to the point
where it has become common shuttle practice to put a person at the end of
the arm in order to do the real manipulating.
As I understand it, the device which is supposed to provide remote
operations from the shuttle is primarily designed for retrieval.
Considering the difficulties encountered on shuttle flights, I'm not
convinced that we can make even that restricted a device.
As for our current exploration satellites, only Viking and the Surveyor
crafts have had anything resembling real manipulators, and these were very
simple.  The jamming of Voyager's camera platform is certainly evidence that
it would is useful to have someone with a wrench to go out and fix things.
>The shuttle does have one advantage currently: it can launch much larger
>payloads in one piece than expendable rockets.  I doubt, however, that
>the loss rate would change significantly with no humans on board, given
>sufficiently sophisticated remote control.  Leaving people out might improve
>the economics of the shuttle (although I'm told the major weight is
>in the wings and airframe).
Well, since there haven't been any electrical failures before deployment of
shuttle payloads, it's unclear whether the people are actually useful in
this respect.  THe presence of people on board is a strong incentive towards
increased reliability, and is probably responsible for the success of so
many previous flights.
>>   Even if it were possible it would mean abandoning:
>>-- All repair operations in earth orbit
>>   (e.g. Landsat, Solar Max, and many more).
>>-- All recovery operations in earth orbit 
>>   (e.g. the Long Duration Exposure Facility).
>>-- All servicing operations in earth orbit.
>>   (e.g. inspection and maintenance of Hubble Telescope)
>>-- All human-directed experimentation and observation in earth orbit.
>>   (e.g. many biology, manufacturing, physics experiments)
>>-- All experimation and study of humans in earth orbit.
>>   (e.g. studies of human response to weightlessness, human efficiency
>>   in weightlessness) 
>>-- All plans for possible space station construction.
>Let me address these one at a time:
>(1) Satellite repair.  This is a sparse market (for STS).  If
>satellites are designed properly there's no reason why one couldn't do
>it with teleoperators (as will have to be done in geosynchronous orbit
>anyway, where most satellites are).  The economics of satellite repair
>are dubious when the satellite has to be relaunched (as those two
>comsats with failed boosters will have to be).
We can't repair anything on earth with teleoperators.  When we can, it will
be time to plan on doing it in orbit.  It is not true that geosynchronous
satellite will have to be repaired in position; they can be brought to lower
orbits, repaired, and then re-positioned.  As for re-launching, I fail to
see how it bears on the matter.  If you are going to launch a new satellite
instead, the only costs that matter are those of retrieval and repair versus
construction-- the cost of launching is the same.
>(2) Recovery operations in earth orbit.  LDEF was deployed and will be
>recovered with the shuttle arm -- a teleoperator!
Yes, but a shuttle-like vehicle is needed to bring it back to earth, whether
it is manned or not.
>(3) Servicing in earth orbit.  There appears to be no good reason why
>you couldn't service a properly designed space telescope (say) by remote
>control.  I believe a teleoperator with the proper appendages (screw
>drivers, grippers, refueling attachments, etc.) could be more efficient than
>a person in a bulky spacesuit.  Servicing in geosynchronous orbit will
>require teleoperators.
We can't do it on earth now, so while this is obviously a field for
research, it doesn't represent technology we can deploy now.  Also, under
the current scheme, an astronaut can bring a balky piece into the cabin,
where he can take off the bulky spacesuit; for a teleoperator, a failure of
that sort means bringing the thing home, and thus a relaunching.
>(4) Human-directed experimentation.  I said spacelab had produced some
>good science.  I heard on the news the other night, however, that preparing
>a science payload for the shuttle is five times (!) more expensive than
>for an unmanned launcher.  And it's seriously debatable whether it's worth
>the cost.  It certainly won't lead to space based manufacturing on any
>worthwhile scale until launch costs are reduced dramatically.
The 5 times number is highly suspect.  Most scientific payloads designed for
the smaller vehicles are comparatively simple- AMPTE doesn't begin to
compare with the complexity of HUT or Galileo.  The only truly *comparable*
payloads put into orbit are communications satellites; the shuttle-based
scientific payloads are so much more complex than what has been launched
before that I suspect the only way such a number could have been arrived at
was to compare raw costs, thus rewarding older projects for their simplicity.
No manufacturing process has ever been developed in modern times without
prototyping and pilot plants.  These are always expensive anyway, so there's
no reason to assume that the current high costs will inevitably persist.
The presistent interest in such projects suggests that there is in fact a
lot of promise; and if conventional vehicles were adequate for the task,
they would be used.
>(5) Experimentation and study of humans in orbit.  This should be a
>means to an end, not an end in itself, and if human presence is
>deemphasized in the near term there's no reason to do this now.
Sure there is.  The knowledge we gain in the near term is the basis for
whatever we choose to do in the long term, and thus provides the basis for
more efficient investigation and design in the future.
>(6) Space station construction.  Yes, I believe teleoperators COULD do
>this, and besides, it makes no sense to build a space station until
>launch costs are reduced to the point that humans make more sense in
>space.
Teleoperators can't do it now, though, and won't be able to for quite some
time.  I think that there are other good reasons for not building a space
station, but this is not one of them.
>I too believe in the use of space; I want my grandchildren to be born
>in space.  I just think the shuttle is a waste of effort and is not
>moving us towards worthwhile long term goals in space.
There are two questions here: do we need a shuttle-like vehicle, and does it
need to be manned?  The answer to the first is unequivocally yes; it is the
only way we have of getting large arbitrary objects in and out of orbit, and
it is the only way we will have for quite some years.  I think that the
answer to the second is also yes, and I will try to summarize the responses
I have given earlier.  First, a vehicle like the shuttle is basically a
space station which we do not need to maintain in space for long periods,
and which also provides launching and retrieval to earth.  In this capacity
it is useful to take humans if only because they can do space station
activities while the vehicle does whatever else it needs to do-- that is the
rationale behind spacelab.  Second, we do not have teleoperators that can
perform anything other than moving objects from one location to another.
There is no such object which can disassemble an automobile engine, and there
won't be one for a while.  That means that if we want to do repairs and the
like in orbit, we have to take people with us for the present.  Forgoing
this means forgetting things like the Hubble 'scope; and why build
expendable observatories when they can be repaired and modified to last for
many years?
We should begin designing the next vehicle.  And we should continue to use
the one we have now, with men aboard.
C. Wingate

------------------------------

Date: 7 Feb 86 19:33:37 GMT
From: amdcad!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!mangoe@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Charley Wingate)
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Subject: The Lost Payloads
References: <661@tekigm.UUCP>, <998@psivax.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <998@psivax.UUCP> friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) writes:
>>I  have  a question  concerning the Challenger's last  payload. I
>>have heard from an uncertain source that the Hubble telescope was
>>aboard. Is this true? If so, why no mention of this great loss?
>	False, it did have the only device the US was sending up to
>view Halley's Comet though. So that is the end of *that*.
Actually, I don't think that's true either.  What was lost was some sort of
UV 'scope.  The Hopkins Ultraviolet Telescope (known also as HUT-- it is
accompanied by T-shirts showing a certain Star Wars character lounging in
the cargo bay) was, if I remember this correctly, not scheduled to fly until
March, when *it* would look at Halley (among other things).  I don't think
it wat the payload that was lost.  In any case, it cannot be adapted to fly
in anything but the shuttle, so it goes on the shelf for a while.
C. Wingate

------------------------------

Date: 7 Feb 86 20:52:40 GMT
From: amdcad!amdahl!ems@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (ems)
Organization: Circle C Shellfish Ranch, Shores-of-the-Pacific, Ca
Subject: Re: Shuttle Ditching - gliding upside down.
References: <8602032227.AA10998@s1-b.arpa>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <8602032227.AA10998@s1-b.arpa>, acourt@BBN-VAX.ARPA ("Anthony J. Courtemanche") writes:
>
(... long discussion of time delays in abort sequence omitted ...)
> Now, even if all the above could be done in time and the Shuttle remain
> intact, could the Shuttle obtain an aerodynamic trajectory before
> hitting the ocean?
I am not sure what you mean by 'aerodynamic trajectory'.  At mach 3 (the
speed I have seen mentioned on the net) you *are* flying. It doesn't
matter much which way you are pointed with respect to the ground,
only that the pointy end is facing into the mach 3 relative wind.
>                      I don't remember the altitude that the Shuttle was
> at when the explosion happened, but the Shuttle was on it's back and
> this is not a graceful way to start gliding.
As I remember it, the altitude was given as about 9 miles.
As per graceful way to glide; see above comment about pointy end...
The craft will take some gees in doing a turn/loop/whatever to get
the bottom side pointed at the earth, but that doesn't matter much.
One may also loose some altitude in doing this, but in an abort from
an acending rocket package, this might be a good thing.  Remember
that the orbiter would be starting with an initial trajectory that
has a considerable upward component and very high speed.
>                                             Also, correct me if I'm
> wrong, but I don't think that any sort of engines are available to help
> re-orient the orbiter during the abort (could the de-orbit engines be used?).
> Hence, only the control surfaces on the Shuttle could be used to
> establish a gliding (as opposed to plummeting) trajectory.
At mach anything (or even sub-mach down to a few hundred mph ) the
control surfaces should supply plenty of control force.  I am
somewhat unsure what you mean by 'plummeting'.  The Websters says
that this is to fall straight downward, but since the shuttle is
going up, fast, this would not happen during an abort.  The orbiter
would glide (upward?) while performing some manuever to get away from
the tank and srb's; eventually establishing an attitude suitable
for getting the farthest with the minimum loss of altitude.
(other attitudes might be useful, but I would expect first order
of business to be preserving the energy at hand and directing it
toward home...)
> 
> To me, it seems doubtful that an abort could have succeeded in saving
> the lives of 7 astronauts or the orbiter.
>
It seems that way to me, also; but mostly due to timing limitations.
-- 
E. Michael Smith  ...!{hplabs,ihnp4,amd,nsc}!amdahl!ems
This is the obligatory disclaimer of everything.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #137
*******************


0,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA21066; Wed, 19 Feb 86 23:03:09 PST
	id AA21066; Wed, 19 Feb 86 23:03:09 PST
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 86 23:03:09 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8602200703.AA21066@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #138

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 138

Today's Topics:
	  Re:  Contribution to 'scuttle the Shuttle' debate.
			  Re: Uranus's axis
		       Re: Television coverage
			      Re: SRB's
		       Re: SRB Telemetry Clues
		       Re: SRB Telemetry Clues
		  Re: Space Shuttle Children's Fund
			    Re:  loncrete
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted-Date: Thu 13 Feb 1986 07:29:06 EST
Date: Thu 13 Feb 1986 07:29:06 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Re:  Contribution to 'scuttle the Shuttle' debate.
To: Rick McGeer <mcgeer%ji@ucbvax.berkeley.edu>
In-Reply-To: Rick McGeer's message of Wed, 12 Feb 86 20:02:31 PST
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa

>(1) It wasn't NSA, it was OTA, that did the SPS study, and it showed that
>SPS would breakeven in 25 years.

I believe it was NAS (not NSA) that did the study.  Even under very
favorable assumptions (low interest rates, $10/lb to orbit launchers)
SPS was only just competitive.  NASA has no plan at all to make a $10/lb
to orbit launcher anytime soon (certainly not in 25 years).  Was that
breakeven point the PAYBACK time on the construction costs?

>(2) I had heard that story about Gold, but I'd hesitated to mention it:
>it seemed to much like ad hominem criticism "Gold is the nut that thinks
>that the earth's a large methane ball..."

The theory is certainly controversial, but that doesn't mean it's
wrong (do not take this as an endorsement of the theory).  See the
Feb. 86 issue of The Atlantic magazine for a (biased) review of Gold's
ideas.  Wrong or not, because of this (and because of the generally
poor reputation of SPS in the non-rabid-space-fan community) Gold
would, I think, disagree that SPS will be important in 20 years.

>(3) I would be very surprised if we could get 10^8 transistors on a (~)
>1 cm x 1 cm chip.  At 1 micron cmos, we can get about 5E5; to get to
>1E8, we'd need to go to about 10 nanometer feature size, with appropriate
>scaling on things like well size.   At that point, quantum effects start
>to really screw you.

The Japanese think they can push DRAM technology to at least 64 megabits
per chip, using smaller feature sizes, trenched capacitors and vertical
cells, and other tricks.  A review article on semiconductor trends in
Science a few years ago predicted a quarter billion transistors on a
chip by the end of the century.  That's less than 25 years away, so I'm
being conservative.

>(4) AI hasn't done appreciably better in the decade 1975-85, which saw
>a hundredfold increase in logic chip densities.  Why do you think that's
>going to change?

Where did I mention AI?

>(5) Manipulators aren't that light.  I'm not at all sure that
>human + life-support + fail-safe is all that much heavier than even a dumb
>teleoperator.

The arms are fairly light, and can be built of graphite composites (say)
for space applications.  In space the arms need not support large static
loads, giving further weight savings.  How much does the shuttle arm
weigh, for example?  I think you really must provide some justification
on this one.

>My argument is that there's a lot waiting for us in space, and there will be
>more in the future.  For that future, we SHOULD develop teleoperators of
>the sort you've mentioned, and of the sort of I've mentioned in messages to
>you.  We should also work, hard, on reducing costs to orbit: I agree that
>that's the primary task.  We should also develop an manned infrastructure in
>space so that we'll be able to do those things I've mentioned, whether the
>teleoperators are here or not.

In a world of unlimited resources, we could do this.  Resources are
restricted, we have to focus on the critical paths.  Putting men in
space now is not, in my opinion, on the critical path.

>  Hence the question
>is, do we get more for $8G of manned spaceflight or a much smaller amount
>of spending on other research?  I think the answer is clear.

What you mean "research"?  Money spent on manned spaceflight is (now)
operating costs, and doesn't produce much in the way of new scientific
or technical information.

>Your argument and Gold's is based on a false premise, anyway: namely, that
>there's some choice between manned and unmanned programs.

I'll remember that as I watch the TV pictures coming back from the NASA
Halley probe (whether such probes have been well directed is also
a good question; complex probes to the outer planets are probably not
needed for space exploitation anytime soon).

I don't believe in throwing money at space.  I believe in spending money
to achieve good solutions to well thought-out goals.  I don't think a
space station fits this description.  Research and development of
teleoperators would.

------------------------------

Date: 7 Feb 86 23:32:02 GMT
From: decwrl!pyramid!hplabsb!bl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Bruce T. Lowerre)
Organization: Hewlett Packard Labs, Palo Alto CA
Subject: Re: Uranus's axis
References: <111@valid.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> I know that Uranus's axis of rotation is tilted ~90 degrees from the
> normal, perpendicular-to-ecliptic axis.  This means that the axis
> lies in the plane of the ecliptic, but which way does it point?  
> Does it point at the sun, or is it tangent to the orbit, or some
> angle in between?
At what time of Uranus's year are you interested in?  During the
summer in the northern hemisphere, the north pole points towards
the sun.  During the winter, it points away from the sun.

------------------------------

Date: 7 Feb 86 21:18:16 GMT
From: amdcad!amdahl!ems@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (ems)
Organization: Circle C Shellfish Ranch, Shores-of-the-Pacific, Ca
Subject: Re: Television coverage
References: <11627@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, <15019@rochester.UUCP>, <192@sivax.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> You are forgetting one thing.  It was the callous news networks that were
> responsible for showing the crowd's bemoaning the loss of the shuttle over and
> over and over and over ......, not NASA.  At first it was news and then it was
> a money maker for the networks.  This is just another case of irresponsible
> journalism exercised so ofter by the American news media.  I am ashamed of them.
>
I don't agree.  I was one of many who heard about the shuttle
on the radio while at work.  I was *VERY* glad the news was repeated
so that I could see it *ONCE* when I got home.  While I think the
invasion of privacy for the family was not good, I do think that
the networks did the right thing is showing the film of the shuttle
exploding 'over and over and over'.  Not all of us can spend the time
to watch it over and over, but we sure can appreciate having it
available at the time we can see it.
-- 
E. Michael Smith  ...!{hplabs,ihnp4,amd,nsc}!amdahl!ems
This is the obligatory disclaimer of everything.

------------------------------

Date: 7 Feb 86 16:36:49 GMT
From: decwrl!pyramid!ut-sally!seismo!rochester!ray@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Ray Frank)
Organization: U. of Rochester, CS Dept.
Subject: Re: SRB's
References: <8602020240.AA04749@s1-b.arpa>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> Just heard they are saying that it WAS a burn through of the left SRB, and
> that it can be seen from  other camera angles.
> 
> Can anyone explain why on earth the thing didn't go tumbling madly
> after seperating? How there was no apparent sign of flame from the side of
> the SRB after seperating?
> 
I think the reason the SRB didn't spin off madly was due to the relatively small
thrust of 4% coming out the side versus the 96% coming out the engine.  I did
notice one of the SRBs slowly turning, but I don't think 4% could cause it to
spin wildly.  It should be easy to calculate the trajectory of an object with
a ratio of 24 to 1 rear thrust versus side thrust.  
ray

------------------------------

Date: 7 Feb 86 17:59:53 GMT
From: decwrl!pyramid!ut-sally!seismo!cmcl2!lanl!jlg@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Jim Giles)
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Subject: Re: SRB Telemetry Clues
References: <8602011714.AA03500@s1-b.arpa>, <440@tekred.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <440@tekred.UUCP> joels@tekred.UUCP (Joel Swank) writes:
>   The SRBs cannot be jettisoned before burn is complete, and burn cannot
>be stopped. One astronaut was quoted as saying: "If the SRBs fail, it's
>just curtains."
All the reports I've heard say that the SRBs and the ET *CAN* be seperated
before the burn is complete.  It's just a matter of throwing a switch and
pushing a button (arm and fire I would guess).  The only problem is, no one
knows whether the Shuttle can survive the trip through the SRB exhaust
plumes or whether the ET may fold up under the change of stress.  Trying
to seperate early might cause the same kind of explosion as they were
trying to avoid.  These, at any rate are the facts according to the Shuttle
test pilot interviewed by CBS.
J. Giles
Los Alamos

------------------------------

Date: 7 Feb 86 16:22:18 GMT
From: decwrl!pyramid!ut-sally!seismo!rochester!ray@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Ray Frank)
Organization: U. of Rochester, CS Dept.
Subject: Re: SRB Telemetry Clues
References: <8602011714.AA03500@s1-b.arpa>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> 
> Does anyone know if the shuttle was in a position to return to Kennedy,
> or did it already have too much lateral velocity to glide back on its
> own?  Also, how close is the oxygen line to the right SRB?  If it runs
> down the right side of the ET this could be considered a serious design
> error (similarly for the range safety charges).
  According to a NASA spokesman, there is virtually no chance of successfully
aborting the mission until the SRBs have used up their fuel and are jettisoned.
  NASA has no viable abort plans for the shuttle until the SRBs have been
normally jettisoned.  Until this point in the liftoff, the shuttle is too low
to return to Kennedy and would have to ditch in the Atlantic at a speed of
220 mph +.  At this speed, NASA believes the shuttle would break up on impact
and sink rapidly.  NASA also believes it is unlikely the shuttle would escape
serious damage from the exhausts of the SRBs as it jettisoned them while they
were still functioning at full power.
 
  I'm not sure of this, but several days ago I thought I read where NASA had
bits of debri from one of the SRBs that showed the exploding bolts had not
been activated indicating no attempt by the crew to jettison the SRBs.
Has anyone heard any more on this?  An earlier posting surmised the reason   
the SRBs escaped the explosion intact was because they were jettisoned by
the crew moments before the explosion.
ray

------------------------------

Date: 7 Feb 86 21:43:40 GMT
From: amdcad!amdahl!ems@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (ems)
Organization: Circle C Shellfish Ranch, Shores-of-the-Pacific, Ca
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle Children's Fund
References: <221@hadron.UUCP>, <325@lifia.UUCP>, <328@lifia.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <328@lifia.UUCP>, felix@lifia.UUCP (Francois Felix INGRAND) writes:
> 
> First my question was serious, I do not know very well the american Social
> System but I feel very sorry too, to think that you have to make a fund to help
> these childrens.
We don't really have a single 'Social System'.  It is more like a
collection of interacting systems.  Insurance is one system (usually
privately funded, but often not).  Government aid is another.  Public
funds are yet another.  These all tend to work without any coordination
between them.  Often this means that their actions are either redundant
or lacking.  In the case of astronauts, since their profession has
high risks, private insurance companies would be unwilling to take
on those risks without very high payments.  I think that NASA provides
the 'insurance' that the families would normally be able to purchase.
(If someone knows, they may want to explain how this really works.)
The comments that "the children don't need the money" imply that
there are some form of benefits available to them.
The forming of a fund is, as often as not, for the expression of
the sympathies of the donors.
> 
(...)
> Third, Do you really think that it is money that these childrens need?
> Do you really think that sympathy can only be Dollars. Excuse me but I
> feel sorry for you, to see that the only think that you can do for them is to
> make a Fund. I understand that we can make a fund like AFRICA AID, of "LES
> RESTAURANTS DU COEUR" in France. But here, is it the best solution? I doubt.
There is little else that most folks can do.  I may be on the other side
of the continent from them, and I may not be able to contact them,
and they might not want to be contacted by several million strangers,
but I can show my concern by a donation to a fund.  Cash is the
universal medium, the children can convert it into whatever form
of monument they desire.
> 
> I apologize for my poor English, and my response would be more precise if it
> was written in french.
>
I would like to encourage you to post in your native language.  I
would have benefitted from (trying) to read it.  Prehaps a bi-lingual
standard could be addopted:  The English version first, as it is the
customary language of the net, and the native language following.
It would be helpful both as a reference for clarification, and for
practice for those of us who are in need of practice for our
French (or other language of your choice..)
(Not to mention furthering the ideal of a multi-lingual and
multi-cultural net/world)
-- 
E. Michael Smith  ...!{hplabs,ihnp4,amd,nsc}!amdahl!ems
This is the obligatory disclaimer of everything.

------------------------------

Date: 7 Feb 86 17:48:05 GMT
From: decwrl!pyramid!ut-sally!seismo!cmcl2!lanl!jlg@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Jim Giles)
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Subject: Re:  loncrete
References: <8602031911.AA16591@ji.berkeley.edu>, <6361@utzoo.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <6361@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
>> Can someone please explain to me why we can't go to the moon before the
>> year 2000? ... we did it in seven years despite a major tragedy that stopped
>> the program for a year.  Now.  The engineering is done.  The Apollo/Saturn
>> design is proven technology.  Granted the production lines have to be re-tooled
>> to do it, I still can't undertand why we can't go to the Moon again in five
>> years.  Anybody?
>
>Because the engineering was done, but is now GONE.  We could not build a
>Saturn V today:  all the specialized tooling is gone, and so are most of
>the detailed plans and specifications.  We could build something that would
>look a lot like a Saturn V, but the imitation would not be accurate enough
>that we could trust lives to the old calculations and test results... so
>we'd have to start almost from scratch.
Why build another Saturn V at all?  Put a Lunar Lander and Lunar Orbiter
into the Space Shuttle cargo bay.  Next flight - bring up a trans lunar
booster.  Now dock the things together and go to the moon.  This stuff
probably wouldn't even fill the whole cargo bay - even if it were roomier
and more comfortable (and could stay on station longer) than the original
Apollo stuff.
We could go to the moon again in much less than five years if it were
an important project that got fully funded.  And the project would be
safer as well.  We may have discarded all the original designs, but the
engineering techniques were kept and have been further refined since
the sixties.  We could not build a Wright Flier today either, but who
would want to except as a historical exercise?  We could build something
that would look a lot like a Wright Flier, but he imitation would not
be accurate enough that we could fool an aviation historian - it would
be safer, with modern materials, more subtile and efficient airfoil, etc..
Of course, we could do a lot better by starting from scratch.
J. Giles
Los Alamos

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #138
*******************


0,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA22036; Thu, 20 Feb 86 03:01:31 PST
	id AA22036; Thu, 20 Feb 86 03:01:31 PST
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 86 03:01:31 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8602201101.AA22036@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #139

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 139

Today's Topics:
		       Space Shuttle Financing
			 Re: SRB burn through
			   Re: Why we care
	     Why does everyone want to leave this planet?
		  Location of Apollo landing sites?
		       Re: Television coverage
	    Re: Television coverage (Canadian free press)
		       Re: Television coverage
		       Re: SDI and NASA budgets
		     Re: RE: Naming Uranian Moons
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Thu, 13 Feb 86 08:59 EST
From: Steve Dourson - Delco <dourson%gmr.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa
Cc: dourson%gmr.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
Subject:  Space Shuttle Financing

Miles Fidelman suggests in V6 #108 that a public stock corporation be
formed to finance and purchase a shuttle and lease it to paying customers.

I have two clippings here dated February 6, 1986, one from USA TODAY and
one from the Dayton, OH JOURNAL HERALD, which describe an offer by
Astrotech International to provide NASA with $1.2 - 1.5 billion for the
construction of a replacement shuttle.  Astrotech would own the shuttle
and lease it to NASA.

In one article, NASA's William R. Graham (acting administrator) was
quoted as saying only, "We're not excluding any possibility".

Astrotech has been negotiating with NASA to become a private (i.e.,
non-government) shuttle owner since 1984.

A venture like this would be an attactive alternative for persons wishing
to support the shuttle program who do not like the idea of their private
donations becoming part of NASA's "general fund".  (Jon Leech pointed
out that one may not earmark donations to NASA for any specific program.)

Stephen Dourson
February 13, 1986

------------------------------

Date: 7 Feb 86 22:18:33 GMT
From: nbires!boulder!cisden!lmc@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Lyle McElhaney)
Organization: ConTel Information Systems, Denver
Subject: Re: SRB burn through
References: <2916@ut-ngp.UUCP>, <156@ucdavis.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>    Question: Do the SRB's stay with the same shuttle all the time?
>  Obviously they are interchangeable since the ET is always
>  different.  It would seem a waste to have two for every
>  shuttle, but with redundancy and quick turn around times 
>  always high on NASA's list it would not surprise me.
>  Does anyone know the history of the Challenger's SRB casings?
No they don't. The casings are broken down upon return into (I believe) 11
segemnts and shipped to Thiokol in Utah for refurb/reload. It is possible
(probable) that segments are reused in order received at the cape. Having
worked with NASA on a non-human rated program, I would be surprised in the
extreme if there were not a thick paper trail following each and every
segment (as well as all other parts) everywhere but on the mission itself.
I'm sure that they are documented to the point that the weight of the
paper may well equal the weight of the segment (only slightly facetious
there).
Lyle McElhaney
...hao!cisden!lmc

------------------------------

Date: 7 Feb 86 22:10:32 GMT
From: nbires!boulder!cisden!lmc@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Lyle McElhaney)
Organization: ConTel Information Systems, Denver
Subject: Re: Why we care
References: <130@ttidcc.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>                There's  no question it was the main tank that blew.  In one
> frame you can distinctly see the  start  of  the  major  explosion  at  the
> forward  tip  of  the tank.  This was preceded by flames at the rear of the
> tank and one or two minor explosions near the center between the  tank  and
> the Shuttle.
> 
With reference to the posting I made about 20 minutes ago about blaming
various subsystems on the shuttle, well....there it is. Obviously, if
something goes badly wrong on the stack, eventually the lox and lh are
going to go up; its hard to image an accident that wouldn't involve the
tank. Was it then the tank's fault (or that of its designers/builders)?
> The Shuttle was doing Mach 3 at the time and the main tank is very fragile.
> Even  a  minor  compromise  of  its  integrity  at  that  speed would allow
> aerodynamic forces to tear it to shreds. [Personal speculation:  The  minor
> explosion  blew  a  hole in the side of the tank which allowed external air
> pressure to collapse the nose.]
I beg to differ. The tank is holding the stack together; It is
transmitting the 3,000,000 lb thrust of the SRBs to carry both itself and
the orbiter through its structure. The maximum aerodynamic force on the
tank is at Mach 1; at that point the main engines on the orbiter were at
65% thrust, and even more than at any other time, the tank was "carrying"
the orbiter. Not only max-Q was involved at that point, but also max
structural loading on the tank. And it made it. And continued to make it
until something else happened. It is *not* a fragile structure. True, it
is engineered close to its margins; it is huge, and any increase in skin
thickness, for example, would have a decided disadvantage in its weight.
The paint job that was left off the ET alone resulted in 400 lbs of
savings. But to point the finger there on the basis of the released
footage is irresponsible.
Lyle McElhney
...hao!cisden!lmc

------------------------------

Date: 13 Feb 86 22:45:25 GMT
From: nike!im4u!ut-sally!ut-ngp!cgeiger@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Charles S. Geiger, Esq.)
Organization: UTexas Computation Center, Austin, Texas
Subject: Why does everyone want to leave this planet?
References: <158@axiom.UUCP>, <932@nmtvax.UUCP>, <1993@orca.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Well, why?  While I am very interested in astronomy and all that
sort of thing, I don't understand why anyone would want to
permanently migrate to another planet.  There's just so much *here*
to see and learn, certainly enough to last a lifetime!  Most
importantly, this is our home.
Frankly, I hope all of you gung-ho types will get the opportunity
to leave and will take advantage of it.  That way all the
exploiters, conquerors, or, to be charitable, "adventurous" types
(what's so unadventurous about staying here and learning about your
own planet?) will leave, and I can be at peace here.
cheers, from
charles s. geiger
just a wage slave
u. of texas

------------------------------

Date: 14 Feb 86 04:31:48 GMT
From: nike!im4u!bradley@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (David K. Bradley)
Organization: U. Texas CS Dept., Austin, Texas
Subject: Location of Apollo landing sites?
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

I'm looking for the location of all the Apollo landing sites.  Although
lattitudes and longitudes would be nice, they're not really necessary for
my requirements and I'll take what I can get.  I have access to a very
good library that has many NASA publications (two card catalog drawers
full!) so the name of any appropriate documents that would be helpful too.  
Thanks in advance.
-- 
David Bradley
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
David K. Bradley,  UUCP:  {ihnp4,seismo,harvard,gatech}!ut-sally!im4u!bradley
ARPA Internet and CSNET:  bradley@im4u.UTEXAS.EDU
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 7 Feb 86 18:42:41 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!watnot!watdcsu!demo@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (COURSE USE [DCS])
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Subject: Re: Television coverage
References: <11627@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, <15019@rochester.UUCP>, <192@sivax.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa
   
 It Pains me to see a supposedly educated person classify the canadian press
as being in the same catagory as the Soviet official news agency.  If our 
press doesn't seem to report as many murders and rapes as your oh so 
illustrious country's maybe its because we dont have as many of the acts
and not due to some mythical censorship. As far as I can tell (and I have lived in various parts of this country for my entire life) there is no censorship
imposed upon the press of Canada except their own conciences. We rarely get
to see the tears of a victims family as they are buried , gee what a loss
I think I will move to the good ol' US of A tomorrow. Next time do us all a
favor and either limit your distribuion to the US or think before placing 
your foot so firmly in your throat .             
                               Richard Attenborough
bix:rattenborough
Disclaimer: The University of Waterloo doesn't have anything to do with
            my opinions (neither do little green men)

------------------------------

Date: 7 Feb 86 21:44:06 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!credmond@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Chris Redmond)
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Subject: Re: Television coverage (Canadian free press)
References: <15019@rochester.UUCP>, <192@sivax.UUCP>, <2078@watdcsu.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <2078@watdcsu.UUCP> demo@watdcsu.UUCP writes:
> As far as I can tell (and I have lived in various parts of this country for my entire life) there is no censorship
>imposed upon the press of Canada except their own conciences. We rarely get
>to see the tears of a victims family as they are buried , gee what a loss
>I think I will move to the good ol' US of A tomorrow. Next time do us all a
>favor and either limit your distribuion to the US or think before placing 
>your foot so firmly in your throat .             
>
No, I'm glad the original comment (equating the Canadian media with those
in the USSR) was posted here.  It gives us a chance to correct it. Some
Americans are so ignorant about Canada that we need every chance we can
get to tell them what really goes on!  (Apologies to the many Americans
who realize  that the world has a few free countries besides their own,
and that not all free countries are clones of theirs.)

------------------------------

Date: 7 Feb 86 18:23:06 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!watnot!jjboritz@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Jim Boritz)
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Subject: Re: Television coverage
References: <11627@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, <15019@rochester.UUCP>, <192@sivax.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> Please explain WHY you think that showing the crowd at the launch was an
> example of "irresponsible" journalism, and please explain what it is about
> the reportage of unfortunate events that makes the news media "callous".
> And, if I may be permitted to get my digs in, it is thinking of people
> who hold your views that would prefer that TV and the press suppress 
> information at their discretion, and only show us, perhaps, what the 
> government would like us to see? Why don't you go to Canada or the
> Soviet Union if you'd like to have your information controlled. 

I would really like to know where you get off even implying that there is 
less control of the news in your "free" country than there is in Canada.
I do not see why television news has to show someone getting their head blown
off, or someone jumping off a building.  It does not make the fact any more
real.  If I remember correctly, one of the most horrifying things on "U.S."
television was when a man doused himself with lighter fluid or gasoline and
then proceeded to light himself on fire.  All this while the cameras were
rolling.  To top it off the cameras just kept on rolling while he burnt.
No one tried to stop him and no one tried to put the flames out.   
This is an excellent example of what jounalism has become in the US.  It
is not journalism.  It is sensationalism. It is not news to watch someone die.
It is horrible.  What it does produce is ratings.  Human beings love to watch
other human beings suffer.  It does not say very much for our civilization 
does it.  Let's stop all this ambulance chasing and just report the news.
 
By the way, you must be extremely naive if you think that journalism is not
controlled to some extent in the US, or anywhere else in the world.
 
Q: If 10,000 UFO's flew over Buffalo, which ones would be reported?
 
A: The ones that were on fire.
"Time it was and what a time it was..." - Paul Simon Bookends
 
Jim Boritz @ watnot

------------------------------

Date:  Fri, 14 Feb 86 09:03 CST
From: Slocum@hi-multics.arpa
Subject:  Re: SDI and NASA budgets
To: mcgrath%mit-oz@mc.lcs.mit.edu
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa
In-Reply-To:  Message of 13 Feb 86 22:48 CST from "Jim McGrath"

Unfortunately, there is a fallacy that money for SDI is going towards
space development.  Most of the money goes into research into high
energy physics, such as the nuclear-pumped X-ray laser, the neutral
particle beam, the charged particle beam, etc.  As far as I know, very
little if any is going into space oriented design, except for such
things as orbiting mirrors to bounce lasers.  One area that is sorely
lacking in the SDI budget is software, which I thinkis is going to be
the most important.  What good is a high powered laser that can't hit
anything because the computer is down?

BTW, I never said that money that doesn't go to SDI would go to NASA.  I
said "Wouldn't it be nice if ...".

    Brett Slocum
    (Slocum@HI-MULTICS.ARPA)

------------------------------

Date: 8 Feb 86 16:42:10 GMT
From: ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtgzy!ecl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (e.c.leeper)
Organization: AT&T Information Systems Labs, Middletown NJ
Subject: Re: RE: Naming Uranian Moons
References: <8602051830.AA00883@s1-b.arpa>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>                                        Naming a crater on the moon is a nice
> idea, but we aren't going to have a moonbase in mine or my grandchildren's 
> lifetime.  It's a nice idea, but who is going to fund it.
Someone who was 20 years old when the Wright Brothers first flew could have
flown around the world.  Her children could have flown in the Concorde.  Her
grandchildren could go to the moon.  Don't sell progress short.
P.S.  Lots of people thought airplanes were a fad and not practical either.
					Evelyn C. Leeper
					...ihnp4!mtgzz!ecl
					(or ihnp4!mtgzy!ecl)

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #139
*******************


0,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA23050; Thu, 20 Feb 86 07:01:09 PST
	id AA23050; Thu, 20 Feb 86 07:01:09 PST
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 86 07:01:09 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8602201501.AA23050@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #140

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 140

Today's Topics:
		    Re: Scuttle the Space Program?
			  Re: Halley's Comet
			   Laser Launching
	  Re: Long Term Implications of Challenger Accident
		  Books, publications on meteorites
			 SDI and NASA budgets
			      Comet Ride
			Re: The Lost Payloads
			  Re: Uranus's axis
			   Re:  Comet Ride
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 9 Feb 86 04:10:48 GMT
From: unmvax!nmtvax!fine@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Andrew J Fine)
Organization: New Mexico Tech, Socorro
Subject: Re: Scuttle the Space Program?
References: <661@tekigm.UUCP>, <158@axiom.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Let's ask ourselves a few questions:
******************************************************************************
Does humanity (men and women) really *need* to populate space?  Do we really
need to explore, in person or otherwise, other planets?  Historically, 
exploration and open boundaries only encouraged exploitation, slavery, and
genocide of indigenous peoples such as African, American Natives, and 
East Asians.  It widened the gap between the rich and the poor at home, and
the massive funds spent on ships and weapons in that previous era caused
more people to starve.  It also increased the likelyhood of the lawless being
able to escape justice, for example Botany Bay and the HMS Bounty.
So what do we buy with $2 billion dollars? One shuttle, good for 100 missions
(best case) with 7 people each. Or enough food, clean water, and other
necesssities to feed Ethiopia for the next ten decades, easily.
So what do space-faring nations prove when they invoke national prestige and
the desire of humanity to expand, by consuming all that money and 
men-centuries? "I'm rich enough to do this and you're not, so there!". 
"My rocket is bigger than yours!". "We are leaving you behind to scratch the
dust while we inherit the universe!"  One man's glory is another man's
humiliation.  One man's wealth is another man's poverty. One man's livelihood
is another man's serfdom.
Why have satellites and information systems at all, except to invade the 
privacy and keep records on a captive populace? Why have land and weather
satellites at all, except to take advantage of another nation's resources
and vulnerabilities?
Why explore the planets, interesting though they are, except to find
more virgin landscape to despoil and riches to plunder?  Why put a man, or a
women for that matter, in space?  What is so special about anyone that we
must exhalt that person above all others in such an eletist fashion? Why
shouldn't that person be put to a task that serves the world rather than that
person's ego?
The main problem with all of us is we are still essentially barbarians at
heart.  The Viking who was the explorer was also the Viking that also raped
and pillaged.  The Columbus who was the explorer was also the Columbus who
converted people to his religion by force.  The shuttle pilot who was the
explorer was also the pilot who killed husbands, wives, and children in
North Korea and North Vietnam.  The wanderlust we all experience is just
another word for the lust and coveting for the outside world that blinds
us to the potentials of the inside world and the darkness of the soul that
we need to correct.  Do we really deserve to go "out there" when we have
such a mess "down here"?
Earth is enough for us, if we have the will to cooperate, to transcend the
bigotries that confound us, the borders that seperate us, to dare to have
peace instead of waging war, to share what we have as far as we can give it
without anyone having to pay for it ( the concept of having to work for one's
bread is deadly when there is not enough work to go around ), to recognize
that the most humble peasant in Mexico or India is worth more to us than
the President of the US or the Queen of England.
If humanity can simply change from mere descendants of carnivorous apes to
something totally gentle, altrustic, and noble, then Earth will be enough.
We only try to escape the Earth because we try to escape our own natures.
*****************************************************************************
I, personally, am in full support of the Shuttle, the Space Program, and
the exploration and exploition of space, and it's eventual population by
humanity. BUT NOBODY HAS EVER ASKED US THESE QUESTIONS, NOBODY HAS EVER
CHALLENGED US TO QUESTION OURSELVES! We need to be able to answer them,
especially if those who have not, question the motives of us, those who have.
Somehow, net.space would benefit from a really in-depth discussion of our
justifications of our actions in space and thier consequences.
Andrew Jonathan Fine.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 14 Feb 86 09:53:56 PST
From: mcgeer%ji@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Rick McGeer)
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa,
        sun!idi!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Halley's Comet

[>..!ucbvax!hplabs!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm]
>If the number of the Fixt Stars were more than
>finite, the whole superficies of their apparent
>Sphere [i.e. the sky] would be luminous.*  
>	Edmund Halley, 1720, "Of the infinity of the
>	sphere of fix'd stars" and "Of the number,
>	order, and light of the fix'd stars"
>*By today's reasoning the same temperature as the
>surface of the average star; this is known today as
>Olber's paradox, or the paradox of P. L. de Cheseaux
>(1744) and Henrich Wilhelm Matthias Olbers (1826).  

Of course, the solution to the above paradox is that the universe expands, and
hence the light from the furthest galaxies is redshifted, asymptotically to
invisibility, and hence the total illumination of the sky is finite.

						-- Rick.

------------------------------

Date: Fri 14 Feb 86 11:03:16-PST
From: Jim McGrath <J.JPM@[36.21.0.13]>
Subject: Laser Launching
To: space@mc.lcs.mit.edu
Reply-To: mcgrath%mit-oz@mit-mc.arpa

    From: shawn@acc.arpa
    While most of the talk of SDI is mostly over my head, I've also
    been reading the messages about "laser powered" space flight.  In
    space flight, a laser is used to push a space ship from earth.  In
    SDI a laser is bounced off of an object that is amed elsewhere.
    OK, so will the laser push the mirror out of its position with
    each recoil and if so, would that push be directed by the angle of
    the reflected shot?

This is not the problem you think it is.  While any such mirror (which
is not an essential part of SDI by the way) would experience
acceleration due to the light pressure of a laser (much like a light
sail), the acceleration would be VERY low and controllable.

The confusion is due to a misconception of how the proposed laser
launch (earth to LEO) system would work.  The payload would not be
"pushed" up by the light pressure of the laser.  Rather the laser
would strike the interior of a shaped chamber and heat mass in that
chamber.  The mass would then be expelled out the back, just as in a
conventional rocket.  The savings is due to two factors.  First, while
in the atmosphere the mass ejected could simply be heated air (the
ramjet principle), which is cost free.  Second, the power plant
(laser) is back on earth, and you do not have to rely upon the (very
low) energies provided by chemical fuels.

The problems with this approach are threefold.  First, you need
powerful lasers.  Second, you need a good tracking system.  Third, you
have to design the chamber right.  The first two will be helped
greatly by SDI research, the last less so.


Jim
-------

------------------------------

Date: 10 Feb 86 00:56:03 GMT
From: decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!cmcl2!lanl!jlg@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Jim Giles)
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Subject: Re: Long Term Implications of Challenger Accident
References: <731@astrovax.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <731@astrovax.UUCP> elt@astrovax.UUCP (Ed Turner) writes:
... The European discovery, exploration,
>and eventual occupation of the New World began in Columbus's time and owed
>nothing the the much earlier, abortive Norse/Viking efforts.  ...
>
>Ed Turner
Read your history again.  Columbus made several visits to Norway, Denmark,
etc., before he began to seek funding for a westward venture to Asia.  It
is thought by some historians that this is where Columbus came by the idea.
He certainly used the Norse histories to bolster his own claims.
J Giles
Los Alamos

------------------------------

Date:     Fri, 14 Feb 86 10:10 EST
From: Steve Dourson - Delco <dourson%gmr.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa
Cc: dourson%gmr.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
Subject:  Books, publications on meteorites

Scott Sandford,

I enjoyed your recent memo about meteorites.  I did not realize that they were
common enough to be available for purchase by private individuals. 

At your convenience, could you please post a list of good books for the layman
to meteoritics?  You might also include publications about your adventures in
the Antarctic. 

Thanks again.

Stephen Dourson
February 14, 1986

------------------------------

Date: Fri 14 Feb 86 11:55:37-PST
From: Jim McGrath <J.JPM@[36.21.0.13]>
Subject: SDI and NASA budgets
To: space@mc.lcs.mit.edu
Reply-To: mcgrath%mit-oz@mit-mc.arpa


    From: Slocum@hi-multics.arpa
    If the space program got as much support as SDI does, we would be
    living in space by now, practically.  I hear that Reagan wants to
    double the SDI budget in '87 and again in '88. And similar growth
    thereafter.  In '87, the SDI budget will equal the NASA budget, if
    he gets his way and also if the NASA budget doesn't get cut.  And
    this is in three years from the start of the program.  Just think
    where we could be if NASA's budget had seen that kind of growth.

But it never will.  One of the reasons I think SDI is a good idea is
that it is an excellent way to get funds for space activities.  I
would rather see the same amount going to NASA, but reasoning that if
you could just cut SDI then NASA would get the money is nonsense -
rather, the money would just to to fund another dam in some
congresscritter's district.


Jim

------------------------------

From: shawn@acc.arpa
Date: 14 Feb 86 14:47:00 PST
Subject: Comet Ride
To: "space" <space@s1-b.arpa>
Cc: shawn@acc.arpa
Reply-To: <shawn@acc.arpa>

excerpt from the Los Angeles Times Fri. Feb. 14, 1986
Part I page 2:

"For sky-gazers who want a front row seat to see Halley's comet, Air
France is offering an April 13 flight aboard a chartered supersonic
Concorde,..."  seats 98.... from Kennedy International...fly at 50,000
feet.......Champagne and hors d'oeuvers...  $1,499 each for the two
hour flight.....dubbed Halley's Comet Chase...will ride with
"celestial guides" Donn F. Eisele, an Apollo 2 astronaut, and Jack
Horkheimer, a television astronomer...
	story by Jennings Parrott

I can think of several comments but will spare you all. If you do go,
I want a picture.
		shawn@acc.arpa
disclaimer? na, I did it durring my lunch hour.

------------------------------

Date: 9 Feb 86 05:03:54 GMT
From: nbires!boulder!cisden!lmc@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Lyle McElhaney)
Organization: ConTel Information Systems, Denver
Subject: Re: The Lost Payloads
References: <661@tekigm.UUCP>, <998@psivax.UUCP>, <3102@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> >>I  have  a question  concerning the Challenger's last  payload. I
> >>have heard from an uncertain source that the Hubble telescope was
> >>aboard. Is this true? If so, why no mention of this great loss?
> 
> >	False, it did have the only device the US was sending up to
> >view Halley's Comet though. So that is the end of *that*.
> 
> Actually, I don't think that's true either.  What was lost was some sort of
> UV 'scope.  The Hopkins Ultraviolet Telescope (known also as HUT-- it is
> accompanied by T-shirts showing a certain Star Wars character lounging in
> the cargo bay) was, if I remember this correctly, not scheduled to fly until
> March, when *it* would look at Halley (among other things).  I don't think
> it wat the payload that was lost.  In any case, it cannot be adapted to fly
Nope. What was lost was the TDRS-II satellite and the Spartan (that's an
acronym for something, but I don't have it here) Halley observer that was
to be deployed and (I think) recaptured before re-entry, to be reflown
several more times later. It was built at Colorado University, so there
was a lot of publicity about it (and Onazuka, a CU grad) hereabouts. The
company that I work for, ConTel, owns Spacecom (a separate division from
us) who owned the TDRS - as a result, the company published the press
releases from NASA about this flight. I had just picked up my copy and was
walking down the hall reading it when someone popped out of their office
and yelled that Challenger had blown up.....
Lyle McElhaney
...hao!cisden!lmc

------------------------------

Date: 9 Feb 86 11:15:49 GMT
From: ihnp4!stolaf!mmm!umn-cs!quest!dave@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (David Messer)
Organization: Quest Research Inc., Burnsville, MN
Subject: Re: Uranus's axis
References: <111@valid.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> I know that Uranus's axis of rotation is tilted ~90 degrees from the
> normal, perpendicular-to-ecliptic axis.  This means that the axis
> lies in the plane of the ecliptic, but which way does it point?  
> Does it point at the sun, or is it tangent to the orbit, or some
> angle in between?
All of the above.  The direction of the axis of rotation remains
constant while Uranus revolves around the sun so sometimes the
north pole is pointed at the sun, sometimes the south pole and
sometimes the equator.  I haven't checked so I am not sure but
I believe that the north pole is currently pointing roughly sunward.
-- 
David Messer   UUCP:  ...ihnp4!quest!dave
                      ...ihnp4!encore!vaxine!spark!14!415!sysop
               FIDO:  14/415 (SYSOP)

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 14 Feb 86 17:56:44 PST
From: mcgeer%ji@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Rick McGeer)
To: shawn@acc.arpa
Subject: Re:  Comet Ride
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa

>excerpt from the Los Angeles Times Fri. Feb. 14, 1986
>Part I page 2:
>50,000 feet.......Champagne and hors d'oeuvers...
>$1,499 each for the two hour flight.....dubbed
>Halley's Comet Chase...will ride with "celestial
>guides" Donn F. Eisele, an Apollo 2 astronaut, and
                            ^^^^^^^^
>Jack Horkheimer, a television astronomer...
>	story by Jennings Parrott

Apollo 2?  I thought the Apollos started  were 7-17

					-- Rick.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #140
*******************


0,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA03812; Thu, 20 Feb 86 19:02:10 PST
	id AA03812; Thu, 20 Feb 86 19:02:10 PST
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 86 19:02:10 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8602210302.AA03812@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #141

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 141

Today's Topics:
			    Administrivia
		    Re: scuttle the space program?
     Re: more shuttle explosion guesswork (and second-guesswork)
		  Re: Space Shuttle Children's Fund
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: The Moderator <space-request@Angband>
Date: Thursday, 20 February 1986 10:18 PST
Subject: Administrivia

First I'd like to thank everyone for tolerating the enormous flood of
mail that followed the Challenger Disaster.  It has been a real strain
on my time and mail system, I'm sure it has been similar for everyone.
As you've noticed I am now sending out four (4!) Digest per day.  This
is slowly reducing the backlog, which, this morning, was down to 64
messages.  This may not sound like much of an improvement but it was
above 200 messages for a while.  Maybe over this coming weekend the
backlog will be gone.

I seem to have no record of Space Digest V6 #114.  I'd appreciate it if
anyone who has this digest would send me a copy.
	Keep the Faith,
	Ted Anderson

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 14 Feb 86 18:01:07 PST
From: mcgeer%ji@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Rick McGeer)
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Re: scuttle the space program?

>Let's ask ourselves a few questions:
>******************************************************************************
>Does humanity (men and women) really *need* to populate space?  Do we really
>need to explore, in person or otherwise, other planets?  Historically, 
>exploration and open boundaries only encouraged exploitation, slavery, and
>genocide of indigenous peoples such as African, American Natives, and 
>East Asians.

Without comment on these accusations (debatable to say the least), I would
merely like to point out that in the Solar System there are no indigenous
peoples to exploit or enslave.

>It widened the gap between the rich and the poor at home, and
>the massive funds spent on ships and weapons in that previous era caused
>more people to starve.

This is simply false.  The gap between the rich and poor was highest in
Europe during the middle ages; it decreased dramatically in each successive
century.  To be sure, the gradual restoration of order and trade throughout
Europe was largely responsible, but it is also clear to me that trade with the
Far East and development of the Americas played a major role.  Further, the
prospect of employment in the Colonies gave the working poor bargaining
power at home.

>It also increased the likelyhood of the lawless being
>able to escape justice, for example Botany Bay and the HMS Bounty.

Foo.  In the first place, Botany Bay was hardly an "escape from justice"; it
was a prison colony.  Sentence to Botany Bay was about as much an "escape from
justice" as is sentence to San Quentin.  There are a few of us who would far
sooner see convicts get a second chance in an open prison colony than a
death or a life sentence.  In the second place, I fail to see what is wrong
with the ability to escape oppressive societies.  America was founded by
those fleeing religious persectuion...

>So what do we buy with $2 billion dollars? One shuttle, good for 100 missions
>(best case) with 7 people each. Or enough food, clean water, and other
>necesssities to feed Ethiopia for the next ten decades, easily.

You think $20M a year would feed Ethiopia?  But simply feeding Ethiopia doesn't
solve the problem, since we can't do it forever without producing the wealth.
We don't explore space only for Wanderlust or curiosity or prestige; we're
going there for the money, honey.

Look.  In 1928, a hurricane hit Galveston.  No warning.  25,000 people killed.
In 1961, our first experimental weather satellite spotted another hurricane
heading towards Galveston.  24 hours warning.  Deaths held to under 10, I
believe; certainly well under 100.

This is repeated on a daily basis all over the world.  Twice this fall the
Florida gulf coast was evacuated due to oncoming hurricanes.  How many lives
saved?   Who knows?  But if you live on the Gulf, there's at least a reasonable
chance that you owe your life to the space program.

Increasingly effective weather prediction helps us in more subtle ways than
this, though.  The Florida citrus crop has been saved several times in recent
years by a frost-protection spray AND accurate weather prediction.  If you
want to know the effect of good weather prediction on the world's wealth and
food supply, ask a farmer, or read Jerry Pournelle: Pournelle makes a good
case for the argument that better weather prediction alone has more than
paid for the space program.

Or how about military spy satellites?  Not a very popular item,  but we
certainly wouldn't have arms control without them.  What is arms control
worth?

Or how about Landsat?  The Landsat program paid for itself with one ore body
discovery?

I haven't even mentioned the coming technologies, and I haven't mentioned
abstract knowledge.  Both of these things will pay off far more than anything
we've done so far.

>So what do space-faring nations prove when they invoke national prestige and
>the desire of humanity to expand, by consuming all that money and 
>men-centuries? "I'm rich enough to do this and you're not, so there!". 
>"My rocket is bigger than yours!". "We are leaving you behind to scratch the
>dust while we inherit the universe!"

(1) Both we and the Soviets have taken many multinational crews into space;
(2) Both we and the ESA have launched satellites for other nations; the
Shuttle alone has taken up satellites for Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Canada,
and India (that is a partial list, quoted from memory).  The Soviets don't
because they are very secretive.  However, I expect that with the oil glut they
may well enter the satellite launching business to get hard currency.
(3) The competitive (well, in prestige) era of space exploration ended when
we won the race to the Moon -- and won it, I think, rather magnanimously:
"we came in peace for all mankind".

>One man's glory is another man's
>humiliation.  One man's wealth is another man's poverty. One man's livelihood
>is another man's serfdom.

The last two statements are just flat wrong.  American wealth (to take one
example) feeds the world; it doesn't impoverish it.  There is no evidence
whatever to back up the third statement; I can't rebut it because I don't
know what it means, and I suspect it means nothing.  The first statement is
garbage.  No one is humiliated when Carl Lewis wins four golds at the Olympics.

>Why have satellites and information systems at all, except to invade the 
>privacy and keep records on a captive populace? 

When you watch CNN tonight, you'll have your answer.  We have choices in
television and long distance services because we have satellites and info
systems.  Governments don't need this stuff to keep their people captive;
the freest nation on earth is also the one that has the most developed
satellites and info systems.

>Why have land and weather
>satellites at all, except to take advantage of another nation's resources
>and vulnerabilities?

See above.

>Why explore the planets, interesting though they are, except to find
>more virgin landscape to despoil and riches to plunder?

(1) To learn more about this planet, including ways to clean up pollution; and
(2) Yes, to exploit resources.  I don't agree with James Watt that we must
pillage the land, but I most certainly do not agree with those that say that
we should exploit no resources at all.  Anyone who believes the latter may
stop exploiting resources anytime he or she chooses;  I, however, would
sooner go on living.

>Why put a man, or a
>women for that matter, in space?  What is so special about anyone that we
>must exhalt that person above all others in such an eletist fashion? Why
>shouldn't that person be put to a task that serves the world rather than that
>person's ego?

(1) Going to space does serve the world;
(2) Name me the last five shuttle crews.  Oh, you can't?  I guess that we must
have a short memory for "exalted" people.

>The main problem with all of us is we are still essentially barbarians at
>heart.

Speak for yourself.

>The Viking who was the explorer was also the Viking that also raped
>and pillaged.  The Columbus who was the explorer was also the Columbus who
>converted people to his religion by force.  The shuttle pilot who was the
>explorer was also the pilot who killed husbands, wives, and children in
>North Korea and North Vietnam.

I have no patience with pacifism or those who would treat the war records of
US servicemen without deference.  The men and women of the US armed forces
protect us all.  Sometimes they fight.  Sometimes they die.  Sometimes they
kill.  Sometimes they do these things in an unpopular cause.  Sometimes
that cause may be wrong.  But they fight, and die, and kill, for us and for
liberty.  Be grateful.

>The wanderlust we all experience is just
>another word for the lust and coveting for the outside world that blinds
>us to the potentials of the inside world and the darkness of the soul that
>we need to correct.  Do we really deserve to go "out there" when we have
>such a mess "down here"?

(1) I don't believe that there is a mess "down here".
(2) You are perfectly free to enlighten your own soul; please leave the care
of mine to me (or would you convert me, by force, to your "religion"?)

>Earth is enough for us, if we have the will to cooperate, to transcend the
>bigotries that confound us, the borders that seperate us, to dare to have
>peace instead of waging war, to share what we have as far as we can give it
>without anyone having to pay for it ( the concept of having to work for one's
>bread is deadly when there is not enough work to go around ), to recognize
>that the most humble peasant in Mexico or India is worth more to us than
>the President of the US or the Queen of England.

(1) Europe, as it happens, had its most peaceful era during the century
of imperialism 1815-1914.

(2) It's a damn sight easier to produce more than to entice people to share
voluntarily; and goods shared by coercion generally wind up in the hands of
the coercer.

(3) The concept of having to work for one's bread is vital if you want anyone
to produce bread.

(4) A large number of societies have been formed on the basis of such communal
beliefs.  Generally they wind up as miserable despotisms.  I have no reason
to believe that any man will be free unless we go into space...

>If humanity can simply change from mere descendants of carnivorous apes to
>something totally gentle, altrustic, and noble, then Earth will be enough.

If pigs had wings, they'd be pigeons.  Assume that man will behave more or
less the same way that he has for 30,000 years.  Now.  Still think that earth
is room enough?

>We only try to escape the Earth because we try to escape our own natures.

No.  We only try to escape the earth because we try to fulfill our own natures.

>*****************************************************************************
>I, personally, am in full support of the Shuttle, the Space Program, and
>the exploration and exploition of space, and it's eventual population by
>humanity. BUT NOBODY HAS EVER ASKED US THESE QUESTIONS, NOBODY HAS EVER
>CHALLENGED US TO QUESTION OURSELVES! We need to be able to answer them,
>especially if those who have not, question the motives of us, those who have.
>Somehow, net.space would benefit from a really in-depth discussion of our
>justifications of our actions in space and thier consequences.

Sure we have.  Anyone who has met an exceptionally naive teenager has heard all
of these inane questions, and more in this vane.  All of us have dismissed
them as unworthy of serious consideration.

						-- Rick.
>

------------------------------

Date: 14 Feb 86 01:49:12 GMT
From: ucsfcgl!ucsfcca!dick@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dick Karpinski)
Organization: UCSF Computer Center
Subject: Re: more shuttle explosion guesswork (and second-guesswork)
References: <8602121447.AA21673@s1-b.arpa>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <8602121447.AA21673@s1-b.arpa> rachiele@NADC.ARPA writes:
>
>   Don't get me wrong, I don't want to point fingers.  But it is ridiculous
>to ask an engineer to "design to cost" when lives are at stake.
I would beg to differ.  It is ridiculous NOT to ask an engineer to
"design to cost" when lives are at stake.  Of course, reliability
defects are "cost" and lives are "cost" too.  I argue that rational
comparison of alternatives is improved by discussing all the costs.
NASA has been quite sensible about this sort of thing in my view.
Dick
-- 
Dick Karpinski    Manager of Unix Services, UCSF Computer Center
UUCP: ...!ucbvax!ucsfcgl!cca.ucsf!dick   (415) 666-4529 (12-7)
BITNET: dick@ucsfcca   Compuserve: 70215,1277  Telemail: RKarpinski
USPS: U-76 UCSF, San Francisco, CA 94143

------------------------------

Date: 10 Feb 86 17:17:39 GMT
From: decvax!mcnc!ncsu!uvacs!hom@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Hugues O. Morel)
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle Children's Fund
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

I don't see what France has to do with this, and I want you to know
that some other Frenchmen out there find the idea of a fund for the
astronauts' children a very good one.  As a matter of fact, the
american space program is leading the way for the progress of all the
other nations of the world and we share its victories and sometimes
its failures in the same way you do, believe it or not.  You may be
proud to know that the pionner spirit is one of the first
characteristics that come to our mind when we think of the USA ...
	Hugues Morel
	A Frenchman at the University of Virginia

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #141
*******************


0,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA04780; Thu, 20 Feb 86 23:01:56 PST
	id AA04780; Thu, 20 Feb 86 23:01:56 PST
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 86 23:01:56 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8602210701.AA04780@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #142

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 142

Today's Topics:
      daisy chain of 8 events leading to EXPLOSION of Challenger
		       Re: Television coverage
		       Lunar Material to Orbit
			     WSJ 02/14/86
			       7.57c ?
	       Re: Has Shuttle disaster killed Galileo?
		       Re: SDI and NASA budgets
			   Long Term Goals
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 14 Feb 86 22:38:25 PST
X-Date-Last-Edited: 1986 February 14 22:36:17 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM@mc.lcs.mit.edu>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: daisy chain of 8 events leading to EXPLOSION of Challenger
Sender: REM%IMSSS@su-score.arpa (for undeliverable-mail notifications)
Reply-To: REM%IMSSS@SU-SCORE.ARPA

The past few days several new links have been added to the
cause-effect chain leading to the explosion of the Challenger
(according to leaks via "Aviation Leak and Space Technology" and
directly from NASA personnel to news media). It's premature to come to
a final conclusion, but so far the NASA/Presidential investigation
team seems to be doing a good job of tracking down a very complicated
cause-effect chain. At present there seem to be about 7 links:
 (1) Pinhole leak in external fuel tank (what caused it??) aimed at SRB
 (2) Hyper-cooling of spots on outside of SRB near rubber/plastic? seals
 (3) Failure of seals, allowing SRB exhaust to escape sideward
 (4a) Excessive sideward thrust at that failure point, tearing loose
   SRB from mount, or
 (4b) Burning of mount combined with some torque normally present
   because SRB isn't aimed parallel to ET rather than at it
 (5) Rotation of SRB so front end rams into ET
 (6) Failure of structure of ET, allowing large amounts of H and or O
   to escape
 (7) Explosive burning of H and/or O in a fireball due to flames
   already present in vicinity
Item 1 was totally insignificant in terms of fuel loss thus ignored.
Item 2 was measured before launch but not reported, probably because
it wasn't thought significant, who'd think the remaining 5 items would
occur one after another?? Item 3 was seen on camera (video or film?),
but was so subtle it wasn't noticed. There was no way to measure item
4 apparently. After 4, items 5,6,7 went so quickly that nobody had
time to react by that point.

Let's compare this to the Apollo fire that killed Grissom/Chaffe/White.
In that case, somebody did one grossly stupid thing, running a
full-ground-level-pressure pure-oxygen test in a room filled with
flammable plastic things such as insulation on wire. Any idiot should
have noticed that was dangerous, yet somehow everyone involved in the
experiment managed to overlook the "obvious". But with the Challenger
explosion, a series of unlikely relationships linked together to
create a failure of the system. My current opinion is they got bitten
by Murphy, but they invited Murphy by having so many volatile
subsystems in such cross proximity (within their lethal effect
distance) so that chain-reactions could happen via unexpected
mechanisms. They should have maintained monitoring sensors at key
places where they could detect some gross failure of one of the
subsystems as it began to have the possibility/likelihood of affecting
its neighbors, even if they got rid of the majority of sensors to save
weight. For example, gross physical distortion of the SRB such as one
bracket breaking allowing the SRB to rotate about the other, or
unexpected sudden pressure loss in ET or lines feeding fuel to the
orbiter. They also should have more people watching camera views from
all angles during the critical launch phase, watching for anything
unusual whatsoever (that doesn't cost any payload weight like the
on-craft sensors do). Maybe indeed they prematurely declared the STS
operational and discontinued intensive watching from all angles, just
like we don't have lots of people watching every 747 that takes off
just in case one of them spots icing or fire or loose engine etc.
during takeoff. Maybe they should go back to watching the experimental
craft take off very carefully.

Digressing to compare this to ordinary events... there are many cases
of dangerous things in close proximity causing chain reactions. Two
cars get in each others way, one veers off the road and hits a
gasoline truck which parked at a service station next to a chemical
plant. The gasoline truck catches fire and explodes and heats the side
of the chemical plant causing pipes to rupture releasing toxic
chemicals.  Or a bunch of cars and other vehicles are traveling to
close for their speed (or too fast for their closeness), one tries to
relieve the distance from the car in front, but the one behind sees
the brake lights and brakes in a panic and is hit by the two-behind
car, the cars spin around out of control and 30 cars behind them plow
into the chain-reaction crash.  Whenever we have things to close
together, we should either move them further apart or have the
interreactions between them so well monitored that chain reactions
can't occur in disasterous amounts, especially when we have only four
(now three) orbiters in the whole fleet.

(Usual disclaimer, this is my personal opinion/evaluation, subject to
 the usual debate/rebuttal via this forum.)

------------------------------

Return-Path: <rohn@rand-unix.ARPA>
From: Laurinda Rohn <rohn@rand-unix.arpa>
Date: 15 Feb 86 11:32:54 PST (Sat)
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Cc: Space@s1-b.arpa, rohn@rand-unix.arpa
Subject: Re: Television coverage


>Please explain WHY you think that showing the crowd at the launch was an
>example of "irresponsible" journalism, and please explain what it is about
>the reportage of unfortunate events that makes the news media "callous".
>  = Jim Boman

I cannot speak for the unknown author of the original article, but I
also feel that some of the media coverage of the disaster left both
taste and tact to be desired.  I don't think *ANYONE* doubted that
Christa McAuliffe's parents and students were upset about her death.
It was unnecessary and tasteless to show the film clip of them
watching the explosion over and over and over again.  What was the
point?  It gave no one any more information about the cause(s) of the
explosion.  It was just plain ghoulish.

The way that the media presents stories obviously has a great deal of
impact on the way the public interprets them.  I heard a radio
announcer lead into a story with a phrase like "Critical data on
shuttle explosion lost due to actions on the ground.  More in a
moment."  The way that this was presented could easily have led people
to believe that the NASA crews had done something wrong and lost some
important information.  What was the story about?  It was a piece on
the fact that the Range Safety Officer had to detonate the SRBs.  That
wasn't a mistake!  That was someone doing something which could indeed
have lost information, but it was done *because many people's lives
could have been in danger*!  That, to me, is irresponsible journalism.
While not all of the reporting was this bad, I think there was way too
much of this kind of thing going on.  Granted, the media provides a
very useful service much of the time.  But I don't think the media
people need to wonder why people badmouth them so frequently.  All
they need to do is sit and listen or watch themselves sometime.

				   Lauri Rohn
				   rohn@rand-unix.ARPA
				   ..ihnp4!sdcrdcf!randvax!rohn

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 15 Feb 86 20:06:37 CST
From: C449499%UMCVMB.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu  (Randy Davis)
To: SPACE@mc.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: Lunar Material to Orbit

I'm no expert (by any stretch of the imagination), but I happen
to read a lot of science fiction. In any reasonable scenario of
the stories I've read, they have use linear accelorators to boost
lunar materials into orbit. It seems to me that this is entirely
possible since the lunar gravity well isn't that deep. (providing
that the accelorator was powerful enough) Would somebody that
knows please comment on whether we this is a possible (ie. is it
technological possible now to build it)???

   Randy

------------------------------

Date:           Sat, 15 Feb 86 21:49:36 PST
From: Jordan Brown <lcc.jbrown@locus.ucla.edu>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa
Subject:        WSJ 02/14/86

"NASA, Once a Master of Publicity, Fumbles in Handling Shuttle Crisis"
[[ excerpted without permission ]]
[[ Most of the article repeats the headline.  A few interesting (to me)
paragraphs follow. ]]

NASA yesterday called a news conference to announce that the
teacher-in-space project will continue and that runner-up Barbara
Morgan of Idaho will be offered the next chance to fly.  After that
announcement, she told reporters that she is willing to go.

[[ Good for her.  Good for them. ]]

But the space agency's carefully nutured image suffered a devastating
blow when Challenger exploded, and NASA's handling of the crisis has
done little to repair the damage.

In fact, NASA's communications blunders may have cost it the political
support it will badly need to get future projects off the launching pad.
"Because of NASA's mystique and glamour, the hard questions haven't
always been asked" by Congress, says Rep. Normam Mineta, a California
Democrat and a member of the space science applications subcommittee.

Adds Rep. George Brown, a California Democrat who sits on the space
science subcommittee, the Challenger disaster has made it plain that
there are "sloppy designs, sloppy quality control and sloppy
manufacturing that we have to root out."

[[ I am sure that these are basically reasonable men, but I hope they
don't cause too much trouble.  I want to visit the moon one of these
days.  I wish there was a propulsion technology available which didn't
require kilotons (megatons?) of explosives, but that's all we have.  We
_must_ keep going though - my view is that without exploration and
learning, why bother with anything else? ]]

------------------------------

Date: 15 Feb 1986 2325-PST
From: Rem@imsss
Subject: 7.57c ?
To: SPACE%Angband@su-score.arpa

I don't believe any claim that some object travels at 7.57c for the
simple reason that depending on what inertial frame you measure the
speed in it can be observed to travel at any random hyper-cee speed you
choose. If you mean the frame that is at rest respect to the particle
that emitted the hyper-cee object, the claim makes sense. Is that the
claim? If you don't state the frame, all you can say is that some object
travels slower than light (you can pick a frame to get any <c speed you
want), or exactly the same as light (it's the same in all frames), or
faster than light (you can pick a frame to get any >c speed you want
including infinity or going back in time).

Ad hominum (gazetum?) argument: Science News isn't noted for carefully
stated science, rather it's a sort of newspaper of science, and although
it isn't as flakey as Science Digest or Omni, it isn't to be blindly
trusted either.  Consider the source.  If you see the same claim in
Science, I'll be surprised.

------------------------------

Posted-Date: Sun 16 Feb 1986 08:57:07 EST
Date: Sun 16 Feb 1986 08:57:07 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Re: Has Shuttle disaster killed Galileo?
To: Henry Spencer <ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu>
In-Reply-To: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry's message of 3 Feb 86 22:34:18 GMT
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa

There's a problem with Galileo and Ulysses.  Only Challenger and
Atlantis were configured to carry Centaur upper stages (you need
plumbing to fuel the stages while they rest in the shuttle before
liftoff and to vent fumes safely).  They have the same launch window,
and the window is only 5 weeks long.  There's little chance that
both can be launched the same year, so one of them is delayed for
at least 26 months.  (Question: what asteroid flyby missions could
Galileo perform in each of the next few windows?)

I've heard that some of the astronauts have expressed concern about
carrying Centaur's in the shuttle.  If there is a fuel leak from
it below 100,000 feet the cargo bay can explode (above that altitude
the pressure is too low inside the bay to trap much gas).

------------------------------

Date: 16 Feb 86 09:07:31 GMT
From: brahms!weemba@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Matthew P. Wiener)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Subject: Re: SDI and NASA budgets
References: <12183360054.8.J.JPM@EPIC>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <12183360054.8.J.JPM@EPIC> mcgrath%mit-oz@mit-mc.arpa writes:
>But it never will.  One of the reasons I think SDI is a good idea is
>that it is an excellent way to get funds for space activities.  I
>would rather see the same amount going to NASA, but reasoning that if
>you could just cut SDI then NASA would get the money is nonsense -
>rather, the money would just to to fund another dam in some
>congresscritter's district.

This is one of the reasons I think SDI is a sick idea.  It reduces
NASA (along with much university research) to moral prostitution for
its funding.
ucbvax!brahms!weemba	Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720

------------------------------

Posted-Date: Sun 16 Feb 1986 10:15:52 EST
Date: Sun 16 Feb 1986 10:15:52 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Long Term Goals
To: space@s1-b.arpa

President Reagan's SDI proposal is of dubious practicality, but it has
served to illustrate how Americans can react to a visionary and easy
to understand long term goal.  Seeing how supportive the public has been
of NASA during the current difficulties, it seems to me the support
would be even more overwhelming if NASA could come up with a long term,
easy to understand set of goals that would be immediately relevant to the
average person.  NASA could then argue backwards from these goals
(to get to this point we need to do this) rather than planning towards
more limited goals of less obvious desirability (if greater
practicality).

Here's my crack at some things NASA could plan for (comments welcome,
feel free to replace "American" by "person" if you feel less nationalism
is called for):

   -- To have, sometime in the first half of the next century, a self
      supporting extraterrestrial economy.
   -- To reduce the cost of a trip to space to less than 10% of the
      average American's annual income.
   -- To have at least one million Americans living in space by the
      year 2050, and to have more Americans living off the earth than
      on before the end of the next century.

These goals seem achievable (at least, they are far enough in the future
that they aren't obviously impossible) and their accomplishment would directly
affect the lives of nearly everyone.  Imagining one's children or
grandchildren living in space, away from the potential problems of pollution,
nuclear war and resource shortages could be a powerful motivator.  If these
goals became default assumptions about how the future would look there
could be a REAL space race, since the prize would now be colonization
of living area far larger than that of the earth, rather than just a
demonstration of national technical superiority.

NASA could also argue about the benefits of these long term goals to
people still on earth.  This would be much easier to do since one could
then assume the existence, in space, of a sophisticated manufacturing
capability.  Solar power satellites, weather control, recovery of
asteroidal metals, space manufacturing of crystals, drugs, foamed
metals and so on could be long term justifications.

I hope the National Commission on Space makes some proposals of this
kind, although their charter is limited, I believe, to planning for
fifty years in the future (maybe they'll be less conservative).

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #142
*******************


0,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA05817; Fri, 21 Feb 86 03:02:22 PST
	id AA05817; Fri, 21 Feb 86 03:02:22 PST
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 86 03:02:22 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8602211102.AA05817@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #143

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 143

Today's Topics:
		    Re: Scuttle the Space Program?
		  Re: Space Shuttle Childrens' Fund
		      The NEXT shuttle accident
		      More on shuttle disaster.
			   Re: SRB O-rings
			 Re: SRB destruction
		       Re: scuttle the shuttle?
	       shuttle abort capability misconceptions
			 buy another orbiter?
			     Robots, etc.
		    Re: Scuttle the Space Program?
	   alchemy not needed for Titanium from lunar soil
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 12 Feb 86 00:58:27 GMT
From: tektronix!orca!kendalla@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Kendall Auel)
Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville OR
Subject: Re: Scuttle the Space Program?
References: <661@tekigm.UUCP>, <158@axiom.UUCP>, <932@nmtvax.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <932@nmtvax.UUCP> fine@nmtvax.UUCP (Andrew J Fine) writes:
>Let's ask ourselves a few questions:
>
>.....(lot's of questions).....
>
>If humanity can simply change from mere descendants of carnivorous apes to
>something totally gentle, altrustic, and noble, then Earth will be enough.
>We only try to escape the Earth because we try to escape our own natures.

Earth is enough for the gentle, altruistic, and noble. The image of
the Adventurer is not one of gentility or nobility. What kind of
person would want to scratch a meager existence out of the frozen dust
of Mars? Scrounging another kilowatt hour from a set of balky solar
cells?  Hoping the hydroponics produce enough food to last until the
next Earth shipment arrives? And, studying and learning more about the
alien landscape than anyone had previously known.

The meek will inherit the Earth. The rest of us will go to the stars!
Kendall Auel

------------------------------

Date: 12 Feb 86 18:13:28 GMT
From: sun!rmarti@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Bob Marti)
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle Childrens' Fund
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

One of the highlights in the recent discussion on the Space Shuttle Childrens'
Fund has been this reaction to some slightly provoking comments from a French
guy concerning the state of Americas social budget and programs:
>   Don't blame him [the French guy], it is probably difficult to live in a
>   country that sits on the sidelines and watches while we explore space.
>   After all, they think it is pretty neat that they have a booster that can
>   put a satellite into orbit.
In yesterday's San Jose Mercury news, I stumbled across an article entitled
"U.S. proposes French rocket launch satellite".  The first paragraph reads:
    PASADENA (AP) -- The Reagan administration has proposed a $387 million
    satellite that would study ocean currents and be launched by a French
    space agency Ariane rocket instead of a space shuttle.
Apparently, some other folks seem to think that the Ariane is pretty neat, too.
--Bob Marti

------------------------------

Date: 12 Feb 86 17:00:12 GMT
From: tektronix!tekcrl!vice!keithl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Keith Lofstrom)
Organization: Tektronix, Beaverton OR
Subject: The NEXT shuttle accident
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

  Some analyses show that we can expect more catastrophic failures with
the SRBs, and right now the fixes bandied about consist of some variant
of "we'll do it better next time".  This may not be true, but with so
many things to go wrong, and no survivable emergency response to many
of them, there is a strong possibility of more fatalities during the
next >300 shuttle flights.
  
  After the NEXT one happens, will the congresscritters say phrases like
"the cost of space exploration" and "heros who gave their lives for us",
or will they abolish U.S. manned space flight?   What's REALLY at risk
here?

------------------------------

Date:           Sun, 16 Feb 86 14:37:39 PST
From: "Niket K. Patwardhan" <bilbo.niket@locus.ucla.edu>
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject:        More on shuttle disaster.

New reports via Aviation Week are expected to indicate that the SRB
temperatures were significantly LOWER than the environment, resulting
in a suspicion that there was a fuel leak prior to the launch.

------------------------------

Date: 12 Feb 86 16:21:43 GMT
From: tektronix!tekred!joels@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Joel Swank)
Organization: Tektronix, Beaverton OR
Subject: Re: SRB O-rings
References: <8602101550.AA13983@s1-b.arpa>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

According to testimony before the commission: The O-rings are replaced
each time. Everything is replaced except the steel casing, and if that
has any visable damage it is also replaced. The casings are also spot
checked with X-ray. The joints in question are like those used on the
Titan SRBs except the Titans have only one O-ring. This stuf is not
new technology. They should not have failed unless some unusual
conditions existed. I think the temperature question is being glossed
over also.
	Joel Swank
	Tektronix, Redmond Oregon

------------------------------

Date: 11 Feb 86 21:45:44 GMT
From: hplabs!amdahl!bnrmtv!zarifes@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Kenneth Zarifes)
Organization: Bell Northern Research, Mtn. View, CA
Subject: Re: SRB destruction
References: <463@mb2c.UUCP>, <21@petrus.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> people who really ought to know better. Before you answer somebody's
> question with an air of authority, check your references! Then quote
> them.
> 
> actually a equilibrium mixture of N2O4 and NO2, nitrogen dioxide. The former
> is colorless, the latter reddish-brown, and the proportions depend on
> temperature.  Chemists are more likely to call it "nitrogen dioxide", which
> definitely *is* in the Merck Index.
 
Chemists are more likely to call NO2 "nitric oxide".  Check your references.
-- 
{hplabs,amdahl,3comvax}!bnrmtv!zarifes          --Ken Zarifes

------------------------------

Date: 14 Feb 86 06:21:00 GMT
From: tektronix!tekig5!waynekn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Wayne Knapp)
Organization: Tektronix, Beaverton OR
Subject: Re: scuttle the shuttle?
References: <8602070221.AA08568@s1-b.arpa>, <336@vger.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> In article <8602070221.AA08568@s1-b.arpa>, dietz@SLB-DOLL.CSNET (Paul Dietz) writes:
> > 
> > NY Times reports $2000 to $2500/lb.  Where do your figures come from ...
> 
> Shuttle pricing has been set at about $73 million/launch by the administration.
> Maximum payload is supposed to be 65,000 pounds but I don't think 
> that's a practical figure for a while yet.  Thus, $1500/lb is a rough,
> conservative figure for what real customers will really have to pay.  Cost
> is MUCH lower for get away specials - I think its $10,000 for 40 lbs.
> but I don't have the data in front of me.
> 
Sounds like NASA could make some real money by giving people rides on the
shuttle.  Just charge them about $7000/lb..  I bet there would be plenty of
takers.  Some people would get a real kick out of the training and the ride,
they may even condsider the cost cheap.  Heck, I bet there are a lot of
millionairs just living around the bay area to keep NASA busy until the
year 2000.   Of coarse there would have to be some kind of legel protection
for NASA in case something went wrong.  But for a little risk and only a
couple of million bucks, what a ride.
                       Wayne Knapp
  hmmmm, lets see if I start saving now ...

------------------------------

Date: 13 Feb 86 20:54:52 GMT
From: tektronix!teklds!athena!grahamb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Graham Bromley)
Organization: Tektronix, Beaverton OR
Subject: shuttle abort capability misconceptions
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

There's been discussion of shuttle abort scenarios - ditching,
return to launchy site (RTLS) etc. A few comments.
1.   There's no abort capability whatsoever from SRB ignition to
     SRB burn-out (about 2 minutes). The shuttle can't detach
     from the tank while the SRB's are burning. It would pivot 
     about its rear attachment strut and lose its wings in the 
     airstream according to NASA. The SRB's can't be detached 
     while burning. They provide most of the thrust but have 
     little drag or weight. If detached, they would instantly 
     incinerate the orbiter with their plumes (very hot, wide 
     and long). Again according to NASA.
2.   RTLS is possible ONLY IF ONLY ONE MAIN ENGINE FAILS.  Loss 
     of two or three would require a ditching after SRB separation.
3.   Ditching is regarded as non-survivable. Touch down would
     occur at about 190 mph minimum. After the first bounce,
     the orbiter would drop below stall speed, lose all aero-
     dynamic controllability and almost certainly tumble and
     disintegrate. All shuttles carry heavy cargoes. It is
     believed that the cargo would crush the crew module at the 
     first impact. The escape hatch would however be blown open 
     before impact "in case anyone survives" according to an 
     astronaut trainee.
4.   There's no escape from the orbiter itself, by far the most
     complex component of the system. No escape rockets (like
     Apollo), ejection seats or simple parachutes. Several such
     schemes were considered early on but later deleted for cost 
     savings.
The existing abort capability has never been tested for obvious
reasons, i.e. any abort attempt will probably fail, with similar
end results (but less spectacular) than Challenger.
On a previous Challenger flight, one main engine failed. A second
overheated. Automatic shut-down of the second was averted by a 
manual override from the launch center. If the second had shut 
down, ditching would have been necessary.
If the launch center had seen the SRB burn through on Challenger,
neither they nor the crew could have done a thing except pray 
until the explosion 30 seconds or so later. (Yes, it took that 
long). It's probably better it happened as it did.

------------------------------

Date: 10 Feb 86 00:01:13 GMT
From: tektronix!teklds!athena!grahamb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Graham Bromley)
Organization: Tektronix, Beaverton OR
Subject: buy another orbiter?
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

There's been a gamut of ideas for replacing Challenger.  Hold on 
a minute folks. Surely the question of whether it would be better 
to apply the cash (~$2bil) to a REAL shuttle needs to be looked 
at long and hard. By a real shuttle I mean a fully reusable one 
with greater payload and far fewer single point failure modes, i.e. 
much cheaper and safer, like the one NASA wanted to build in the 
first place.
The current shuttle has made a great contribution by proving once 
and for all the feasibility of airplane-like access to orbit. That 
first image of Columbia gliding to such a smoooooooth landing at 
Edwards made sure of that. But the shuttle has failed in its 
primary goal of drastically reducing the costs per lb. of orbit 
delivery. No amount of sensor removal, booster wall thinning, tank 
lightening etc. is going to fix that. The only solution is to start 
a long-term program with a lot of up front cash to do the job right 
next time.
However, to be realistic, such a program may be impossible given the 
myopic methods of funding major scientific and engineering programs 
in this country. In which case, lets buy another orbiter as soon as 
possible before the enthusiasm withers, as it surely will.

------------------------------

Date: 17 Feb 1986 00:05-EST
From: Nicholas.Spies@gandalf.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: Robots, etc.
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

	 Perhaps Lucasfilm could be persuaded to let NASA use the
	 patents for R2D2 and CP3PO... :-)

------------------------------

Date: 17 Feb 86 05:48:14 GMT
From: brahms!gsmith@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Gene Ward Smith)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Subject: Re: Scuttle the Space Program?
References: <158@axiom.UUCP>, <932@nmtvax.UUCP>, <1993@orca.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <1993@orca.UUCP> kendalla@orca.UUCP (Kendall Auel) writes:
>Adventurer is not one of gentility or nobility. What kind of person
>would want to scratch a meager existence out of the frozen dust of
>Mars? Scrounging another kilowatt hour from a set of balky solar cells?
>Hoping the hydroponics produce enough food to last until the next Earth
>shipment arrives? And, studying and learning more about the alien landscape
>than anyone had previously known.
  The obvious answer is: "either an idiot or a scientist". If you believe
all this, why don't you go to Antarctica where you can have fun with a
hostile environment of considerable scientific interest? This kind of 
stuff pure romanticsm -- not your brain talking, but all those sf novels
you read as a kid.
>The meek will inherit the Earth. The rest of us will go to the stars!
 If we do get to the stars it will be by using our heads, not our
limitless capacity for bullshit.
ucbvax!brahms!gsmith    Gene Ward Smith/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720
ucbvax!weyl!gsmith      "When Ubizmo talks, people listen."

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 17 Feb 86 04:05:07 PST
X-Date-Last-Edited: 1986 February 17 02:53:35 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM@mc.lcs.mit.edu>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: alchemy not needed for Titanium from lunar soil
Sender: REM%IMSSS@su-score.arpa (for undeliverable-mail notifications)
Reply-To: REM%IMSSS@SU-SCORE.ARPA

R> Date: 4 Feb 86 23:09:01 GMT
R> From: ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!hropus!riccb!rjnoe@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Roge
r J. Noe)
R> Subject: Re: Remotely Controlled Manipulators in Space
R> ...
R> What, you just drop it on the lunar surface and it installs itself?
R> That would be multiplying the complexity of the thing considerably.
R> And of course you build in a Junior Alchemy set so that it can transform
R> lunar soil into titanium.  Oh, not impossible maybe, but certainly
R> a couple centuries into the future.  And many quadrillions of dollars.

Don't be an ignorant smartass! Surveys from the Apollo sampling expeditions
show lunar soil to be quite rich by earth standards, if I recall correctly a
few percent? With abundant sunlight for energy, abundant free soil to process,
and abundant unused real-estate to dump the unwanted portions (mostly oxygen
silicon and aluminum if I remember correctly), we could set up a titanium
production plant within ten years if we had funding. We can be very sloppy,
recovering only half the titanium in the soil and dumping the rest with the
waste materials, thus simplifying the engineering and chemistry. There's no
need for alchemy, simple inorganic chemistry and electrolysys will do it.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #143
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA07094; Fri, 21 Feb 86 07:01:59 PST
	id AA07094; Fri, 21 Feb 86 07:01:59 PST
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 86 07:01:59 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8602211501.AA07094@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #144

*** EOOH ***
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 86 07:01:59 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #144

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 144

Today's Topics:
		      send crew up permanently?
			     TDRS spare?
		       Re: Scuttle the Shuttle?
			      Apollo #?
			  Re: elevator ride
		 Government support of exploration...
			 Re: Shuttle Ditching
			   Shuttle Program
			  Re: Uranus's axis
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 17 Feb 86 04:05:07 PST
X-Date-Last-Edited: 1986 February 17 03:46:42 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM@mc.lcs.mit.edu>
To: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
Subject: send crew up permanently?
Sender: REM%IMSSS@su-score.arpa (for undeliverable-mail notifications)
Reply-To: REM%IMSSS@SU-SCORE.ARPA

One major problem with current methods of putting humans in space is
that we don't leave them up there. We send up 7 or 8 people, they stay
up a week or two, then they come back down, and we have to send them
or others up again later for another week or two. If we had permanent
habitat in space, each manned launch would permanently add crew to
space, and by now we'd have over a hundred living and working in space
around the clock throughout the year.

Now that there is question as to the safety of STS, and it may be a
long time before we can build a replacement, maybe we should adopt a
different overall strategy for bootstrapping in space:

Cut back on use of STS to reduce mean time before next failure, i.e.
to stretch out the lifetime of STS (like if you never drive a car it
may last 20 years before it wears out). Meanwhile, convert half the
ICBM launch vehicles into orbital launch vehicles, and use them to
launch equipment for establishing a remote-control mining and
processing facility on the Moon, and a mass driver for tossing
processed materials into trans-Earth orbit. Also launch lots and lots
of space tugs for catching the tossed material and bringing it into
LEO. Mostly this lunar material will be bulk materials for forming
walls of pressurized cabins, and oxygen. Also launch enough tools and
docking collars and other equipment to convert those crudely-processed
materials into true pressurized cabins.

Manned STS launches can be used to do final fabrication and checkout
of those pressurized cabins. Once several cabins are working, leave
volunteer workers in space as the STS orbiter returns to Earth; like 8
go up and 2 return, for a net increase of 6 in space habitat each
launch. Once the first permanently habitated set of cabins is up
there, that team can have total manned responsibility for final
fabrication of additional cabins, so that never again do we have to
send a crew to space and also return them all. If any task in space
needs a human on site, the existing space-based crew can be trained by
remote instruction to do the task, after all communication is a lot
cheaper than moving physical bodies around. We can then suspend STS
launches completely until such time as a large payload needs STS or we
have habitat ready for another crew to move to space permanently.
Occasionally somebody will want to return to Earth, and we can simply
wait until the next upward crew, as there'll be plenty of space
available on STS on the return trip.

Initially I would suggest space-based habitat consist of many
separately pressurized cabins, with only two people in each, and with
several spares under initial pressure-holding tests but not yet
occupied. Then if one springs a leak, at worst two crew will be lost,
but likely the two will have time to rush into spacesuits, move to
other cabins, and bunk up with three to a cabin until one of the new
cabins currently under test is ready for occupancy.

Regarding making materials for walls of pressurized cabins: The Moon
has an advantage for processing aluminum (about 20-30% of lunar soil
if I remember correctly) and other materials. You can melt it right
out in the open without worrying about Oxygen reacting with it or
Nitrogen etc. mixing in with it. It should be easy to dig out a
shallow flat area, pour melted aluminum into it, let it cool, and have
a nice slab of aluminum ready to toss out into space.  (I'm not saying
the engineering will be trivial, but I see no need for advanced AI or
5th-generation computers or new science or anything else except the
determination to go ahead and to spend lots of money to fund further
experiments on loncrete and other applications of lunar materials and
good engineering to turn those experiments into practicality.)

------------------------------

Date: 17 Feb 1986 0311-PST
From: Rem@imsss
Subject: TDRS spare?
To: SPACE%Angband@su-score.arpa

It occurs to me that TDRS is so very important that we ought to
build one or two spares now that one was lost in the Challenger explosion.
Perhaps we ought to fit the spares for launch by expendable booster
if that is possible (is the interim upper stage too large for anything
other than STS?).

------------------------------

Posted-Date: Mon 17 Feb 1986 07:53:41 EST
Date: Mon 17 Feb 1986 07:53:41 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Re: Scuttle the Shuttle?
To: space@s1-b.arpa
In-Reply-To: Slocum's message of Sat, 8 Feb 86 10:41 CST
Cc: Slocum@hi-multics.arpa

Several people have criticized my statements on manned vs. unmanned
space activities, saying that robots can't replace people.  Reading
my messages, you'll see I explicitly talked about *teleoperators*,
which give you many of the advantages of people (creativity, visual
input, reasoning abilities) without actually having to put people in
space.  You still need people, but a skilled person on the
ground costs perhaps $100,000/year; in the space station, $100
million/year.

Also, someone lampooned the idea of self-replicating teleoperated
machines on the moon.  Of course I didn't mean autonomous self
replicating machines (we're nowhere near being able to build those)
but rather teleoperated machines that build (say) 95% of the components
needed for more teleoperators/milling machines/etc. from lunar
materials, with complex but lightweight parts (integrated circuits,
drill bits, etc.) being imported from earth.  Most of the mass in
a machine tool is in structural metal, which shouldn't be impossible
to build by remote control.

------------------------------

From: shawn@acc.arpa
Date: 17 Feb 86 08:06:00 PST
Subject: Apollo #?
To: "mcgeer%ji" <mcgeer%ji@ucbvax.berkeley.edu>
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa, shawn@acc.arpa
Reply-To: <shawn@acc.arpa>

Rick,
	I got it from the TIMES just like you saw it with some
filler words replaced by ...... I didn't recognise the number
or the name. If you have further questions, try contacting the
author listed care of the LA TIMES L.A., Ca. would probably
do. The Snail service would probably appreciate a Zip but ?
	shawn@acc.arpa

------------------------------

Date: Mon 17 Feb 86 12:41:07-PST
From: Dave Combs <COMBS@sumex-aim.arpa>
Subject: Re: elevator ride 
To: space@mc.lcs.mit.edu
Office: Stanford Medical Center TC135, (415)497-6979


amdcad!amdahl!drivax!holloway@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Bruce Holloway)
  writes:
>> (I wonder how many stories tall you'd have to go to get to geostationary
>>orbit? That would be some elevator panel! :=)
>>-- 
>>			Michael Shannon {apple!mikes}
>You'd want to get off somewhere near floor 7,744,000. Build this elevator,
>and five'll get you ten that some nut will run a marathon up the fire stairs.

OF COURSE I'd run up the fire stairs!  It would definitely get easier on the
way up (why go in a box when you can FLY up the shaft), the view from the top
would be tremendous, and think of the ride down the banister!  Where do I
sign up for the race?

Dave Combs (COMBS@SUMEX)

------------------------------

Date:     Mon, 17 Feb 86 16:04 ???
From: Sonny Crockett <WELTYC%rpicie.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa
Subject:  Government support of exploration...

	In Digest V6 #127, Paul GLoger writes:

>Does anybody remember the last time in history when a government
>operation successfully "explored a historic frontier?"  Yeah, me
>neither.

	Think a little harder, Paul.  Need I mention Apollo 11 (the
moon), Sputnik (space), Christopher Columbus (America - don't get
technical history buffs, let's assume he did), Magellan, Henry Hudson,
Lewis and Clarke, oh my oh my, the list goes on.  I hate to say it,
but ALL of these were sponsored by the governments of the people
involved (actually I don't hate to say it).  Are you some kind of
anarchist?  Why if StarFleet hadn't sent the Enterprise on that five
year mission, there never would have been a Star Trek II - The wrath
of Khan!!

						-Christopher A. Welty

------------------------------

From: decwrl!decvax!ihnp4!ihwpt!knudsen@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 86 10:02:04 est
To: decvax!space
Subject: Re: Shuttle Ditching

Your article makes good sense to me.
	It's important to get back to land (to save the orbiter), so
while a roll maneuver would quickly get the shuttle  right-side-up, a
long dive & loop would get it headed back to the Cape.  Unfortunately,
it has a lot of horizontal speed away from land; the loop might be
inefficient in converting that to the reverse direction.

What we SHOULD have done is launched the thing from Texas or La to
pass OVER the Cape, so that the orbiter could easily glide straight to
Canaveral after an abort.
	Hindsight sure is 20-20.... mike k

------------------------------

Date: 18 Feb 86 00:04:20 EST
From: Hank.Walker@unh.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: Shuttle Program
To: BBoard.Maintainer@a.cs.cmu.edu

The discussion of the manned space program can be broken down into 3
areas: past, near future (10 years), and farther future (> 10 years).
The discussion of the past has centered on why the shuttle is bad
since it is neither optimized for carrying people or cargo to orbit.
First, it is not clear to me that the presence of people substantially
increases costs.  The main drawback is the cockpit and life support
weight compared to more computers.  In any case this discussion is
irrelevant.  Liberals like Walter Mondale tried their damnedest to
kill the shuttle, and it was the military's support that kept the
shuttle alive.  Hence it had to meet their requirements.  The choice
was more like this shuttle or no shuttle, so no use crying about it.

The discussion of the near future has tended to ignore the fact that a
lot of the payloads for the next 10 years have already been planned.
They need a replacement for Challenger lifting capability NOW, not 20
years from now.  The choices are either another shuttle, or unmanned
rockets like Delta, Altas/Centaur, and Titan/Centaur.  Some payloads
can only go by shuttle.  Unmanned rockets have been on the market for
a few years now with no sales, due to the heavy subsidies of the
shuttle and Ariane.  NASA could buy rockets and subsidize them, but I
doubt that they will.  Alternatively, the US could put extreme
pressure on France to cut subsidies, making commercial offerings more
attractive.  Shuttle subsidies are already scheduled to fall (in
1988?).  Or else NASA could just tell those who can't get a ride on
the 3 existing shuttles to fend for themselves.

The discussion of the farther future has been somewhat divorced from
reality.  A Transatmospheric Vehicle (TAV, Orient Express) will barely
be available to the military in 10 years.  Shuttle quality service is
probably much farther away.  Consequently if a new shuttle is built,
it will see plenty of use before something better comes along.  Those
discussing teleoperators might want to wander down to the lab some day
and look at the manipulators available, and the current rate of
progress.  People are going to be needed for a good long time for many
tasks.  On almost every SpaceLab mission, equipment repairs were
necessary.  On the last mission, the JPL scientist doing some
suspended fluid experiments in equipment he designed had to spend the
better part of a day upside down inside the machine fixing it.  It is
silly to talk about manned versus unmanned as an either/or
proposition.  Both have their good and bad points.  Machines are cheap
but not too flexible.  They can handle all the simple tasks.  Men are
expensive but very flexible.  They can handle the messy cases, which
are unfortunately not all that rare.  As I pointed out in a New York
Times letter a while ago, one reason for having a space station is the
cost of launches.  It might be cheaper over the long run to have a
space station with infrequent launches compared to no space station
and more frequent launches.

------------------------------

Date: 10 Feb 86 01:22:09 GMT
From: sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!oberon!smeagol!jplgodo!steve@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Steve Schlaifer x3171 156/224)
Organization: Jet Propulsion Labs, Pasadena, CA
Subject: Re: Uranus's axis
References: <111@valid.UUCP>, <161@ucdavis.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <161@ucdavis.UUCP>, u553691091ea@ucdavis.UUCP (Tim Underwood) writes:
> > I know that Uranus's axis of rotation is tilted ~90 degrees from the
> > normal, perpendicular-to-ecliptic axis.  This means that the axis
> > lies in the plane of the ecliptic, but which way does it point?  
> > ............
> 
> Uranus' pole points towards the earth/sun at this time.  In about 44 years (I
> think it's orbital period is about 176 years) 
The orbital period is more like 84 years not 176 so the 44 above should be 21.

> , it's pole will point tangent to it's orbit (i.e. it's pole, like ours, 
> points towards some point in space reguardless of it's position in it's 
> orbit). In 88 years Uranus' other pole will point towards the earth. 
Same here.  The 88 should be 42.

> As an extra, What is the Ulysses probe? Will it also go to Jupiter?
 Ulysses is a rename of the (joint ESA/NASA I think) International
Solar Polar Mission (ISPM).  It was originally designed as two
spacecraft which would pass over the Sun's north and south poles at
the same time but funding constraints eliminated one of the
spacecraft.  The current design calls for a single spacecraft to pass
over the Sun's south pole.  To get out of the ecliptic plane and over
the pole, the mission design calls for a Jupiter gravity assist
(flyby).

...smeagol\			Steve Schlaifer
......wlbr->!jplgodo!steve	Advance Projects Group, Jet Propulsion Labs
....group3/			4800 Oak Grove Drive, M/S 156/204
				Pasadena, California, 91109
					+1 818 354 3171

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #144
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA09458; Fri, 21 Feb 86 19:01:15 PST
	id AA09458; Fri, 21 Feb 86 19:01:15 PST
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 86 19:01:15 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8602220301.AA09458@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #145

*** EOOH ***
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 86 19:01:15 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #145

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 145

Today's Topics:
	      Re: Scientists For a Manned Space Station
	    "At the moment Uranus's south pole points..."
	  Re: "At the moment Uranus's south pole points..."
	      Fixing bug won't improve risk factor much
		      Re: scope of space station
			    shuttle design
	  Re: next generation shuttle: electrically assisted
		  Why is the SRB in seperate pieces
		    Public reaction to the Shuttle
			  Re: Uranus's axis
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwrba!ice@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 86 17:58:13 pst
To: trwrb!space
Subject: Re: Scientists For a Manned Space Station
Newsgroups: net.space
In-Reply-To: <8602012000.AA03806@s1-b.arpa>
Organization: TRW EDS, Redondo Beach, CA

Name: Douglas L. Ice
Title: Member of the Technical Staff
Affiliation: TRW, Inc.
Mail: Doug Ice
      R6/1186
      TRW
      One Space Park Drive
      Redondo Beach, Ca. 90278
Phone: (213)536-3150 (W)
       (213)542-1190 (H)
Net: UseNet, trwrb (I don't know my path -- sorry)
Comments: I was a payload engineer for TDRSS Flight 2,
          which was destroyed with the orbiter and crew.
          I also have minor involvement with the Space
          Station work going on now.  The manned space
          station is a necessity, if we are interested
          in exploring space further.  Robots are great,
          but we need PEOPLE in space!!!

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 17 Feb 86 23:53:52 PST
From: Murray.pa@xerox.com
Subject: "At the moment Uranus's south pole points..."
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Cc: Murray.pa@xerox.com

How do I tell which end is North and which is South? I assume that the
"North" pole of Mars is the one that's pointing roughly parallel to the
North pole of Earth. That doesn't transfer to Uranus very well.

------------------------------

Date: 18 Feb 86 08:37:23 GMT
From: brahms!weemba@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Matthew P. Wiener)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Subject: Re: "At the moment Uranus's south pole points..."
References: <860217-235409-1418@Xerox>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <860217-235409-1418@Xerox> Murray.pa@XEROX.COM writes:
>How do I tell which end is North and which is South? I assume that the
>"North" pole of Mars is the one that's pointing roughly parallel to the
>North pole of Earth. That doesn't transfer to Uranus very well.
Presumably by seeing which way the planet rotates relative to the pole.
From a North pole the planet rotates counterclockwise.  If there was any
consistency in life, Venus' North pole would be its South pole, etc.
ucbvax!brahms!weemba	Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720

------------------------------

Date: 1986 February 18 04:41:52 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM@mc.lcs.mit.edu>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Fixing bug won't improve risk factor much
Sender: REM%IMSSS@su-score.arpa (for undeliverable-mail notifications)
Reply-To: REM%IMSSS@SU-SCORE.ARPA

A couple days ago a letter by somebody named W.C.Randels was published
in the Peninsula Times-Tribune. (I would have sent this message then
but with power failures due to big storm this task got delayed.) The
letter pointed out that there's a common misunderstanding, that fixing
one problem that struck once will significantly improve the overall
reliability (greatly increase mean time to failure). Actually advanced
(complicated) systems have a large number of latent modes of failure,
each with low probability, but the ensemble of failure modes has
non-low probability. Fixing one of the low-probability problems merely
decreases the chance of failure by that little bit, leaving all the
other failure modes unchanged, and leaving the total failure rate only
slightly decreased.

One saving grace with the Challenger may be that we had lots of clues
to the potential disaster beforehand. Perhaps we also have lots of
clues to other failure modes that we've overlooked just like that one.
If we not only fix the one failure mode that happened this time, but
pour over all the data from the 24 successful flights and locate lots
of other near-failures and fix them too, then we may be able to
significantly reduce the failure rate. If not, we may need ten or
twenty orbiters and lots&lots of daring volunteer crewmembers to find
the other failure modes like we found this one, the hard way.

------------------------------

To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Cc: dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa, cb@mitre-bedford.arpa
Subject: Re: scope of space station
In-Reply-To: Your message of Sun, 16 Feb 86 19:18:54 PST.
	     <8602170318.AA25485@s1-b.arpa>
Date: 18 Feb 86 11:10:47 EST (Tue)
From: Christopher Byrnes <cb@mitre-bedford.arpa>

>Space station:  If and when that $200/lb launcher gets going space
>manufacturing is really going to start making sense. Should
>construction of the space station be delayed until this cheap launcher
>is available, or should the full station be built with the
>shuttle?  More likely (and sensible) is to build a small prototype
>station with the shuttle to get our feet wet, then expand it when the
>cheap launcher comes on line.
  I've gotten the impression (from AW&ST and other reports) that the
first space station is intended to be a prototype of future space
stations.  Part of this is due to the realization that one space
station cannot perform all the activities that various customers want
to do in space.  For example, some people want a station in
near-equatorial orbit (easier to launch there, access to GEO) while
others want a station in sun-synchronous (earth observation, Landsat
repairs, etc.).  Then you have the manned space station proponents
(man is more flexible than any machine) versus the unmanned proponents
(man is too expensive for automated factories, movement upsets the 0g,
etc.).  All have valid points.

  The design of the first space station is apparently an attempt to
balance what can be funded today versus the largest number of
potential customers which can be attracted to the current design
(sounds familiar).  Once the bugs have been worked out in the first
station, later specialized stations might be built.  If the Skylab and
Saylet (sp.?) stations are any guide, there are going to be a lot of bugs to
work out.  I realize that NASA my be placing all its eggs in one
basket again, but perhaps it's better to work on getting the first one
right before we have various stations around Earth, the Moon, Mars, etc.

  Speaking of new transportation systems such as the "Orient Express,"
wouldn't it be better if the first test flight of this was aimed at a
space station or shuttle (with a repair crew on board) instead of just out into
space?  I remember crossing my fingers when the first flight of
Columbia showed missing tiles.  The Air Force gets to test new planes
at Edwards, where those huge runways can accomodate all kinds of
errors or breakdowns.  Since the "Orient Express" is bound to have
teething problems, an in-orbit capability to repair the ship (or at
least rescue the crew) would be nice.  It would be one more "huge
runway" to land on.

  I'm surprised the US and USSR don't have a treaty that would
encourage an observation/rescue capability for the first few flights
of new spacecraft.  The Russians hope to try out their new shuttles by
the end of the decade, and NASA hopes to get going on the "spaceplane"
and its own space station.  Add in the "Hermes" and things start to
get crowded!  While there are some security concerns since most of
these spacecraft can carry military payloads, I think the risks of
allowing people a close look (which is available anyway) offset the
dangers to everybody's programs if more crews are lost.  People seemed
to have recovered from the quick death of the Challenger and its crew,
I wonder how people, Congress and the media would react to a stranded crew
(from any country) which slowly suffocated?

(standard disclaimer)			Christopher Byrnes

					cb@Mitre-Bedford.ARPA
					...decvax!linus!bccvax!cb.UUCP

------------------------------

Date:           Tue, 18 Feb 86 10:11:49 PST
From: Bob English <lcc.bob@locus.ucla.edu>
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject:        shuttle design

All this talk about design constraints and budget pressures reminds me
of a sign I once saw on a programmer's door:

Fast, Cheap, Good.
Choose any two.

--bob--

------------------------------

Date:         Tue, 18 Feb 86 14:16:57 EST
From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Reply-To:  ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA
To: space digest <space@s1-b.arpa>
Subject:     Re: next generation shuttle: electrically assisted
  take-off?
                (Reply to Dani Eder's comments)

>... one can build towers that literally extend out of the atmosphere.
>...T300/934 Graphite/Epoxy composite, used in airplanes, has a
>density of 0.057lb/in^3 and a compressive strength of 215800 lb/in^2.
>...the height of a column of graphite/epoxy that just barely can
>support its own weight is 59.7 miles.  If we taper the tower, we can
>make it taller.  You also want to work at less than theoretical
>strength, but the order of magnitude is correct.
    Now a 60 mile tall tower: *that's* SF.  It would have to be
either very tapered, or else wire braced (like a radio tower)
to avoid buckling.  And if it is to support, say, 10 tons, it's gonna
take a *lot* of graphite.  But it's a neat idea.
     (still, why not build it on top of a mountain?  On the equator?
If you don't like Kenya, how 'bout Cotopaxi, in Equador (6 Km) or
Huascaron, in Peru (7 Km), or even Mauna Loa, in Hawaii (not on the
equator but at least near it, 4 km)?)
     Where did you get the compression strength of graphite, by the way?
Is this the strength to failure by plastic deformation?  Does it include
the epoxy matrix?
     The electrically-assisted shuttle launch was
an idea for a lead-in to true mass drivers.  Most of the mass driver
ideas I saw four or five years ago (I haven't kept up) required
huge amounts of power in one or two seconds, to sustain hundreds
of g's to get into orbit.  This stretches out the
power need to almost a minute, and lowers the g's to something
that could launch almost any payload, including people.
     Gene O'Neill spent a year at MIT looking at mass drivers, and
delivered a lecture talking about a "telephone pole launcher" to
deliver packages about the size and shape of a telephone pole to
orbit from Pike's peak.  (or, at least almost to orbit: it obviously
needs an apogee kick to make an orbit not intersecting the surface).
I assume he published somewhere, but I don't know where.
This would make a good device for getting kevlar into orbit if you
want to make some sort of skyhook.
               --Geoffrey A. Landis
               Brown University.

     <Note to Evelyn C. Leeper:  OK, I'll nominate Mark for a Hugo
for best fan writer if you nominate *me* for best new writer (Campbell
Award)  >

------------------------------

Date:         Tue, 18 Feb 1986 11:45 EST
From: Jim Ennis  <JIM%UCF1VM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu>
Subject:      Why is the SRB in seperate pieces
To: Space Digest <space-incoming@s1-b.arpa>

  I was wondering if anybody knows why the SRB's on the shuttle are in
4 or major pieces. Why can't a single body rocket be used since the
rocket is using solid fuel?

Jim Ennis
BITNET: JIM%UCF1VM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA

------------------------------

Date: Tue 18 Feb 86 17:04:19-EST
From: Bryan R. Webb <BW0R@tf.cc.cmu.edu>
Subject: Public reaction to the Shuttle
To: space-incoming%s1-b%MIT-MULTICS@Carnegie.Mailnet

I had to say this...Sorry, L, please forgive me this once.


Someone on the Ney a week ago talked about why America became so
overwhelmed/infatuated with the death of Challenger.  I'd like to
build on his thoughts.

The Shuttle was a "James Watt Special", containing two women, a black,
an Asian, even a man named Smith.  One woman was a civilian, a teacher,
the most unprepossessing of occupations.  How can you not look up to
a teacher?  There was someone for everyone;  virtually every witness
to the accident, live or on tape, found that there was someone with
whom they could identify.

The result?  People projected themselves onto that flight.  They saw
these astronauts, who were of no specific classification, BUT REPRE-
SENTATIVE OF THE WHOLE OF HUMANITY, as extensions of themselves.  It
could just as easily have been any of us, goes our thinking.  They
are us.  A part of us has died.

Now, I doubt that most people would even consider thinking exactly
these thoughts, but the collective opinion, I suspect, closely follows
the above.  The main idea, though, is that people identified with the
flight because the makeup of the crew was homogenous, and people did
not immediately scrutinize it, but rather the greater tragedy.


          Deep blue and quiet.
          The sky explodes, then turns
          Deep quiet and blue.

-- TallSteve (sv07@TF.CC.CMU.EDU)

          P.S.:  I would like this posted to the net, if someone would
                    oblige me...
-------

------------------------------

To: ucdavis!deneb!u553691091ea@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Tim Underwood)
Cc: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Re: Uranus's axis
In-Reply-To: Your message of 7 Feb 86 06:51:24 GMT.
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 86 23:48:46 -0800
From: jon@csvax.caltech.edu

>   As an extra, What is the Ulysses probe? Will it also go to Jupiter?
>						Tim Underwood
>						University of California, Davis
>						Astronomy Club

    Ulysses is a European probe, to  be  launched  from  the  Shuttle,
which will go over one the Sun's poles (I  don't  know	which).   This
region is unexplored at the  moment.   The  ~90  degree  plane	change
required from Earth orbit is a bit much for current rockets  (:-),  so
Ulysses will first be sent to Jupiter to use its gravity well to  bend
the spacecraft's orbit.

    Originally there was to have been an American  probe  launched  at
the same time to go over the other solar pole. Funding was cut	a  few
years ago, making the Europeans rather mad as I recall.

    Ulysses would have been launched in May,  slightly	after  Galileo
(they share the same launch window). It will certainly be  delayed  at
least until the next window (13 months or so) at best. I have seen  an
assertion that only Atlantis is capable of carrying the Centaur  upper
stage with Challenger gone, which might mean a choice will have to  be
made as to which of Galileo and Ulysses  gets  to  go  next  year  and
which has to wait yet another window  (assuming  shuttles  are	flying
again by June '87).

    -- Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || seismo!citvax!jon )
    __@/

PS Would anyone in the know  care  to  comment	further  on  launching
    Centaurs?  If Atlantis is indeed the only Centaur-capable shuttle,
    is it possible to refit another (and  how  much  would  it	cost?)
    Also,  since  this	Centaur  was  designed	specifically  for  the
    shuttle, is there any chance of launching Ulysses or Galileo on  a
    Titan 34D or some such (assuming that any were available)?	Please
    don't reply to this unless you are sure; I can read  Av  Week  and
    newspapers just like everyone else.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #145
*******************


0,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA10317; Fri, 21 Feb 86 23:01:11 PST
	id AA10317; Fri, 21 Feb 86 23:01:11 PST
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 86 23:01:11 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8602220701.AA10317@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #146

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 146

Today's Topics:
			Re: Cray during launch
	   Re: Statistics of crater counts on various moons
		  What is the L5 Society all about?
		       big ticket items via STS
		       Re: buy another orbiter?
		  Re: Space Shuttle Children's Fund
		       Re: SETI vs. starflight
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 14 Feb 86 01:18:52 GMT
From: ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtgzy!ecl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (e.c.leeper)
Subject: Re: Cray during launch
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> Hmmm, if 5 minutes time on a Cray costs less than 10 million dollars,
> and it will prevent loss of another 2000 million dollar orbiter,
> then it sounds like a good idea, providing NASA knows what software
				   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> to run on it to make effective use of it. Anybody have Cray cost figures?
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^
And if wishes were horses, then beggars would ride...  Before we start looking
for cost figures, let us know where the software is.
					Evelyn C. Leeper
					...ihnp4!mtgzz!ecl
					(or ihnp4!mtgzy!ecl)

------------------------------

Date: 13 Feb 86 00:47:20 GMT
From: sun!idi!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Michael McNeil)
Organization: 3Com Corp; Mountain View, CA
Subject: Re: Statistics of crater counts on various moons
References: <8602100314.AA12046@s1-b.arpa>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

I think your point about the varying dates of solidification is
a good one -- probably some moons did freeze after the time of
greatest bombardment.  However, I believe a problem still exists
with obtaining a meteoric impact time distribution even on bodies
which were solid throughout that period.  The reason is, on very
old terrain, such as the Moon's southern hemisphere, the craters
have achieved "saturation" -- that is, new impacts didn't create
more craters, they just covered up existing ones.  How does one
find the total meteorite impact count under those circumstances?  
>Once we land on all the moons (with robot craft presumably; those
>outer moons are damn cold) and take material samples, we may be able
>to radioactively date the "rocks" (water-ice, frozen ammonia, etc.)
>like we did with the moon rocks, after which we'll able to time the
>individual meteors and thus get a distribution in time instead of just
>a gross count. At that time we'll be able to compare impact counts AT
>CORRESPONDING TIMES on various moons, and test your theory.
Why are only robot craft appropriate?  There is such a thing as
insulation, after all.  We already have to keep similarly low
temperatures within and drastically higher temperatures out
of the shuttle's main H2/O2 fuel tank.  It's easier to insulate
cold out of a ship, than keep out intense heat -- for example,
if we were to land on Mercury or dip into the Sun's atmosphere.  
There *may* be reasons -- high radiation on certain of Jupiter's
moons, for example -- why humans cannot easily explore some of
the outer moons in person.  But the cold per se won't stop us.  
-- 
Michael McNeil
3Com Corporation     "All disclaimers including this one apply"
(415) 960-9367
..!ucbvax!hplabs!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm
	[Atoms] move in the void and catching each other up jostle
	together, and some recoil in any direction that may chance,
	and others become entangled with one another in various
	degrees according to the symmetry of their shapes and sizes
	and positions and order, and they remain together and thus
	the coming into being of composite things is effected.  
		Simplicius, sixth century A.D.

------------------------------

Date: 14 Feb 86 01:44:13 GMT
From: ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtgzz!dls@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (d.l.skran)
Organization: AT&T Information Systems Labs, Holmdel NJ
Subject: What is the L5 Society all about?
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

*DISCLAIMER*
This statement is being made by Dale L. Skran.
It does not in any sense represent an official
statement of either the L5 Society or the NJL5.
*DISCLAIMER*
  ***********************************************************
  *                                                         *
  *           WHAT IS THE L5 SOCIETY, ANYWAY?               *
  *                                                         *
  ***********************************************************
  The L5 Society's official purpose is  to  dissolve  itself--
  somewhere  in space, probably at the L5 point, as rapidly as
  possible.  A goal like this makes it one of the most radical
  and interesting groups of all time.
  It consists of roughly 10,000 people;  students,  engineers,
  housewives, businessmen, scientists, auto mechanics, etc all
  dedicated to moving mankind into  space  in  a  big  way  as
  quickly  as possible.  Prominent members include Congressmen
  Don Fuqua and Newt Gingrich, Marvin Minsky, Robert Heinlein,
  C.J.   Cherryh,  Charles  Sheffield,  Philip  Chapman(former
  astronaut, Current President), Ben  Bova,  Barry  Goldwater,
  and  John  Glenn.  However,  the  society is mainly run on a
  shoestring by poor slobs  like  you  and  me.  It  DOES  NOT
  represent   any  large,  well  funded  corporate  interests.
  Likewise, the society  is  a  non-political,  tax-deductible
  organization.  The  L5  Society  is   neither  Republican or
  Democrat, Conservative or Liberal, merely(!) pro-space.
  The International headquarters is located at 1060 E. Elm St,
  Tucson,  Arizona,  85719.  A Student membership is $15 and a
  regular  membership  is  $30.  For  all  this  you  get  the
  following: 1) A subscription to the L5 News, and 2) A chance
  to participate in the most active pro-space organization.
  The L5 News concentrates on information of interest  to  its
  members,  rather  than  on  up  to  the minute space shuttle
  reports.  The art work tends to be excellent and the stories
  spotty.  Since the L5 news is a non-paying market, it cannot
  have articles by Arthur C. Clarke every month. In  spite  of
  this handicap, it is generally pretty interesting, and holds
  to high standards of accuracy. It also provides a  forum  in
  which controversial space related issues can be debated.
  Of course, you can buy numerous books, posters, etc from the
  L5  Society, but the two things that make it stand out among
  pro-space organizations are 1)the phone  tree,  and  2)  the
  chapter  organization.   The  phone  tree  consists of about
  10,000 people connected in a tree pattern(of course) so that
  in  an  emergency(ie a critical vote in Congress on the NASA
  budget) everyone in the tree can be  contacted  quickly  and
  asked to flood Congress with letters and phone calls.
  Unlike other pro-space organizations such as  the  Planetary
  Society  and  the  NSI,  the  L5  Society  has  strong local
  chapters. The local chapters carry on  much  of  the  actual
  pro-space  educational  work,  bringing  in speakers, having
  booths at fairs, and supporting Space  Week  activities.  In
  fact,  local  chapter  activities  are  limited  only by the
  imagination and available time of its members. In New  Jersy
  the  most  convenient  chapter  is probably the North Jersey
  one. Meetings are  held  at  the  Middlesex  County  Museum,
  Mettlar  House,  on  the  second  Wednesday of each month at
  7:00. You can join for $8 by writing to NJL5,  PO  Box  674,
  Holmdel, NJ 07733.  
  It should be noted that although the  L5  Society  seeks  to
  influence congress via mobilizing public opinion, and indeed
  was  very  successful  in  defeating  the  so-called   "Moon
  Treaty,"  it does not endorse candidates or provide money to
  campaigns. This task is left to an associated(but  separate)
  PAC(Political  Action Committee). The primary goal of the L5
  Society is to educate(in the broadest sense) the  public  as
  to the critical importance of space development to mankind's
  future.
  The short term goal of the L5  Society  is  to  support  the
  construction  of  a  manned  space  operations center at the
  earliest  possible  date.   The  long  term  goals   include
  encouraging  the  commercial  exploitation  of space. In the
  near future this will involve the manufacture of  electronic
  equipment  and drugs, but in the might expand to include the
  construction of  solar  power  satellites.  The  L5  Society
  envisions   a  future  in  which  primary  resources(energy,
  metals) can be derived from space leaving  the  Earth  green
  and   verdant.  At  the  same  time,  development  of  space
  resources will buoy the entire  economy,  and  result  in  a
  reduction  of  the  unemployment  rate.  This is a vision to
  which both technologists and environmentalists  can  aspire.
  The  L5  Society  supports planetary exploration, especially
  expeditions to the moon and asteroids, but believes that the
  commercial development of space resources should play a much
  larger role in our national space program.
*DISCLAIMER*
This statement by Dale L. Skran.
It does not in any sense represent an official
statement of either the L5 Society or the NJL5.
*DISCLAIMER*

------------------------------

Date: 1986 February 19 06:10:26 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM@mc.lcs.mit.edu>
To: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
Subject: big ticket items via STS
Sender: REM%IMSSS@su-score.arpa (for undeliverable-mail notifications)
Reply-To: REM%IMSSS@SU-SCORE.ARPA

Christopher Byrnes's argument in favor of sending big-ticket items
such as HST via STS sounds ok to me. Suppose we send small-ticket
items via expendable booster (recycled ICBMs!!), and if one fails we
just send another copy of the payload; but for big ticket items we
send via STS so that humans can take action in an emergency to save
the virtually irreplacible payload. Sound ok?


Quote of the day: Work on the Utah/MIT mechanical hand is progressing nicely.
With funding of a billion dollars (half the cost of a shuttle) put into the
project, I'd guess that a dexterous teleoperator version could be built in a
HANDFUL of years.

------------------------------

Date: 14 Feb 86 02:22:28 GMT
From: pur-ee!ecn-pc!wdm@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Tex)
Organization: Cybotech Product Development Laboratory
Subject: Re: buy another orbiter?
References: <831@athena.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <831@athena.UUCP> grahamb@athena.UUCP (Graham Bromley) writes:
>The current shuttle has made a great contribution by proving once 
>and for all the feasibility of airplane-like access to orbit. That 
>first image of Columbia gliding to such a smoooooooth landing at 
>Edwards made sure of that. But the shuttle has failed in its 
>primary goal of drastically reducing the costs per lb. of orbit 
>delivery. 
    One of the major reasons for the high cost per pound is that the shuttle
    does NOT have airplane like access to orbit, just airplane like access
    out of orbit.  That is why now might be a good idea to really start doing
    some serious work in the TAV area.  Does anyone know what kind of time
    and money is projected to put something reasonable together?
    
>However, to be realistic, such a program may be impossible given the 
>myopic methods of funding major scientific and engineering programs 
>in this country. In which case, lets buy another orbiter as soon as 
>possible before the enthusiasm withers, as it surely will.
    Exactly.  Dedicate the new program to the seven that died.  Not too many
    politicians would want to face charges of cutting back such a program,
    I'll bet.

------------------------------

Date: 13 Feb 86 15:08:52 GMT
From: decvax!mcnc!rti-sel!wfi@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Organization: Research Triangle Institute, NC
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle Children's Fund
References: <325@lifia.UUCP>, <241@hadron.UUCP>, <981@dcl-cs.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <981@dcl-cs.UUCP> craig@comp.lancs.ac.uk (Craig Wylie) writes:
>Many European countries have a history of Socialism and Communism, this has
>left its mark on us. We believe it is a basic human right to be Educated, to
>free medical treatment etc...  
What makes you think many Americans don't feel this way? 
>Many people consider the money paid out
>for space exploration to be a gross waste of money while people are illeterate
>and starve. 
And many people in this country (including some of us who count
ourselves on the left side of the political spectrum) don't. You folks
in Britain support a figurehead Royal Family. Is that a gross waste of
money to you?
>I say this in reply to another posting that suggested that the
>French are Jealous of American space exploration. 
So the person who made this statement was insensitive and boorish.
S/he certainly doesn't speak for all Americans.
>It's about time we
>all started realising that we are not the same people - we have different 
>drives and cultural identities, don't force your ideals onto us they don't
>fit.
Fine, as long as Europeans are willing to refrain from forcing THEIR
ideas on us as Americans. At least that's how some of us took
Francois' posting. I've often had Europeans visiting this country make
rude comments about the "American way of life." The Ugly American
concept needs to be extended to include the Ugly European, the Ugly
Asian, ...
And I agree with the recent poster who suggested this be moved to
another  group; it has little to do with net.space anymore.
                              - Cheers, Bill Ingogly

------------------------------

Date: 13 Feb 86 01:17:11 GMT
From: ihnp4!stolaf!mmm!cipher@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Andre Guirard)
Organization: 3M Company, St. Paul, Minn.
Subject: Re: SETI vs. starflight
References: <6315@utzoo.UUCP>, <11783@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <11783@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> gsmith@brahms.UUCP (Gene Ward Smith) writes:
>In article <6315@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
>>"Their" absence here is a considerable mystery, which has occasioned much
>>debate in recent years, but the "extreme cost" of interstellar travel just
>>does not suffice as an explanation.
>
>  Maybe "they" are a long way away?
Maybe "they" don't know we're here.  Maybe "they" don't care.  Maybe
"they" _are_ here, and they're not interfering because they're running
a betting pool on how long it will be before the nuclear holocaust.
There have been stranger forms of entertainment.  Actually if I were
"they," I would certainly think twice before helping as belligerent and
irresponsible a species as ours is into interstellar space...
-- 
 /''`\						Andre Guirard
([]-[])						High Weasel
 \ x /	   speak no evil			ihnp4!mmm!cipher
  `-'

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #146
*******************


0,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA11130; Sat, 22 Feb 86 03:01:13 PST
	id AA11130; Sat, 22 Feb 86 03:01:13 PST
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 86 03:01:13 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8602221101.AA11130@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #147

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 147

Today's Topics:
		      Earthquakes in the Midwest
	       Re: Has Shuttle disaster killed Galileo?
		  Re: Space Shuttle Children's Fund
			   Rockwell or KSC
		    Re: Scuttle the Space Program?
	   Re: Project Galileo Update (2/12/86, 4:30PM PST)
		    Re: Visual Shuttle Monitoring
		       re: Why the power dive?
			      Scramjets
Re: out-of-date(?!) (pre-BOOM) "I'll pay $x to joyride STS" arriving even now
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 13 Feb 86 23:09:09 GMT
From: sun!idi!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Michael McNeil)
Subject: Earthquakes in the Midwest
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <1023@ncoast.UUCP> allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon Allbery) writes:
>One of those terrible people who feel that the people who were killed in the
>Shuttle explosion actually *deserve* some memorial from We, The People,
Me, too.  
>In mid-winter, all of us Midwesterners would *love* a taste of California...
>	(r-r-r-rumble) (SHA-A-KE!!!)		      ...but not *that* badly!
The only problem with this sentiment is the fact that the Midwest was
the site of the largest earthquake in U.S. history.  (New Madrid,
Missouri, 1811 -- the quake rang church bells as far away as Boston!)  
The New Madrid earthquake is estimated at *8.4* on the Richter scale.  
Since it has been 175 years since a major earthquake in that area
relieved tectonic forces surrounding and building at the New Madrid
fault (which is very much alive), that region of the country is
now estimated by the U.S. Geological Survey to have the *highest*
probability of a major earthquake before the year 2000 -- higher
than San Francisco (whose 1906 earthquake left it in pretty good
shape for perhaps another half century), higher than Los Angeles.  
Also, this area is smack in the center of the Mississippi river
valley, which is filled with deep sediment deposits (which tend
to liquify and roll like Jello), of the sort that made the recent
Mexico City earthquake so destructive.  Remember that Mexico City
is over 200 miles from the epicenter of its earthquake; Memphis,
on the other hand, is only some 40 miles (as I recall) from New
Madrid.  Since the New Madrid quake occurred before many lived in
the area, Midwesterners have tended to feel that earthquakes were
not their problem.  As a result, few building are quake-resistant.  
-- 
Michael McNeil
3Com Corporation     "All disclaimers including this one apply"
(415) 960-9367
..!ucbvax!hplabs!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm
	When we are a million species spreading through the galaxy,
	the question "Can man play God and still stay sane?" will
	lose some of its terrors.  We shall be playing God, but
	only as local deities and not as lords of the universe.  
	There is safety in numbers.  Some of us will become insane,
	and rule over empires as crazy as Doctor Moreau's island.  
	Some of us will shit on the morning star.  There will be
	conflicts and tragedies.  But in the long run, the sane
	will adapt and survive better than the insane.  Nature's
	pruning of the unfit will limit the spread of insanity
	among species in the galaxy, as it does among individuals
	on earth.  Sanity is, in its essence, nothing more than
	the ability to live in harmony with nature's laws.  
		Freeman Dyson, 1979, *Disturbing the Universe*

------------------------------

Posted-Date: Wed 19 Feb 1986 08:15:03 EST
Date: Wed 19 Feb 1986 08:15:03 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Re: Has Shuttle disaster killed Galileo?
To: David desJardins <desj@brahms.berkeley.edu>
In-Reply-To: David desJardins's message of Tue, 18 Feb 86 21:42:13 pst
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa

Both Ulysses and Galileo use Centaur upper stages, and only two
shuttles were configured to carry these: Atlantis and Challenger.  Now
only Atlantis can.

------------------------------

Date: 13 Feb 86 19:56:19 GMT
From: pur-ee!ecn-pc!wdm@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Tex)
Organization: Cybotech Product Development Laboratory
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle Children's Fund
References: <505@eneevax.UUCP>, <469@ecn-pc.UUCP>, <805@bute.tcom.stc.co.uk>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <805@bute.tcom.stc.co.uk> pete@stc.UUCP (Peter Kendell) writes:
>In article <469@ecn-pc.UUCP> wdm@ecn-pc.UUCP (Tex) writes:
>>    Don't blame him, it is probably difficult to live in a country that
>>    sits on the sidelines and watches while we explore space.  After all,
>>    they think it is pretty neat that they have a booster that can but
>>    a satellite into orbit.
>
>        Oh dear.
    I didn't know people still said that in public.
>
>        1: A comparison of the relative sizes of France and the USA
>           makes it pretty obvious that Ariane is a considerable
>           achievement.
   Of course Ariane is not totally French - it is the product of the Euro-
   pean Space Agency, of which France is the most active participant.
>
>        2: Why should the USA and the USSR have it all their own way
>           in space?
   I give up, why?  I certainly never said they should.
>
>        3: Look to your laurels; the Japanese are right at your heels
>           Right Now on space technology - 2 of the Halley's Comet
>           probes are from Japan. (and Giotto, the best bet, is
>           European!)
   There are some pretty good reasons the US did not send a probe to 
   Halley.  One of the major ones was funding, of course.  Another
   major one is the Halley did not present itself as a particularly
   interesting comet due to its approach relative to the Sun.  What
   the US has proposed is the (I probably have this somewhat garbled) 
   Tempel 2 Comet Rendezvous Mission.  I don't know what its status is
   since the Challenger malfunctioned.  This probe is designed to go out
   to the asteroid belt (doing a close in asteroid fly-by in the process,
   as a result of which, I think the mission has had appended Asteroid Fly-by
   to its name, I believe), pick up Tempel 2 and stay with it as it approaches 
   the Sun, reaches perihelion and then goes back to aphelion.  It will be in 
   close proximity to Tempel 2 for several MONTHS.  The Halley probes will be 
   in close proximity for several minutes, or maybe hours depending what you
   want to call "close," due to their high angle of interception.  Comet
   researchers generally agree that the Tempel 2 mission is of much higher
   scientific significance than the Halley missions, because the comet
   will be observed going from a nearly virgin state, then to a highly
   excited state and back again.  Of course, history is not rich with
   Tempel 2 lore, so this mission does not have the allure of a Halley
   mission.
   And now, a message to our French speaking viewers:
   J'ai poste une article il y a deux semaines, un peu pres, disant
   que la France n'est pas un des champions de l'exploration de l'espace.
   Je crois exactement le contraire.  Je l'ai ecrit en reponse a un francais qui
   a ecrit une article qui etait, a mon avis, insultant, surtout juste
   apres le disastre Challenger. 
   Si je vous ai insulte, je m'excuse.  Je n'ai que admiration pour l'ESA.
   Excusez mon francais, s'il vous plait.
>
>        7 brave humans died on the Challenger; we all respect their
>        courage, but some of us are wondering why you have to die live
>        on TV to raise the conscience of a nation.
   If I recall correctly, the Apollo One Crew did not die "live on TV," and
   the conscience of the nation was still raised.

------------------------------

Date: 13 Feb 86 04:48:35 GMT
From: sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!oberon!smeagol!kwan@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Richard Kwan)
Organization: Spacecraft Data Systems, JPL, Pasadena, CA
Subject: Rockwell or KSC
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Anyone from Rockwell (Downey, CA) or KSC (Cape Canaveral, FL)
listening to the net??!!  You might be able to help us stem the tide
of misinformation.
	Rick Kwan
	JPL Spacecraft Data Systems group

------------------------------

Date: 14 Feb 86 15:03:27 GMT
From: decvax!wanginst!masscomp!ahv@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Tony Verhulst)
Organization: Masscomp - Westford, MA
Subject: Re: Scuttle the Space Program?
References: <158@axiom.UUCP>, <932@nmtvax.UUCP>, <1866@jhunix.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>
>First, there are no other indigenous people in the solar system.  Even if it 
>should turn out that there is (say) life on Pluto, that wouldn't mean
>that we would enslave it in order to colonize the moon, asteroids, or
>L4/5 points.  And I doubt very much we would exploit, enslave, or genocide,
>even to explore Pluto--we'd just go somewhere else.
Sure.  Just like the future Americans did when indigenous people were
found on this continent.
Sorry about the sarcasm but history does show that humans do have a tendency
to enslave and/or suppress natives who have the misfortune to reside on
a piece of property that a stronger people have an eye on. I am personally
not convinced that the trend will stop when (not if) we colonize space.
In time we may evolve and mature. But - not yet.

------------------------------

Date: 13 Feb 86 04:43:06 GMT
From: sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!oberon!smeagol!kwan@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Richard Kwan)
Organization: Spacecraft Data Systems, JPL, Pasadena, CA
Subject: Re: Project Galileo Update (2/12/86, 4:30PM PST)
References: <598@smeagol.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Some notes on Greg Earle's Galileo Update <598@smeagol.UUCP>:
>  - It was predicted that if the spacecraft had been onboard Challenger, that
>    there would NOT have been a serious radioactive materials leak.
That is the "prevailing expert opinion."  JPL would like to do
supporting analysis on that.  However, the data from the shuttle
accident is not yet easily attainable.  Such an analysis is certainly
not in the mainstream of the current investigation and might, in fact,
impede progress.  So we will have to wait.
>  - There were plans for Galileo to rendevous with an Asteroid on the way out;
>    obviously this has been scrapped, although there is talk about finding
>    a possible replacement asteroid that would be reachable considering the
>    time of the next launch window.
Up to this time, the Lab has been proceeding on the 1986 launch plan,
although knowing that a change in direction was imminent.  (We were
anticipating, but had not yet received the official directive to scrap
the 1986 mission, and shoot for 1987.  That came today.) Thus, no 1987
mission trajectories have been plotted yet.  As they are plotted, we
will undoubtedly see if there are other candidate asteroids available.
    The tragedy of the 1986 mission is that the target asteroid
was a fairly large one, whose name I can't remember or pronounce.
> Disclaimer Disclaimer: This should be considered an Official NASA/JPL
> statement on this matter, 'cause that's what they told us ...
Disclaimer Disclaimer Disclaimer:  the information was intended to give
new marching orders to us at JPL, and is thus considered highly
reliable, but I haven't the foggiest what they would want to say in a
press release.  But yes, "that's what they told us ..."
	Rick Kwan
	JPL Spacecraft Data Systems group
P.S.  Go easy on me, Greg... :@)

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 19 Feb 86 21:29:36 PST
From: ihnp4!ihwpt!knudsen@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: ucbvax!space
Subject: Re: Visual Shuttle Monitoring

You make a good point (about visually monitoring the launches
by an officer who can start an abort sequence).
The need for video monitoring, not just telementry,
was dramatized seconds after the disaster, when the
CapCom said "we appear to have major malfunction."
I thought that was a pretty sick parody of Federalese,
till we realized that the poor guy didn't have
a video monitor of the TV feed!

To paraphrase your question: Does ANYONE at NASA watch
(really watch) the launches?
And if so, what could they do if something was obviously
wrong.... ?
	mike k

------------------------------

Date: 18 Feb 86 00:33:23 GMT
From: decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-crvax1!kaplow@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Reach for the Stars)
Subject: re: Why the power dive?
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

	The shuttle DOES perform its final minute(s) of main engine burn
    pointing down. The size of this down component is quite small compared
    to the downrange component. This intentional downthrust is not, however,
    wasted energy. While its altitude is decreasing slightly, its speed is
    greatly increased to just less than the amount necessary for orbital
    velocity (its easier to go faster downhill than uphill). Then the later
    OMS burns redirect the speed to the desired orbit. 
	I beleieve that they want the ET to burn up to prevent the shuttle
    orbital path from getting cluttered up with empty ETs. Ask NORAD how
    much junk in space it is already tracking. Also thing what a chance
    meeting between an orbiter and an ET might do. Now if we had something
    useful to do with all of those ETs... 
    		Bob Kaplow 
    		Digital Equipment Corp. 
    		Arlington Heights, IL 
    UUCP:   {allegra,decvax,ihnp4,ucbvax}!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-crvax1!kaplow
    ARPA:   KAPLOW%CRVAX1.DEC@decwrl.DEC.COM 
	*   Reach for the Stars   *

------------------------------

Date: 19 Feb 86 20:38:32 GMT
From: vger!al@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  ( Informatix)
Organization: UC Santa Cruz, CIS Dept.
Subject: Scramjets
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

A while back there was a discussion of scramjets on the net.  Unfortunately,
I wasn't paying much attention at the time.  My impression of them is
that they use atmospheric oxygen to make major reductions in weight
for most of the launch phase.  Is this true?
2.  If the 'orient express' can get Washington -> Tokyo flights for
$5-6,000 then you can get to LEO for about the same amount.  How many
people do you know that would spend $10,000 for a week or weekend in
orbit?  If the tourist thing ever gets cheap enough there will be so
much space development it'll make our heads spin ...

------------------------------

Date: 14 Feb 86 17:29:53 GMT
From: decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!frog!john@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (John Woods, Software)
Organization: Superfrog Heaven [ CRDS, Framingham MA ]
Subject: Re: out-of-date(?!) (pre-BOOM) "I'll pay $x to joyride STS" arriving even now
References: <8602041137.AA13581@s1-b.arpa>, <649@frog.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Just for your amusement, a headline in today's (14 Feb) Boston Globe:
	Backup teacher says `yes' to shuttle offer
Sign me up!
--
John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (617) 626-1101
...!decvax!frog!john, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw%mit-ccc@MIT-XX.ARPA
This space dedicated to Challenger and her crew,
Francis R. Scobee, Michael J. Smith, Ellison S. Onizuka, Judith Resnik,
Ronald E. McNair, Gregory B. Jarvis, and Christa McAuliffe.
"...and slipped the surly bonds of Earth to touch the face of God."

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #147
*******************


0,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA12235; Sat, 22 Feb 86 07:01:18 PST
	id AA12235; Sat, 22 Feb 86 07:01:18 PST
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 86 07:01:18 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8602221501.AA12235@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #148

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 148

Today's Topics:
		Astronauts' Memorial--House Resolution
			 Re: Challenger SRBs
			 Re: SRB destruction
		  Re: Space Shuttle Children's Fund
			    External tanks
		   Re: 5 YEARS TO REPLACE ORBITER?
			  Re: teleoperators
			   Planet prefixes
	 Re: "Long Term Implications of Challenger Accident"
		       Re: Television coverage
		      Another 400 messages read
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 14 Feb 86 12:50:28 GMT
From: ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtgzy!ecl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (e.c.leeper)
Organization: AT&T Information Systems Labs, Holmdel NJ
Subject: Astronauts' Memorial--House Resolution
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

       The following has been propsed by Robert E. Badham of
       Newport Beach, California, and co-sponsored by Peter Rodino
       (NJ), Robert Davis (MI), and Bill Chappell (FL):
                          House Joint Resolution
           in the House of Representatives of the United States
                             January 29, 1986
                             Joint Resolution
       Authorizing establishment of a memorial to honor America's
       astronauts.
            Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives
       of the United States of America in Congress assembled.
       SECTION 1.  ESTABLISHMENT OF MEMORIAL.
       (a) IN GENERAL.--The L-5 Society is authorized to establish
       a memorial on federal land in the District of Columbia or
       its environs to honor America's astronauts and, in
       particular, those astronauts who have given up their lives
       in the pursuit of knowledge for all mankind.
       (b) SITE, DESIGN, AND PLANS.--In carrying out subsection
       (a), the L-5 Society shall be responsible for selecting site
       for the memorial and preparing the design and plans for the
       memorial, each of which shall be subject to the approval of
       the Commission of Fine Arts and the National Planning
       Commission.
       SECTION 2.  PAYMENT OF EXPENSES.
       The United States shall not pay any expense of establishment
       of the memorial.  The L-5 Society shall not begin
       construction of the memorial until, as determined by the
       Comptroller General, amounts available to the L-5 Society
       from non-Federal sources are sufficient to carry out this
       resolution.
       SECTION 3.  EXPIRATION OF AUTHORITY.
       The authority to establish the memorial under this
       resolution shall expire at the end of the five-year period
       beginning on the date on which this resolution becomes law,
       unless construction of the memorial begins during that
       period.
I would urge everyone who wishes to see such a memorial to write their
Congressperson and ask them to support this resolution.  (While you're at
it, a plug for supporting the space program wouldn't hurt.)
If you wish to contact the L5 Society regarding this resolution, their address
is: L5 Society, 1060 East Elm St., Tucson, AZ 95719 (602-622-6351).
					Evelyn C. Leeper
					...ihnp4!mtgzz!ecl
					(or ihnp4!mtgzy!ecl)
******************************************************************************
*		Generic Disclaimer--I speak for myself only.                 *
*	       Very occasionally, other people agree with me.                *
******************************************************************************

------------------------------

Date: 14 Feb 86 14:09:46 GMT
From: ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!hropus!ijk@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Ihor J. Kinal)
Organization: Bell Labs, Holmdel, NJ
Subject: Re: Challenger SRBs
References: <508117617.webb@IUS2.CS.CMU.EDU>, <3112@umcp-cs.UUCP>, <134@shell.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

References: <4270@mhuxd.UUCP> <8500024@uiucdcs> <261@hadron.UUCP>
Everyone has stated that the SRB's have charges down the length of
them, and that the news media who claim that only the tops were blown
of don't know what they're talking about.  Yet in this week's TIME
(Feb 17), they state: "While both rockets had been reported blown up 
by radio signals within 30 seconds of the accident, NASA belatedly 
explained that only the nose cones and nozzles were detonated.  With
the boosters thus opened at both ends, they lost their exhaust thrust
and fell to the water."
	Has anyone seen the NASA statement to confirm this????
	If this happened, was it a failure of the destruct mechanism.
	
	DID ANYONE THERE (Cape Canaveral) OR ON TAPES ACTUALLY SEE THE
	BOOSTERS ALL THE WAY (and can one tell if the destruct mechanism
	really works).
	
Still puzzled.
Ihor Kinal
ihnp4!houxm!hropus!ijk

------------------------------

Date: 15 Feb 86 07:10:51 GMT
From: cbosgd!osu-eddie!pritch@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Norman Pritchett)
Subject: Re: SRB destruction
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <463@mb2c.UUCP> gbr@mb2c.UUCP (Jerry Ruhno) writes:
>    I have read a lot of interesting on the SRBs which really surprised me.
>  First of all if one SRB is destroyed then both are. 
If the range safety officer were given selective control over which to
destroy, what happens if he gets them confused.  Actually, does anyone know
if the range safety people get direct visual contact of the shuttle or do
they only get radar contact?
-- 
Norm Pritchett, The Ohio State University
BITNET: TS1703 at OHSTVMA	Bellnet: (614) 422-0885
UUCP: cbosgd!osu-eddie!pritch	CSNET: pritch@ohio-state
ARPANET: NPRITCHETT%osu-20@ohio-state (or) pritch@ohio-state

------------------------------

Date: 14 Feb 86 17:31:21 GMT
From: ihnp4!stolaf!mmm!mrgofor@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (MKR)
Organization: none
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle Children's Fund
References: <469@ecn-pc.UUCP>, <11781@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, <850@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <850@brl-smoke.ARPA> ron@brl-smoke.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) writes:
>>   Do I detect a hint of chauvinism here? Does anybody still remember
>> Sputnik? I think it is prtty neat that the Europeans havn't had any
>> fatalities in thier space program as yet.
>> 
>Eh, if you consider the people who put up Sputnik (the Soviets, remember?)
>to be Europeans, then, it is not pretty neat, because they have had
>fatalities in their program as well.
>
>-Ron
	Aside from which, if you don't consider the Soviets to be European,
then they have also not yet had any astronauts in their space program (except
as passengers on the shuttle). It's hard to have fatalities when there are
no people.
	--MKR

------------------------------

Date: 19 Feb 86 15:08:36 GMT
From: decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-ushs01!mcallister@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Subject: External tanks
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> "Now if we had something useful to do with all of those ETs..."
The ET's are designed to break up for the reason of allievating the 
orbital junk.  There was a plan, killed for lack of funding, to add
fuel tanks to the cargo bay and boost the ET's into LEO (Low Earth 
Orbit) for use as materials in building a space station.  Haven't 
heard much about that recently, though.
Dave McAllister
Digital Equipment Corp @ NASA/Johnson Space Center
{decvax, ucbvax, allegra}!decwrl!dec-ushs01!mcallister
"First things first, but not necessarily in that order."  The Doctor

------------------------------

Date: 16 Feb 86 20:27:11 GMT
From: hplabs!ames!eugene@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Eugene Miya)
Subject: Re: 5 YEARS TO REPLACE ORBITER?
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> I can't disagree with you.  The longer I work with the government, the
> more I wonder...how in &^%$^#@ did we finish the Apollo program so fast?
> 
>                                   - Jim Van Zandt 
	;-)
--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  {hplabs,ihnp4,dual,hao,decwrl,allegra}!ames!aurora!eugene
  eugene@ames-nas.ARPA

------------------------------

Date: 16 Feb 86 20:24:37 GMT
From: hplabs!ames!eugene@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Eugene Miya)
Subject: Re: teleoperators
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Paul Deitz writes:
> I see no reason why such a device
> couldn't be built for more than a few hundred thousand dollars (ignoring
> development costs).  Even if space qualification multiplies that
> by ten it should still make sense for EVA in low orbit.
> Development costs are harder to estimate.  
 
Well, is that is the case, why don't you form a company and build such
a device?  If Fortune Systems could get $110M, I'm certain you can
easily raise $1M.  I personally think your estimates are off by one
order of magnitude, but don't let me stop you.  I left the "Development
costs" in there as your floater.  If you build something decent,
I'll point you to the door in NASA to sell such a device.  I just
want to do for you what Seymour Cray does for every person who comes
to him with an idea to improve one of his machines: Go do it.
From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  {hplabs,ihnp4,dual,hao,decwrl,allegra}!ames!aurora!eugene
  eugene@ames-nas.ARPA

------------------------------

Date:  Thu, 20 Feb 86 10:17 CST
From: Slocum@hi-multics.arpa
Subject:  Planet prefixes
To: space@s1-b.arpa

When one is refering to Earth, the prefix 'geo-' is used.
Similarly, the prefix for Sol is 'helio-'.

Could someone tell me what the prefixes for the other planets
would be? For instance, is it lunocentric or selenocentric.
What would the equivalent to perigee, perihelion, apogee, and 
aphelion be for the other planets? 

    Brett Slocum
    (Slocum\@HI-MULTICS)

------------------------------

Date: 16 Feb 86 21:32:04 GMT
From: hplabs!ames!eugene@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Eugene Miya)
Subject: Re: "Long Term Implications of Challenger Accident"
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> Does anybody remember the last time in history when a government
> operation successfully "explored a historic frontier?"  Yeah, me
> neither.
> 
> Paul Gloger
I can remember many.
We had, what I considered, an important ocean program which died with
the death of one aquanaut off the CA coast in the late 1960s.
We want to go into space without exploring 70% of our own planet.
Much of this work is military related.  What happened to the industrial
use of the ocean?  Well, it turns out Mn Nodules are not as high
quality and plentiful as first believed.  You also need more than
Mn.  {same as with space: you need more than loncrete, O2, etc.}
We must not belittle the efforts of the USGS, the purchases of Alaska,
Lousiana (oops, sp) [I recognize we took a lot, too].
What about the non-physical frontiers such as nuclear energy and
attempts of build great societies thru education [I was educated
in the latter, and many of my doors are now closed to others].
I think many of these programs died for complex combinations of reasons.
The economic risks are great.  The social biases are interesting.
Many people don't so see as we do about the uses of space.  Rather
than say, "They are blind" I try to ask myself what do they see that I don't.
I also ask how can I convince them of the importance of my viewpoint.
Occasionally, I succeed; I typically fail: that is the nature of debate,
one rarely converts one's opponents.
See the similarity of our arguments with historical record.  We have
great differences, too: we don't send POMEs (pardons to the English
and Australians) into space.  Most of the arguments for going into the
sea were the same as going into space. Mostly the scales were
different.
--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  {hplabs,ihnp4,dual,hao,decwrl,allegra}!ames!aurora!eugene
  eugene@ames-nas.ARPA

------------------------------

Date: 16 Feb 86 21:54:09 GMT
From: hplabs!ames!eugene@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Eugene Miya)
Subject: Re: Television coverage
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> But the remark lumping Canada and the Soviet Union
> into the same basket w.r.t. news censorship was, at first blush,
> unsubstantiated and un-called-for.
You are right.  On behalf of many of the US Usenet readers, I apologize.
I do this as a private citizen, and not as an official of the US Government.
The gentleman's remarks were rude and inapproprate.  We should make certain
he does not take a post with the State Department.  Canada: we thank you
for developing the Shuttle arm.  Now, if we can only resolve our acid
rain problems...
From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  {hplabs,ihnp4,dual,hao,decwrl,allegra}!ames!aurora!eugene
  eugene@ames-nas.ARPA

------------------------------

Date: 17 Feb 86 03:16:13 GMT
From: hplabs!ames!eugene@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Eugene Miya)
Subject: Another 400 messages read
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

I have returned from a vacation I had planned since before December.
Over the weekend, I have again attempted to catch up on the 400+
net.space and net.columbia (challenger, followup, astro and other)
messages.  I will post the address and number for the review board
on Tuesday when I contact JSC again.  I have tried to respond where
appropriate (some may be curt, but these are trying times as I
am not hired as a PR person).  I am hearted to see that speculation
is reduced.  Consider all of the people "in the know" who have
given answers as to why the shuttle flies upside down.  I don't
know why myself, but you have moved me to give the astronaut office a
call.  But some of you realize how busy I am, don't forget I owe
the net an interview with some of the SETI people on extraterrestial
contact plans, or data to others also flight realms (lin@mit).
BTW, could someone other than REM send a test message to one of my
ARPA boxes.  I want to be certain that internet forwarding is
taking place.  Use disgression.  I'll ack via some future posting
rather than mail.
Thank you.
--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  {hplabs,ihnp4,dual,hao,decwrl,allegra}!ames!aurora!eugene
  eugene@ames-nas.ARPA
  emiya@ames-vmsb.ARPA

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #148
*******************


0,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA15068; Sat, 22 Feb 86 19:01:26 PST
	id AA15068; Sat, 22 Feb 86 19:01:26 PST
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 86 19:01:26 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8602230301.AA15068@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #149

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 149

Today's Topics:
		Questions about parabolic plane flight
		   SRB ring seals/NASA culpability?
		  LA Area: Uranus Encounter Lecture
		    Re: Scuttle the Space Program?
	   Re: Why does everyone want to leave this planet?
	   Re: Why does everyone want to leave this planet?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Thu, 20 Feb 86 10:05 EST
From: Steve Dourson - Delco <dourson%gmr.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa
Cc: dourson%gmr.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
Subject:  Questions about parabolic plane flight


On the subject of Parabolic Plane Flight:

How is this maneuver flown (i.e., starting altitude, attitude, & 
airspeed; altitude & airspeed at low point; altitude & airspeed at 
high point; minimum & maximum airspeed, etc)?

Over what portion of the flight path does the weightless condition 
occur (i.e., inflection point to inflection point?) ?

How long does an interval of weightlessness last?

What level of g-force do the participants experience at pull-up?

And what kind of activities are scheduled during these flights?

Thanks.

Stephen Dourson
 20-FEB-1986 08:18:57 

dourson%gmr.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA    (arpa)
dourson@gmr                           (csnet)

------------------------------

Date: 11 Feb 86 15:58:11 GMT
From: kim@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Kim Helliwell )
Subject: SRB ring seals/NASA culpability?
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

The latest news, of yesterday and this morning (2/11/86) is that attention
is centering on the rubber ring seals which hold the SRB segments together,
and that NASA was aware of problems with these up to 9 months ago.
Prefacing my comments with the disclaimer that none of this is yet conclusively
proven, I want to ask the following:
Is it really possible that NASA, in spite of the pretty obvious record of
paranoia when it comes to safety, could just plain ignore warnings about these
seals?  Is there some other explanation--like, they did know, but thought
they had worked out a solution (which unfortunately, wasn't good enough), or
they didn't really realize how bad the problem was, or something?  Anything
whatever in extenuation?
My fear is that, if it turns out that NASA whitewashed this problem in their
haste to meet the launch schedule, the current investigation will degenerate
into a witch-hunt, and the space program will suffer drastically.
Somebody please tell me this can't happen (and why it can't, of course!).
I really hope the news agencies are just exaggerating a bit!
hplabs!analog!kim

------------------------------

Date: 20 Feb 1986 10:13:25 PST
Subject: LA Area: Uranus Encounter Lecture
From: Craig Milo Rogers  <ROGERS@usc-isib.arpa>
To: BBoard@usc-isib.arpa, BBoard@usc-ecl.arpa, Space@s1-b.arpa

     Mr. Michael Urban will present a lecture entitled
     "Uranus Encounter" at 7:00 PM on Saturday, February 22
     in the Von Karman Auditorium at the Jet Propulsion
     Laboratory, 4800 Oak Grove Drive in Pasadena.

          Mr. Urban is Leader of the Advanced Software
     Development Group for the Voyager Project at JPL.  He
     will talk about the Voyager Project with emphasis on the
     preliminary results of the Uranus Encounter.

          The 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.  For more information about this lecture or
     other OASIS activities call F. Wiley Livermont at
     (818) 700 - 8382, or send a message to Craig Milo Rogers
     <Rogers@USC-ISIB.ARPA>.
-------

------------------------------

To: space@mc.lcs.mit.edu, unmvax!nmtvax!fine@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Scuttle the Space Program?
In-Reply-To: Fine's message of 9 Feb 86 04:10:48 GMT.
Date: 20 Feb 86 10:11:14 PST (Thu)
From: jef@lbl-rtsg.arpa

In reply to Andrew J fine's long message about learning to live with
ourselves here on Earth before we think about moving out into space...

First, I found the tone of the message fairly offensive.  Mr. Fine
assumes that he is the only one asking these kinds of questions - which
he's not - and that only he has the right answers - which he doesn't.
He assigns all sorts of evil motivations to those who would disagree with
him.  Well Andrew, I'm one of those people, and I consider myself to be
an extremely moral being, so tone it down, ok?

As for answering the substance of the message, REM posted a sufficient
answer just a few days ago.  It appeared in the space digest yesterday,
and it ably refutes the idea that we should get clean up Earth before
moving to space.  I've appended an answer of my own, that I wrote a few
weeks before the Challenger explosion.  In it, I attempt to show that
we *must* move out into space *now* - it's a moral imperative.
---
Jef

                       Long-Term Viability
                        by Jef Poskanzer


The only long-term way to assure the viability of Earthlife, including
whales, gorillas, cephalopods and everything else as well as humans, is
to get off this planet.  As long as Earth is the only place we live, we
are vulnerable to extinction.  There are all sorts of nasty things that
could wipe out all life on this planet.  A really large comet could hit
us, pasteurizing the planet.  Sirius could go supernova.  Maybe a new form
of life could evolve, poisoning and replacing us the way we poisoned and
replaced hydrogen-breathing life a billion years ago.

Furthermore, we have a time limit.  Our sun is getting hotter.  It has been
getting hotter, very slowly, for as far back as we can measure - billions
of years.  So far, the biosphere has managed to keep the local temperature
constant by steadily decreasing the proportion of greenhouse gasses in the
atmosphere - carbon dioxide, water vapor, methane, etc.  However, if the
sun continues to get hotter for only another 100 million years, that
solution will no longer work - even getting rid of every last molecule would
still leave the planet too hot.  There will be a runaway greenhouse effect
leaving Earth looking something like Venus.  Not a place you'd want to live.

So, you may ask, why am I worrying about events that won't happen for 100
million years?  Surely we've got plenty of time to start colonies in the
asteroids and begin moving out to the stars.

Well, we actually don't have very much time at all - 100 years, 200 at the
outside.  Humans have been using up the natural resources of this planet
at an amazing rate, and now we're running out.  Soon we're going to have
to fall back to a low-energy, renewable-resource, labor-intensive way of
life.  I have two objections to this.  One is the immediate loss of life.
Ecotopia can't support five billion people.  Maybe one billion.  That
means four billion people must die - which is about fifty times more than
have died in all wars so far combined.

My second objection is that if we go to a low-energy life-style now, we will
never be able to reverse that decision.  The easy resources are gone.  The
close-to-the-surface ores, the coal, the oil - we've used it up.  Now it
takes high-tech energy-intensive machinery to extract the resources needed
to keep the high-tech machinery going.  We can keep going like this for
a little while longer, but if we give up high-tech we won't be able to
start again.  We would have to wait for continental drift to expose new
ores, which would take a hundred million years or so, and by that 
time - you guessed it - runaway greenhouse effect.

So, if we back off now, we are putting a permanent, irrevocable ceiling on
the number of human individuals who will ever live.  One billion people
for 100 million years means at most five times ten to the fifteenth people
will ever live.

If, on the other hand, we spread Earthlife to the stars, then the next
100 million years will see the birth of at least ten to the twenty-fourth
humans, plus unguessable numbers of intelligent descendents of the gorillas,
dolphins, octopodes, etc.

A short-term benefit of moving out into space is that by making use of
asteroidal resources, we can avoid the catastrophic collapse of Earth's
civilization.  We can spread out the transition to world-wide Ecotopia
over the next 500 years.  This will allow us to reduce the population to
the necessary level through birth control and emigration instead of war,
famine, and disease.


It's kind of frightening to me that within the next two centuries, we will
collectively make a decision that will allow or prevent the existence of
many septillions of people.

------------------------------

To: "Charles S. Geiger, Esq." <nike!im4u!ut-sally!ut-ngp!cgeiger@ucbvax.berkeley.edu>
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: hester@ICSE.UCI.EDU
Subject: Re: Why does everyone want to leave this planet?
In-Reply-To: Your message of 13 Feb 86 22:45:25 GMT.
Date: 20 Feb 86 11:13:10 PST (Thu)
From: Jim Hester <hester@icse.uci.edu>

The fact that Earth is the home of mankind is no argument to stay
here.  Tell me, do you still live in the home in which you were born?
I don't mean to imply anything wrong with that, but it is certainly not
the norm.  America would be considerably different if all those
colonists and explorers had stayed home.  Assuming we agree that "home"
should not be left, how do we define "home":  house, neighborhood,
country, continent, planet, solar system, ...?  You define it as
"planet".  Others see it differently, from "house" up to "home is where
the heart is", i.e., "everywhere we are capable of reaching and choose
to settle."

Migration probably will not be a serious issue at any time.  It will be
a long time, if ever, before mass human space transport is feasible.
Also, history shows that there are seldom a large percentage of a
population who want to leave their home country even when they know
that the destination can support human life---consider how few would
move to a planet which sustains life artificially!  Damn few, for any
other planet in this solar system.  Possibly a few more if we ever
discover an Earth-like planet (or tarraform one), and can transport
people (frozen?), but that's a long way down the road and still probably
less people would go for it than any migration in history.

Colonization, however, is an entirely different matter.  A small number
can go, to reproduce and build their own world.  This is the tried and
true method used down the ages.  There are several potential advantages
to the race (i.e., us guys who are happy to stay at home):
advancements in science, economy (trading for either natural or
manufactured materials of other worlds), culture (interactive and
artistic), and safety (get all mankind's eggs out of one basket, which
some will argue is a bit precariously balanced at present).

As to why any given individual might want to go, you just about
answered it yourself.  You are interested in the undiscovered vistas
here on Earth.  Others are interested in other vistas.  One reason to
leave is that we have been here long enough that most of these require
intense study to even prepare to begin discovering new things.
Alternately, study of the wild regions on Earth costs a lot (less, if
you have enough degrees to get someone to sponsor you).  Some people
might like an environment where EVERYTHING is unknown, rather than
searching out the unknown.  There will also be those who don't get
along with their envoronment and wish to start somewhere fresh, out of
reach of their past (some criminals, perhaps, but others with emotional
reasons as well).  Still others may answer you argument with your
argument:  Yes, there is plenty to learn here on Earth.  There is also
plenty to learn elsewhere.  Since you are already working on Earth, they
wish to work on the other areas.  As I have already pointed out, there
is nothing magical about Earth as more interesting than anywhere else,
except in personal opinion and probably some religions.

In short, it's basically a matter of personal preference.  With no
offense intended, your arguement is basically a combination of apathy
and arrogence, both very mild.  Apathy in that you question the value
of reaching for more than we currently have, just because you are
satisfied with your lot.  Arrogence in that, although you claim to admit
some value in interests which are low on your priorities, you effectively
devalue them by refusing to respect others who place these interests
ahead of those you consider more important.

It's well and good to have your own preferences and to be happy to let
the others follow their own dreams.  But you need not belittle their
preferences just because they are not the same as yours, with statements
to the effect that you would happy to be rid of such people.  This kind
of thing makes you one of the reasons they might want to leave.  Let
them go or not as they choose, but do not imply that their interests
make them less than you, such that you gain by their simple abscence.

I consider the abscence of most adventurous people a loss to people like
you who want to learn more about Earth, but most likely well reimbursed
by the accomplishments that they will share with those of us who stay behind.

Jim Hester - a groundhog who respects and values non-groundhogs

------------------------------

Date: 20 Feb 86 11:11:50 PST (Thursday)
Subject: Re: Why does everyone want to leave this planet?
In-Reply-To: <8602201102.AA22048@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
From: James Parker <Parker.es@xerox.com>
Cc: James Parker <Parker.es@xerox.com>


Charles,

not everyone wants to leave earth.

i certainly do, but i *don't* want to live on a planet - Dr. O'Neil has
shown that space colonies are far superior.

yes, there is plenty to see here - and the rest of the universe to see
and explore out there.

sure this is our home.  but when a person grows up, he leaves home to go
elsewhere and make his own home.  the same should be true for developing
intelligent species.  perhaps in the future, the earth will be turned
into a museam as the birthplace of man.

i'm interested in astronomy too, and i'd rather study other stars close
up - or failing that, from a large space based telescope - across a
*much* wider range of wavelengths than can penetrate the earth's
atmosphere.

i have no objections to anyone staying - it is certainly ( now at least
) safer & more "sensible", but at the tender young age of 33, i'm still
engaging in dangerous activities just for amusement - there are much
better reasons for me to risk my life in space.


James

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #149
*******************


0,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA16383; Sat, 22 Feb 86 23:01:28 PST
	id AA16383; Sat, 22 Feb 86 23:01:28 PST
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 86 23:01:28 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8602230701.AA16383@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #150

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 150

Today's Topics:
	       Re: Cost of a new shuttle (actually B-1)
		     re: British orbital vehicle
		    New Soviet Space Station "Mir"
		    Re: Did the Challenger Wobble?
		  Re: Space Shuttle Children's Fund
			Re: Cray during launch
		 Re: Television coverage (Canadian f
	   Re: Why does everyone want to leave this planet?
	     Shuttle payloads, plutonium, and explosions
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 17 Feb 86 08:55:42 GMT
From: amdcad!phil@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Phil Ngai)
Subject: Re: Cost of a new shuttle (actually B-1)
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <11815@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> desj@brahms.UUCP writes:
>In article <8602111608.AA14971@hermes> dms@MIT-HERMES.ARPA writes:
>>For sake of comparison, the price of a B1 bomber is around 1 billion,
>>and the plan is to build 100 of them. How about building 90 B1
>>bombers and 5 more shuttles?
>
>   I am getting really sick of people posting numbers to the net which
>are off by orders of magnitude.  The estimated cost of each B-1 is more
>like $100 million.
You're both wrong. 34 B-1B bombers were purchased in 1985 for a cost
of $208.8 million each, according to "America's War Machine" by Tom
Gervasi.
Have you been talking to REM or something?
-- 
 Real men don't have answering machines.
 Phil Ngai +1 408 749 5720
 UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!phil
 ARPA: amdcad!phil@decwrl.dec.com

------------------------------

Date: 15 Feb 86 16:22:19 GMT
From: tektronix!teklds!athena!grahamb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Graham Bromley)
Subject: re: British orbital vehicle
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In reply to the question about the British orbital vehicle,
I understand it is to be built by British Aerospace (the
only sizeable aerospace co. in the U.K.). It is designed to
take off and land on standard length airport runways. The
key component is the power plant. I think a turbojet/s will
be used for power during landing. The ascent phase power
plant has been described as a liquid hydrogen powered
scramjet. Apparently an offer of funding by the USAF was
turned down by BAE, which wants to keep the scramjet or
whatever design to itself.
It's hard to imagine Britain at the forefront of space
technology these days (at least for a Briton like myself).
Then again the Harrier (V/STOL) and Concorde (supersonic)
were and still are pretty innovative designs. And I don't
know that anyone has ever outdone Rolls Royce in aerojet
technology. So you never know.
I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a small test vehicle 
built by BAE, followed by a larger vehicle, similar technology 
by Boeing, etc. a few years later.

------------------------------

Date: 20 Feb 86 15:49:00 EST
From: Hans.Moravec@rover.ri.cmu.edu
Subject: New Soviet Space Station "Mir"
To: BBoard.Maintainer@a.cs.cmu.edu


a044  0334  20 Feb 86
PM-Soviets-Space,0487
Soviets Announce Launch of New Orbital Space Station
    MOSCOW (AP) - The Soviet Union today launched a new space station
that is designed to become the primary building block of a
permanently manned orbital complex, the official Tass news agency
said.
    The space station, named Mir, or Peace, has six docking ports to
accommodate other craft ferrying in cosmonauts and supplies, and also
contains advanced equipment for flight control and research, Tass
said.
    It provided no details of today's launch.
    Cosmonauts will be sent up to work in the new space complex ''after
it is run in outer space,'' Tass quoted Gen. Alexei Leonov, deputy
chief of the Soviet cosmonaut training center and a former cosmonaut,
as saying.
    The Soviet news agency called the Mir ''a base module for assembling
a multi-purpose permanently operating manned complex.'' During the
pilotless phase of its flight in low-earth orbit, Tass said ''testing
is planned of elements of its construction, onboard systems and
apparatus.''
    The Mir also has separate cabins for cosmonauts and specialized
research areas for experiments in medicine, biology, astrophysics and
other fields, Tass said. No details were given in the Tass report of
the station's size or weight, or the probable length of time it would
remain aloft.
    Leonov said that with the Mir, ''practical cosmonautics has now
entered a new stage: the beginning of a transition from research and
experiments to large-scale production activities in outer space.''
    The Mir is second Soviet space complex currently in orbit. The
Salyut-7 was launched in 1982, and is also orbiting without a crew at
present. Tass today said both the Mir and Salyut-7 are functioning
normally.
    The Mir has new equipment allowing completely automated flight, a
function missing on the smaller Salyut-7, Tass said. The report gave
no indication what is planned for Salyut-7 now that that the newer
space platform is in orbit.
    In October, a Soviet space official predicted that the Soviet Union
would have a permanently manned space station by the year 1990.
    Oleg G. Gazenko, head of the Health Ministry department that
oversees space medicine, said then that Salyut-7 was never intended
as a platform for continuous operations, and that other Soviet
vehicles ''would bring us closer to achieving a permanently manned
station.''
    Soviet cosmonauts completed the first-ever immediate crew rotation
aboard Salyut-7 in September, which Gazenko had called an important
step toward permanent operations.
    The last three cosmonauts to work aboard the station returned ahead
of schedule in November because one of them fell ill.
    Saluyt-7 has experienced at least two major malfunctions, including
an electrical fault more than a year ago that left it drifting and
out of control by ground stations.
    The orbital platform was restored after a risky mission in June,
when two Soviet cosmonauts manually docked their Soyuz T-13 capsule
with the disabled complex and spent 10 days repairing the systems.
    The Salyut-7 also suffered a fuel leak in December 1983.
    
AP-NY-02-20-86 0633EST
***************

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 20 Feb 86 14:58:17 cst
From: John P. Cater <cater%mcchi2@mcc.arpa>
Posted-Date: Thu, 20 Feb 86 14:58:17 cst
To: SPACE%S1-B@mcc.arpa
Subject: Re: Did the Challenger Wobble?

It's my guess that what you see on your tape, when speeded up, is nothing
more than the normal course and alignment corrections produced by the
steerable rocket engines.  These adjustable jets make the orbiter-
SRB system fly slightly like a bicycle rides (a constant wobbling motion) to
maintain positional stability.  Remember, that system in not in a 
maximally stable position when flying vertical and being pushed from the 
rear (try balancing a pencil on your fingertip -- the only possible
way to do it is to wobble your finger back and forth to maintain
vertical stability).  So I think you are seeing a normal artifact of the
guidance control. I may be wrong, but my bet's on normal guidance wobble.
 
				John Cater
				(cater@mcc)
Disclaimer:
(These are my opinions, and everyone's entitled to them!)

------------------------------

Date: 12 Feb 86 14:22:26 GMT
From: decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!mcvax!ukc!dcl-cs!craig@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Craig Wylie)
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle Children's Fund
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <1076@rlvd.UUCP> kgd@rlvd.UUCP (Keith Dancey) writes:
>>free medical treatment etc...  Many people consider the money paid out
>>for space exploration to be a gross waste of money while people are illeterate
>                                                                     ----------
>How true!   :-) 
> 
Repeat after me :-
	I must learn how to spell before making a complete arse of myself
100 times
Craig.
-- 
UUCP:	 ...!seismo!mcvax!ukc!dcl-cs!craig| Post: University of Lancaster,
DARPA:	 craig%lancs.comp@ucl-cs 	  |	  Department of Computing,
JANET:	 craig@uk.ac.lancs.comp		  |	  Bailrigg, Lancaster, UK.
Phone:	 +44 524 65201 Ext. 4146   	  |	  LA1 4YR
Project: Cosmos Distributed Operating Systems Research

------------------------------

Date: 15 Feb 86 18:36:56 GMT
From: tektronix!tekig5!waynekn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Wayne Knapp)
Subject: Re: Cray during launch
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> Hmmm, if 5 minutes time on a Cray costs less than 10 million dollars,
> and it will prevent loss of another 2000 million dollar orbiter,
> then it sounds like a good idea, providing NASA knows what software
> to run on it to make effective use of it. Anybody have Cray cost figures?
> -------
You can buy a Cray for less than 10 million.  5 minutes time shouldn't be
more than a $1000.

------------------------------

Date: 14 Feb 86 17:00:00 GMT
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!convex!ctvax!kerry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Television coverage (Canadian f
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>In article <2078@watdcsu.UUCP> demo@watdcsu.UUCP writes:
>> As far as I can tell (and I have lived in various parts of this country for my entire life) there is no censorship
>>imposed upon the press of Canada except their own conciences. We rarely get
>>to see the tears of a victims family as they are buried , gee what a loss
>>I think I will move to the good ol' US of A tomorrow. Next time do us all a
>f>avor and either limit your distribuion to the US or think before placing 
>>your foot so firmly in your throat .             
>>
>No, I'm glad the original comment (equating the Canadian media with those
>in the USSR) was posted here.  It gives us a chance to correct it. Some
>Americans are so ignorant about Canada that we need every chance we can
>get to tell them what really goes on!  (Apologies to the many Americans
>who realize  that the world has a few free countries besides their own,
>and that not all free countries are clones of theirs.)
   Well, you have your chance, but all I see is some nationalistic
   rhetoric.

------------------------------

Date: 16 Feb 86 09:15:08 GMT
From: ihnp4!stolaf!mmm!umn-cs!quest!dave@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (David Messer)
Subject: Re: Why does everyone want to leave this planet?
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> Well, why?  While I am very interested in astronomy and all that
> sort of thing, I don't understand why anyone would want to
> permanently migrate to another planet.  There's just so much *here*
> to see and learn, certainly enough to last a lifetime!  Most
> importantly, this is our home.
> 
> Frankly, I hope all of you gung-ho types will get the opportunity
> to leave and will take advantage of it.  That way all the
> exploiters, conquerors, or, to be charitable, "adventurous" types
> (what's so unadventurous about staying here and learning about your
> own planet?) will leave, and I can be at peace here.
A possible letter from the 17th century:
Well, why?  While I am very interested in geography and all that
sort of thing, I don't understand why anyone would want to
permanently migrate to another country.  There's just so much *here*
to see and learn, certainly enough to last a lifetime!  Most
importantly, this is our home.
Frankly, I hope all of you gung-ho types will get the opportunity
to leave and will take advantage of it.  That way all the
exploiters, conquerors, or, to be charitable, "adventurous" types
(what's so unadventurous about staying here and learning about your
own country?) will leave, and I can be at peace here.
-- 
David Messer   UUCP:  ...ihnp4!quest!dave
                      ...ihnp4!encore!vaxine!spark!14!415!sysop
               FIDO:  14/415 (SYSOP)

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 20 Feb 86 14:30 PST
From: Dave Platt <Dave-Platt%LADC@cisl-service-multics.arpa>
To: Space <Space@s1-b.arpa>
Subject: Shuttle payloads, plutonium, and explosions
Randomness: Ketterling's Law:
                    Logic is an orgafized way of going wrong with confidence.

An article in today's Los Angeles Times (part I, page 21) reports some
information on a question asked in this digest awhile back, re
whether the plutonium in the power supplies of shuttle payloads
might be spread into the environment after a shuttle explosion
such as the Challenger disaster.

  "... Internal NASA and Energy Department documents indicate that the
satellites [Galileo and Ulusses] were to be powered by nuclear
generators whose ability to withstand explosions is still unproved...

  "Other internal Energy Department documents... projected that a
launching pad explosion of the space shuttle conceivably could cause
the release of 57,100 to 90,900 curies of plutonium... [each satellite
is fueled with 69 pounds of plutonium-238, according to the article]

   "... and scientists estimate that just 2 to 10 millionths of a curie
can cause bone or lung cancer when inhaled....

  "Only last month, NASA's Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel concluded that
the job of safely installing the satellites and their booster rockets
in the shuttle's payload bay `was underestimated by everyone' and posed
`the most critical problem in meeting the (launching) schedule.'

  "However, the NASA panel continued, 'the old philosophy that technical
perfection is more important than schedule has changed with Galileo and
Ulysses' - a statement that [Rep. Edward J.] Markey said indicates that
safety concerns had taken a back seat to the launching timetable.

  "Agency officials have expressed confidence that the nuclear generators
would withstand a major shuttle explosion generating pressure of 2000
pounds a square inch, Markey write, even though a 1984 test blast
disintegrated a nuclear generator and the simulated fuel inside it at
pressures of only 1300 pounds.

  "As of last December, the generators had not been proved able to meet
NASA's 2000-pound standard, internal memos stated.  Those documents,
written by the interagency panel, criticized Energy officials for ignoring
six years of warnings about the explosion resistance of the generators.

  "That same month, NASA manned spaceflight director Jesse W. Moore
warned of `cause for concern' over the Galileo and Ulysses missions'
safety, apparently because officials were waiving NASA safety procedures
for some critical shuttle parts."

      -- By Michael Wines, Times Staff Writer

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #150
*******************


0,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA17938; Sun, 23 Feb 86 03:01:18 PST
	id AA17938; Sun, 23 Feb 86 03:01:18 PST
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 86 03:01:18 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8602231101.AA17938@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #151

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 151

Today's Topics:
		       re: few questions [LONG]
		      TV Coverage of the Shuttle
			      Space Fund
		   Re:  TV Coverage of the Shuttle
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu 20 Feb 86 13:53:34-PST
From: Steve Dennett <DENNETT@sri-nic.arpa>
Subject: re: few questions [LONG]
To: space@mc.lcs.mit.edu


> Date: 9 Feb 86 04:10:48 GMT
> From: unmvax!nmtvax!fine@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Andrew J Fine)
> Let's ask ourselves a few questions:
> ****************************************************************************
> Does humanity (men and women) really *need* to populate space?  Do we
> really need to explore, in person or otherwise, other planets?

  Only if we want to remain human beings, creatures who can look past their
  immediate survival needs.  Only if we want our race to survive when the
  earth becomes uninhabitable due to climatic changes/cosmic accident/
  or political stupidity.

> Historically, exploration and open boundaries only encouraged exploitation,
> slavery, and genocide of indigenous peoples such as African, American
> Natives, and East Asians.

  We are the solar system's only indigenous race, as far as we know.

> It widened the gap between the rich and the poor
> at home, and the massive funds spent on ships and weapons in that previous
> era caused more people to starve.

  Are you certain that >exploration< caused the gap to widen?  Since a great
  deal of wealth was returned from the New World, perhaps it was only the
  inequitable distribution of that weath (caused by the political system)
  that made this happen.  And what about the poor who chose to become
  colonists/explorers, and became wealthy because of it?

> It also increased the likelyhood of the
> lawless being able to escape justice, for example Botany Bay and the HMS
> Bounty.

  There will always be places the lawless can run to escape justice, 
  for example Libya, South America, etc.

> So what do we buy with $2 billion dollars? One shuttle, good for 100
> missions (best case) with 7 people each. Or enough food, clean water, and
> other necesssities to feed Ethiopia for the next ten decades, easily.

  The Ethiopian problems are political; throwing money at them would make
  them >worse< by supporting the rulers who choose to export crops rather
  than feed their own people.

> So what do space-faring nations prove when they invoke national prestige
> and the desire of humanity to expand, by consuming all that money and
> men-centuries? "I'm rich enough to do this and you're not, so there!".  "My
> rocket is bigger than yours!". "We are leaving you behind to scratch the
> dust while we inherit the universe!"

  I agree that national prestige is a poor reason for space exploration;
  nationalism is pretty stupid in itself.  Unfortuately, the people
  who rule us work at just that level, so such arguments often succeed
  where more "rational" reasons fail.

> One man's glory is another man's
> humiliation.  One man's wealth is another man's poverty. One man's
> livelihood is another man's serfdom.

  Only when wealth is a zero-sum game, as it will be if we stay on earth.

> Why have satellites and information systems at all, except to invade the
> privacy and keep records on a captive populace? Why have land and weather
> satellites at all, except to take advantage of another nation's resources
> and vulnerabilities?

  Would you like to fly or across the state or country, knowing that the
  pilot had no idea what weather conditions they might encounter during
  the trip?  Would you like to give up all the channels of information
  that are now routed through satellites (telephone, television, data
  networks)?  Would it be better for farmers to be surprized by sudden
  freezes, rather than warned so they can protect their crops?
  
  Communication satellites have been a boon to the Third World, bringing
  information and education into areas that could never be reached by
  strictly land-based means.

> Why explore the planets, interesting though they are, except to find more
> virgin landscape to despoil and riches to plunder?  Why put a man, or a
> women for that matter, in space?  What is so special about anyone that we
> must exhalt that person above all others in such an eletist fashion? Why
> shouldn't that person be put to a task that serves the world rather than
> that person's ego?

  Partly, we explore the planets because, to paraphrase Hilary, "They are
  there."  Curiousity led man from the savannah to the city; when man is
  no longer curious, he will no longer be human.

  More pragmatically, we must explore because the universe may hold solutions
  to the problems we face here on earth.  On the most basic level, our
  physical resources are finite, and space can supplement them.  More
  speculatively, who knows what we may find out there?  Cures for the many
  diseases that still plague us.  New insights into the nature of the universe,
  which can be translated into technology to feed the hungry and shelter the
  poor.  For example, what if we found a cheap, nearly inexhaustible power
  source; how about a method of predicting weather with >absolute certainty<.
  Perhaps all the dangerous and environmentally destructive industries could
  be moved off-planet, letting the earth become once again rustic and rural.

> The main problem with all of us is we are still essentially barbarians at
> heart.  The Viking who was the explorer was also the Viking that also raped
> and pillaged.  The Columbus who was the explorer was also the Columbus who
> converted people to his religion by force.  The shuttle pilot who was the
> explorer was also the pilot who killed husbands, wives, and children in
> North Korea and North Vietnam.

  The ad hominem fallacy, and an untrue generalization.  None of the above
  applies to Christa McAuliffe or any of the civilian scientists who have
  gone into space.  Nor does it necessarily apply to those who have
  explored the arctic and the deep sea.  "We" are many things, from
  headhunter to philosopher.

> The wanderlust we all experience is just
> another word for the lust and coveting for the outside world that blinds us
> to the potentials of the inside world and the darkness of the soul that we
> need to correct.  Do we really deserve to go "out there" when we have such
> a mess "down here"?

  Will staying "down here" as we have since the beginning of human history
  do anything to solve the mess "down here".  Space exploration is no panacea
  but it may provide a place for experiments in human growth that will
  ultimately help man to reach ethical maturity.  Just seeing the earth
  from the moon, as a single planet lacking any borders has catalyzed
  new ways of thinking.

> Earth is enough for us, if we have the will to cooperate, to transcend the
> bigotries that confound us, the borders that seperate us, to dare to have
> peace instead of waging war, to share what we have as far as we can give it
> without anyone having to pay for it ( the concept of having to work for
> one's bread is deadly when there is not enough work to go around ), to
> recognize that the most humble peasant in Mexico or India is worth more to
> us than the President of the US or the Queen of England.

  Again, solving these problems is not mutually exclusive with space
  exploration.  However, I wonder who will make the bread that we needn't
  work for, and who will hold the gun used to force the producers to
  give up what they have created.

> If humanity can simply change from mere descendants of carnivorous apes to
> something totally gentle, altrustic, and noble, then Earth will be enough.
> We only try to escape the Earth because we try to escape our own natures.

  No, trying to reach out beyond our current environment is the epitomy
  of our curious ape-natures.

> **************************************************************************
> I, personally, am in full support of the Shuttle, the Space Program, and
> the exploration and exploition of space, and it's eventual population by
> humanity. BUT NOBODY HAS EVER ASKED US THESE QUESTIONS, NOBODY HAS EVER
> CHALLENGED US TO QUESTION OURSELVES! We need to be able to answer them,
> especially if those who have not, question the motives of us, those who
> have.  Somehow, net.space would benefit from a really in-depth discussion
> of our justifications of our actions in space and thier consequences.

> Andrew Jonathan Fine.

  These kinds of questions are asked every time NASA's budget is discussed
  whether in Congress or over cocktails.  How many times have you heard or
  read the statement "Why spend money of space, when there's such a crying
  need for social services here on earth."

  I agree that anyone who supports space exploration must be able to answer
  these kinds of questions, and that discussion of the multitude of answers
  to them would be valuable.

  Steve Dennett
  dennett@sri-nic.arpa

-------

------------------------------

Date: Thu 20 Feb 86 18:43:29-PST
From: Jim McGrath <J.JPM@epic>
Subject: TV Coverage of the Shuttle
To: "space@mc"@su-score.arpa
Cc: "amdcad!lll-crg!seismo!rochester!emil@ucbvax.berkeley.edu"@su-score.arpa,
        "amdcad!lll-crg!seismo!rochester!ray@ucbvax.berkeley.edu"@su-score.arpa,
        J.JPM@epic
Reply-To: mcgrath%mit-oz@mit-mc.arpa

        From: amdcad!lll-crg!seismo!rochester!emil@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
        (Emil Rainero)
            "As the networks pre-empted soap operas and game shows,
            they also dropped commercials for the afternoon, costing
            collectively up to $1.7 million an hour."
         Give us a break, Ray.
 
    From: amdcad!lll-crg!seismo!rochester!ray@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
    (Ray Frank)
    You have a point there which I must of course counter with another
    point: How much money did Nightline make directly due to America
    Held Hostage Day N?

Very little.  No matter what the ratings (% of TV sets that are on
watching it), Nightline's share (% of total TVs) is inherently low -
and advertising dollars are based on share, not ratings.  While prime
time can get the largest share of all the time segments, daytime TV is
actually often more profitable due to the low production costs of
soaps, game shows, etc...  Late night TV cannot compete with either.

So when a network preempts its regular schedule during the daytime,
for whatever reason, it is losing a lot of money and can never really
make it back.  The only reason it ever preempts is prestige (which
can, very indirectly, translate into dollars), and there are always
severe pressures not to do so.  (During the vietnam war CBS preempted
a lot of daytime TV to cover some congressional hearings.  That
decision was made by the News division, and the upshot was that the
head of the division got fired.)


Jim


-------

------------------------------

Date: Thu 20 Feb 86 18:57:14-PST
From: Jim McGrath <J.JPM@epic>
Subject: Space Fund
To: "space@mc"@su-score.arpa
Cc: "decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!barmar@ucbvax.berkeley.edu"@su-score.arpa,
        J.JPM@epic
Reply-To: mcgrath%mit-oz@mit-mc.arpa


    From: decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!barmar@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
    (Barry Margolin)
    Hmm, did we create such a trust fund for the families of deceased
    draftees in the Viet Nam War?  Or how about the families of
    Americans killed by terrorists, who were used as unwitting
    representatives of the US.

Yes, we did create such funds.  While they may not have received the
same press that the astronaut funds, this is not the fault of the
people creating the funds!

     At least the astronauts died admirably, pursuing their dreams, and
     they were aware that there were such risks.

I don't understand.  I though that every intelligent person realized
that, no matter what they though about the Vietnam War, the men (and
women) who gave their lives in that struggle died quite honorably.
They were asked to serve by their country, and if the war is not
considered a "mistake," then the blame falls to the country, not those
who served.


Jim
-------

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 20 Feb 86 19:00:12 PST
From: mcgeer%ji@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Rick McGeer)
To: J.JPM@epic
Subject: Re:  TV Coverage of the Shuttle
Cc: space@mc.lcs.mit.edu

>Date: Thu 20 Feb 86 18:43:29-PST
>From: Jim McGrath <J.JPM@epic>
>Subject: TV Coverage of the Shuttle
>To: "space@mc"@su-score.arpa
>Cc: "amdcad!lll-crg!seismo!rochester!emil@ucbvax.berkeley.edu"@su-score.arpa,
>        "amdcad!lll-crg!seismo!rochester!ray@ucbvax.berkeley.edu"@su-score.arpa,
>        J.JPM@epic
>Reply-To: mcgrath%mit-oz@mc.lcs.mit.edu
>Message-Id: <12185007170.8.J.JPM@EPIC>
>
>        From: amdcad!lll-crg!seismo!rochester!emil@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
>        (Emil Rainero)
>            "As the networks pre-empted soap operas and game shows,
>            they also dropped commercials for the afternoon, costing
>            collectively up to $1.7 million an hour."
>         Give us a break, Ray.
> 
>So when a network preempts its regular schedule during the daytime,
>for whatever reason, it is losing a lot of money and can never really
>make it back.  The only reason it ever preempts is prestige (which
>can, very indirectly, translate into dollars), and there are always
>severe pressures not to do so.  (During the vietnam war CBS preempted
>
>Jim

	Actually, it's worse than that.  When the networks cancel the soaps
they're deluged with complaints from viewers.  I suspect that a small
percentage of Americans wouldn't give a damn about doomsday unless it
interrupted "General Psychiatric Ward" or whatever....I further suspect
that each interruption permanently costs the soap some viewers.  Much as I hate
to admit it, the networks' 24-hour news coverage is a hefty expense (CBS
keeps a 24-hour "hot" studio) with no payback whatever.

						-- Rick.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #151
*******************


0,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA19740; Sun, 23 Feb 86 07:01:21 PST
	id AA19740; Sun, 23 Feb 86 07:01:21 PST
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 86 07:01:21 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8602231501.AA19740@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #152

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 152

Today's Topics:
			European Safety Record
     Why leave planet, or why stay?  Explore there or steal here?
      answer to devil's advocate re space and destiny of humans
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu 20 Feb 86 19:02:41-PST
From: Jim McGrath <J.JPM@epic>
Subject: European Safety Record
To: "space@mc"@su-score.arpa
Cc: "brahms!gsmith@ucbvax.berkeley.edu"@su-score.arpa, J.JPM@epic
Reply-To: mcgrath%mit-oz@mit-mc.arpa


    From: brahms!gsmith@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Gene Ward Smith)
    I think it is prtty neat that the Europeans havn't had any
    fatalities in thier space program as yet.

Of course, they have not tried to launch anyone into space either.
Given this, their safety record is totally unremarkable.


Jim
-------

------------------------------

Date: 1986 February 20 23:24:00 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM@mc.lcs.mit.edu>
To: nike!im4u!ut-sally!ut-ngp!cgeiger@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Cc: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Why leave planet, or why stay?  Explore there or steal here?
Sender: REM%IMSSS@su-score.arpa (for undeliverable-mail notifications)
Reply-To: REM%IMSSS@SU-SCORE.ARPA

G> Date: 13 Feb 86 22:45:25 GMT
G> From: nike!im4u!ut-sally!ut-ngp!cgeiger@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
G> Subject: Why does everyone want to leave this planet?
G> Well, why?  While I am very interested in astronomy and all that
G> sort of thing, I don't understand why anyone would want to
G> permanently migrate to another planet.

First, that's a very narrowminded way of asking the question. Most of
us in fact don't want to go to another planet and be trapped in its
gravity well instead of this one, we want to miagrate into space where
we are in freefall and thus can move around without having to carry
our weight and can use incremental methods to change orbit and travel
just about everywhere in the Universe we want.

The rest of this is generic for leaving Earth, rather than
specifically going to settle on another planet.

G> There's just so much *here* to see and learn, certainly enough to last
G> a lifetime!  Most importantly, this is our home.

As for me personally, I want to experience zero-gee, especially I'd
like to find out what's like to make love in zero-gee, I think it
would be a lot more comfortable than on a bed in one-gee. Also I have
a bad back (flattened disc) and might actually prefer not having the
top of my body press down on the weak spot trying to crush it and
eventually succeeding. Also I want the OPTION of getting away from
thermonuclear war when it happens on Earth. With hundreds of mobile
colonies out in space, most of them can leave the Earth/Moon system in
the event of war and survive while everybody on Earth dies. But most
of the time I'll probably stay on Earth while others go up there. Even
if I stay here, I'll be more comfortable knowing that if everyone on
Earth including myself dies in a war, at least human life will
continue in space so that all our efforts to survive and evolve the
past 4.5 billion years won't have been in vain, and copies of some of
my genes and some of my inventions&ideas will survive in space-based
computer files and/or human minds living in space.

G> Frankly, I hope all of you gung-ho types will get the opportunity to
G> leave and will take advantage of it.  That way all the exploiters,
G> conquerors, or, to be charitable, "adventurous" types (what's so
G> unadventurous about staying here and learning about your own planet?)
G> will leave, and I can be at peace here.

There is quite a difference between somebody who wants to explore
virgin territory and turn it into a place where people can live, and
somebody who wants to conquer somebody else, taking from them what
they originally explored and developed. Of course some people fall in
both categories, but where there are people tending in one direction or
the other I think the ones who will go to space will be those who
prefer developing virgin territory and the ones who stay here will be
the ones who prefer conquering other people and stealing from them,
and I think you are making the wrong choice if you don't like
conquering but choose to stay on Earth forever.

------------------------------

Date: 1986 February 21 00:53:02 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM@mc.lcs.mit.edu>
To: unmvax!nmtvax!fine@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Cc: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
Subject: answer to devil's advocate re space and destiny of humans
Sender: REM%IMSSS@su-score.arpa (for undeliverable-mail notifications)
Reply-To: REM%IMSSS@SU-SCORE.ARPA

F> Date: 9 Feb 86 04:10:48 GMT
F> From: unmvax!nmtvax!fine@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Andrew J Fine)
F> Subject: Re: Scuttle the Space Program?
F> Does humanity (men and women) really *need* to populate space?

Yes, if we expect to survive we absolutely must either populate space
or move Earth away from the Sun to another star in about 5-10 billion
years.

F> Do we really need to explore, in person or otherwise, other planets?

No, not specifically, but generally if we explore everything we become
aware of then our science will advance further than if we omit some
categories of exploration.

F> Historically, exploration and open boundaries only encouraged
F> exploitation, slavery, and genocide of indigenous peoples such as
F> African, American Natives, and East Asians.

For the time being this point is totally moot. We are pretty certain
there is no intelligence life whatsoever anywhere except Earth in this
solar system, thus during the next two phases of exploration (local
Earth/Moon system, and Ringworld/DysonSphere) we won't be conquering
anyone already out there, and we will be relieving a lot of need to
conquer that has been going on on this overcrowded Earth.

F> It widened the gap between the rich and the poor at home, and the
F> massive funds spent on ships and weapons in that previous era caused
F> more people to starve.

We'll have to be careful to avoid repeating that. Massive collectors
of solar energy in space, feeding pure electricity via microwaves or
other means to Earth so that we can provide everyone on Earth with
nearly free energy instead of only the rich while avoiding the
inefficiency of traditional power plants on Earth that waste half
their energy in heat into the local environment, will shrink the gap
between rich and poor in my opinion. We'll have to make sure that
potential becomes actuality. Something between the "moon treaty" which
prevents anyone from getting a return on investment, and a totally free
enterprise where the rich get richer and the poor stay the same but
feel worse by comparison with the rich, needs to be adopted within the
next 30 years. With lots of cheap energy to desalinate water and pump
it into the deserts, there'll be more food to support more people.
With habitat in space there'll be hundreds of times as much living space
as there is on this tiny Earth, so that we can support 500 billion
people comfortably instead of having trouble supporting the 6 billion
we have now.

F> It also increased the likelyhood of the lawless being able to escape
F> justice, for example Botany Bay and the HMS Bounty.

I see nothing wrong with Botany Bay, especially compared to locking
them in jail and then supporting them until we parole them. I think on
this point I can't argue with you, just say I disagree on what is more
desirable.

F> So what do we buy with $2 billion dollars? One shuttle, good for
F> 100 missions (best case) with 7 people each. Or enough food, clean
F> water, and other necesssities to feed Ethiopia for the next ten
F> decades, easily.

Do we spend our last 100 years of industrial society squandering our
resources on feeding ourselves but not developing any long-range plan,
then the fossil fuel supply collapses and we have no alternative so we
revert to pre-industrial society and 90% of the world's population
dies within a few years due to starvation, and then before continental
drift can uncover new fossil fuels the Earth gets too warm to support
life and we all die (permanently; unlike Saturday-morning cartoon
shows when you are dead you stay dead)? Or do we spend our last 100
years of Earth-based industrial society developing industry in space
and then go on to survive to the end of the Universe?

F> So what do space-faring nations prove when they invoke national prestige and
F> the desire of humanity to expand, by consuming all that money and 
F> men-centuries? "I'm rich enough to do this and you're not, so there!". 

I don't like that argument for space either. I wish we didn't have to
appeal to "national prestige" and politics just to develop the
space-based resources we will need to survive the next two centuries.

F> "My rocket is bigger than yours!". "We are leaving you behind to scratch the
F> dust while we inherit the universe!"  One man's glory is another man's
F> humiliation.  One man's wealth is another man's poverty. One man's
F> livelihood is another man's serfdom.

Each individual person will die, within a hundred years from birth in
most cases although some live slightly longer and next century perhaps
many will. Thus the topic of "leaving you behind to scratch dust" must
be applied not to individual people, all of which will turn to dust
anyway, but to genetic lines, i.e. to descendents. Even somebody who
never goes to space can have children who do, if my plan is adopted. I
proposed (and repeat now) that once we have largescale space-based
habitat, that we encourage sperm and egg to be sent to space and
"test-tube" births to occur there. I figure within about 40 years the
technology for an artificial womb will be developed, about the same
time large-scale space-based habitat is developed. Then what we can do
is have each couple have one child on Earth (mandatory birth control)
but an unlimited number of children in space via artificial womb. It
is advantageous for the survival of our species that *all* people on
Earth partake in this, rather than just the rich, because it gives
more variety of genetic component and thus better chance of surviving
various new envirionments in space. Further, it is advantageous that
other species are brought with us into space. For one-celled life and
other microscopic life we can bring the life itself. For large
organisms we can use the same artificial-womb method we use for
humans. I would then advocate we actually do this, reproduce *all*
Earth-based life into space one way or another. Very few species will
go extinct after we do that. Among humans, the poor as well as the
rich will (via descendents) move into space. Telecommunications will
be such that parents on Earth can conference with their children in
space, so maybe they can't hug them but they can do just about
everything else in the way of raising their children. (With
teleoperators that have good tactile feedback they may even be able to hug!)

F> Why have satellites and information systems at all, except to invade the 
F> privacy and keep records on a captive populace?

I think you're getting absurd on this point. How about these
electronic-mail discussions we're having? Don't you think they're
worthwhile? If you don't, why do you participate? Or did you take
electronic mail so much for granted you completely overlooked the fact
it is an information system? -- Yes, we have to be careful not to turn
the electronic revolution into 1984. We need concerned people such as
you and me to speak out against Orwellian use of our technology. But
so far I see more good than bad.

F> Why have land and weather satellites at all, except to take advantage
F> of another nation's resources and vulnerabilities?

Ridiculous again. Mostly we try to predict the weather so we can warn
people of bad weather and eventually be able to change the weather not
to be so bad sometimes. -- Of course we have to speak out against misuse.

F> Why explore the planets, interesting though they are, except to find
F> more virgin landscape to despoil and riches to plunder?

Do you eat plants or animals to stay alive? If plundering is immoral
you should stop eating and starve to death. I think you are wrong to
equate use of resources with loaded words such as "despoil" or
"plunder" so long as you are alive doing exactly that to stay alive.

F> Why put a man, or a women for that matter, in space?  What is so
F> special about anyone that we must exhalt that person above all others
F> in such an eletist fashion?

Somebody has to be first, and naturally the first to do something gets
some special media attention. I've already argued that it's good to
move out into space, so I guess we just have to put up with the first
few people getting an inordinate amount of attention. I do wish there
was a program on TV that picked random hardworking normal people and
exhalted them a little, so we can appreciate the vast numbers of
hardworking busdrivers and stockroom clerks and grocery checkers and
street mainteners and computer programmers and typists etc. There are
already programs that exhalt doctors&nurses, police officers & private
detectives, and various kinds of very successful business
owners/managers, probably too many such programs. Maybe if more
ordinary people (but not like that stupid "ordinary people" program on
TV) were exhalted on TV routinely, the attention of astronauts wouldn't
upset you so much? I.e. I see your problem and I think the solution is
to exhalt lots of regular occupations rather than to demean astronauts.

F> Why shouldn't that person be put to a task that serves the world
F> rather than that person's ego?

It shouldn't be an either/or situation, and in case of astronauts it
is in fact both; as I argued above it's necessary for the survival of
the human race, and as you argue it is ego building.

F> The main problem with all of us is we are still essentially barbarians at
F> heart.

Yup, but we're also apes at heart, and most apes (chimpanzees being
the principal non-human exception) are rather peaceful. We have the
choice. For a few centuries we (our ancestors, not us personally)
acted mostly like barbarians, and now we are learning not to do that
so much. I think Captain Kirk (Startrek) said it best; my paraphrase:
yes we tended to kill in the recent past, but we can decide not to kill today.

F> The Viking who was the explorer was also the Viking that also raped
F> and pillaged.  The Columbus who was the explorer was also the Columbus who
F> converted people to his religion by force.

Because (1) the lands explored were already inhabited, unlike space;
(2) he wasn't watched minute by minute by three major metworks, one
cable network, and lots of minor networks and individual stations, so
he could do whatever he wanted and then have months to figure out an
explanation before he got back to Scandanavia/Portugal, (3) global
responsibility hadn't yet become popular, theirs was an age of
glorious war and conquest, (4) the lands explored were small compared
to the lands already known whereas space is orders of magnitude larger
than Earth so there's lots of elbow room so even if we find some
planet around some distant star already inhabited we don't have to
conquer them or be conquered, we can simply keep our distance.

F> The shuttle pilot who was the explorer was also the pilot who killed
F> husbands, wives, and children in North Korea and North Vietnam.

Yup. Today he is not killing, he is doing something useful instead.

F> The wanderlust we all experience is just another word for the lust and
F> coveting for the outside world that blinds us to the potentials of the
F> inside world and the darkness of the soul that we need to correct.

I respect the desire to survive, to stay alive in terms of genetic
lines (descendents). Do you want Homo Sapiens and in fact all life on
Earth to go extinct? Or is it just you who wants to die? Regarding the
rest of your above remark, it may take centuries for us to completely
get rid of the bad parts of our culture, our "inner flaws". Unless we
survive (via descendents) the next several centuries we won't live
long enough to finish the self-purification task. I don't think one
person in one lifetime can go from where we are now to a correct inner
perfection. Some have tried, such as the monks of the middle ages and
the hippies of the 60's, but all of their plans were flawed in some
way. With further experiments in the future, and with general
cleansing of our overall culture, perhaps those lofty goals can be
reached someday, but only if we (our descendents) are alive then.

F> Do we really deserve to go "out there" when we have such a mess "down here"?

Fact of nature: Nobody deserves anything, period. We have no right to
be alive in the first place, but on the other hand there's no
immorality inherit in being alive. We just are alive, period. You no
more or less deserve to live on this planet than others deserve to
live in space. Those who are successful at living will live, the rest
will die out. -- Note, your remark and my answer are basically
statements of religious belief, not science or engineering. I think
you're grossly wrong in implying there's some global morality that
makes it inherently wrong to go to space, and you probably think I'm
grossly wrong in denying the global morality you believe in.
Fortunately in this country we have religious freedom, not only to
believe in recognized religions, but to believe in things that others
may not even accept as a religion much less a good religion. I trust
my debate with you on this matter won't be construed as opposing your
right to believe as you do, although I hope you don't hogtie the rest
of the world to your particular religious belief.

F> Earth is enough for us, ...

Definitely not in the long run, and these next hundred years (or less
if those military people have their long-planned thermonuclear war)
are crucial for getting our much-needed space.

F> (the concept of having to work for one's bread is deadly when there is
F> not enough work to go around)

There's plenty of work to go around, just not enough paying work in a
society where paying work is both the means of maintaining
self-respect and respect of society and the means of getting decent
food on the table and roof over head. I have lots of things I want
done, like cleaning up the broken glass in the street where I have to
bicicle, and I wish somebody would do that, I wish society would pay
somebody to get it done so the person who does it doesn't have to
starve because of doing it instead of something else, with the rest of
us chipping in our share of the pay. I'd be willing to clean up the
glass myself if somebody paid me to do it and provided me with tools
for doing it properly and transportation for moving tools around from
one site to another. -- This is getting far afield of development of
space, let's move this topic to a private distribution list??

F> to recognize that the most humble peasant in Mexico or India is worth
F> more to us than the President of the US or the Queen of England.

I think that's stupid. The peasant and president should be equal in
basic worth, just like our Constitution says for citizens of the USA,
I want that extended worldwide. -- Again, off topic of space.

F> If humanity can simply change from mere descendants of carnivorous apes to
F> something totally gentle, altrustic, and noble, then Earth will be enough.

I respectfully repeat my claim that Earth isn't enough in the long
run. Re altruism, read "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins.
So-called altruism is either really helping copies of genes to survive
(thus really selfish, but not evil) or truly stupid altruism that dies
out soon.

F> We only try to escape the Earth because we try to escape our own natures.

I disagree. Maybe some do that, but I want us to escape certain
extinction on Earth. Our nature is to try to survive, not to knowingly
suffer certain extinction.

((By the way, you have asked some good questions, and a few stupid
  ones. That's better than par for the course lately.))

F> ***************************************************************************
F> I, personally, am in full support of the Shuttle, the Space Program, and
F> the exploration and exploition of space, and it's eventual population by
F> humanity. BUT NOBODY HAS EVER ASKED US THESE QUESTIONS, NOBODY HAS EVER
F> CHALLENGED US TO QUESTION OURSELVES!

S**t, I go to all that trouble rebutting your anti-space claims, and
then it turns out you are on our side anyway. Instead of playing
devil's advocate, why couldn't you have answered some of them yourself?

F> We need to be able to answer them, especially if those who have not,
F> question the motives of us, those who have. Somehow, net.space would
F> benefit from a really in-depth discussion of our justifications of our
F> actions in space and their consequences.

I agree. You should try answering them too. You may have good answers
a little different from mine.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #152
*******************


0,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA24788; Sun, 23 Feb 86 19:01:40 PST
	id AA24788; Sun, 23 Feb 86 19:01:40 PST
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 86 19:01:40 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8602240301.AA24788@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #153

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 153

Today's Topics:
		   Please remove me from this list
			   Olber's paradox
			  ARIANE LAUNCH V16.
			 Re:  Olber's paradox
  the Universe beyond Earth (space, planets, etc.), long term goals
		      Re: scope of space station
	 Re: alchemy not needed for Titanium from lunar soil
		     Re: The Ultimate Mars Rover
		Re: Most Dangerous: Launch or Landing?
		 Re: Joy rides - Barnstorming reborn
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Wed, 19 Feb 86 05:20 EST
From: HCGRS%clemson.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject:  Please remove me from this list

How many times do I have to request deletion from this list before
somebody acts on it?  10 times?  20?  30?  Just tell me, please, and
I'll be happy to have my mailer generate as many messages as needed.

In the meantime, however, if the moderator decides to act on *this*
message, please understand it to be yet another request for deletion of
hcgrs@clemson.csnet from the Space Digest mailing list.  Thank you.

-- Harold Grossman
   Dept. of Computer Science
   Clemson University

------------------------------

Date: 1986 February 21 01:14:53 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM@mc.lcs.mit.edu>
To: "mcgeer%ji"@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Cc: Space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Olber's paradox
Sender: REM%IMSSS@su-score.arpa (for undeliverable-mail notifications)
Reply-To: REM%IMSSS@SU-SCORE.ARPA

(If the number of the Fixt Stars were more than
 finite, the whole superficies of their apparent light would be infinite)

M> Date: Fri, 14 Feb 86 09:53:56 PST
M> From: mcgeer%ji@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Rick McGeer)
M> Of course, the solution to the above paradox is that the universe
M> expands, and hence the light from the furthest galaxies is redshifted,
M> asymptotically to invisibility, and hence the total illumination of
M> the sky is finite.

Not quite correct, "A" (not "the") solution.

Here's another, not needing redshift, nor even expansion although
needing finite time: It's been a finite time since the Universe
started, thus stars have burnt for only a finite time. Looking back in
time, we see the complete life history up to the present for nearby
stars, but only the early parts for stars further away because more
recent life history hasn't had time to be transmitted to us at the
speed of light. What we observe is a cone of space-time extending back
to the origin of the Universe, a cone of finite space-time volume thus
having only a finite amount of star*years of light-emitting, thus
having only a finite total amount of light we can see. Therefore, even
ignoring inverse-square dimming and redshift dimming, we have a finite
total amount of light in the night sky. The inverse-square and
redshift merely decrease an already-finite amount of light by orders
of magnitude.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 21 Feb 86 15:29:31 cet
To: SPACE-INCOMING@s1-b.arpa
From: WMORTENS%HNOESA10.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: ARIANE LAUNCH V16.

To: Space incoming.
From: Uffe K. Mortensen, ESA. The European Space Agency.
Subject: Ariane hot news.

ARIANE Launch V-16 will take place 22feb86 betw 2:44 and 2:54 (GMT+1).
Payload will be two satellites : SPOT ( French earth observatory ) and
VIKING ( Swedish scientific spacecraft ).

--- Uffe.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 21 Feb 86 09:33:08 PST
From: mcgeer%ji@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Rick McGeer)
To: REM%IMSSS@su-score.arpa
Subject: Re:  Olber's paradox
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa

(1) You're assuming finite volume to the Universe, as well as finite time
(not a bad assumption);

(2) The fact that time has a beginning is a relatively recent discovery
(Hawking and Penrose, 1965), and is dependent upon the observed expansion
of the Universe.  Hence the universe can only be said to have a beginning
in time if it expands.

						-- Rick.

------------------------------

Date: 1986 February 21 11:07:11 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM@mc.lcs.mit.edu>
To: "dietz%slb-doll.csnet"@csnet-relay.arpa
Cc: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
Subject: the Universe beyond Earth (space, planets, etc.), long term goals
Sender: REM%IMSSS@su-score.arpa (for undeliverable-mail notifications)
Reply-To: REM%IMSSS@SU-SCORE.ARPA

D> Date: Sun 16 Feb 1986 10:15:52 EST
D> From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
D> Subject: Long Term Goals
D> Seeing how supportive the public has been of NASA during the current
D> difficulties, it seems to me the support would be even more
D> overwhelming if NASA could come up with a long term, easy to
D> understand set of goals that would be immediately relevant to the
D> average person.  NASA could then argue backwards from these goals (to
D> get to this point we need to do this) rather than planning towards
D> more limited goals of less obvious desirability (if greater practicality).

I agree. Now is the time to tell the public what our long range goals
are, get them fired up, and then they'll want NASA to get some real
funding directed toward what's needed now to get those goals someday.

D>    -- To have, sometime in the first half of the next century, a self
D>       supporting extraterrestrial economy.

That's still a means to an end. Tell them why you want that.

D>    -- To reduce the cost of a trip to space to less than 10% of the
D>       average American's annual income.

You also have to include the safety factor. In addition to being
cheap, it must be as safe as current airliner travel.

D>    -- To have at least one million Americans living in space by the
D>       year 2050, and to have more Americans living off the earth than
D>       on before the end of the next century.

Again, why? Is this just a wild fantasy, or a means to an end? Why
would one million Americans want to live in space? Why just Americans?
Why not also Europeans, Africans, Asians, and Australians??

Of course my goal of colonizing the Virgo Supercluster would be
incomprehensible to most random citizens of the world. We need
something longer range than yours but more comprehensible than mine,
for the general public.

D> Imagining one's children or grandchildren living in space, away from
D> the potential problems of pollution, nuclear war and resource
D> shortages could be a powerful motivator.

That's a handwave. There's as much potential for pollution in space
colonies as there is on Earth, and fewer natural mechanisms for
detoxifying the pollution without human effort. On Earth you can avoid
pollution by building cities in domes and recycling the air and water,
except it's too expensive. You have to state why it would be any more
feasible in space. (Yes, I know 99% of the people you talk to will
believe anything you say without thinking, but is that how you want to
get funding? Eventually they'll turn their ears elsewhere, whereas if
you had the arguments right from the start the 1% who understand you
will also accept your argument and will keep promulgating the dream to
the other 99% so they won't turn their ears elsewhere.)

D> If these goals became default assumptions about how the future would
D> look there could be a REAL space race, since the prize would now be
D> colonization of living area far larger than that of the earth, rather
D> than just a demonstration of national technical superiority.

I think this is where you must start your argument, rather than the
means to that end you listed earlier. -- Draw a little circle in the
center of a large sheet of paper. Draw a tiny dot a couple inches from
it. That tiny dot is the Earth, the inside of the circle is the Sun,
the sheet of paper is the inner solar system where we could develop
this new frontier using all that energy radiating from the Sun that
otherwise would just go out into deep space and be wasted. (Appeal to
the ecologists by saying that 99.9999% of the Sun's energy is being
wasted now, and we want to stop wasting it and put it to good use instead.)

D> I hope the National Commission on Space makes some proposals of this
D> kind, although their charter is limited, I believe, to planning for
D> fifty years in the future (maybe they'll be less conservative).

Stating briefly what we might like to be doing in 200 years and in
1,000,000 years, then carefully planning what we should do during the
next 50 years to head in that longterm direction while also providing
payback during the first 50 years, would seem to be appropriate for
that commission. Attempts to actually design a prototype of a
generation ship for colonizing Epsilon Eridani or Tau Ceti would be
the sort of things they should NOT attempt due to their 50-year limit.
But briefly saying that we want to eventually colonize the regions
around nearby stars other than the Sun, and probably the whole Milky
Way Galaxy (except for parts if any that are already occupied) and
maybe beyond, don't seem out of line.

Side idea: Ask somebody on the street or at a party etc. "What do you
think we should do about the rest of the Universe besides the Earth?"
If they say "leave it along, mind our own business", we say "but what
if we're the only life in the whole Universe, and all that big
Universe except the Earth is being wasted?" to get discussion started
favorably.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 21 Feb 86 06:19:54 PST
From: sdcsvax!sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU!ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: ucbvax!space
Subject: Re: scope of space station
In-Reply-To: your article <8602181610.AA02089@mitre-bedford.ARPA>

The manned space station will only be part of the activity.  There
are also plans to launch `free flyers' from the station into different
orbits that can be retrieved later.  This solves some of the problems
with crystal growth (massive astronauts causing vibrations in the shuttle
or station) and provides isolation for dangerous experiments.  A totally
separate manned station in another orbit may be unnecessary.

				Dave Newkirk, ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 21 Feb 86 12:20:30 PST
From: ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: ucbvax!space
Subject: Re: alchemy not needed for Titanium from lunar soil
In-Reply-To: your article <8602171205.AA29281@s1-b.arpa>

Instead of spending millions to make the system fully automated for
all those little problems that can occurr, why not include some
people to help out?  A small team could help set up the equipment
in a couple of days and return to the space station to monitor it.
Then when something breaks, they can go fix it.  It should be
relatively cheap to make a few updated lunar modules for temporary
visits to the Moon.  All you need is a lunar ferry (you'll need that
anyway to return the titanium).
					Dave Newkirk, ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn

------------------------------

Date: 15 Feb 86 14:39:00 GMT
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!convex!rrm!ric@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: The Ultimate Mars Rover
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

See also:
The Case for Mars
The Case for Mars II
American Astonautical Society
AAS Pulications Office
POBx 28130
San Diego, CA  92128
Also:
The CASE FOR MARS
Boulder Center for Science and Policy
OIBx 4877
Boulder CO  80306
The two books above are the papers given at the conferences given by
the organization given.  Quite interesting insights into some facets of
space technology.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard R. Martin 	usenet:		{infoswx!mcomp, texsun} rrm!ric
			Compuserve:	[70535,747]

------------------------------

Date: 17 Feb 86 16:17:13 GMT
From: allegra!princeton!astrovax!elt@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Ed Turner)
Subject: Re: Most Dangerous: Launch or Landing?
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

The claim that landings are more dangerous than launches may have been based
on several risk analyses carried out before the loss of Challenger.  I believe
that some or perhaps all of these concluded that the landing procedure was
quite hazardous.  One particularly controversial study (Rand Corp. maybe?)
concluded that the chance of destroying the Orbiter on landing is of order
1% per mission.  Also there is the empirical fact that there have been a
couple of "close calls" during shuttle landings.  In any case it is not hard
to see why a no power landing in a "plane" as massive as the Shuttle with
such poor low speed glide and handling characteristics could be quite tricky.
One unhappy possibility that must be considered is that the Shuttle has 
several critical failure modes, all of roughly the same small probability
but adding up to something in the few percent range.  Since identification
and evaluation of such failure modes and probabilities is always a difficult
and uncertain business, one might be left with finding them in the same
way that the O-ring/SRB problem (if that's what it was) was uncovered.
This sometimes happens with experimental aircraft.
Ed Turner
astrovax!elt

------------------------------

Date: 15 Feb 86 22:35:00 GMT
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!convex!trsvax!gm@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Joy rides - Barnstorming reborn
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> On the subject of Joy rides, if the object is weightlessness, how
> about parabolic plane rides. NASA uses it to train astronauts, and
> from the films that I've seen it looks pretty fun.  Each period of
> weightlessness might not last long but it would be followed by a
> period of high G, which would be similar to launch...
They don't call that plane the "Vomit Comet" for nothing. Almost everyone
who has been on that plane woofs his/her cookies before the ride is
over. As for the people who don't, NASA sends them up again and again 
with doctors to figure out why they don't. The area of space sickness
is a big concern at NASA. They spent over a million dollars last year to
figure out what causes it and ways to prevent it.
------------------------------------------------------------
		"Houston, the toilet stopped up again and the shit just 
		 hit the fan, if you get my drift."
			"Roger, we ran it through the computer."
		"What did it say?"
			"Jiggle the handle."
				-George Moore

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #153
*******************


0,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA26575; Sun, 23 Feb 86 23:01:36 PST
	id AA26575; Sun, 23 Feb 86 23:01:36 PST
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 86 23:01:36 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8602240701.AA26575@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #154

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 154

Today's Topics:
		  Re: Space Shuttle Children's Fund
	   Re: Why does everyone want to leave this planet?
			       HOTOL ?
		 Re: SRB ring seals/NASA culpability?
		    Re: Scuttle the Space Program?
	   Re: Why does everyone want to leave this planet?
			 Re: Shuttle Program
		       Save the Unborn Shuttles
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 17 Feb 86 17:47:24 GMT
From: ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!mhuxv!abnji!nyssa@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (nyssa of traken)
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle Children's Fund
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>>>   Do I detect a hint of chauvinism here? Does anybody still remember
>>> Sputnik? I think it is prtty neat that the Europeans havn't had any
>>> fatalities in thier space program as yet.
>>> 
>>Eh, if you consider the people who put up Sputnik (the Soviets, remember?)
>>to be Europeans, then, it is not pretty neat, because they have had
>>fatalities in their program as well.
>>
>>-Ron
>
>	Aside from which, if you don't consider the Soviets to be European,
>then they have also not yet had any astronauts in their space program (except
>as passengers on the shuttle). It's hard to have fatalities when there are
>no people.
The French flew a cosmonaut on a Soviet flight well before we
allowed allies on ours.
-- 
James C. Armstrong, Jnr.	{ihnp4,cbosgd,akgua}!abnji!nyssa
"But Doctor, we're on that island!"
"Oh my word!"			who said them, what story?

------------------------------

Date: 17 Feb 86 04:16:20 GMT
From: pur-ee!pucc-j!rsk@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Wombat)
Subject: Re: Why does everyone want to leave this planet?
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <2960@ut-ngp.UUCP> cgeiger@ut-ngp.UUCP (Charles S. Geiger, Esq.) writes:
>Well, why?  While I am very interested in astronomy and all that
>sort of thing, I don't understand why anyone would want to
>permanently migrate to another planet.  There's just so much *here*
>to see and learn, certainly enough to last a lifetime!  Most
>importantly, this is our home.
>
>Frankly, I hope all of you gung-ho types will get the opportunity
>to leave and will take advantage of it.  That way all the
>exploiters, conquerors, or, to be charitable, "adventurous" types
>(what's so unadventurous about staying here and learning about your
>own planet?) will leave, and I can be at peace here.
>
>charles s. geiger
>just a wage slave
Your signature matches the tone of your article: no hope for the future.
Flamage...
I'm so incredibly exasperated at your total ignorance, your utter lack of
spirit and drive, and your blindness to the limits imposed by this planet,
that I don't think I can compose the point-by-point response required to
adequately toast you to a crisp.  This will have to do.
End Flamage...
The meek will inheirit the earth, or what's left of it;
the rest of us, the universe.
-- 
Rich Kulawiec  pucc-j!rsk or rsk@asc.purdue.edu

------------------------------

Date: 17 Feb 86 17:23:57 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!watnot!watdragon!sewelch@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Stephen E. Welch)
Subject: HOTOL ?
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

                                                                       
   I recently read about the plans for a british "spaceplane" called HOTOL.
Do the U.S. and/or U.S.S.R. have similar plans for a "spaceplane". Also,
doesn't it make more sense to not build another shuttle, but instead design
and build a spaceplane which would (seem to) be a lot safer.

------------------------------

Date: 17 Feb 86 22:23:34 GMT
From: ihnp4!ihwpt!knudsen@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (mike knudsen)
Subject: Re: SRB ring seals/NASA culpability?
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> The latest news, of yesterday and this morning (2/11/86) is that attention
> is centering on the rubber ring seals which hold the SRB segments together,
> and that NASA was aware of problems with these up to 9 months ago.
> 
> 
> Is it really possible that NASA, in spite of the pretty obvious record of
> paranoia when it comes to safety, could just plain ignore warnings about these
> seals?  Is there some other explanation--like, they did know, but thought
> they had worked out a solution (which unfortunately, wasn't good enough), or
> they didn't really realize how bad the problem was, or something?  Anything
> whatever in extenuation?
> 
> hplabs!analog!kim
My theory has been that there were probably several other reports
of trouble spots and impending disasters, and NASA couldn't attend
to all of them at once.  (OK, so maybe they should have fixed
all of them and suspended launches in the meantime, and taken all
sorts of heat about "safety paranoia" -- yes, I've often felt
they were too cautious myself).
More important, there were lots of potentially dangerous
shuttle bugs that really happened: liquid engines conking
out early, APUs catching fire, fuel cell breakdowns, tire
blowout on landing, and last but hardly least to the astronauts,
clogged toilets!
NASA was probably too busy attending to all those to beef up the
SRB seals.  Ironically, none of these involved the SRBs,
so SRB improvements could have been carried out in parallel
with the other fixes.  But NASA staff was probably spread
too thin (read: manpower shortage == low budget) to give
the SRB problem the attention it deserved.
Even tho a waiver had been signed that absolved the need
for secondary backup seals on the boosters.
	mike k	104% for manned space exploration
	"A penny saved is a dead astronaut, someday"

------------------------------

Date: 16 Feb 86 00:21:12 GMT
From: sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!oberon!smeagol!kwan@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Richard Kwan)
Subject: Re: Scuttle the Space Program?
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In <3192@umcp-cs.UUCP>, C. Wingate writes:
> Nonsense.  Even the poor of today enjoy a much higher standard of living
> than their anscestors did.
This is not intended as a chastisement of Mr. Wingate.  But I just can't
let this one go.
It is perhaps true that the standard of living for poverty level in the
U.S. is better than for poor of the past.  HOWEVER, there is a large
segment of the poor who are starving to death in Ethopia and elsewhere.
If it is available in your area, turn on your late night TV and look
at the pleas for donations from WorldVision or other select groups
(I certainly don't endorse all of them).  If you haven't been
anesthetized by the media already, it will make your stomach craw.
By the way, I favor WorldVision.  I also favor the U.S. space program.
Don't ask me to harmonize that.
And I hope not to say any more about that in this newsgroup.
		Rick Kwan
		JPL Spacecraft Data Systems

------------------------------

Date: 17 Feb 86 21:11:20 GMT
From: decvax!mcnc!rti-sel!amr@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Why does everyone want to leave this planet?
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <2960@ut-ngp.UUCP> cgeiger@ut-ngp.UUCP (Charles S. Geiger, Esq.) writes:
>Well, why?  While I am very interested in astronomy and all that
>sort of thing, I don't understand why anyone would want to
>permanently migrate to another planet. . .
I'm not really taking issue with the fact that some people who want to
explore/migrate/whatever are looking for adventure, wealth, and fame.
I'd just like to point out a couple of other reasons.  How does long-
term survival of the human race grab you?  We have created a rather
complex mix of technology and politics on this planet.  At times our
world seems dangerously close to trying to discover whether a nuclear
exchange would destroy higher-order life or not.  If you are not too
concerned about this, have you considered what happens the day the
lab blows up at Better Bacteria for Mankind Inc., and releases the
stuff they have secretly been working on under a DoD grant?  I for
one will sleep more soundly (even on this planet!) when (if) I know
that no single catastrophe will destroy mankind.  That really won't
happen until there are manned, permanent, self-sustaining colonies
capable of developing and supporting a broad industrial base some-
where besides the Earth.  Concern about man's long-term survival may
not be widespread, but I doubt that I am the only one with this
opinion.
>
>Frankly, I hope all of you gung-ho types will get the opportunity
>to leave and will take advantage of it. . . 
>                       . . . and I can be at peace here.
Some of the people who want to get into space badly may in fact share
your desire for peace (or isolation).  There have always been people 
who prefered to live in relative solitude.  These people are facing a
tougher and tougher fight for their freedom on Earth as open space is
devoured for the living or recreation areas for the rest of us (seen
the CROWD at the average national forest recently)?  For this type of
person, an asteroid and the means to live on it with as little contact
with others as possible might be the ultimate in "peace."
-- 
					Cheers,
					Alan Roberts
					Research Triangle Institute
					(decvax!mcnc!rti-sel!amr)

------------------------------

Return-Path: <ittatc!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!pesnta!kima>
From: sdcsvax!dcdwest!ittatc!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!pesnta!pesnta!kima@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Kim Althoff)
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 86 09:20:35 pdt
To: pyramid!space
Subject: Re: Shuttle Program
Newsgroups: net.space
In-Reply-To: <8602180507.AA06619@s1-b.arpa>

In article <8602180507.AA06619@s1-b.arpa> you write:
>The discussion of the farther future has been somewhat divorced from
>reality.  A Transatmospheric Vehicle (TAV, Orient Express) will barely be
>available to the military in 10 years.  Shuttle quality service is probably
>much farther away.  Consequently if a new shuttle is built, it will see
>plenty of use before something better comes along.  Those discussing
>teleoperators might want to wander down to the lab some day and look at the
>manipulators available, and the current rate of progress.  People are going
>to be needed for a good long time for many tasks.  On almost every SpaceLab
>mission, equipment repairs were necessary.  On the last mission, the JPL
>scientist doing some suspended fluid experiments in equipment he designed
>had to spend the better part of a day upside down inside the machine fixing
                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^
Did you really mean that or was it a Freudian slip?  I mean after all, how
does one determine up or down without gravity?

>it.  It is silly to talk about manned versus unmanned as an either/or
>proposition.  Both have their good and bad points.  Machines are cheap but
>not too flexible.  They can handle all the simple tasks.  Men are expensive
>but very flexible.  They can handle the messy cases, which are unfortunately
>not all that rare.  As I pointed out in a New York Times letter a while ago,
>one reason for having a space station is the cost of launches.  It might
>be cheaper over the long run to have a space station with infrequent
>launches compared to no space station and more frequent launches.

Kim Althoff
ihnp4!pesnta!kima

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 21 Feb 86 22:26:05 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@mc.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: Save the Unborn Shuttles
To: unmvax!nmtvax!fine@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Cc: KFL@mc.lcs.mit.edu, Space@s1-b.arpa

    From: unmvax!nmtvax!fine@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Andrew J Fine)

    So what do we buy with $2 billion dollars? One shuttle, good for 100
    missions (best case) with 7 people each. Or enough food, clean water, and
    other necesssities to feed Ethiopia for the next ten decades, easily.

  Assuming that food, clean water, and other necessities for one
person cost just one dollar a day, and that shipping them to Ethiopia
costs nothing at all, since Ethiopia has a population of 32 million, 2
billion dollars would last just about two months.  Not 'ten decades'.
  Ethipoia's problems stem from it's socialist economy.  Why should WE
bail them out?  Why not the USSR?  When did the USA become the world's
nanny?
  Any what makes you think that any money that doesn't go to space
will go to Ethiopia?
  Note that the 2 billion dollars is not being shot into space.  The
money is staying right here on Earth, where it is benefiting hundreds
of thousands of people directly.  It is of course benefiting all
mankind in the long run, unlike two months of feeding Ethiopia.
  If you feel bad about the fate of Ethiopians, feel free to send them
your own food and money.  Just don't ask the government to use my
money to subsidize Ethiopia's bogus economic system.  And keep in mind
the harm you are doing to Ethiopia's farmers.  (What if whatever
product you made was to be shipped in from another country for free -
you would soon find another line of work, right?  And if all Ethiopian
farmers did so ...)

    Why have satellites and information systems at all, except to invade the 
    privacy and keep records on a captive populace?

  With the low cost of computers and other high technology items, they
are available for the use of individuals like you and I.  As you must
surely be aware.  You didn't enter this message with a quill pen by
candlelight.

    Why have land and weather satellites at all, except to take advantage of
    another nation's resources and vulnerabilities?

  Resource satellites are primarily used to explore the resources of
the country that launches them.  Though many countries have made great
use of landsat pictures the US made at considerable expense and
provided for free.
  When there is a storm in Texas or Florida, few people are hurt,
since plenty of warning is given by weather satellites.  Contrast that
with the situation in Bangladesh, where a year in which only a
thousand people perish from typhoons is considered lucky.  Or with the
situation in Texas and Florida before weather satellites.
  
    Why explore the planets, interesting though they are, except to find
    more virgin landscape to despoil and riches to plunder?

  Is this what people do?  Would you rather live in a nice warm
apartment, or naked in the wilderness?
  Man is a product of nature and what we do and build is just as
natural as anything else on Earth.  Just as birds find nests better
than bare branches, and groundhogs find holes better than the bare
ground, similarly has man transformed his environment to his benefit.
  Do you think the first creatures to release oxygen into the Earth's
atmosphere were evil?  Should the atmosphere have remained in its
'natural' state, free of oxygen?
  Do you think the first creatures to live upon the land were
despoiling the natural barren moon-like wilderness?  Should the great
forests have been left in their 'natural', life-free state?
  Do you think that a barren moon is to anyone's benefit?  Do you
think evil is done by introducing life to that previously lifeless
cinder of a world?
  Would Venus be ruined by an attempt to convert its poisinous red hot
atmosphere into temperate oxygen and blue seas, where life like us
might live in comfort?
  Would empty space be despoiled by large free floating manned
colonies?  Seems to me that space is the best place for our large
populations and heavy industries.  So we can leave Earth's ecosystems
unspoiled.
  Or do you think that heavy industries and mechanized farms should be
dismantled?  And large populations reduced?  Well, the former would
certainly take care of the latter, and it wouldn't be much fun.

    Why put a man, or a women for that matter, in space?  What is so special
    about anyone that we must exhalt that person above all others in such an
    eletist fashion?

  I would like to see the day when anyone who wants to move to space
may do so.  That day isn't yet, it's still to expensive.  The shuttle
is the best bet we have currently to get to the next step.  Not
everyone can ride the shuttle.  Not everyone in 1492 could sail with
Columbus, either.

    Why shouldn't that person be put to a task that serves the world rather
    than that person's ego?

  Put to a task?  Put by whom?  Are we slaves now?  To be put to
tasks, tasks that serve the world in some tyrant's estimation?  Like
Pol Pot's recent regime in Cambodia, in which he had everyone leave
the cities to be put to a 'useful' task in the countryside.  The
results were as awful as any sensible person would have imagined.
  Nobody is going into space except volunteers.  If you want to
volunteer for one of these worthy tasks, go right ahead.  Join the
peace corps instead of sending ignorant flames to the net.

    ... ( the concept of having to work for one's bread is deadly when there
    is not enough work to go around ), ...

  You mean when there is not enough bread to go around.  There is
always enough work to go around, if only baking bread!  Unemployment
is a product of stupid government regulations.

    If humanity can simply change from mere descendants of carnivorous apes to
    something totally gentle, altrustic, and noble, then Earth will be enough.

  We are descended from herbiverous apes.
  If we were all dead, Earth would also be enough.  Is this what you
want?  Or only most of us dead?
								...Keith

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #154
*******************


0,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA28480; Mon, 24 Feb 86 03:01:29 PST
	id AA28480; Mon, 24 Feb 86 03:01:29 PST
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 86 03:01:29 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8602241101.AA28480@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #155

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 155

Today's Topics:
		       Re: NASA and SDI budgets
			      Space Fund
			      Space Fund
		       Save the Unborn Shuttles
			       Paranoia
			    Ulysses probe
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri 21 Feb 86 19:00:02-PST
From: Jim McGrath <J.JPM@epic>
Subject: Re: NASA and SDI budgets
To: "space@mc"@su-score.arpa
Cc: "brahms!weemba@ucbvax.berkeley.edu"@su-score.arpa, J.JPM@epic
Reply-To: mcgrath%mit-oz@mit-mc.arpa


        From: J.JPM@EPIC 
        But it never will.  One of the reasons I think SDI is a good
        idea is that it is an excellent way to get funds for space
        activities...

    From: brahms!weemba@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Matthew P. Wiener)
    This is one of the reasons I think SDI is a sick idea.  It reduces
    NASA (along with much university research) to moral prostitution
    for its funding.

Your logic here is missing a couple of steps.  You can only make a
case for moral prostitution if you somehow think that defense research
is immoral (or you think that the law is neat and tidy - in which case
I don't think you know much about the law).  I happen to think defense
research is vital.  Furthermore, I disagree with the philosophy of the
current law, which forbids the military from sponsoring research
unless it is directly related to its mission.  I have no problem with
the military supporting, through research, fields that contribute to
the general health of science, technology, and industry, and thus
indirectly to defense.

You are perfectly entitled to you own feelings (a more accurate term
than thoughts) on this matter, but given this fundamental divergence
in beliefs you should be ready to recognize why other (indeed, most)
people will disagree.


Jim
-------

------------------------------

Date: Fri 21 Feb 86 19:16:09-PST
From: Jim McGrath <J.JPM@epic>
Subject: Space Fund
To: "space@mc"@su-score.arpa
Cc: "decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!mcvax!vmucnam!imag!lifia!felix@ucbvax.berkeley.edu"@su-score.arpa,
        J.JPM@epic
Reply-To: mcgrath%mit-oz@mit-mc.arpa

    From: decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!mcvax!vmucnam!imag!
          lifia!felix@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Francois Felix INGRAND)
    First my question was serious, I do not know very well the
    american Social System but I feel very sorry too, to think that
    you have to make a fund to help these childrens.

As has been pointed out, in America the culture encourages individuals
helping other individuals in as direct a manner as possible.  I fail
utterly to see how anyone could possibly consider "help" from an
unfeeling government, which gets its "public" funds via coercive
taxation (re: robbery) to somehow be "better" (I assume morally) that
individuals freely giving of their own wealth in as direct a manner as
they can.

    Second, these childrens, which suffered a great loss indeed, and
    you could be sure that I have sympathy for them, looks for me like
    the childrens or people which loose parents or friends in such a
    catastrophe. The tomorrow of the shuttle catastrophe, there were a
    Airplane Crash in South America: 27 deads...  Be sure that I have
    a lot of sympathy for them too. But Medias seem to have forgotten
    them... And American Fund too.

I am positive that for any random public accident you can name
involving Americans there is, somewhere, a memorial fund of some sort
for them.  That all funds are not treated equally (in terms of monies
received) is a necessary consequence of free choice, since some
individuals and their plights simply happen to appeal more to folks
than others.  You may decry this as somehow "irrational."  I accept
it as human.

    Third, Do you really think that it is money that these childrens
    need?  Do you really think that sympathy can only be Dollars.
    Excuse me but I feel sorry for you, to see that the only think
    that you can do for them is to make a Fund.... But here, is it the
    best solution?

What other solution do you suggest?  That all 10 million or so of us
go to their homes?  Or even give them a phone call?  I agree with
Chris Redmond that giving money is the only practical thing to do.
Also, I detect in your message some sort of irrational dislike of
money (philosophically popular in some quarters).  Money is a means of
exchange, a storage of wealth.  There is nothing "evil" in money.


Jim
-------

------------------------------

Date: Fri 21 Feb 86 19:19:56-PST
From: Jim McGrath <J.JPM@epic>
Subject: Space Fund
To: "space@mc"@su-score.arpa
Cc: "decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!mcvax!ukc!dcl-cs!craig@ucbvax.berkeley.edu"@su-score.arpa,
        J.JPM@epic
Reply-To: mcgrath%mit-oz@mit-mc.arpa


        Perhaps you are unfamiliar with such things, Monsieur Ingrand,
        but here in the United States we like to take care of our own.

    From: decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!mcvax!ukc!dcl-cs!craig
          @ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Craig Wylie)
    Perhaps you should see the comment above, when you supply free
    education, free medical care and government subsidized housing then
    you can be insulting, until then you are not taking care of your
    own at all....

    More to the point, don't blame him: he lives in a country (France)
    where the ASSUMPTION is that bereaved children will be taken care
    of from public funds, and there's no need to start a special
    collection.

"Free" this, that, and the other, eh?  What sort of fairy godmother
supplies France with all of these gifts?  I always thought that a
bunch of toughs, backed by an army of thugs, stole the wealth to
provide these "free" things from millions (for the dense, this is
called taxation).

It's simply amazing how otherwise rational people will equate "free"
with "public," ignoring the costs associated with any government
activity.


Jim
-------

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 21 Feb 86 22:44:24 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@mc.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: Save the Unborn Shuttles
To: unmvax!nmtvax!fine@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Cc: KFL@mc.lcs.mit.edu, Space@s1-b.arpa

    From: unmvax!nmtvax!fine@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Andrew J Fine)

    So what do we buy with $2 billion dollars? One shuttle, good for 100
    missions (best case) with 7 people each. Or enough food, clean water, and
    other necesssities to feed Ethiopia for the next ten decades, easily.

  Assuming that food, clean water, and other necessities for one
person cost just one dollar a day, and that shipping them to Ethiopia
costs nothing at all, since Ethiopia has a population of 32 million, 2
billion dollars would last just about two months.  Not 'ten decades'.
  Ethipoia's problems stem from it's socialist economy.  Why should WE
bail them out?  Why not the USSR?  When did the USA become the world's
nanny?
  Any what makes you think that any money that doesn't go to space
will go to Ethiopia?
  Note that the 2 billion dollars is not being shot into space.  The
money is staying right here on Earth, where it is benefiting hundreds
of thousands of people directly.  It is of course benefiting all
mankind in the long run, unlike two months of feeding Ethiopia.
  If you feel bad about the fate of Ethiopians, feel free to send them
your own food and money.  Just don't ask the government to use my
money to subsidize Ethiopia's bogus economic system.  And keep in mind
the harm you are doing to Ethiopia's farmers.  (What if whatever
product you made was to be shipped in from another country for free -
you would soon find another line of work, right?  And if all Ethiopian
farmers did so ...)

    Why have satellites and information systems at all, except to invade the 
    privacy and keep records on a captive populace?

  With the low cost of computers and other high technology items, they
are available for the use of individuals like you and I.  As you must
surely be aware.  You didn't enter this message with a quill pen by
candlelight.

    Why have land and weather satellites at all, except to take advantage of
    another nation's resources and vulnerabilities?

  Resource satellites are primarily used to explore the resources of
the country that launches them.  Though many countries have made great
use of landsat pictures the US made at considerable expense and
provided for free.
  When there is a storm in Texas or Florida, few people are hurt,
since plenty of warning is given by weather satellites.  Contrast that
with the situation in Bangladesh, where a year in which only a
thousand people perish from typhoons is considered lucky.  Or with the
situation in Texas and Florida before weather satellites.
  
    Why explore the planets, interesting though they are, except to find
    more virgin landscape to despoil and riches to plunder?

  Is this what people do?  Would you rather live in a nice warm
apartment, or naked in the wilderness?
  Man is a product of nature and what we do and build is just as
natural as anything else on Earth.  Just as birds find nests better
than bare branches, and groundhogs find holes better than the bare
ground, similarly has man transformed his environment to his benefit.
  Do you think the first creatures to release oxygen into the Earth's
atmosphere were evil?  Should the atmosphere have remained in its
'natural' state, free of oxygen?
  Do you think the first creatures to live upon the land were
despoiling the natural barren moon-like wilderness?  Should the great
forests have been left in their 'natural', life-free state?
  Do you think that a barren moon is to anyone's benefit?  Do you
think evil is done by introducing life to that previously lifeless
cinder of a world?
  Would Venus be ruined by an attempt to convert its poisinous red hot
atmosphere into temperate oxygen and blue seas, where life like us
might live in comfort?
  Would empty space be despoiled by large free floating manned
colonies?  Seems to me that space is the best place for our large
populations and heavy industries.  So we can leave Earth's ecosystems
unspoiled.
  Or do you think that heavy industries and mechanized farms should be
dismantled?  And large populations reduced?  Well, the former would
certainly take care of the latter, and it wouldn't be much fun.

    Why put a man, or a women for that matter, in space?  What is so special
    about anyone that we must exhalt that person above all others in such an
    eletist fashion?

  I would like to see the day when anyone who wants to move to space
may do so.  That day isn't yet, it's still to expensive.  The shuttle
is the best bet we have currently to get to the next step.  Not
everyone can ride the shuttle.  Not everyone in 1492 could sail with
Columbus, either.

    Why shouldn't that person be put to a task that serves the world rather
    than that person's ego?

  Put to a task?  Put by whom?  Are we slaves now?  To be put to
tasks, tasks that serve the world in some tyrant's estimation?  Like
Pol Pot's recent regime in Cambodia, in which he had everyone leave
the cities to be put to a 'useful' task in the countryside.  The
results were as awful as any sensible person would have imagined.
  Nobody is going into space except volunteers.  If you want to
volunteer for one of these worthy tasks, go right ahead.  Join the
peace corps instead of sending ignorant flames to the net.

    ... ( the concept of having to work for one's bread is deadly when there
    is not enough work to go around ), ...

  You mean when there is not enough bread to go around.  There is
always enough work to go around, if only baking bread!  Unemployment
is a product of stupid government regulations.

    If humanity can simply change from mere descendants of carnivorous apes to
    something totally gentle, altrustic, and noble, then Earth will be enough.

  We are descended from herbiverous apes.
  If we were all dead, Earth would also be enough.  Is this what you
want?  Or only most of us dead?
								...Keith

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 22 Feb 86 00:01 EST
From: John Batali <BATALI@oz.ai.mit.edu>
Subject: Paranoia
To: Space@s1-b.arpa


I'm sure that there are people working for NASA on this mailing list.
Are there people at the Marshall Space Flight Center?  What about Morton
Thiokol?  If so, why haven't we heard from them?  The latest word (Feb
21) is that the engineers at MT were opposed to going ahead with the
launch because of the severe cold but were overruled by MT and NASA
management.  Presumabely some of these folks have interesting
information and may even want to present their side of the story.

I'll tell you why we haven't heard from them -- because they have been
told not to say anything.  The paper movers are covering their asses.
NASA would prefer that the accident be an engineering mistake rather
than a management one.

Is this coverup extending even to the net?  Anyone from NASA or MT care
to respond?  I dare you.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 22 Feb 86 00:43:34 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@mc.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: Ulysses probe
To: jon@csvax.caltech.edu
Cc: KFL@mc.lcs.mit.edu, Space@s1-b.arpa

    From: jon@csvax.caltech.edu

        Ulysses is a European probe, to  be  launched  from  the  Shuttle,
    which will go over one the Sun's poles ...
        Originally there was to have been an American  probe  launched  at
    the same time to go over the other solar pole. Funding was cut a few
    years ago, making the Europeans rather mad as I recall.

  How can it go over one pole but not both?
								...Keith

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #155
*******************


0,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA00689; Mon, 24 Feb 86 07:01:24 PST
	id AA00689; Mon, 24 Feb 86 07:01:24 PST
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 86 07:01:24 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8602241501.AA00689@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #156

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 156

Today's Topics:
				Graham
		    Re: Visual Shuttle Monitoring
		    Re: Scuttle the Space Program?
		    Re: Scuttle the Space Program?
		  Re: Space Shuttle Children's Fund
			 Re: Planet prefixes
		       Re: Scuttle the Shuttle?
		 New Soviet Space Station--any info?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 22 Feb 86 01:07:33 EST
From: Dale.Amon@fas.ri.cmu.edu
Subject: Graham
To: BBoard.Maintainer@a.cs.cmu.edu

NOTICE A RARE EVENT:  We have witnessed two rather remarkable
and unusual displays of leadership in the last few weeks.  The
first was President Reagan's choice not to focus solely on the
immediate space crisis in his State of the Union Address.  In
addition, he chose to declare a new start on a long-term project
- the aerospace plane.  That shows a very rare strategic sense,
sadly lacking in recent Presidents.

More recently, Acting NASA Administrator William Graham announced
continuation of the teacher-in-space program and extended an
offer for Christa McAuliffe's backup, Barbara Morgan, to fly on
the next shuttle that carries a private citizen.  That took
courage.  Graham is also committed to more private sector
involvement in space, including lots of people living and working
in space.  He has endorsed eventual space settlements.  He also
seems to be taking charge pretty strongly at NASA.

Such leadership is too rare to go unapplauded.  The following
suggestion may do some good: some people should take the
time to write a thoughtful, creative letter to President
Reagan praising these and any other acts of leadership by Graham
and Reagan that come to mind.  Not a mass mailing, but a few high
quality letters that might actually be read by Reagan's political
advisors.  

HOT FLASH:  Sen. Hollings (D-S.C.), recent Presidential aspirant,
has called for Graham to step aside, accusing him of giving
false information to a Senate panel.  It doesn't take much to
guess who gave Graham the bad information.  Many NASA bureaucrats
have resented Graham from the beginning, just on his resume.  He
isn't a member of the NASA "club."  Someone at NASA has been leaking
criticism of Graham to the Washington Post for the last week,
even as Graham has moved to take stronger charge.  Imagine: a new
Deputy, thrown into the top job when his boss gets indicted, then
Challenger explodes right after that.  And now his staff ...
Final note:  Jesse Moore, who just this week moved from heading
the space shuttle program to heading Johnson Space Center, comes
from South Carolina and is friendly with Hollings ...

------------------------------

Date: 17 Feb 86 20:28:16 GMT
From: ihnp4!stolaf!mmm!mrgofor@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (MKR)
Subject: Re: Visual Shuttle Monitoring
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <8602131946.AA04194@s1-b.arpa> DKING@RPICIE.CSNET (Dave King) writes:
>   This seems like a silly question, but I haven't seen it
>discussed before ... 
>   During a shuttle launch, is there someone assigned to watching
>the video coverage who has the ability to abort the mission if he
>sees something go awry?  In particular, if the SRB on the "camera
>side" of the Challenger had developed a clearly visible flame out
>of a seam, and this occurred, say, 10 or 15 seconds before the
>explosion, would there have been someone specifically assigned to
>watching that would have been able to push the button?
>
>Dave King
>RPI Center for Integrated Electronics
	What button? The problem with this scenario is, even if they
had seen large green multi-legged creatures on the SRBs, there is
no way to abort while those candles are burning.
	--MKR

------------------------------

Date: 17 Feb 86 23:22:29 GMT
From: decwrl!glacier!oliveb!felix!peregrine!mike@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Mike Wexler)
Organization: Peregrine Systems, Irvine, Ca
Subject: Re: Scuttle the Space Program?
References: <661@tekigm.UUCP>, <158@axiom.UUCP>, <932@nmtvax.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <932@nmtvax.UUCP> fine@nmtvax.UUCP (Andrew J Fine) writes:
>Let's ask ourselves a few questions:
>
>******************************************************************************
>Does humanity (men and women) really *need* to populate space?  Do we really
>need to explore, in person or otherwise, other planets?  Historically, 
Depends on what you mean by need.  Do people need cars?  Do people in warm
climates need homes?  Also do people need to grow and learn new things.  Would
you be satisfied if you where locked in a 3 meter by 3 meter by 3 meter room
and supplied with food, water, and warmth?

>exploration and open boundaries only encouraged exploitation, slavery, and
>genocide of indigenous peoples such as African, American Natives, and 
>East Asians.  It widened the gap between the rich and the poor at home, and
Exploitation, slavery, and genocide exist even where there is no exploration.
Who are we going to genocide in space anyway?  The people driving the UFOs?

>the massive funds spent on ships and weapons in that previous era caused
>more people to starve.  It also increased the likelyhood of the lawless being
>able to escape justice, for example Botany Bay and the HMS Bounty.
People have also been fed through exploration.  There are many people that are
now feed by foods grown in the Midwestern portion of the United States.  Do
you think that it shouldn't have been explored?

>So what do we buy with $2 billion dollars? One shuttle, good for 100 missions
>(best case) with 7 people each. Or enough food, clean water, and other
>necesssities to feed Ethiopia for the next ten decades, easily.
Can you justify this claim?

>So what do space-faring nations prove when they invoke national prestige and
>the desire of humanity to expand, by consuming all that money and 
>men-centuries? "I'm rich enough to do this and you're not, so there!". 
>"My rocket is bigger than yours!". "We are leaving you behind to scratch the
>dust while we inherit the universe!"  One man's glory is another man's
>humiliation.  One man's wealth is another man's poverty. One man's livelihood
>is another man's serfdom.
>
>Why have satellites and information systems at all, except to invade the 
>privacy and keep records on a captive populace? Why have land and weather
>satellites at all, except to take advantage of another nation's resources
>and vulnerabilities?

How about to allow communication between people(Comsat), to make better use 
of our own resources(landsat), or to save lives(navigation satellites).

>Why explore the planets, interesting though they are, except to find
>more virgin landscape to despoil and riches to plunder?  Why put a man, or a
>women for that matter, in space?  What is so special about anyone that we
>must exhalt that person above all others in such an eletist fashion? Why
>shouldn't that person be put to a task that serves the world rather than that
>person's ego?
You are assuming that space exploration doesn't serve the world.  This in not
necessarily true.   We can use it to create solar power more efficiently and
not despoil virgin(or even non-virgin) territory.  What better way can someone
serve humanity than to find ways to supply the resources people want, without
destroying nature in the process.

>The main problem with all of us is we are still essentially barbarians at
>heart.  The Viking who was the explorer was also the Viking that also raped
>and pillaged.  The Columbus who was the explorer was also the Columbus who
>converted people to his religion by force.  The shuttle pilot who was the
>explorer was also the pilot who killed husbands, wives, and children in
>North Korea and North Vietnam.  The wanderlust we all experience is just
>another word for the lust and coveting for the outside world that blinds
>us to the potentials of the inside world and the darkness of the soul that
>we need to correct.  Do we really deserve to go "out there" when we have
>such a mess "down here"?
Yes we do deserve to go "out there" and it may even help us clean up our
mess down here.  I have never killed anyone, nor do I plan to ever do so.
I would love to be a pilot for the Shuttle or whatever replaces it in the
future.  How many of the pilots of the shuttle or other rockets have been
involved in wars? (I don't know the answer to this, they may all have been 
as far as I know.)

>Earth is enough for us, if we have the will to cooperate, to transcend the
>bigotries that confound us, the borders that seperate us, to dare to have
>peace instead of waging war, to share what we have as far as we can give it
>without anyone having to pay for it ( the concept of having to work for one's
>bread is deadly when there is not enough work to go around ), to recognize
>that the most humble peasant in Mexico or India is worth more to us than
>the President of the US or the Queen of England.
Even if Earth is enough for us, why not have/create more.  Space will provide
more jobs so that people can work for there bread.  Why is a humble peasant
worth MORE than the President of the US or the Queen of England.  How do you
determine who is worth most? (Are you saying poor people without power are 
worth more than rich people with power?)

>If humanity can simply change from mere descendants of carnivorous apes to
>something totally gentle, altrustic, and noble, then Earth will be enough.
>We only try to escape the Earth because we try to escape our own natures.
See above.
>*****************************************************************************
>
>I, personally, am in full support of the Shuttle, the Space Program, and
>the exploration and exploition of space, and it's eventual population by
>humanity. BUT NOBODY HAS EVER ASKED US THESE QUESTIONS, NOBODY HAS EVER
>CHALLENGED US TO QUESTION OURSELVES! We need to be able to answer them,
>especially if those who have not, question the motives of us, those who have.
These question have been asked many times.  They are though over every
time congress sets up a budget for NASA and have been talked about
many places, for instance Arthur Clarke(I don't remember the title of
the book).

>Somehow, net.space would benefit from a really in-depth discussion of our
>justifications of our actions in space and thier consequences.
>
This seems to be a very philosophical debat.  I AM REDIRECTING FOLLOWUPS to
net.philosophy.
>Andrew Jonathan Fine. 
-- 
Mike Wexler
(trwrb|scgvaxd)!felix!peregrine!mike 		(714)855-3923
All of the preceding opinions are solely those of the author and do not
represent the views of any other being, sentient or abstract.

------------------------------

Date: 16 Feb 86 02:46:22 GMT
From: unmvax!nmtvax!fine@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Andrew J Fine)
Organization: New Mexico Tech, Socorro
Subject: Re: Scuttle the Space Program?
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Ok, I was deservedly and richly twitted.  But discussion takes all kinds of
forms and all kinds of viewpoints.  And some viewpoints can be essentially
unfriendly to a group of gung-ho people such as ourselves.  I asked questions
not because I agreed with the questions, but because we needed to answer them.
I believe I had made that crystal clear in the "Scuttle" posting.
Andrew Jonathan Fine

------------------------------

Date: 18 Feb 86 15:18:43 GMT
From: ihnp4!mmm!mrgofor@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (MKR)
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle Children's Fund
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <1129@abnji.UUCP> nyssa@abnji.UUCP (nyssa of traken) writes:
>>	Aside from which, if you don't consider the Soviets to be European,
>>then they have also not yet had any astronauts in their space program (except
>>as passengers on the shuttle). It's hard to have fatalities when there are
>>no people.
>
>The French flew a cosmonaut on a Soviet flight well before we
>allowed allies on ours.
>-- 
>James C. Armstrong, Jnr.	{ihnp4,cbosgd,akgua}!abnji!nyssa
	Yes, but being guest ballast on someone else's flight is not the
same. If that French astronaut had gone up in smoke, I doubt that too
many people would have blamed the French space program, except to the
extent that "he shouldn't have been going to space to begin with."
 --MKR

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 21 Feb 86 14:20:43 pst
From: decwrl!glacier!oliveb!barb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Barbara Jernigan)
Posted-Date: Fri, 21 Feb 86 14:20:43 pst
To: oliveb!space
Subject: Re: Planet prefixes
In-Reply-To: your article <860220161736.004012@HI-MULTICS.ARPA>

I believe that 'geo-' means 'earth' (not Earth), and would be
fine for any planet.

 'helio' means sun, suitable for any star.

Barb

------------------------------

Date: 18 Feb 86 07:35:17 GMT
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!oberon!smeagol!kwan@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Richard Kwan)
Organization: Spacecraft Data Systems, JPL, Pasadena, CA
Subject: Re: Scuttle the Shuttle?
References: <8602140147.AA05434@s1-b.arpa>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> >   It's my understanding from my experience in assisting in the design and 
> >fabrication of the ACE electronics package in the Galileo spacecraft that
> >modern microelectronics are MUCH more likely to "die of radiation" than are
> >human beings.
> 
> Microelectronics do suffer from soft errors from radiation, and some kinds
> can be disabled permanently by fairly small doses.  Radiation hardened
> semiconductors, however, can withstand upwards of 1 million rads of
> radiation (LD50 for humans is around 400).  In a teleoperator the real
> smarts will be on the ground anyway.
As far as I can gather, there seems to be several forms of radiation
hardening, i.e., the process depends on what you are trying to harden
against.  Military hardening combats high doses given in short periods.
Space hardening generally combats low doses for long periods of time.   
However, space hardening gets more complex -- depending on what planets
you are flying by, and what fields they possess.  Thus, there is no
such thing as a universal radiation hardening process.
Certain processes (bipolar and perhaps CMOS) which were once considered
naturally radiation-hard are no longer.  TTL was; but with the advent
LS TTL, it is no longer.
I have not raised the issue of hybrid analog/digital chips with anyone
here, but I presume that would be even harder to harden than pure
digital.
		Rick Kwan
		JPL Spacecraft Data Systems

------------------------------

Date: 21 Feb 86 15:45:32 GMT
From: uwvax!puff!hammen@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Zaphod Beeblebrox)
Organization: U of Wisconsin CS Dept
Subject: New Soviet Space Station--any info?
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

	Does anyone know anything about the new Soviet space station "Mir"?
I read the previous posting from the AP, and have seen some footage of the 
launch.  Does anyone know anything about:
	a) the launch vehicle.  Was this the public debut of the new Soviet
superbooster?  Or was it just a Proton (D-1)?  It looked sort of like the
Proton, but, since it was a night launch, it was hard to verify.
	b)the station itself.  (weight, features besides the six docking ports,
etc.).  Is it similar to the Cosmos 1443 add-on module to the Salyut?
(I mean in construction/architecture, not in the role it serves in).
I'd also be interested in discussing (through mail) the Soviet space program.
Thanks for the response.
			 	Robert J. Hammen
				U of Wisc. CS Dept.
				U of Wisc. Plasma Physics Dept.
				Manta Software Corp.
				{ihnp4, seismo, allegra}!uwvax!puff!hammen
						 	      !gumby!hammen

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #156
*******************


0,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA04900; Mon, 24 Feb 86 19:02:59 PST
	id AA04900; Mon, 24 Feb 86 19:02:59 PST
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 86 19:02:59 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8602250302.AA04900@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #157

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 157

Today's Topics:
		    Re: Re; shuttle assembly line
			   Re: sicko jokes
	      Re: Astronauts' Memorial--House Resolution
		  Soviet permanently manned station.
			      Titan SRBs
		      It could have been worse.
		      Re: European space program
		 Re: SRB ring seals/NASA culpability?
		    Re: Scuttle the Space Program?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 19 Feb 86 02:45:10 GMT
From: amdcad!amdahl!ems@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (ems)
Organization: Circle C Shellfish Ranch, Shores-of-the-Pacific, Ca
Subject: Re: Re; shuttle assembly line
References: <8602120510.AA20386@s1-b.arpa>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <8602120510.AA20386@s1-b.arpa>, tim@AIDS-UNIX.ARPA (Tim Edwards) writes:
> it was my understanding that Rockwell had retooled the shuttle production
> facility for the b1 bomber.  if this is indeed the case, it could raise
> serious political obstacles to obtaining a replacement orbiter. (i.e. which
> one do you think mr. reagan would rather have, a replacement orbiter or
> a bunch of shiny new b1's?) anyone have any info on this?
Given the emphasis of Mr.Regan on SDI, I would expect that the
shuttle IS a military priority for him.  This, of course, is only
my opinion of what might be priorities for him.  Which would he
rather have, SDI or B1b's?  Both.
-- 
E. Michael Smith  ...!{hplabs,ihnp4,amd,nsc}!amdahl!ems
This is the obligatory disclaimer of everything.

------------------------------

Date: 18 Feb 86 23:37:32 GMT
From: decwrl!pyramid!ut-sally!seismo!cmcl2!lanl!jlg@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Jim Giles)
Subject: Re: sicko jokes
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Speaking of bad jokes... ANY use of Challenger film footage on
	    Necessarily
	  Not ^ the News
would constitute adequate reason to cancel HBO subscriptions.
J. Giles
Los Alamos

------------------------------

Date: 18 Feb 86 03:08:00 GMT
From: hplabs!hpfcdc!hpfcdc!hpfcla!donn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Organization: 17 Feb 86 20:08:00 MST
Subject: Re: Astronauts' Memorial--House Resolution
References: <1593@mtgzy.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In reference to a House Bill for the L-5 society to construct a
memorial for astronauts in or near Washington:

(I made a posting a week ago on a related issue, and maybe it got
lost.)

Instead of putting it in Washington, how about putting it in space,
where the astronauts were going.  This seems to be a more fitting
tribute, and seems to me to be more in line with the L-5 Society's
charter.

Clearly, 5 years is too short for that to be a reality (maybe ten,
though?), but I'm quite sure that if Congress will help in the getting
there, the L-5 society will be quite capable of creating a fitting
memorial in space.

Donn Terry
Ft. Collins, Co.
P.S.  Don't construe this to mean that I'm against earthbound memorials,
but rather that I believe that there are better ones.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 22 Feb 86 16:50:23 eet
To: SPACE@mc.lcs.mit.edu
From: FYS-TS%FINHUT.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: Soviet permanently manned station.

Two nights back I was watching our local news which reported of the
latest soviet achievement, the launch of their PERMANENT MANNED
STATION, named 'Peace'(Mir).

I would be glad to read some comments and info on this, all I know
is that the station is called a third generation version by the
soviets and it will form the central core of a larger entity. It
appears to be equipped with several(4-6, I reckon) docking ports
which can probably be used to attach specific expansion modules of
Kosmos type to the core and also Progress supply vehicles as well
as Souyz manned spacecraft. According to our news, the station will
indeed be manned permanently.

My first impression was, that the launch was a logical continuation
of the soviet program and the slow but definite development of the
the soviet shuttle(s,?) fits well into the picture.

As mentioned, if there is someone reading the net, who knows more
about this, I'd be glad to learn more.

What are the current plans concerning the Hubble telescope? Any
chance, that it would be launched this year?

Are there any comprehensive material available on these TAV's? Some
type of review would be nice. If someone has some references,
they would be most welcome.

Greetings from northern Europe,

Tero Siili,
Helsinki University of Technology, Finland

------------------------------

Date: 19 Feb 86 16:38:40 GMT
From: bellcore!petrus!karn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Phil R. Karn)
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Inc
Subject: Titan SRBs
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Recently there has been much discussion about the inherent complexity
of the Shuttle SRBs. I did a little reading on their nearest cousins,
the solid rocket boosters used on the Air Force Titan-IIIs, and found
a couple of interesting facts:

  1. The Titan SRBs are segmented much like the Shuttle SRBs. The
Titan III-C uses five 10' segments, while the newer Titan 34D SRB uses
"5 1/2 segments" (5 10' segments plus one 5.8' segment). This is
contrary to a comment seen in the media where somebody said "you'd
never see the military use a solid rocket built like that" (referring
to the segmented design).
  2. I cannot find any indication in my references of a Titan SRB
failure, although they would not cover events in the past few years.
Titan III mission failures seem to have been dominated mostly by upper
stage failures, particularly the apparently notorious "transtage",
which often failed to re-ignite in a sequence of multiple burns.
  3. The Titan SRB uses a very unusual Thrust Vector Control system.
From David Baker's book The Rocket:

   "Flight control was maintained via a thrust-vector system
    that obviated the need for flexible nozzle extensions to
    simulate the gimbal operation used by liquid propellant
    engines.  Nitrogen tetroxide was fed to the base of the
    solid propellant motor and injected into the exhaust stream.
    This had the effect of creating a shock wave which deflected
    the exhaust plume by the desired amount.  Commands from the
    guidance equipment would dictate the precise amount of fluid
    injection necessary to change the direction of flights; it
    was a principle that substituted the exhaust vanes of early
    rockets with a working fluid."

This accounts for the little ("only" 4 tons worth of N2O4) tanks you see
strapped to the side of each SRB in a Titan-III.  I am puzzled by how
this system operates. Also, if it works well, I'm curious why it was not
used in the Shuttle SRB. An Air Force publication I have says the Titan
SRB is capable of a vector angle of 5 degrees, very close to the
gimbaling capability of the Shuttle SRB. The movable nozzles on the
latter are very complex, and require elaborate provisions to protect
them from burn-through (which nearly occurred on STS-8).

Can anyone comment on this?
  Phil Karn

------------------------------

Posted-Date:  22 Feb 86 13:57 CST
Date:  Sat, 22 Feb 86 13:54 CST
From: Slocum@hi-multics.arpa
Subject:  It could have been worse.
To: space@s1-b.arpa

Though the present tragedy is quite nasty, consider what could have
happened.  Let's say that the next scheduled shuttle flight exploded
instead.  This next flight was to carry the Galileo orbiter.  This
orbiter carrys a load of 43 pounds of Plutonium on-board.  (I may have
the figure wrong).

Plutonium is widely felt to be the most poisonous substance anywhere,
even if you disregard the radioactivity.  It has been said that less
than a pound spread thinly enough could kill every human being.

Now, imagine the shuttle exploding with this cargo.  Ten miles up.
Practically maximum possible dispersion.

In the very least, several thousand, perhaps several hundred thousand
people would develop cancer and plutonium poisoning.

In the shuttle tragedy, we lost seven lives, and Challenger.  It could
have been much worse.

    Brett Slocum
    (Slocum@HI-MULTICS.ARPA)

------------------------------

Date: 19 Feb 86 19:25:25 GMT
From: amdcad!lll-crg!seismo!rochester!ray@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Ray Frank)
Organization: U. of Rochester, CS Dept.
Subject: Re: European space program
References: <507@mmm.UUCP>, <1129@abnji.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>   Do I detect a hint of chauvinism here? Does anybody still remember
> Sputnik? I think it is prtty neat that the Europeans havn't had any
> fatalities in thier space program as yet.
> 
Your comment doesn't make any sense.  How could you lose someone if your
rockets only carry satelites?  Unless of course, a rocket falls over on the
pad and hits someone on the ground who couldn't run fast enough.  
> 
> The French flew a cosmonaut on a Soviet flight well before we
> allowed allies on ours.
> -- 
Hmmmm, I think there's a point here, but I can't find it.
ray

------------------------------

Date: 19 Feb 86 19:50:41 GMT
From: amdcad!lll-crg!seismo!rochester!ray@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Ray Frank)
Organization: U. of Rochester, CS Dept.
Subject: Re: SRB ring seals/NASA culpability?
References: <195@analog.UUCP>, <704@ihwpt.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> > ...
> > Is it really possible that NASA, in spite of the pretty obvious record
> > of paranoia when it comes to safety, could just plain ignore warnings
> > about these seals?  Is there some other explanation--like, they did
> > know, but thought they had worked out a solution (which unfortunately,
> > wasn't good enough), or they didn't really realize how bad the problem
> > was, or something?  Anything whatever in extenuation?
> > hplabs!analog!kim

In this mornings paper 2/19 there were hugh headlines reading:
	WARNING IGNORED?
  Apparently a top Morton Thiokol engineer, Allan McDonald, pleaded with
Nasa officals for hours not to launch because of low temperatures.  He
was overuled by his own superior, Joe Kilminster.  McDonald said other
engineers were largely in agreement with his opinion that the launch be
delayed.   McDonald also said that at low tempeartures such as those the
shuttle was  exposed to causes the O ring seals to shrink and stiffen.
  So in answer to your question, yes, it is quite obvious that Nasa
officals did not pay enough heed to warnings from experts, but did pay
heed to an experts superior, who by the way, was not stated in the
article to be an expert.
  And finally, the article said that Morton Thiokol had orginally
recommended against launch, but for reasons not clear, changed their
position.
  ray

------------------------------

Date: 16 Feb 86 21:55:12 GMT
From: cbosgd!ukma!psuvm.bitnet!psuvax1!burdvax!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA
Subject: Re: Scuttle the Space Program?
References: <661@tekigm.UUCP>, <158@axiom.UUCP>, <932@nmtvax.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <932@nmtvax.UUCP> fine@nmtvax.UUCP (Andrew J Fine) writes:
>Let's ask ourselves a few questions:
>
>******************************************************************************
>Does humanity (men and women) really *need* to populate space?  Do we really
>need to explore, in person or otherwise, other planets?
        Yes, we do. The resources of the Earth are finite and limited.
The resources of the Solar System, though finite, are orders of
magnitude larger than those of the Earth. As hard as it is to
imiagine, we will eventually burn the last drop of oil and the last
speck of coal. We will one day mine the last gram of iron ore.
Eventually every spare corner of this planet, including our last
remaining wildernesses, will be turned over to farming, and people
will still be starving. Outer Space is the only frontier left to us.
>  It also increased the likelyhood of the lawless being
>able to escape justice, for example Botany Bay and the HMS Bounty.
>
        Poor examples. The Botany Bay was a *deliberate* action, and
Australia was exile. And the crew of the Bounty *was* caught and most
were punished.
>So what do we buy with $2 billion dollars? One shuttle, good for 100 missions
>(best case) with 7 people each. Or enough food, clean water, and other
>necesssities to feed Ethiopia for the next ten decades, easily.
>
        And where are we going to get that food? and how are we going
to get it to Ethiopia. Are we going to make Ethipoia permanently
dependent on outside charity? Something must be done about the famine,
and it *is* being done. There are people in that area now, spending
thier time and effort to *teach* the Ethiopians how to better use the
resources thay have. There are groups working to import new types of
crops into the area which wil grow with little water. These are much
better, more lasting solutions than buying them train loads of food
and giving it to them(even if the government didn't commandeer the
gift).
>So what do space-faring nations prove when they invoke national prestige and
>the desire of humanity to expand, by consuming all that money and
>men-centuries? "I'm rich enough to do this and you're not, so there!".
>"My rocket is bigger than yours!". "We are leaving you behind to scratch the
>dust while we inherit the universe!"
        Or, how about, "We are taking the risks to pave the way so you
may follow later in greater safety." Remember, the US has been a haven
for oppressed and exiled peoples throughout most of its history, and
it exists because Spain saw fit to finance a crazy project to sail to
China by going west!
>
>Why have satellites and information systems at all, except to invade the
>privacy and keep records on a captive populace? Why have land and weather
>satellites at all, except to take advantage of another nation's resources
>and vulnerabilities?
>
        Well, actually, I think it is so that I, living in southern
California, can talk to my parents in Kansas once a week or more! A
century ago living that far apart meant we could only communicate by
letters a few times a year, and could only visit each other every few
years! Then, of course, there my ability to find out what the
President is saying without having to wait several months, so that I
can make a more intelligent decision when election time comes around.
Need I go on. I would not trade away our modern communication for
anything, I get too much personnal benefit from it.
>Why explore the planets, interesting though they are, except to find
>more virgin landscape to despoil and riches to plunder?
        How about so that we will not have to plunder every square
inch of our own planet, but leave *some* of it in its pristine beauty
for others to enjoy. Partial exploitation of many planets is
preferable to total exploitation of one.
> Why put a man, or a
>women for that matter, in space?  What is so special about anyone that we
>must exhalt that person above all others in such an eletist fashion?
        Matybe because we would would like to be in the same position,
but lack the courage, or the determination, or the necessary skills.
It is for the same reason we laud the great musician, or the first
rate painter, they are doing something we cannot.
> Why
>shouldn't that person be put to a task that serves the world rather than that
>person's ego?
>
        Actuall, I think it *is* a task serving mankind. Besides,
risking ones life for pure ego sounds mighty silly, and if that is the
main reason they are in the program, they belong in an asylum.
>
>Earth is enough for us, if we have the will to cooperate, to transcend the
>bigotries that confound us, the borders that seperate us, to dare to have
>peace instead of waging war, to share what we have as far as we can give it
>without anyone having to pay for it ( the concept of having to work for one's
>bread is deadly when there is not enough work to go around ), to recognize
>that the most humble peasant in Mexico or India is worth more to us than
>the President of the US or the Queen of England.
        If there is not enough to go around, then even sharing will
not help, we must find a way to produce more, and Outer Space is
*part* of the answer to that.
>
>If humanity can simply change from mere descendants of carnivorous apes to
>something totally gentle, altrustic, and noble, then Earth will be enough.
>We only try to escape the Earth because we try to escape our own natures.
        I think exploring and conquering space will help us do just
that. If it becomes obvious that there *is* enough of everything to go
around then there will be one less reason to fight, and all the more
reson to cooperate. And in Space, as immense as it is, there is amply
enough to go around, and to spare.
--
                                Sarima (Stanley Friesen)
UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen
ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #157
*******************


0,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA05932; Mon, 24 Feb 86 23:01:10 PST
	id AA05932; Mon, 24 Feb 86 23:01:10 PST
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 86 23:01:10 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8602250701.AA05932@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #158

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 158

Today's Topics:
			      Live on TV
			   Ditching the ET
		      JPL, NASA addresses wanted
	 Re: "Long Term Implications of Challenger Accident"
			Re: Re: teleoperators
			  rescue capability
	  Re: "At the moment Uranus's south pole points..."
		Re: Naming Things after the Astronauts
	   Re: Why does everyone want to leave this planet?
	   Re: Why does everyone want to leave this planet?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 22 Feb 86 15:29:56 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@mc.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: Live on TV
To: pur-ee!ecn-pc!wdm@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Cc: KFL@mc.lcs.mit.edu, Space@s1-b.arpa

    From: pur-ee!ecn-pc!wdm@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Tex)

    >        7 brave humans died on the Challenger; we all respect their
    >        courage, but some of us are wondering why you have to die live
    >        on TV to raise the conscience of a nation.

       If I recall correctly, the Apollo One Crew did not die "live on TV," and
       the conscience of the nation was still raised.

  Neither did the Challenger crew.  The launch was not covered live on
any broadcast TV network.
								...Keith

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 22 Feb 86 15:50:22 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@mc.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: Ditching the ET
To: decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-crvax1!kaplow@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Cc: KFL@mc.lcs.mit.edu, Space@s1-b.arpa

    From: decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-crvax1!kaplow@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Reach for
    the Stars)

    I beleieve that they want the ET to burn up to prevent the shuttle
    orbital path from getting cluttered up with empty ETs.

  I think that the ET would be in an unstable orbit that would crash
into the Earth at a random point after a few weeks.  They ditch it,
even though it takes more energy, so that it will land in the ocean
and not hit anyone.  With a little more energy, it could be dragged up
to a stable orbital altitude.
								...Keith

------------------------------

Date: 19 Feb 86 21:12:24 GMT
From: cbosgd!gatech!gt-stratus!msdc!paul@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Paul Manno)
Organization: Medical Systems Development Corp., Atlanta GA
Subject: JPL, NASA addresses wanted
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

I am looking for information or addresses to write to JPL and NASA
(or the Government Printing Office?) about available pictures from
the various space missions (Voyagers, Apollo, Shuttle, Viking, etc).
I have heard rumors for years that the pictures from these missions
are available to US citizens for some nominal fee depending upon
the media requested.  Any information will be appreciated.  Please
reply by mail.  As usual, if there are too many requests for the info,
I will post the results to net.space.
    Paul Manno,  Medical Systems Development Corp, Atlanta, GA
    paul@msdc.UUCP,  ..{akgua, gatech, ihnp4, mcnc}!msdc!paul

------------------------------

Date: 16 Feb 86 22:02:07 GMT
From: cbosgd!ukma!psuvm.bitnet!psuvax1!burdvax!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA
Subject: Re: "Long Term Implications of Challenger Accident"
References: <860210-065500-1155@Xerox>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <860210-065500-1155@Xerox> Gloger.es@XEROX.COM writes:
>Ed Turner made the coment that, "Much greater risks and losses [than
>Challenger's] have been accepted for the initial exploration of all
>historic frontiers ...."  "Piermarini" observed "... but do we stop the
>manufacture of automobiles when there's an accident?"
>
>However, there seems here to be a staggering lack of recognition of the
>terrible consequences of the fact that this particular "exploration of
>frontiers" is being done by the government,
>
>Does anybody remember the last time in history when a government
>operation successfully "explored a historic frontier?"
        Well, I seem to remember that Columbus's voyages were financed
by the Spanish government. And I think Magellan's vaoyage was also a
government venture. And Captain Drake was another government explorer.
And, I may be wrong, but I think that the HMS Beagle was a government
survey vessel, and look what came out of that!
--
                                Sarima (Stanley Friesen)
UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen
ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa

------------------------------

Date: 19 Feb 86 07:48:40 GMT
From: ihnp4!stolaf!umn-cs!quest!dave@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (David Messer)
Organization: Quest Research Inc., Burnsville, MN
Subject: Re: Re: teleoperators
References: <8602080021.AA01079@s1-b.arpa>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Teleoperators HAVE been developed for terestrial applications --
they are in use in various undersea operations.  So far their
capability is fairly limited although I suspect it will improve
fairly rapidly over the next decade.  They cost about $100,000
to $1,000,000 per unit, so I suspect it would be more like $50,000,000
for one to use in space.  I think the development costs would be
extreamly high however as there isn't nearly as much data on
the problems of working in space as underwater; there had been
hundreds of years of manned exploration of the sea before robot
submersables became possible.
-- 
David Messer   UUCP:  ...ihnp4!quest!dave
                      ...ihnp4!encore!vaxine!spark!14!415!sysop
               FIDO:  14/415 (SYSOP)

------------------------------

Date: 20 Feb 86 01:04:07 GMT
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!oberon!smeagol!kwan@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Richard Kwan)
Organization: Spacecraft Data Systems, JPL, Pasadena, CA
Subject: rescue capability
References: <8602170318.AA25485@s1-b.arpa>, <8602181610.AA02089@mitre-bedford.ARPA>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In <8602181610.AA02089@mitre-bedford.ARPA>, C. Byrnes writes:
>   I'm surprised the US and USSR don't have a treaty that would
> encourage an observation/rescue capability for the first few flights
> of new spacecraft...
I thought that was the point of the Apollo/Soyuz docking exercise
way back when.  Granted, having done it once is different from having
a treaty to ensure active maintanance of that capability.  However,
with multiple orbiters, perhaps we have some home-grown capability to
do the same.
Some questions:
    1.	Does the shuttle orbiter utilize the same docking collar
	specifications as Apollo?
    2.	Was much thought given to the possibility of a stranded shuttle?
	I presume launching a second shuttle was an option, although
	that would mean that a rendevous vehicle is ready to go while
	another is actually sitting on the pad.
-- 
		Rick Kwan
		JPL Spacecraft Data Systems
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"...jumpin' into hyperspace ain't like dustin' crops, boy."  H. Solo
--------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 20 Feb 86 17:29:10 GMT
From: amdcad!amdahl!drivax!holloway@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Bruce Holloway)
Organization: Digital Research, Monterey, CA
Subject: Re: "At the moment Uranus's south pole points..."
References: <860217-235409-1418@Xerox>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

I think "North" probably means the pole that, when looking down directly
above it, the planet seems to be turning counter-clockwise. Is this right?

Bruce Holloway
Digital Research, Inc.
60 Garden Court
Monterey, CA  93942
....!ucbvax!hplabs!amdahl!drivax!holloway
(I'm not THAT Bruce Holloway, I'm the other one.)

------------------------------

Date: 20 Feb 86 16:40:55 GMT
From: pur-ee!ecn-pc!wdm@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Tex)
Organization: Cybotech Product Development Laboratory
Subject: Re: Naming Things after the Astronauts
References: <3046@umcp-cs.UUCP>, <465@mb2c.UUCP>, <876@felix.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>> Just out of curiousity, why are the Russians naming the craters on Venus?
>> Not that I mind them doing it, I just wondered how the scientists of the
>> world decide on who names what, and whether the rest of the world will
>> recognize these names.
>> 	Roger L. Long
>
>Roger. Whoever discovers things gets to name them. The Soviets are up to
>something like 12 probes that have penetrated the atmosphere and actually
>survived long enough to send back some decent photos. The US has never
>probed Venus - we went the other way, and got to name things on Mars.

  The US has indeed probed Venus - with spectacular results.  Pioneer
Venus 1 entered a highly eccentric orbit around Venus on December 4,
1978.
  Pioneer Venus 2 arrived on December 9, 1978.  PV 2 was a multi-probe
ship that contained five separate instrument packages.  These were the a
large probe, the North, Day, Night packages, and the Bus (which carried
the other  four).  They started collecting data at an altitude of 70km.
None was designed to survive impact, but the Day probe did, and
continued to transmit data for 67 minutes after landing.
  I am not sure I understand how people come up with statements like
"The US has never probed Venus - we went the other way, and got to name
things on Mars," when that is so undeniably untrue.  He didn't even say,
"I am not sure, but I don't think the US has ever probed Venus..."  Oh
well.
  I think that "we" have named a number of features on the planet,
including one of the few, Maxwell, which does not have a feminine name.
Maxwell is a  highland region in the northern hemisphere which contains
one of the highest points on the planet (~11 km).  Some of the other
features are the Lakshimi Plateau (named ater a Hindi love goddess)
which is west of Maxwell,  Both Maxwell and Lakshimi are on the
continent of Ishtar (a Babylonian love goddess).  Although the sources I
have do not mention who named these features, I THINK that they were
named and discovered as a result of  the two Pioneer probes, as well as
observation from Earth using the Radio telescope at Arecibo.  Note that
the planet is smooth to within 2 km over 80% of its surface, so many of
the features would probably be small - too small to be detected by the
Pioneer probes.  The Russian probes probably have greater resolution, so
they are finding more things to name (If I were Russian, I would be
tempted to name the more interesting features things like
Gravysuckingcapitalistpig Ridge, Runningdogimperialist crater - things
like that).
  One source mentions plans for a Venus Orbiting Imaging Radar to be
launched in the late 80's and equipped with synthetic aperture radar,
capable of  resolving to 100m at the planet surface.  I haven't heard
anything about it recently, so I assume it is dead.

------------------------------

Date: 18 Feb 86 22:21:08 GMT
From: trwrb!trwrba!ice@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Douglas L. Ice)
Organization: TRW EDS, Redondo Beach, CA
Subject: Re: Why does everyone want to leave this planet?
References: <932@nmtvax.UUCP>, <1993@orca.UUCP>, <2960@ut-ngp.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

	Why does "everybody" want to leave this planet?  There is no
one answer.  Some, certainly, for the adventure; some just have a thing
against gravity.  More importantly, it is survival.  Our wonderful
planet is increasingly scrutunized, explored, and exploited.  Mankind's
burgeoning population is destroying forests the size of New Hampshire
every year in Brazil alone.  Hundreds of species of life are gone
forever, with more going yearly.  Millions of humans die needlessly
each year.  All of us wonder how long until the unthinkable mistake
of nuclear war becomes a reality.
     The Malthusian dilemma is simple:
on a finite planet(and last I heard that was the only kind made),
resources are fixed, and exploitation matching the exponential
population growth only hastens their exhaustion.  Resource allocation
has historically been achieved through two methods: the barbaric method
of taking what you wish from those without the ability to keep what is
(was) theirs, and the civilized method of allocting to all the basics
of survival, and dividing the rest according to the individuals'
contributions to the society.  The first method has the advantage of
low overhead(no governmental structure necessary) and also there is no
need to leave the planet(indeed, without cooperation, it is
impossible), since excess humanity is merely eliminated.  The second
method fosters cooperation, making space travel(as well as the many
other benefits of civilization) possible.  More importantly, with
society's valuation of human life, along with the fact that no one will
allow them to be told how many children they may have, it necessitates
it.  Look around you -- your portion of the earth's surface diminishes
daily with the additional burden of human flesh!  There are only two
ways out: war or other catastrophe will reduce the population, or we
will push out of our embryonic stage to new worlds, where our enemies
can be kept more than a missile's throw away.  Our planet is
magnificent!  Why not get off her aching back!  Perhaps we will never
find a planet as suitable as Earth, but would it not be better as the
human race progresses to leave the Earth beautiful, perhaps as a resort
planet, than to drag her down to ruin by short-sighted exploitation?
	If you love mankind, either seek to reduce its numbers, or
allow it to expand.  (That way, we can f**k up the whole Universe!)
--Doug (Sorry it's so long)

------------------------------

Date: 19 Feb 86 16:01:37 GMT
From: nbires!boulder!cisden!phillips@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Tom Phillips)
Organization: ConTel Information Systems, Denver
Subject: Re: Why does everyone want to leave this planet?
References: <1993@orca.UUCP>, <2960@ut-ngp.UUCP>, <825@pucc-j>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <2960@ut-ngp.UUCP> cgeiger@ut-ngp.UUCP (Charles S. Geiger, Esq.) writes:
>Well, why?  While I am very interested in astronomy and all that
>sort of thing, I don't understand why anyone would want to
>permanently migrate to another planet.  There's just so much *here*
>to see and learn, certainly enough to last a lifetime!  Most
>importantly, this is our home.
>Frankly, I hope all of you gung-ho types will get the opportunity
>to leave and will take advantage of it.  That way all the
>exploiters, conquerors, or, to be charitable, "adventurous" types
>(what's so unadventurous about staying here and learning about your
>own planet?) will leave, and I can be at peace here.
>charles s. geiger
>just a wage slave
In reading Gordon Dickson's Childe Cycle novels I always thought his thesis
about people not leaving Earth for this kind of reason was stretched and
unrealistic.  Here's one wage slave that showed me that Dickson was right.
Unbelievable.
-- 
						Tommy Phillips
From the banks of the great grey-green greasy Limpopo River,
all set about with fever-trees.
				cisden!phillips

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #158
*******************


0,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA06646; Tue, 25 Feb 86 03:01:06 PST
	id AA06646; Tue, 25 Feb 86 03:01:06 PST
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 86 03:01:06 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8602251101.AA06646@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #159

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 159

Today's Topics:
	  Re: "At the moment Uranus's south pole points..."
	  Non-USA Exploration of Space - Europe/USA Rivalry
	   Re: Why does everyone want to leave this planet?
	  Re: "At the moment Uranus's south pole points..."
	  Re: "At the moment Uranus's south pole points..."
		       Re: NASA and SDI budgets
	     new 900-number to get info on Halley's Comet
			     space plane
		       laser powered spacecraft
      rocket engine not equivalent to balancing pencil on finger
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 20 Feb 86 18:49:30 GMT
From: decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!cmcl2!lanl!jkw@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Jay Wooten)
Subject: Re: "At the moment Uranus's south pole points..."
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In fact, it doesn't transfer at all since geological evidence shows that
the Earth's magnetic poles switch places every few million years...
	  Jay Wooten  Los Alamos National Lab  ARPA:jkw@lanl.ARPA

------------------------------

Date: 18 Feb 86 11:50:58 GMT
From: decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!mcvax!ukc!stc!pete@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Organization: STC Telecoms, London N11 1HB.
Subject: Non-USA Exploration of Space - Europe/USA Rivalry
References: <469@ecn-pc.UUCP>, <805@bute.tcom.stc.co.uk>, <479@ecn-pc.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <479@ecn-pc.UUCP> wdm@ecn-pc.UUCP (Tex) writes:
>In article <805@bute.tcom.stc.co.uk> pete@stc.UUCP (Peter Kendell) writes:
>>
>>        Oh dear.
>
>    I didn't know people still said that in public.
        Self-restraint. Think what I _might_ have said.
>>
>>        2: Why should the USA and the USSR have it all their own way
>>           in space?
>
>   I give up, why?  I certainly never said they should.
        By arrogantly sneering at another's efforts you strongly
        implied it.
>   since the Challenger malfunctioned.  This probe is designed to go out
        There are times when NASAese produces a sick feeling.
        I suppose 'malfunctioned' is a pretty cool expression, right?
>    Lots of interesting information about Tempel 2/asteroid Fly-by
        Great. The unmanned space program has always been more
        scientifically useful than manned missions and I personally
        find them more inspiring. I hope this mission is a success.
        If it happens.
>   And now, a message to our French speaking viewers:
        Well, I can _read_ French. It was a generous message. It's just
        a pity that you didn't say all that before.
>   If I recall correctly, the Apollo One Crew did not die "live on TV,"
>   and the conscience of the nation was still raised.
        The hard times that Betty Grissom had to go through to get
        decent compensation for the loss of her husband in that
        disaster are too well known to need repeating here.
        The recent acrimonous discussion prompted by Felix Ingrand's
        posting has pointed up two things:
        1: There is a difference between the American Way and that
           followed by other nations. Don't try to grade them. In
           particular, you may as well condemn another's religion
           as his way of life - it's just as helpful!
        2: Many people in Europe are resentful of the
           self-advertising style of American technology. There is
           a political row in this country right now about American
           companies buying into the UK (Sikorsky/Westland and GM/
           Land Rover). Not all of us want to be the loudest kid
           on the block.
        Why not come over to Europe and see for yourself? Better
        still, come by Concorde!!!
-- 
	Peter Kendell <pete@stc.UUCP>
	...!mcvax!ukc!stc!pete
	`When your achievements match your expectations,
	 it's time to move on.'

------------------------------

Date: 20 Feb 86 20:11:31 GMT
From: ihnp4!ihlpa!animal@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (D. Starr)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Subject: Re: Why does everyone want to leave this planet?
References: <932@nmtvax.UUCP>, <1993@orca.UUCP>, <2960@ut-ngp.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> Frankly, I hope all of you gung-ho types will get the opportunity
> to leave and will take advantage of it.  That way all the
> exploiters, conquerors, or, to be charitable, "adventurous" types
> (what's so unadventurous about staying here and learning about your
> own planet?) will leave, and I can be at peace here.

  So you think the people who will leave this planet will be the
"adventurous" types, huh?  What a quaint notion.  I suppose a few of
them will be needed for the initial exploration, but beyond that...
  You can meet the people who are going to colonize space today; they're
training for it already.  In downtown Chicago there's this building
called Water Tower Place; it's a complete self-contained world where you
can live, work, be entertained, shop, eat--in fact, live out your entire
life without stepping outside.  It's just like a space colony.  But
people don't live there because they're adventurous.  They live there
because they're *afraid* of the outside world.  They're afraid of the
muggers, the rapists, the poor people, the punk kids, the wierdos, and
anybody else who isn't just like them.  And they've got the money to
move into their own little private world, with guards and security gates
and the highest of high  technology to keep the Bad People out so they
can feel *secure*.  THESE are the people who are going to colonize
space.
  They're training now all over the country.  Just about every major
city in the country has some of these self-contained worlds in it.  The
people in them aren't just learning how to survive in the limited
environment that will be found in a space colony; they're developing the
*desire* to be  physically isolated from the Bad Old World and all its
Bad Old People.  And they have money, so their wishes may come to pass.
  Most of the "adventurous" people don't have that kind of money, and
probably would find that kind of a life pretty boring anyway, so they'll
stay here.  Which is okay with me.  This world is a pretty good place to
have adventures, and if we can get rid to the people who would try to
make it safe, secure and dull it can only get better.
  That might be the best argument yet for space travel.
Dan Starr

------------------------------

Date: 20 Feb 86 21:58:07 GMT
From: decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!cfa!mink@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Doug Mink)
Organization: Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Subject: Re: "At the moment Uranus's south pole points..."
References: <860217-235409-1418@Xerox>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

The International Astronomical Union, the final arbitter on the issue,
says the the South pole is that which is below (South according to the
Sun) the plane of the planet's orbit.  Astronomers have traditional used
the angular momentum vector (from the right hand rule) as the North
pole.  Using the IAU criterium, the sunward pole is South; using the
traditional criterium, it is North.  A confusing issue is that the North
pole of the magnetic field is in the sunward hemisphere, though 55
degrees away from the sunward pole.  When I had to refer to a point
denoting the sunward pole in an illustration of a paper I wrote, I just
called it "a pole of Uranus" in the figure caption (though on checking
my reprints I note that it got changed to South somewhere along the
line).

			-Doug Mink, aging hippy astronomer
			 Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
			 Cambridge, Massachusetts
		UUCP:	 mink@cfa.UUCP
		UUCP:	 {seismo|ihnp4|cmc12}!harvard!talcott!cfa!mink
		ARPA:	 mink%cfa.UUCP@harvvard.HARVARD.EDU

------------------------------

Date: 21 Feb 86 01:42:29 GMT
From: ihnp4!iham1!spock@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Ed Weiss)
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL
Subject: Re: "At the moment Uranus's south pole points..."
References: <860217-235409-1418@Xerox>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

I believe you can define "North Pole" as:
	When looking at this pole from a position perpendicular to the
	plane of the equator, the planet has a counter-clockwise spin.
This isn't anywhere near a precise definition, but you get the idea.

					Ed Weiss
					ihnp4!iham1!spock
					--> Live Long and Prosper <--

------------------------------

Date: 23 Feb 86 06:43:22 GMT
From: brahms!weemba@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Matthew P. Wiener)
Subject: Re: NASA and SDI budgets
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>>>But it never will.  One of the reasons I think SDI is a good
>>>idea is that it is an excellent way to get funds for space
>>>activities...       [J.JPM@EPIC]
>>This is one of the reasons I think SDI is a sick idea.  It reduces
>>NASA (along with much university research) to moral prostitution
>>for its funding.       [Me]
>Your logic here is missing a couple of steps.  You can only make a
>case for moral prostitution if you somehow think that defense research
>is immoral (or you think that the law is neat and tidy - in which case
>I don't think you know much about the law).  I happen to think defense
>research is vital.  Furthermore, I disagree with the philosophy of the
>current law, which forbids the military from sponsoring research
>unless it is directly related to its mission.  I have no problem with
>the military supporting, through research, fields that contribute to
>the general health of science, technology, and industry, and thus
>indirectly to defense.
>
>You are perfectly entitled to you own feelings (a more accurate term
>than thoughts) on this matter, but given this fundamental divergence
>in beliefs you should be ready to recognize why other (indeed, most)
>people will disagree.       [J.JPM@EPIC]
I do not think that defense research is immoral or that the law is
neat and tidy.  I am all in favor of the military supporting basic
and even not-so-basic research.
My objection is in tying NASA to SDI in any serious way.  NASA has
been non-partisan all these years, and I fear that SDI could damage
that.  In particular, SDI has numerous intelligent foes--in contrast
with anti-NASA idiots like W Mondale--and I do not want to see them
turn their sights on NASA.  Nor would I like to see NASA become a
guinea pig in future arms control talks.  And if xx% of NASA's budget
ends up coming from SDI money, and our next president kills SDI, xx%
of NASA's budget disappears.
I should point out that SDI is damaging the coziness of past defense/
academia relations very seriously.
If we can't support the space program for the sake of space itself,
then why bother?
ucbvax!brahms!weemba	Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720

------------------------------

Date: Sun 23 Feb 86 01:58:24-CST
From: Werner Uhrig  <CMP.WERNER@r20.utexas.edu>
Subject: new 900-number to get info on Halley's Comet
To: space@r20.utexas.edu

[ from SCIENCE-86, March 86, Current News HIGHLIGHTS, page 10 ]

Halley's update update [sic]:  the US Naval Observatory's telephone message
describing the comet and its where-abouts can be reached by calling outside
Washington DC, at a new number that handles 14,000 calls at a time.  It costs
50 cents for the first minute, 35 cents a minute thereafter: (900)410-USNO

[ I have no further info on this and am not reading SPACE regularly.  Werner ]

------------------------------

To: space@mc.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: space plane
Date: 23 Feb 86 07:53:46 EST (Sun)
From: James R. Van Zandt <jrv@mitre-bedford.arpa>

I've heard that the new "space plane" is supposed to get things into
low earth orbit at 1% of the cost of the shuttle.  Are there good reasons
for that, or is it just hype from aerospace marketing types?
                                - Jim Van Zandt

------------------------------

Organization: The MITRE Corp., Bedford, MA
To: space@mc.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: laser powered spacecraft
Date: 23 Feb 86 07:54:25 EST (Sun)
From: James R. Van Zandt <jrv@mitre-bedford.arpa>

Keith F. Lynch writes...
> shawn@acc.arpa writes...
>> While most of the talk of SDI is mostly over my head, I've also been
>> reading the messages about "laser powered" space flight.  In space
>> flight, a laser is used to push a space ship from earth.
> Not exactly.  The laser is used to vaporize reaction mass in the
> rocket.

A similar idea appears in the recent Niven/Pournelle novel "Footfall"
(which I recommend to all technology freaks).  But, why does the rocket
have to carry all its reaction mass? For quite a while, it ought to be
able to use the air! (I can't remember whether the laser powered
spacecraft in Footfall used air, and my copy is loaned out at the
moment.)

I've been doing some back-of-the-envelope calculations on the
requirements for the laser.  The kinetic energy for an orbital speed of
18000 mi/hr is just about pi*10**7 Joules/kg (the same as the number of
seconds in a year).  That means that a 100 MW laser could send about
(100e6 J/sec)/(pi*1e7 J/kg) = 3 kg/sec into orbit.  If the spacecraft
stayed within sight of the laser for 5 minutes, it could have mass (3
kg/sec)*(5*60 sec) = 900 kg.  Of course, I haven't accounted for
inefficiency or the kinetic energy in the spacecraft's wake.  I guess
we'd need tens of GW for a practical system.  Can anyone improve my
figures? The solar power towers transfer light energy to a working
fluid, and jet engines convert heat into thrust.  That experience should
be relevant.
                       - Jim Van Zandt

------------------------------

Date: 1986 February 23 04:07:53 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM@mc.lcs.mit.edu>
To: "cater%mcchi2"@mcc.arpa
Cc: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
Subject: rocket engine not equivalent to balancing pencil on finger
Sender: REM%IMSSS@su-score.arpa (for undeliverable-mail notifications)
Reply-To: REM%IMSSS@SU-SCORE.ARPA

C> Date: Thu, 20 Feb 86 14:58:17 cst
C> From: John P. Cater <cater%mcchi2@mcc.arpa>
C> Posted-Date: Thu, 20 Feb 86 14:58:17 cst
C> Remember, that system in not in a maximally stable position when
C> flying vertical and being pushed from the rear (try balancing a pencil
C> on your fingertip

Your analysis is completely wrong. (But then lots of nieve experts in
the 40's fell for the same fallacy and tried to design rockets with
engine at front instead of rear.) If you balance a pencil on your
finger, the direction of force is held fixed with respect to ground
(it always pushes upward presumably) so the further the pencil falls
toward the side the lonnger the moment arm is (discrepancy between
line from finger upward along direction of force and center of
gravity) and the faster you are effectively pushing it away from
vertical. But on a rocket if the engine is off-center the moment arm
is constant regardless of whether the rocket is vertical or any other
angle with respect to ground, because the line of force is fixed
relative to the rocket instead of with respect to the ground, so
rotating the spaceship with respect to ground doesn't rotate it with
respect to the line of force. The rocket is in neutral equilibrium
with a constant rotational offset.

Putting the rocket at the head instead of tail doesn't make any
difference, if the center of mass is the same distance from the rocket
(in the opposite direction now) and the angle of error in the engine
thrust is the same; it's neutral equilibrium with constant rotational
offset just like before (except in the opposite angular direction). By
comparison, hanging the rocket (or pencil) from the top with force
fixed with respect to ground gives stable equilibrium, if the rocket
or pencil deviates from vertical the line of force becomes offset from
center of mass to push it back toward vertical. With engine fixed on
rocket, there is no such adjustment.

With engines mounted on rocket ship at mostly fixed position, the only
equilibrium effect you can have is aerodynamic, but then the stability
is with respect to the direction of the rocket through the air rather
than with respect to vertical.

With shuttle, there is servoing with respect to planned flight path,
via radio link and/or onboard inertial navigation (I don't know
which), and it may be that feedback delays cause it to oversteer and
then try to compensate and oversteer the other way. It could be your
conclusion is right despite analysis being totally wrong.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #159
*******************


0,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA07578; Tue, 25 Feb 86 07:01:18 PST
	id AA07578; Tue, 25 Feb 86 07:01:18 PST
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 86 07:01:18 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8602251501.AA07578@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #160

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 160

Today's Topics:
	   Re: Why does everyone want to leave this planet?
	  Re: "At the moment Uranus's south pole points..."
			 Long-Term Viability
			  GAMEBRAINS trivia.
			 re: Shuttle Ditching
		      authoritative shuttle info
	Re: Non-USA Exploration of Space - Europe/USA Rivalry
			 Re: Planet prefixes
			Re: Cray during launch
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 21 Feb 86 03:02:49 GMT
From: decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!rochester!sher@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (David Sher)
Subject: Re: Why does everyone want to leave this planet?
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <825@pucc-j> rsk@pucc-j.UUCP (Wombat) writes:
> . . .
>Flamage...
>
>I'm so incredibly exasperated at your total ignorance, your utter lack of
>spirit and drive, and your blindness to the limits imposed by this planet,
>that I don't think I can compose the point-by-point response required to
>adequately toast you to a crisp.  This will have to do.
>
>End Flamage...
>
>The meek will inheirit the earth, or what's left of it;
>the rest of us, the universe.
>-- 
>Rich Kulawiec  pucc-j!rsk or rsk@asc.purdue.edu

I think this reply to this perfectly reasonable question shows a far
deeper blindness than the ignorance represented by the question itself.
As long as people show contempt to alternate points of view then mankind
will carry the seeds of its own destruction.  At the moment while space
offers us practically infinite vistas they are mostly empty.  Truly for
our society to survive we must expand and the only places left to expand
are the oceans and space.  But why should our society survive
indefinitely?  There may be a better society that will rise from the
ashes of our own.  On the other hand maybe not.  As far as I am
concerned given an equal choice between orbiting in the space shuttle
and seeing Jerusalem I'd go to Jerusalem, but it would be a really tough
choice.

The meek will inheirit the earth, or what's left of it;
Not if they get in my way they won't!
-- 
-David Sher
sher@rochester
seismo!rochester!sher

------------------------------

Date: 21 Feb 86 21:28:45 GMT
From: decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!ut-sally!utastro!ethan@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Ethan Vishniac)
Organization: U. Texas, Astronomy, Austin, TX
Subject: Re: "At the moment Uranus's south pole points..."
References: <860217-235409-1418@Xerox>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

The angular momentum vector of the Earth points toward the North Celestial
Pole.  Put it another way, looking down on the Earth from a point above
the North Pole the Earth's rotation is counterclockwise.  Therefore,
by convention, the north pole of any planet is that pole from which
the rotation appears counterclockwise.

"Ma, I've been to another      Ethan Vishniac
 planet!"                      {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan
                               ethan@astro.UTEXAS.EDU
                               Department of Astronomy
                               University of Texas

------------------------------

Date: 23 Feb 86 13:58:30 GMT
From: brahms!gsmith@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Gene Ward Smith)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Subject: Long-Term Viability
References: <37378.509307074@lbl-rtsg.arpa>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <37378.509307074@lbl-rtsg.arpa> jef@LBL-RTSG.ARPA writes:
>The only long-term way to assure the viability of Earthlife, including
>whales, gorillas, cephalopods and everything else as well as humans, is
>to get off this planet.  As long as Earth is the only place we live, we
>are vulnerable to extinction.  There are all sorts of nasty things that
  No matter where we lived, we would be vulnerable.
>could wipe out all life on this planet.  A really large comet could hit
>us, pasteurizing the planet.  Sirius could go supernova.  Maybe a new form
  A large, space-going cephalopod could come along and eat the whole planet.
Get serious (pun intended) Sirius isn't going to blow up. Why don't you 
learn some Astronomy if you like space so much? It is very interesting
stuff.
>Furthermore, we have a time limit.  Our sun is getting hotter.  It has been
>getting hotter, very slowly, for as far back as we can measure - billions
>of years.  So far, the biosphere has managed to keep the local temperature
>constant by steadily decreasing the proportion of greenhouse gasses in the
>atmosphere - carbon dioxide, water vapor, methane, etc.  However, if the
>sun continues to get hotter for only another 100 million years, that
>solution will no longer work - even getting rid of every last molecule would
>still leave the planet too hot.  There will be a runaway greenhouse effect
>leaving Earth looking something like Venus.  Not a place you'd want to live.
>
>So, you may ask, why am I worrying about events that won't happen for 100
>million years?  Surely we've got plenty of time to start colonies in the
>asteroids and begin moving out to the stars.
  We've got *more* than 100 million years! In the 10 billion years the Sun
will spend on the main sequence, it will double in luminosity. Most of that
will occur towards the end. The Sun has been getting hotter, but very slowly.
Adaptation to increased heat will proceed much faster. We are still having
ice ages now, so what's the big deal?
>Well, we actually don't have very much time at all - 100 years, 200 at the
  Oh no! An emergency! Call an ambulence!
>outside.  Humans have been using up the natural resources of this planet
>at an amazing rate, and now we're running out.  Soon we're going to have
>to fall back to a low-energy, renewable-resource, labor-intensive way of
>life.  I have two objections to this.  One is the immediate loss of life.
>Ecotopia can't support five billion people.  Maybe one billion.  That
>means four billion people must die - which is about fifty times more than
>have died in all wars so far combined.
  And space colonization, even if successful, would not prevent it. Birth
control might.
>My second objection is that if we go to a low-energy life-style now, we will
>never be able to reverse that decision.  The easy resources are gone.  The
>close-to-the-surface ores, the coal, the oil - we've used it up.  Now it
>takes high-tech energy-intensive machinery to extract the resources needed
>to keep the high-tech machinery going.  We can keep going like this for
>a little while longer, but if we give up high-tech we won't be able to
>start again.  We would have to wait for continental drift to expose new
>ores, which would take a hundred million years or so, and by that 
>time - you guessed it - runaway greenhouse effect.
   I'm confused -- do you have a high faith in scientific and technical
advancement, or a very low one? It seems you adopt either point of view
to suit your convenience.
>So, if we back off now, we are putting a permanent, irrevocable ceiling on
>the number of human individuals who will ever live.  One billion people
>for 100 million years means at most five times ten to the fifteenth people
>will ever live.
>
>If, on the other hand, we spread Earthlife to the stars, then the next
>100 million years will see the birth of at least ten to the twenty-fourth
>humans, plus unguessable numbers of intelligent descendents of the gorillas,
>dolphins, octopodes, etc.
   Oooh --- it sounds so easy! We'll just roll out to the stars (THATS not
hard) and live forever. Why do I find it strange to think that if you have
just proven it impossible to do on the earth, it should be so easy somewhere
else?
   Why is there so much unmitigated bullbleep on net.space? Is this some kind
of obscure religious cult I haven't heard about? I thought space colonization
was a possibility technology could offer us -- if we used our knowledge and
planning ability. Some of you seem to think you are going to wish yourself to
Epsilon Eridani. "If you wish upon a star ... "
ucbvax!brahms!gsmith    Gene Ward Smith/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720
          "There are no differences but differences of degree 
            between degrees of difference and no difference"

------------------------------

Date: 22 Feb 86 01:55:53 GMT
From: sdcsvax!sdcc6!loral!miller@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (David P. Miller)
Organization: Loral Instrumentation, San Diego
Subject: GAMEBRAINS trivia.
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

	
        5.  What was the world's costliest program error ?.
	
                 A:  A missing hyphen in the navigation 
		     program for the first fly-by of the
		     planet venus caused the destruction
		     of an $ 18,000,000 rocket.
   I believe that the mistake was not a missing hyphen, but a period which
should have been a comma.  It was in the FORTRAN statement similar to:
   DO 10 I=1.3    => should have been     DO 10 I=1,3
John. 
Question: Is John Van Zandt correct, or is GAMEBRAINS tm. right ?.
				    BIG DAVE.
-- 
David P. Miller - Loral Instrumentation.           /    USUAL   \  
sdcsvax!sdcc3!loral!miller                         \ DISCLAIMER / 
********************************************************************************
"Sticks and stones may hurt my bones but words ......................."

------------------------------

Date: 21 Feb 86 21:17:23 GMT
From: tektronix!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!adolph@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Mark Adolph)
Organization: Boeing Aerospace Co., Seattle, WA
Subject: re: Shuttle Ditching
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

According to "The Shuttle Operators Manual," any shuttle abort involves
a firing of the OMS engines, both to maintain altitude and airspeed and
to dsipose of dangerous tetrazine fuel.  It seems to me that with the
aeordynamic control due to an airspeed over mach 1 plus the extra push
from the OMS engines, an abort should be possible during the boost phase
of flight.  The only reason I can think of that it wouldn't be possible
is that the g-forces during the maneuver are outside the limitations of
the orbiter's structural strength, much like one shouldn't do outside
loops in a DC-10.
More reliable information about this would be much appreciated.

					-- Mark A.
					...{uw-beaver|fluke}!ssc-vax!adolph
	"1 + 1 = 1, for sufficiently small values of 1..."

------------------------------

Date: 21 Feb 86 20:45:03 GMT
From: sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!oberon!smeagol!kwan@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Richard Kwan)
Organization: Spacecraft Data Systems, JPL, Pasadena, CA
Subject: authoritative shuttle info
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Does anyone out in netland know of a current, publicly available
authoritative technical description of the Space Transportation System,
i.e., shuttle?  (Is that asking too much?)  Also, how does one obtain
such a document? 
The level of document I am thinking of is one which might be read by
potential system users, future contractors, people who are being
brought in to maintain various components of the system, etc.
...i.e., something more than Time or Newsweek writers would normally
read.
Send me mail.  I will post the title(s) in about a week or so.
-- 
		Rick Kwan
		JPL Spacecraft Data Systems
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"...jumpin' into hyperspace ain't like dustin' crops, boy."  H. Solo
--------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 22 Feb 86 16:08:58 GMT
From: amdcad!lll-crg!seismo!rochester!ray@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Ray Frank)
Organization: U. of Rochester, CS Dept.
Subject: Re: Non-USA Exploration of Space - Europe/USA Rivalry
References: <805@bute.tcom.stc.co.uk>, <479@ecn-pc.UUCP>, <825@bute.tcom.stc.co.uk>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> 	Peter Kendell <pete@stc.UUCP>
>        2: Why should the USA and the USSR have it all their own way
>           in space?
> 
  No one country has a monopoly in space exploration.  Any country with
the intelect, resources, resolve, dedication, desire and money can
explore space.  If a country doesn't have most of these, than the closet
they'll get to space is their nearest TV set when they watch the launch
of another country's rocket.  The bottom line here is: If you can, do
it, if not, make some popcorn, sit back, and watch.
  ray

------------------------------

From: decwrl!pyramid!pesnta!pesnta!kima@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Kim Althoff)
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 86 18:18:44 pdt
To: pyramid!space
Subject: Re: Planet prefixes
Newsgroups: net.space
In-Reply-To: <8602212220.AA07320@oliven.ICO>
References: <860220161736.004012@HI-MULTICS.ARPA>
Organization: CONCURRENT Computer Corporation

In article <8602212220.AA07320@oliven.ICO> you write:
>I believe that 'geo-' means 'earth' (not Earth), and would be
>fine for any planet.
>
> 'helio' means sun, suitable for any star.
>
>Barb

It would be nice if those terms were to be used generically.  I just
wanted to point out that other terms have been defined (and are in use).

periastron - that point in the orbit of a star or other celestial body
             where it is nearest to the primary star around which it
             is revolving.

apojove - the point farthest from the planet Jupiter in the orbit of
          each of its satellites

Other terms have been similarly defined.  (No, I don't have a complete
list.)

Kim Althoff
ihnp4!pesnta!kima

------------------------------

Date: 15 Feb 86 18:36:00 GMT
From: hplabs!hp-lsd!paul@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Paul D. Bame)
Organization: HP Logic Systems Division
Subject: Re: Cray during launch
References: <8602120232.AA19618@s1-b.arpa>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Except for the small (:-)) datacomm problem, maybe NASA could buy some
time on their own Cray (2?) at AMES.
		--Paul Bame
		UUCP: {hplabs,ihnp4!hpfcla}!hp-lsd!paul
		CSNET: hp-lsd!paul@hp-labs.csnet
		ARPA: hp-lsd!paul%hp-labs@csnet-relay.arpa

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #160
*******************


0,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA00235; Tue, 25 Feb 86 19:05:26 PST
	id AA00235; Tue, 25 Feb 86 19:05:26 PST
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 86 19:05:26 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8602260305.AA00235@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #161

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 161

Today's Topics:
		    Re: Scuttle the Space Program?
			   Capacity of TAVs
		  Re: Space Shuttle Children's Fund
	  Re: next generation shuttle: electrically assisted
		     re: British orbital vehicle
			    Apollo 1A fire
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 21 Feb 86 00:49:27 GMT
From: decwrl!glacier!oliveb!oliven!barb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Barbara Jernigan)
Organization: Olivetti ATC; Cupertino, Ca
Subject: Re: Scuttle the Space Program?
References: <158@axiom.UUCP>, <932@nmtvax.UUCP>, <1866@jhunix.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <932@nmtvax.UUCP> fine@nmtvax.UUCP (Andrew J Fine) writes:
>I, personally, am in full support of the Shuttle, the Space Program, and
>the exploration and exploit[at]ion of space, and it's eventual population by
>humanity. BUT NOBODY HAS EVER ASKED US THESE QUESTIONS, NOBODY HAS EVER
>CHALLENGED US TO QUESTION OURSELVES! 
  Nobody?  I wrestle with angels -- and thus with my own soul -- a great
deal.  I have come to the realization that we humans are a two-edged
blade, with as much capacity for GOOD as for NOT-GOOD ("Evil" is
overused).  Andrew makes a lot of blanket statements, but then he's
propounding an extreme position -- which is not *necessarily* his own
(can't put words in your mouth, Andrew, but your disclaimer quoted above
gives a hint).  I don't like blanket statements because I'm a believer
in situations.  And situations are never as simple as generalities.
  For example, I feel badly for the famine stricken in Ethiopia -- but
it's going to take more than money to save them.  Sending them $Mil.s of
dollars and food *is* *not* going to resolve a situation caused by,
greatly, overgrazing.  It's much the same problem as plagues the coral
reefs of the Caribbean -- advances in technology without the lessons for
using them wisely (a good example of this premise is the Star Trek
episode *Where No Man Has Gone Before*, a character 'instantly' given
the powers of a "god"  without going through the eons of evolutionary
lessons that should accompany such power).  But I digress into subjects
best left for other news-groups.  I support the Space Program IN THE
FACE of Andrew's examples, because, for one, the SPACE PROGRAM has
helped us diagnose the blight of technology/advance/ (to use Andrew's
word) EXPLOITATION without conscience -- and it *may* help find the
ANSWERS to repair the damage *and* in the same breath *alleviate*  the
poverty (by discovering new resources, teaching us to better use the
ones we have, etc.).
  As for our environmental morals, from space there are no boundaries,
the Earth is One.  We *need* to understand that.  When one man (excuse
me) pisses in the ocean, he must realize that it affects the ecosystem
of the world -- and, in the light of this, there may result a new
Imperialism of ENFORCED RESPONSIBILITY.  Again, I digress.

>So what do space-faring nations prove when they invoke national prestige
>and the desire of humanity to expand, by consuming all that money and 
>men-centuries? "I'm rich enough to do this and you're not, so there!". 
  It is only elitism if we kept the information to ourselves.  At least
superficially, the Space Ventures (save military, which is another
dimension entirely) have been operating in an *attitude* (I cannot speak
for the  *reality*) of shared knowledge.

>One man's wealth is another man's poverty. One man's livelihood
>is another man's serfdom....
			O, it is excellent
To have a giant's strength; but it is tyrannous
To use it like a giant. . . .
                                        [Two Gentlemen of Verona]

>Why have satellites and information systems at all, except to invade the 
>privacy and keep records on a captive populace?
  Or, as another poster said, to *free* a 'captive' populace.  Nothing
binds so much as ignorance.  There was a lot of resistance to putting
the Bible in the hands of the 'Common Folk' -- heaven forbid we should
be allowed to think and interpret for ourselves!

>The main problem with all of us is we are still essentially barbarians 
>at heart.  The Viking who was the explorer was also the Viking that also
>raped and pillaged.  
  Or was it the Vikings that followed in his steps?  See below.

>The Columbus who was the explorer was also the Columbus who
>converted people to his religion by force.  The shuttle pilot who was the
>explorer was also the pilot who killed husbands, wives, and children in
>North Korea and North Vietnam.
  [Although he did not kill in the performance of his duty as a shuttle
pilot -- bad example, he was *not* "exploring" ('conquering new
frontiers') in  Korea and Vietnam.]
  I will admit, I am a hunter -- note my canine teeth for tearing meat.
But I also harken to the dictates of Reason.  I would describe myself as
a Warrior-Healer -- the power of destruction and creation, with the
ability to CHOOSE my path between them.
      [Do I contradict myself?  Very well then, I contradict myself.
           (I am large, I contain multitudes).  -- Walt Whitman]
  I am not ashamed of what I am -- and I will not be shackled by past
injustice, so long as I have learned enough to breed RESPONSIBILITY
toward (and of) myself, my actions, and fellow travellers (animate and
inanimate) in Creation.
  YES there has been exploitation in the past!  A shameful lot of it!
Does that  mean there HAS to be exploitation in the Future?  Am I to
refrain from walking  because I might take a misstep?  Not if I LEARNED
from the last time I tripped.  But have we LEARNED?  THAT is the
question to ask.  And those of us who HAVE  "learned" should nip at the
heels, like unresting sheepdogs, of those who  haven't.  (No matter
*how* the "rams" may bruise us!) (;-)

>The wanderlust we all experience is just
>another word for the lust and coveting for the outside world that blinds
>us to the potentials of the inside world and the darkness of the soul that
>we need to correct.
  Can I not merge the inside AND outside worlds?  Why should one be
"enough"?  In me is both artist and scientist -- should I forsake one
for the other?  Can I be Whole if I do?  Why should I limit myself?
  The following are the lines that *really* bother me:
>If humanity can simply change from mere descendants of carnivorous apes to
>something totally gentle, altrustic, and noble, then Earth will be enough.
>We only try to escape the Earth because we try to escape our own natures.
  Escape?  Or Embrace?  The first "man" out of the trees was no doubt
cajoled as a fool by his/her fellows in the branches -- and we might
have been 'better' if we'd stayed in the trees (not that I think so).
But the question is moot -- we didn't, and we've survived through (and
perhaps by) our curiosity, our constant quest to KNOW MORE!!!!
  Excuse me, I've digressed more than I intended, the risk of writing of
subjects felt so strongly -- the original purpose of this posting was
(and remains) to put forth the nature of "The Explorer" in words rather
more accomplished than my own.  Yes, the Explorer could be seen as a
creature without conscience, opening the way for the exploiters and
slavers.  I do not make excuses here -- either for the Explorer or
Kipling's overlay of Empire- philosophy.  Each step forward is both good
and bad -- every light casts a shadow.  WE have the troubling power of
*choice*, Free Will some call it.  And we *will* wield that power for
BOTH good and ill -- like it or not, it is our nature, which may or may
not be changing, and varies from individual to individual.  But enough
of this preamble.  With your permission,
  Barb

		  _The Explorer_, by Rudyard Kipling.
THE EXPLORER -- Ruyard Kipling 1898
"There's no sense in going further -- it's the edge of cultivation,"
   So they said, and I believed it -- broke my land and sowed my crop --
Built my barns and strung my fences in the little border station
   Tucked away below the foothills where the trails run out and stop:
Till a voice, as bad as Conscience, rang interminable changes
  On one everlasting Whisper day and night repeated -- so:
"Something hidden.  Go and find it.  Go and look behind the Ranges --
   "Something lost behind the Ranges.  Lost and waiting for you.  Go!"
So I went, worn out of patience; never told my nearest neighbours --
   Stole away with pack and ponies -- left 'em drinking in the town;
And the faith that moveth mountains didn't seem to help my labours
   As I faced the sheer main-ranges, whipping up and leading down.
March by march I puzzled through 'em, turning flanks and dodging shoulders,
   Hurried on in hope of water, headed back for lack of grass;
Till I camped above the tree-line -- drifted snow and naked boulders --
   Felt free air astir to windward -- knew I'd stumbled on the Pass.
'Thought to name it for the finder:  but that night the Norther found me --
   Froze and killed the plains-bred ponies; so I called the camp Despair
(It's the Railway Gap to-day, though).  Then my Whisper waked to hound me: --
   "Something lost behind the Ranges.  Over yonder!  Go you there!"
Then I knew, the while I doubted -- knew His Hand was certain o're me.
   Still -- it might be self-delusion -- scores of better men had died --
I could reach the township living, but . . . He knows what terror tore me . . .
   But I didn't . . . but I didn't.  I went down the other side.
Till the snow ran out in flowers, and the flowers turned to aloes,
   And the aloes sprung to thickets and a brimming stream ran by;
But the thickets dwined to thorn-scrub, and the water drained to shallows,
   And I dropped again on desert-blasted earth, and blasting sky. . . .
I remember lighting fires; I remember sitting by 'em;
   I remember seeing faces, hearing voices, through the smoke;
I remember they were fancy -- for I threw a stone to try 'em.
   "Something lost behind the Ranges" was the only word they spoke.
I remember going crazy.  I remember that I knew it
   When I heard myself hallooing to the funny folk I saw.
'Very full of dreams that desert, but my two legs took me through it . . .
   And I used to watch 'em moving with the toes all black and raw.
But at last the country altered -- White Man's country past disputing --
   Rolling grass and open timber, with a hint of hills behind --
There I found me food and water, and I lay a week recruiting.
   Got my strength and lost my nightmares.  Then I entered on my find.
Thence I ran my first rough survey -- chose my trees and blazed and ringed 
      'em --
   Week by week I pried and sampled -- week by week my findings grew.
Saul he went to look for donkeys, and by God he found a kingdom!
   But by God, who sent His Whisper, I had struck the worth of two!
Up along the hostile mountains, where the hair-poised snowslide shivers --
   Down and through the big fat marshes that the virgin ore-bed stains,
Till I heard the mile-wide mutterings of unimagined rivers, 
   And beyond the nameless timber saw illimitable plains!
'Plotted sites of future cities, traced the easy grades between 'em;
   Watched unharnessed rapids wasting fifty thousand head an hour;
Counted leagues of water-frontage through the axe-ripe woods that screen 'em --
   Saw the plant to feed a people -- up and waiting for the power!
Well I know who'll take the credit -- all the clever chaps that followed --
   Came, a dozen men together -- never knew my desert-fears;
Tracked me by the camps I'd quitted, used the water-holes I'd hollowed.
   They'll go back and do the talking.  *They'll* be called the Pioneers!
They will find my sites of townships -- not the cities that I set there.
   They will rediscover rivers -- not my rivers heard at night.
By my own old marks and bearings they will show me how to get there,
   By the lonely cairns I builded they will guide my feet aright.
Have I named one single river?  Have I claimed one single acre?
   Have I kept one single nugget -- (barring samples)?  No, not I!
Because my price was paid me ten times over by my Maker.
   But you wouldn't understand it.  You go up and occupy.
Ores you'll find there; wood and cattle; water-transit sure and steady
   (That should keep the railway-rates down), coal and iron at your doors.
God took care to hide that country till He judged His people ready,
   Then He chose me for His Whisper, and I've found it, and it's yours!
Yes, your "Never-never country" -- yes, your "edge of cultivation"
   And "no sense in going further" -- till I crossed the range to see.
God forgive me!  No, *I* didn't.  It's God's present to our nation.
   Anybody might have found it, but -- His Whisper came to Me!

------------------------------

Date: 20 Feb 86 17:06:36 GMT
From: trwrb!trwspp!spp5!brahms@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Bradley S. Brahms)
Organization: TRW, Redondo Beach  CA
Subject: Capacity of TAVs
References: <831@athena.UUCP>, <480@ecn-pc.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

With all the talk about TAVs lately, I now have a question.  What type of
lift capacity are people contemplating with TAVs?  Greater than the
shuttle?  If not, I would think that we also would need an unmanned Heavy
Lift Vehicle (HLV).
			-- Brad Brahms
			   usenet: {decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!trwrb!trwspp!brahms
			   arpa:   Brahms@usc-eclc

------------------------------

Date: 21 Feb 86 13:37:47 GMT
From: sdcsvax!ncr-sd!ncrcae!ncsu!mcnc!unccvax!wgivax!ed@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle Children's Fund
References: <507@mmm.UUCP>, <1129@abnji.UUCP>,, <517@mmm.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Is there a newsgroup which discusses technical and commercial aspects of
the shuttle, rather than social/geopolitical aspects? If not, wouldn't
it be useful to discriminate between those disparate concerns?

------------------------------

Posted-Date: Sun 23 Feb 1986 16:14:46 EST
Date: Sun 23 Feb 1986 16:14:46 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Re: next generation shuttle: electrically assisted
To: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
In-Reply-To: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET's message of Tue, 18 Feb 86 14:16:57 EST
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa

>     The electrically-assisted shuttle launch was
>an idea for a lead-in to true mass drivers.  Most of the mass driver
>ideas I saw four or five years ago (I haven't kept up) required
>huge amounts of power in one or two seconds, to sustain hundreds
>of g's to get into orbit.  This stretches out the
>power need to almost a minute, and lowers the g's to something
>that could launch almost any payload, including people.

People can be launched at hundreds or thousands of g's if they are
immersed in a fluid of the same density as the body.  The fluid must
permeate the lungs to prevent internal damage.  Fortunately, fluids such
as perfluorocarbons can dissolve large amounts of oxygen, so you don't
suffocate.  Another idea is to use highly compressed xenon gas (it's
expensive, though).  Accelerations are ultimately limited by density
differences between body tissues (one's bones will sink through one's
body).  [The perfluorocarbon idea was used in "The Forever War."]

------------------------------

Posted-Date: Sun 23 Feb 1986 16:49:13 EST
Date: Sun 23 Feb 1986 16:49:13 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: re: British orbital vehicle
To: Graham Bromley <tektronix!teklds!athena!grahamb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu>
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa

As I understand it, the British vehicle, the HOTOL (Horizontal Takeoff
and Landing) will not use scramjets; rather, it will use a combination
of other engines.  At low speeds (< mach 12?) it will use a LACE (liquid
air cycle engine), a kind of airturboramjet that cools the incoming air
with liquid hydrogen fuel before combustion.  Some of the incoming air
is actually liquified and mixed with the hydrogen to drive a small
turbine that helps pump the fuel (a similar mechanism is used in LOX/LH2
rocket engines, except the LOX comes from the fuel tank).  At higher
speeds I believe the HOTOL will use an on-board supply of oxidizer and a
rocket.  This is not as bad as it may seem, since the fuel requirements
for getting from 1/2 orbital velocity into orbit by rocket are far lower
than going the whole way by rocket, and it lets the HOTOL avoid
atmospheric heating at near orbital speeds (the power density of the air
stream increases as the CUBE of velocity, at fixed air density, or as
the square if the vehicle's altitude is increased to keep the mass flow
rate of air through the engines constant).

A good intermediate use for scramjets or LACE's might be in a reusable
first stage for small nonreusable rockets.  The hypersonic vehicle could
lob a nonreusable booster out of the atmosphere at about mach 12.  This
second stage could have a very reasonable mass ratio (fueled/empty mass
of perhaps 2.5).

------------------------------

From: crash!bryan@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 86 18:17:20 PST
To: sdcsvax!space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Apollo 1A fire

This is in response to a message I read earler.  I haven't been to able
to reply directly so I am posting it here.  Anyway, someone else might
be interested.

The Apollo flight was Apollo-1A.  The astronauts were Gus Grissm,
Roger Chaffee, and Edward White.

You might be interested in the book "Murder on pad 39" the author
escapes me at the mnment.

		Bryan R. Walker
		crash!bryan@ucsd
		{ihnp4, cbosgd, sdcsvax}!crash!bryan

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #161
*******************


0,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA00768; Tue, 25 Feb 86 23:01:44 PST
	id AA00768; Tue, 25 Feb 86 23:01:44 PST
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 86 23:01:44 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8602260701.AA00768@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #162

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 162

Today's Topics:
		  Morton-Thiokol Engineering Claims
			Re: Frenchmen in Space
	  Re: "At the moment Uranus's south pole points..."
		       Congressional Addresses
	     SRB O-rings ... PBS "Morning Edition" report
			  Space colonization
	     Occasional men on moon, teleoperator mostly
			  Olysses Questions.
			    Re: Joy rides
			    Re: Titan SRBs
		   Address for shuttle review board
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 23 Feb 86 19:38:25 GMT
From: decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-chovax!eros@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Subject: Morton-Thiokol Engineering Claims
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Over the last few days, engineers at Morton-Thiokol have been falling
all over one another to express how sure they were that the O-rings on
the SRBs would fail during launch and how schedule-minded and inflexible
NASA management was about delaying the mission.

This brings up an interesting question - if these folks were so sure of
the danger to the SRBs (in fact, one senior engineer said that he and
other engineers expressed surprise at launch time that Challenger
cleared the tower without incident) why didn't they go to the media with
their concerns?  I'm sure that the networks, NPR and the papers would
have been more than happy to spash their objections far and wide; in
fact you probably would have seen a two inch high headline in the NY
Daily News reading something like this:
      'RUBBER RINGS RICKETY', REVEAL RED-FACED ROCKETEERS

Faced with this kind of prelaunch publicity, NASA would have been
forced to scrub.

This of course presupposes that the engineers are accurately depicting
the intensity of their opposition to the launch.  I'm beginning to
believe more and more that this is just a massive CYA movement on the
part of the Morton-Thiokol engineering staff.  How is it that NASA, who
has scrubbed launches for all kinds of seemingly arcane reasons in the
past (everything from failure of Nth redundant systems to cloudy days)
would suddenly perform a 180-degree turn and force a launch when
engineers are insisting the vehicle will blow up?

In my view, if the situation developed the way the engineers are
claiming it did, then they are equally (if not more) culpible than the
company executives who signed off on the launch OK and the NASA
management who insisted on it, since they KNEW that seven people (more,
if an explosion on the pad occurred) and 25% of the shuttle fleet were
in extreme danger of destruction and they chose not to put their
reputations on the line by publicly speaking out against the launch.  In
the end, it seems they are salving their collective consciences with the
old 'I was just obeying orders' bit.

Tony Eros
!decwrl!chovax!eros
'My opinions are my own; who else would want them?'

------------------------------

Date: 21 Feb 86 22:28:56 GMT
From: decvax!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!goudreau@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Bob Goudreau)
Organization: Data General, RTP North Carolina
Subject: Re: Frenchmen in Space
References: <507@mmm.UUCP>, <1129@abnji.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>>	Aside from which, if you don't consider the Soviets to be European,
>>then they have also not yet had any astronauts in their space program (except
>>as passengers on the shuttle). It's hard to have fatalities when there are
>>no people.
>
>The French flew a cosmonaut on a Soviet flight well before we
>allowed allies on ours.
>-- 
>James C. Armstrong, Jnr.	{ihnp4,cbosgd,akgua}!abnji!nyssa

This reminds me of the minor controversy that occurred when the first
Frenchman went up with the Soviets a few years ago.  The Soviets
naturally wanted to  refer to him (I forget his name) as a "cosmonaut".
The French were a bit leery of this moniker; I guess they didn't want to
offend the Americans, with whom they were also planning a ride later.
But of course "astronaut" wouldn't please the Russians.  So, the French
invented the word "spationaute" (sp?) to describe their citzens in
space.  Does anyone know if this term is still in use?  In particular,
was it used for the Frenchman who flew on the Shuttle a while back?  Do
the Soviets have any further plans to allow western Europeans on their
flights?
  Bob Goudreau

------------------------------

Date: 21 Feb 86 21:49:34 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!watnot!watdaisy!maariano@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Marco Ariano)
Subject: Re: "At the moment Uranus's south pole points..."
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Looks to me like yet another case of the old 'Right Hand Rule'.
Anybody (that knows what they're talking about) want to verify this?

------------------------------

Date: 21 Feb 86 14:42:16 GMT
From: ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtgzy!ecl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (e.c.leeper)
Subject: Congressional Addresses
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

I have posted to nj.general a list of the addresses of the 2 senators
and 14 representatives from New Jersey (including a description of what
cities are in each district), as well as the address of the White House.
I would suggest that New Jersey residents interested in writing their
congresspersons (I hope that's all of you) go read that, and that other
people in other states post similar lists to their *local* newsgroups.
DO NOT POST THEM HERE!
					Evelyn C. Leeper
					...ihnp4!mtgzz!ecl
					(or ihnp4!mtgzy!ecl)

------------------------------

Date: 20 Feb 86 17:42:39 GMT
From: trwrb!scgvaxd!felix!fritz!pwb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Phil Bonesteele)
Organization: FileNet Corp., Costa Mesa, CA
Subject: SRB O-rings ... PBS "Morning Edition" report
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

I was listening to the PBS radio news program  "Morning edition" this
a.m.   when they  presented a  very interesting  report on interviews
with  senior Morton  Thiokol engineers.   This  is a  synopsis of the
content of that report.  
Apparently the senior MT engineers were VERY concerned  about the low
temperatures at the Cape and their effects on the SRB O-rings the day
before  the  launch.    Their  own tests  and examination  of the SRB
O-rings from a Jan.  '85 launch  where the  temperatures where around
fifty degrees F.  demonstrated that the effectiveness  of the O-rings
degrades rapidly at temperatures below fifty.  Since the temperatures
at the Cape where in the thirties, the engineers felt strongly enough
about  postponing  the  launch  that  they  approached  senior Morton
Thiokol management the night before the launch.  A conference call to
NASA was convened with the senior MT management and  engineers on one
side, and senior NASA launch personnel on the other.  One MT engineer
quoted the NASA Shuttle program director as saying "What  do you want
me to do, postpone it until next April?"  A  NASA engineer questioned
the validity of the MT  engineers tests.   The  MT engineers stressed
repeatedly that their test results were  accurate and  that the tests
indicated a strong possibility of O-ring  failure during  a launch at
the  temperatures  present  at the  Cape.   The discussion apparently
degenerated into shouting match.   Finally the  MT management decided
that this was a "management decision" and asked NASA what they wanted.
NASA asked the MT upper management (the MT  General Manager included)
to sign a document  saying they  approved of  a launch  the next a.m.
given the current weather conditions.  All but one MT manager signed.
The MT engineers left the meeting in  disgust.
The next  day the  MT engineers  met in  the same  conference room to
witness  the  shuttle  launch,  only to  watch exactly  what they had
warned against happen.  
				Phil Bonesteele
				FileNet Corp.
				Costa Mesa, CA

------------------------------

Date:         Mon, 24 Feb 86 02:33:42 EST
From: ST801179%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Reply-To:  ST801179%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA
To: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
Subject:      Space colonization

My vote is for Epsilon Eridani-I hope they name the planet they land on
"Vulcan".

Garrett Fitzgerald

------------------------------

Date: 1986 February 23 22:38:59 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM@mc.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Cc: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Occasional men on moon, teleoperator mostly
Sender: REM%IMSSS@su-score.arpa (for undeliverable-mail notifications)
Reply-To: REM%IMSSS@SU-SCORE.ARPA

D> Date: Fri, 21 Feb 86 12:20:30 PST
D> From: ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
D> Instead of spending millions to make the system fully automated for
D> all those little problems that can occurr, why not include some
D> people to help out?

I think you misunderstood my proposal (or my proposal got refined
during 2-3 week delay from submitting it to receiving your reply?). I
meant (or now mean) that 99% of the work would be done via remote
control, excluding any permanent manned lunar presence for the time
being but not to exclude manned setup/repair visits if technology
permits and the automated can't be coerced by radio command to do what
needs doing. But actually perhaps if something needs repair and the
appropriate tool isn't there, we should think first of sending another
remote-controlled tool instead of sending and retrieving a human team.
Only if the task is really beyond the capability of any any
state-of-art teleoperators, and there is no backup equipment for the
item needing repair, should we send humans. (Alternately, only when
sending humans is the cheapest way to get the task done should we send
humans.)

D> A small team could help set up the equipment in a couple of days and
D> return to the space station to monitor it.

That assumes we have a manned space station and heavy-load orbital
transfer vehicle and heavy-load lunar lander&unlander. At present we
don't (although the Russians/Soviets have launched a space station for
a permanent manned presence in space and should have it manned within
a few months), and my proposal was to get moving on lunar mining
already, without waiting another 5-10 years for our space station to
be ready before we start installing teleoperated equipment on the Moon.

D> Then when something breaks, they can go fix it.  It should be 
D> relatively cheap to make a few updated lunar modules for temporary
D> visits to the Moon.  All you need is a lunar ferry (you'll need that
D> anyway to return the titanium).

Until we have a space station, we either hire Russians to make the
repair trip from their space station, or we send a shuttle crew up
from Earth. With only 3 orbiters, the latter would cut into other
projects too much, and the former would be politically difficult. For
lunar ferry, you need a lunar ferry capable of transfering heavy loads
quickly (before the consumable supplies run out), whereas for titanium
you can do with lots of tiny loads that take weeks to get over the
ridge between the Earth and Moon potential wells.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 24 Feb 86 10:56:40 cet
To: SPACE-INCOMING@s1-b.arpa
From: WMORTENS%HNOESA10.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: Olysses Questions.

From: Uffe K. Mortensen,ESA (The European Space Agency)
To: Space-incoming
Subject: Olysses Questions.

A few keeps asking about Olysses, mailing directly to me :
          What is it ?
          How much Plutonium does it contain ?        ( 11 kg )
          When will it be launched ?
          etc.
Answers to most questions was in my contribution to
Space Digest   6/ 136.    Please read this, before mailing me more questions.

-- Uffe.

------------------------------

Date: 22 Feb 86 06:26:00 GMT
From: decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!cmcl2!csd2!krantz@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Michaelntz)
Organization: New York University
Subject: Re: Joy rides
References: <8601222243.AA04061@s1-b.arpa>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

I think you folks all underestimate the draw of such a trip.  As for me,
in my current economic circumstance, I couldn't pay more than $500.00.
If I was in charge of a shuttle, though, and needed to raise lots of
dough for research or whatever, I'd set a price over $100,000, and watch
all the rich, bored Americans line up like lemmings...

------------------------------

Date: 21 Feb 86 23:18:17 GMT
From: ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!hropus!riccb!rjnoe@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Roger J. Noe)
Organization: Rockwell International - Downers Grove, IL
Subject: Re: Titan SRBs
References: <28@petrus.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> 1. The Titan SRBs are segmented much like the Shuttle SRBs. The Titan III-C
> uses five 10' segments, while the newer Titan 34D SRB uses "5 1/2 segments"
> (5 10' segments plus one 5.8' segment). This is contrary to a comment
> seen in the media where somebody said "you'd never see the military
> use a solid rocket built like that" (referring to the segmented design).
> 
> 2. I cannot find any indication in my references of a Titan SRB failure,
> although they would not cover events in the past few years.
> Titan III mission failures seem to have been dominated mostly by upper stage
> failures, particularly the apparently notorious "transtage", which often
> failed to re-ignite in a sequence of multiple burns.
Yes, there was a 34D accident last summer or fall, I think it was.  It
was totally destroyed.  That made it the first bad Titan accident in quite
a long time.  I think it remains as THE costliest space vehicle incident
as far as impact on insurance goes.
--
Roger Noe			ihnp4!riccb!rjnoe

------------------------------

Date: 21 Feb 86 19:05:52 GMT
From: decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!hao!ames!eugene@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Eugene Miya)
Organization: NASA-Ames Research Center, Mtn. View, CA
Subject: Address for shuttle review board
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Excuse the lateness of this as I have been ill.  I have added net.space
so that ARPAnet sites may receive this address otherwise I would have
only posted this to net.columbia.  As promised the address below is for
serious ideas on the cause of the Shuttle accident.  They will filter
ideas and pass them for more serious consideration:
	Brenda Sturman
	Mail Code AP-3
	Media Services Branch
	NASA Johnson Space Center
	Houston, TX 77058
--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  {hplabs,ihnp4,dual,hao,decwrl,allegra}!ames!aurora!eugene
  eugene@ames-nas.ARPA

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #162
*******************


0,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA01520; Wed, 26 Feb 86 03:01:14 PST
	id AA01520; Wed, 26 Feb 86 03:01:14 PST
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 86 03:01:14 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8602261101.AA01520@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #163

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 163

Today's Topics:
			 Re: Planet prefixes
			      Love Song
			      Space Fund
		    Re: Shooting Money into Space
		Re: Most Dangerous: Launch or Landing?
		 Workload for the remaining shuttles
			  Re: Ulysses probe
		      MIR/saylut space stations
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 23 Feb 86 03:22:00 GMT
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!wombat@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Planet prefixes
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

The following is things I remember and things found in *Modern Spacecraft
Dynamics & Control* by Marshall Kaplan:
  The generic terms are periapsis and apoapsis. The affix for the moon
seems to be -lune. Most of the problem seems to be avoided by refering
to subscripted variables from various equations. The subscripts are
standard symbols for the planets: circle with dot in center for the sun,
circle with cross inside for the earth, crescent for the moon, circle
with cross below for Venus, and so on. I seem to remember -jove being
the affix for Jupiter.  For the other planets, if you want to talk about
something other than periapsis or apoapsis, it looks like you can use
geo- as long as the context makes clear which planet you're discussing.
  As an aside, Kaplan is a reasonable textbook with wonderful
end-of-chapter problems.
  "When you are about to die, a wombat is better than no company at all."
				Roger Zelazny, *Doorways in the Sand*
						Wombat
					ihnp4!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!wombat

------------------------------

Date: 22 Feb 86 22:45:54 GMT
From: hplabs!pesnta!lsuc!mnetor!genat!phoenix@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (phoenix)
Organization: Genamation Inc. (Toronto Ontario, Canada)
Subject: Love Song
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

This is not something that I wrote, but is something I heard at a sf-con
filk-sing back in 1981 (a filk-sing is like with folk-songs, but are sf
and fantasy oriented).  The woman who wrote the song is Diana Gallagher,
and it is copyrighted by her.
    *Planetbound Lovers*
The space-shuttle pilot lies dreaming
Of adventure come the dawn.
His lover weeps, she cannot sleep:
Tommorrow, he'll be gone.
CHORUS:
Goodbye, my love!
Minus 10 and counting!
The launch-fires flame and roar!
Goodbye, my love!
Going into orbit,
On the wings of the Future you'll soar.
A man confronts his destiny,
Accepts what must be done;
The challenge faced, he'll open Space
For his unborn daughters and sons.
CHORUS
Bound away, beyond the atmosphere,
To sail Infinity's sky,
A man's heart sings:  the wonder of wings
And planetbound lovers cry.
A woman understands the secret
Desires and needs of men.
She knows someday he'll choose to stay
And never return from orbit again.
CHORUS
And I'll be waiting here, missing you,
Until planetbound lovers go orbiting, too.

					The Phoenix
					(Neither Bright, Dark, nor Young)
---"A man should live forever...or die trying."
---"There is no substitute for good manners...except fast reflexes."

------------------------------

Date: 24 Feb 86 01:13:32 GMT
From: nike!topaz!harvard!bu-cs!bzs@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Barry Shein)
Organization: Boston Univ Comp. Sci.
Subject: Space Fund
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>From: J.JPM@EPIC (Jim McGrath)
>As has been pointed out, in America the culture encourages individuals
>helping other individuals in as direct a manner as possible.  I fail
>utterly to see how anyone could possibly consider "help" from an
>unfeeling government, which gets its "public" funds via coercive
>taxation (re: robbery) to somehow be "better" (I assume morally) that
>individuals freely giving of their own wealth in as direct a manner as
>they can.
  I fail utterly to see how this is true. Our current welfare system etc
was prompted by the total failure of individuals to help other
individuals in a direct manner, the facts speak for themselves. Through
history large civilizations have had to organize enforced charities
through taxes and tithes (or enslave their poor) as a means to subdue
popular revolution.  Unfortunately the wealthy are largely selfish
almost by their very nature give or take a few exceptions (known as
philanthropists, mostly robber-barons who developed a guilty conscience
or hatred of their potential inheritors or a love of the tax loopholes
or all of the above and whose wealth can generally be tracked to far
more misery than charity.)
  As far as taxation == robbery, this statement is somewhere on the
lunatic fringe of civil libertarianism, do you seriously expect the
members of this group, for example, to pass the hat and replace NASA?
(that was a bold attempt to draw this conversation back to the subject
at hand.) It is quite reasonable to argue about where the pot gets
spent, but this sort of argument is ridiculous and unproductive. Better
an unfeeling government than nothing at all, remember, the body gets
hungry quite quickly, more quickly than it takes to process a job
application even among the best of intentioned down on their luck.
	-Barry Shein, Boston University

------------------------------

Posted-Date: Mon 24 Feb 1986 10:07:14 EST
Date: Mon 24 Feb 1986 10:07:14 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Re: Shooting Money into Space
To: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@mc.lcs.mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: "Keith F. Lynch"'s message of Fri, 21 Feb 86 22:26:05 EST
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa

>  Note that the 2 billion dollars is not being shot into space.  The
>money is staying right here on Earth, where it is benefiting hundreds
>of thousands of people directly.  It is of course benefiting all
>mankind in the long run, unlike two months of feeding Ethiopia.

Not to criticize money spent developing useful products, but money
itself is merely a placeholder for wealth.  Real wealth is in the
physical products, services and knowledge produced by an activity.  Note
that while NASA employees (and subcontractors) do spend the 2 billion
dollars generating jobs locally, the taxpayers from whom the money
was obtained can no longer spend it, leading to a compensating loss
of jobs elsewhere.  What's being consumed by NASA is the skill of
its employees and the skills of the employees of its contractors
(plus some raw materials); the employees would otherwise be involved
in (say) designing consumer electronics.  (Whether VCR's are more
valuable than space stations is a matter of taste.)

------------------------------

Posted-Date: Mon 24 Feb 1986 10:25:46 EST
Date: Mon 24 Feb 1986 10:25:46 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Re: Most Dangerous: Launch or Landing?
To: Ed Turner <allegra!princeton!astrovax!elt@ucbvax.berkeley.edu>
In-Reply-To: allegra!princeton!astrovax!elt's message of 17 Feb 86 16:17:13 GMT
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa

Did the RAND study say the dangerous part of landing was the reentry or
the touchdown?  I wonder what the chances of disaster are if a tile
comes off the bottom of the orbiter.

The shuttle's problem may be that recognized flaws are difficult to fix,
not just that there are many low probability unknown flaws.  For example,
it's known that there's no abort mode for the first two minutes of
flight, but this is a fundamental feature of the shuttle design and cannot
be easily changed.

One flaw I worry about during liftoffs is catastrophic failure of the
SSME turbopumps.  These pumps have suffered from cavitation on previous
flights; if one of the pumps were to fly apart high velocity metal
fragments could go flying through the engine compartment.  This was one
early speculation about the Challenger accident (since discarded).

Continuing upgrades of the shuttle make extrapolations of reliability
suspect.  For example, if and when the SSME's are upgraded to 109%
of rated thrust we won't be able to use previous flights as indicators
of their reliability.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 24 Feb 86 11:00 PST
From: Dave Platt <Dave-Platt%LADC@cisl-service-multics.arpa>
To: Space <Space@s1-b.arpa>
Subject: Workload for the remaining shuttles
Randomness: He who spends a storm beneath a tree, takes life with a grain of
            TNT.

According to an article in this morning's Los Angeles Times, intensive
studies by NASA, DoD, and the NSC have found that the loss of Challenger
will severely handicap the nation's space program for years to come due
to the cutback in payload capacity.  National security requirements for
placing military payloads in orbit will likely consume more than 75%
of the capacity of the three remaining shuttles for the next five years,
leading to a cutback of more than 50% in scientific and commercial
payload space, and the likely mothballing of payloads that have
taken years to develop.

------------------------------

To: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@mc.lcs.mit.edu>
Cc: Space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Re: Ulysses probe
In-Reply-To: Your message of Sat, 22 Feb 86 00:43:34 EST.
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 86 12:47:02 -0800
From: jon@csvax.caltech.edu

>   From:    "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@mc.lcs.mit.edu>
>
>	From: jon@csvax.caltech.edu
>
>	    Ulysses is a European probe, to  be  launched  from  the  Shuttle,
>	which will go over one the Sun's poles ...
>	    Originally there was to have been an American  probe  launched  at
>	the same time to go over the other solar pole. Funding was cut a few
>	years ago, making the Europeans rather mad as I recall.
>
>     How can it go over one pole but not both?
>								    ...Keith

    Well, the two probes could have run into one another  on  the  far
side of the sun... (:-)

    I don't know if there are any plans to  keep  talking  to  Ulysses
after the first polar flyby. Maybe the geometry will be wrong, or  the
spacecraft will lose radio lock on Earth  while  flying  'behind'  the
sun.

    -- Jon (jon@csvax.caltech.edu)
    __@/

------------------------------

Date: 24 Feb 86 13:46:15 GMT
From: decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-pipa!biro@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: MIR/saylut space stations
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>> in reply to several question about the MIR space station
**  MIR SPACE STATION **
The size of  the  station is so  large  that  it is visible  by the  
naked eye  and  easily photograph with simple cameras.  
They most likely used one of there new launch vehicle. They have two, 
(maybe three with a medium launch unit)
(1) HEAVY-LIFT LAUNCH VEHICLE  
    4,000,000 KG LIFT OFF THRUST  
    150,000 KM PAYLOAD TO 180 KM
    apx 100 Meters tall with 6 or more strap on booster
    (booster dia look to be slightly > then 1/2 the dia of the main rocket)
(2) HEAVY-LIFT LAUNCH VEHICLE  (SHUTTLE TYPE)
    3,000,000 KG LIFT OFF THRUST   
    30,000  KM PAYLOAD TO 180 KM
    apx 70 Meters tall with two strap on boosters
    ( yes they bought the plans for the Shuttle under the 
      Freedom of Information Act , and it does look like the STS)
They  are  developing these two systems, a SATURN V-Class heavy-lift
vehicle.  This vehicle should be able to lift as much as 150,000  KG.
to low-earth orbit, giving the USSR a tremendous capability to orbit 
heavy objects,  such as  the components  for a large,  manned  space 
complex.
The Soviets have made know their plans to replace SALYUT_7 with large 
space  complexes, supporting  20  or  more cosmonauts  on a permanent 
basis. Such a complex will enhance their space-based military support 
and  warfighting capabilities.   Missions could  include military R&D,
on-orbit repair of satellites, reconnaissance, imagery interpretation, 
ASAT support operations. Their shuttle orbiter will likely be used to 
ferry cosmonauts to this station  as well  as  to place satellites in 
orbit.  Is this MIR , I am not sure.
The HEAVY-LIFT LAUNCH VEHICLE has been ready for launch for some time 
but Aviation Week claims that they have been having problems and form 
Recon Pictures they see the HEAVY-LIFT LAUNCH VEHICLE  brought out to 
the pad and then returned to the 'hanger', the  last time it was laid 
down on its side and partly disassembled.  It would look like they 
used this launch vehicle to launch MIR.  I will have to look at the
video tapes again to see if it look like the sketch of the new HEAVY-
LIFT LAUNCH VEHICLE or one of the older rockets.  One thing I do remember 
about the launch was the fact that the flame came on with a pop and it 
was blue, was this because the launch was at night, a different type of 
fuel, or just poor  video color.  However other vehicle with strapped on 
boosters include there SL-12 and SL-13 both about 60 Meters tall with 
lift-off thrust (KG) of 900,000 and the SL-13 with a payload to 180km 
of about 19,500KG.  These are the only ones I know of.
I have been monitoring SALYUT_7 on 142.4175 or 143.825 MHz NBFM until
they sudden return to earth.  I have several monitoring from about 
the 2 of NOV until the 13th of NOV when they started to scrambled the
voice transmissions (sounded like speech inversion).  No transmission
as yet have been monitored for MIR.
For those who would like to track or make a visiable sighting of
MIR or SALYUT_7 here are there Keplerian Sets:
     Fundamental Keplerian Elements:
     Element Set  3: MIR (86-17A) (OBJ 16609 Set: 002)
     Reference Epoch:  1986 +   52.124742850
     Mean Anomaly deg        266.030400000 
     Inclination deg          51.612500000
     Eccentricity              0.009227900
     Mean Motion rev/day      16.152697320 
     Arg. Perigee deg         94.721300000 
     R.A.A.N. deg            114.434500000 
     Other Parameters:
     Orbit Number             20           
     S.M.A. km              6610.522       
     Apogee Height km        293.363
     Perigee Height km       171.361
     Anom. Period min         89.149
     Decay Rate rev/day^2      9.812E-03
     Argument of perigee will rotate 360 degrees
     in about     0 years,  87 days.
     Earth angle subtended:      Apogee   Perigee
                                   34.1      26.3 deg
I would assume that they would be adjusting the perigee to put it in
a more maintable orbit, something like SALYUT_7, 
     Fundamental Keplerian Elements:
     Element Set  2: SALYUT_7 (OBJ 13138 Set: 046)
     Reference Epoch:  1986 +   48.876398490
     Mean Anomaly deg         95.517200000
     Inclination deg          51.625800000
     Eccentricity              0.000207900
     Mean Motion rev/day      15.738694550
     Arg. Perigee deg        264.540400000
     R.A.A.N. deg            130.239000000
     Other Parameters:
     Orbit Number          22094          
     S.M.A. km              6725.945      
     Apogee Height km        349.183
     Perigee Height km       346.387
     Anom. Period min         91.494
     Decay Rate rev/day^2      1.530E-04
     Doppler Freq mhz        142.418
     Argument of perigee will rotate 360 degrees
     in about     0 years,  93 days.
     Earth angle subtended:      Apogee   Perigee
                                   37.1      36.9 deg

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #163
*******************


0,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA02374; Wed, 26 Feb 86 07:01:05 PST
	id AA02374; Wed, 26 Feb 86 07:01:05 PST
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 86 07:01:05 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8602261501.AA02374@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #164

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 164

Today's Topics:
		    Re: Why build another orbiter
		       Re: NASA and SDI budgets
			     Re: Paranoia
			  Re: Ulysses probe
			   Re: space plane
			  Galileo plutonium
			      scram-jets
			      scram-jets
		  Re: Space Shuttle Children's Fund
		     Re: Save the Unborn Shuttles
		  Morton-Thiokol Engineering Claims
	      Re: Astronauts' Memorial--House Resolution
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:       Mon, 24 Feb 86 17:39:22 CST
From: Carl Rosene <animal@rice.edu>
Subject:    Re: Why build another orbiter
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>  One of the major reasons for the high cost per pound is that the shuttle
>    does NOT have airplane like access to orbit, just airplane like access
>    out of orbit.  That is why now might be a good idea to really start doing
>    some serious work in the TAV area.  Does anyone know what kind of time
>    and money is projected to put something reasonable together?


Why do you think having "airplane like access" into orbit will make the
the flight cheaper? I believe that vertical launches are energetically
favored.

------------------------------

Date: 25 Feb 86 01:21:17 GMT
From: vger!al@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  ( Informatix)
Subject: Re: NASA and SDI budgets
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <12185272326.7.J.JPM@EPIC>, J.JPM@EPIC (Jim McGrath) writes:
> 
>         From: J.JPM@EPIC
>         But it never will.  One of the reasons I think SDI is a good
>         idea is that it is an excellent way to get funds for space
>         activities...
You should note that SDI not only contributes to the budget crunch (SDI's
budget is about 10 times that of space station this year) but also
drains talent from NASA.  For example, Abrahamson left shuttle to run
SDI - did this turnover contribute to Challenger's accident?  Hard to
say, but possible.  Another example, newly minted knowledge engineers
can get $40K/year or so working for DOD or $25K/year from NASA - guess
who gets the pick of the crop?
> I happen to think defense research is vital.  
'Defense' research is a driving force in the US/USSR arms race.  This
race has two credible outcomes - mutual nuclear disaster and mutual
economic exhaustion (while Japan laughs all the way to the bank).  I place
defense in quotes since, according to Aviation Week, very little of these
funds are spent on defense of the states of the union.
As reseach funding is increasingly dominated by the military, the militarization
of our society is increased.  Unfortunately, the qualities essential to
a military society are directly antithetical to freedom.  You must obey
orders, control is from the top down in a strict hierarchy, and little
personal choice is allowed.  This, even if necessary, eats away at the
foundation of our democracy.

------------------------------

Date: 25 Feb 86 01:06:41 GMT
From: vger!al@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  ( Informatix)
Subject: Re: Paranoia
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <860222000126.1.BATALI@RICKY.AI.MIT.EDU>, BATALI@OZ.AI.MIT.EDU (John Batali) writes:
> 
> I'm sure that there are people working for NASA on this mailing list.
> 
> I'll tell you why we haven't heard from them -- because they have been
> told not to say anything.  The paper movers are covering their asses.
> NASA would prefer that the accident be an engineering mistake rather
> than a management one.
> 
All NASA employees and contractors have been specifical directed not
to speculate on the accident.  Given the rapid spread of inaccuracies
this is probably a good policy.  NASA would prefer that the cause of
the accident be found and fixed as quickly as possible.  Last time
you made a serious mistake did you try to cover it up?  Be honest.
Of course people will try to cover their asses, they are human you
know.  The problem is not to wreck vengence, the problem is to resume
space flight.

------------------------------

Date: 25 Feb 86 03:12:23 GMT
From: brahms!desj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (David desJardins)
Subject: Re: Ulysses probe
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <27219.509662022@csvax.caltech.edu> jon@CSVAX.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>>	    Ulysses is a European probe, to  be  launched  from  the  Shuttle,
>>	which will go over one the Sun's poles ...
>>
>>     How can it go over one pole but not both?
>
>    I don't know if there are any plans to  keep  talking  to  Ulysses
>after the first polar flyby. Maybe the geometry will be wrong, or  the
>spacecraft will lose radio lock on Earth  while  flying  'behind'  the
>sun.
   I don't have any idea what these people are talking about.  The whole
idea is that Ulysses is being launched to rendezvous with Jupiter just
like Voyager and Galileo, but it will swing around Jupiter and back over
the solar pole.  Presumably it will then leave the solar system; what
would cause it to circle around to the other pole??
   -- David desJardins

------------------------------

Date: 25 Feb 86 01:31:12 GMT
From: vger!al@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  ( Informatix)
Subject: Re: space plane
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <8602231253.AA23756@mitre-bedford.ARPA>, jrv@MITRE-BEDFORD.ARPA (James R. Van Zandt) writes:
> I've heard that the new "space plane" is supposed to get things into
> low earth orbit at 1% of the cost of the shuttle.  Are there good reasons
> for that, or is it just hype from aerospace marketing types?
The fundamental reason is that the proposed engines (scramjets) use the
atmosphere for oxygen.  Since oxygen accounts for 8/9ths of the weight of
hydrogen/oxygen fuel, there is a dramtic weight savings (I think the
shuttle tank holds 600 TONS of oxygen - the orbiter weighs about 200 tons).
I don't know the details
of the cost estimation, but if scramjets can be made into practical
devices we should see a large decrease in cost to orbit.

------------------------------

Posted-Date: Mon 24 Feb 1986 21:44:54 EST
Date: Mon 24 Feb 1986 21:44:54 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Galileo plutonium
To: ihnp4!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov
In-Reply-To: ihnp4!utzoo!henry's message of Mon, 24 Feb 86 18:34:50 EST
Cc: arms-d@xx.lcs.mit.edu, space@s1-b.arpa

Henry Spencer writes:

>Timothy Wright writes, in part:
>
>>      I read in the latest issue of The Nation that one of the shuttle's
>> planned missions included the Galileo-Jupiter probe, which would have had on
>> board about 46 pounds of Plutonium. A Challenger-type explosion would have
>> either vaporized or finely distributed the stuff all over the greater Cape
>> Canaveral area...
>
>Why?  It didn't vaporize or pulverize the rest of the Challenger, just broke
>it into small pieces for the most part.  The interior of the cargo bay is
>probably the best-protected area on the shuttle, too.

The ET went off with the force of a small atomic bomb, but even an atom
bomb doesn't necessarily destroy everything nearby.  Graphite
covered solid steel spheres have been suspended below A-bombs in
above-ground tests and have suffered only slight ablation of the
surface layer.  The thermal pulse blows off a thin outer layer,
but the heat takes too long to diffuse into the body and most radiates
away.  This phenomenon formed the basis for the Orion-style spaceship.
The radioisotope thermal generators sound somewhat more fragile than
solid steel spheres, though.

Galileo and Ulysses are attached to Centaur upper stages.  These high
energy stages use a lot of LH/LOX fuel, and said fuel sits right next
to the probe in the cargo bay.  A Challenger-type explosion would
certainly rupture and detonate the Centaur tanks.

An aside: 46 pounds of Pu-238 is a lot more dangerous than a similar
amount of Pu-239, since Pu-238 has a much shorter halflife (it has to
to get respectable decay heat).  A solution to the radiation problem
might be to launch the radioisotope source separately and assemble in
orbit (probably not feasible for current probes) or to design probes
that use real nuclear reactors (certainly not possible for current
probes).  The latter solution could allow really high power transmitters
(kilowatts at least) for high data rates from the outer solar system,
and could even power ion engines.

------------------------------

Date:           Mon, 24 Feb 86 15:24:46 PST
From: "Niket K. Patwardhan" <bilbo.niket@locus.ucla.edu>
To: space@s1-b.arpa, ota@s1-b.arpa
Subject:        scram-jets


0,,
From what I read, the air in a scram-jet is not slowed down to be below the
speed of sound. I expect the combustion velocity must be greater than the
speed of the air, otherwise the engine would keep flaming out, and would need
to be constantly ignited. Three questions:

1) Can the combustion velocity actually be greater than the speed of sound?
(I expect the answer is NO).

2) What is the limiting velocity for kerosene-air and for LH2-air in an engine?

3) What is the limiting combustion velocity for kerosene-air and LH2-air?

------------------------------

Date:           Mon, 24 Feb 86 15:34:34 PST
From: "Niket K. Patwardhan" <bilbo.niket@locus.ucla.edu>
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject:        scram-jets

How do you compute the combustion velocity, or is it purely empirical?

------------------------------

Date: 25 Feb 86 07:02:16 GMT
From: cad!hijab@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Raif Hijab)
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle Children's Fund
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <971@dcl-cs.UUCP>, craig@dcl-cs.UUCP (Craig Wylie) writes:
> Perhaps you should see the comment above, when you supply free education,
> free medical care and goverment subsidised housing then you can 
> be insulting, until then you are not taking care of your own at all.
> 
Hear! Hear! Just What I have wanted to say.

------------------------------

Date: 24 Feb 86 16:32:45 GMT
From: nike!im4u!ut-sally!utastro!ethan@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Ethan Vishniac)
Subject: Re: Save the Unborn Shuttles
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <[MC.LCS.MIT.EDU].826580.860221.KFL>, KFL@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU ("Keith F. Lynch") writes:
> 
>     From: unmvax!nmtvax!fine@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Andrew J Fine)
> 
>     If humanity can simply change from mere descendants of carnivorous apes to
>     something totally gentle, altrustic, and noble, then Earth will be enough.
> 
>   We are descended from herbiverous apes.
We are probably descended from omnivorous apes.  Certainly Chimpanzees are
omnivorous and their lifestyle is often taken as a model for 
pre-australophithecines.  Question for both of you, would you rather
be descended from wolves or sheep?  Why?  Is there some way that this either
would change your opinion of people?
-- 
"Ma, I've been to another      Ethan Vishniac
 planet!"                      {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan
                               ethan@astro.UTEXAS.EDU
                               Department of Astronomy
                               University of Texas

------------------------------

Date: 24 Feb 86 15:55:55 GMT
From: nike!topaz!harvard!bu-cs!bzs@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Barry Shein)
Subject: Morton-Thiokol Engineering Claims
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Re: Why didn't MT go to the media with their concerns about the O-Rings?
Good question. It is an unfortunate property of our institutions that
everyone has the right to lie ('everything is fine') and no one seems
to have the right to tell the truth ('something is terribly wrong').
I quite frankly believe that if it turns out to become generally accepted
that MT really knew there were dangers (not just a worst case study that
the media is hyping up) then NASA had better review the ability of their
organization to allow dissident views, even if they are not popular, to
be heard. I hope this isn't what happened. Everything I have heard about
NASA in the past seems to deny this, that worst case studies are taken
very seriously.
I mean, look at all the delays in the shuttle flights. It doesn't appear
that NASA hesitates to hear that there is a problem, perhaps the final
outcome will be that this one time some anxiousness to launch over-rode
a warning and that should be fixed by a management correction. One should
not be totally non-cynical about MT quite possibly, at this late date,
trying to save face, or to turn it around, yes, if they knew before hand
and were so sure, who did they tell? How hard did they push? Or are we
hearing their hindsight and a press very hungry for news.
	-Barry Shein, Boston University

------------------------------

From: Laurinda Rohn <rohn@rand-unix.arpa>
Date: 25 Feb 86 07:53:34 PST (Tue)
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Cc: Space@s1-b.arpa, rohn@rand-unix.arpa
Subject: Re: Astronauts' Memorial--House Resolution
In-Reply-To: Your message of Sat, 22 Feb 86 07:14:40 PST.
	     <8602221514.AA12449@s1-b.arpa>


>I would urge everyone who wishes to see such a memorial to write their
>Congressperson and ask them to support this resolution. (While you're
>at it, a plug for supporting the space program wouldn't hurt.) If you
>wish to contact the L5 Society regarding this resolution, their
>address is:  L5 Society, 1060 East Elm St., Tucson, AZ 95719
>(602-622-6351).

>                                        Evelyn C. Leeper
>                                        ...ihnp4!mtgzz!ecl
>                                        (or ihnp4!mtgzy!ecl)

First, I want to thank Evelyn for posting this.  I wanted to but
hadn't had the time.

I'm going to be working on the committee appointed by the L-5
Board of Directors which is going to oversee this effort.  I'd
appreciate it if, as Evelyn mentioned, people would write their
Congresscritters and urge them not only to support the bill but
also to co-sponsor it.  At last count, we had approximately 80
co-sponsors and were aiming for 150 before the bill hits the
House floor.

The effort on the part of L-5 hasn't really been organized yet.
If you would like to send a contribution, do indicate that it's
for the Memorial Fund and not just a general donation to L-5.
I'll be happy to answer questions (if I can!) by mail, and if
there's sufficient interest, I'll post updates to the digest
every now and then.

					Lauri Rohn
					rohn@rand-unix.ARPA
					..decvax!randvax!rohn

"In any organization there will always be one person who
 knows what's going on.  This person must be fired."

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #164
*******************


0,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA05298; Wed, 26 Feb 86 19:02:11 PST
	id AA05298; Wed, 26 Feb 86 19:02:11 PST
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 86 19:02:11 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8602270302.AA05298@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #165

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 165

Today's Topics:
	  RE: Why does "everyone" want to leave the planet?
			    Re: Live on TV
		Re: "zillion fatal doses of Plutonium"
			 Re: Planet prefixes
		       Re: Uranian poles, etc.
			    Re: plutonium
		      Keeping track of new moons
	     Re: Andrew Fine's posting (in some defense)
			Request for JPL photos
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:    Tue, 25 Feb 86 08:24:54 PST
From: august@jpl-vlsi.arpa
Subject: RE: Why does "everyone" want to leave the planet?
To: space@s1-b.arpa

In article <932@nmtvax.UUCP> fine@nmtvax.UUCP (Andrew J Fine) writes:
>Let's ask ourselves a few questions:
>
>******************************************************************************
>Does humanity (men and women) really *need* to populate space?  Do we really
>need to explore, in person or otherwise, other planets?
DID COLUMBUS REALLY *NEED* TO SEARCH FOR A WESTERN ROUTE TO CHINA?

>So what do we buy with $2 billion dollars? One shuttle, good for 100 missions
>(best case) with 7 people each. Or enough food, clean water, and other
>necesssities to feed Ethiopia for the next ten decades, easily.
>
PLEASE TELL ME WHERE I CAN PROCURE FOOD ETC. AT SUCH A LOW PRICE! 

>So what do space-faring nations prove when they invoke national prestige and
>the desire of humanity to expand, by consuming all that money and
>men-centuries? "I'm rich enough to do this and you're not, so there!".
>"My rocket is bigger than yours!". "We are leaving you behind to scratch the
>dust while we inherit the universe!"
ONLY THOSE WHO WANT TO "BE LEFT BEHIND TO SCRATCH IN THE DUST" WILL BE LEFT.
FROM THE TONE IT SOUNDS AS IF THIS INDIVIDUAL WAS REJECTED BY THE MANNED
SPACE PROGRAM.

>
>Why have satellites and information systems at all, except to invade the
>privacy and keep records on a captive populace? Why have land and weather
>satellites at all, except to take advantage of another nation's resources
>and vulnerabilities?
>
TAKING ADVANTAGE OF OUR OWN RESOURCES AND ALLERTING OUR FARMERS AND GENERAL
POPULACE TO POSSIBLY UNSEEN DANGERS IS ANOTHER USE FOR SATELLITES AND
INFORMATION SYSTEMS. IR PHOTOS TAKEN FROM SATELLITES ARE USED TO DETECT
THE PRESENCE OF VARIOUS INSECT AND/OR MICROBIAL PESTILENCE ATTACKING THE
FORESTS AND FARMLAND OF THIS COUNTRY. THIS PERSON CERTAINLY HAS A NEGATIVE
OUTLOOK.

>Why explore the planets, interesting though they are, except to find
>more virgin landscape to despoil and riches to plunder?
YOU APPARENTLY FEEL THAT MANKIND IS ONLY CAPABLE OF DESPOILING THAT WHICH
WE FIND. AS FOR "PLUNDERING RICHES", IF WE FIND SOMETHING ON ANOTHER 
WORLD WHICH WE CAN MAKE USE OF, *WHY NOT* USE IT!

> Why put a man, or a
>women for that matter, in space?  What is so special about anyone that we
>must exhalt that person above all others in such an eletist fashion?
AGAIN: FROM THE TONE IT SOUNDS AS IF THIS INDIVIDUAL WAS REJECTED BY THE MANNED
SPACE PROGRAM.

> Why
>shouldn't that person be put to a task that serves the world rather than that
>person's ego?
>
WOULD YOU LIKE TO BE "PUT TO A TASK"? WHAT DO YOU KNOW OF THE EGO OF THOSE
IN MANNED SPACE EXPLORATION? SHOULD COLUMBUS HAVE BEEN RESTRICTED FROM
EXPLORING BECAUSE HE MIGHT EXPERIENCE SOME PERSONAL SATISFACTION FROM
HAVING PERFORMED A TASK WELL?

>
>Earth is enough for us, if we have the will to cooperate, to transcend the
>bigotries that confound us, the borders that seperate us, to dare to have
>peace instead of waging war, to share what we have as far as we can give it
>without anyone having to pay for it ( the concept of having to work for one's
>bread is deadly when there is not enough work to go around ), to recognize
>that the most humble peasant in Mexico or India is worth more to us than
>the President of the US or the Queen of England.
MORE NEGATIVE THOUGHTS. IT SOUNDS LIKE THIS INDIVIDUAL MERELY HATES
ANYONE/ANYTHING WHICH IS MORE POWERFUL OR IN A MORE ADVANTAGED POSITION
THAN HIMSELF (TALK ABOUT BIGOTRY!). IF THE "...MOST HUMBLE PEASANT..."
IS IMPORTANT THEN WHY ARE THEY "...WORTH MORE..." THAN ANYONE ELSE? ALSO
THE CONCEPT OF A "FREE LUNCH" WAS PROVEN TO BE TRULY IMPOSSIBLE IN THE
LATE 19TH/EARLY 20TH CENTURY. THERE *IS* ENOUGH WORK TO GO AROUND, IS IT
POSSIBLE THAT SOME PEOPLE HAVE BEEN TAUGHT THAT THEY *DON'T* HAVE TO
WORK, AND THAT *SOMEONE* WILL GIVE THEM THEIR DAILY BREAD? THE WORK
ETHIC IS DYING IN THIS COUNTRY. PEOPLE *WON'T* WORK BECAUSE THEY *FEEL*
THAT THE JOB THEY ARE QUALIFIED FOR IS *BENEATH* THEM! WAKE UP!

>
>If humanity can simply change from mere descendants of carnivorous apes to
>something totally gentle, altrustic, and noble, then Earth will be enough.
>We only try to escape the Earth because we try to escape our own natures.
WE CAN NOT TURN OUR BACK ON OUR HERITAGE. WE ARE CARNIVOROUS APES. WHEN OUR
FOREBEARS BECAME CARNIVOROUS THEIR BRAINS STARTED TO CHANGE. WE ARE THE
PRODUCT OF THAT CHANGE. GENTLE, ALTRUISTIC BEINGS WILL BE CRUSHED BY THE
NATURAL FORCES IN PLACE ON OUR PLANET. STRUGGLE AND HARDSHIP HAVE SHAPED
US. IT IS OUR NATURE TO BE FORCEFUL, BUT WE HAVE THE BRAIN THAT THE OTHER
ANIMALS DON'T HAVE, AND SHOULD CONTROL OUR URGE TO MAKE WAR ON EACH OTHER.
EXPLORATION IS A CONSTRUCTIVE OUTLET FOR THE ENERGY WHICH, WHEN CONFINED,
HAS CAUSED US TO GO TO WAR. SPACE IS, AT LEAST AS FAR AS WE CAN SEE NOW,
THE FINAL FRONTIER. LET US EXPLORE OUR LOCAL PLANETS AND EVENTUALLY OTHER
SYSTEMS. WE CAN EXPAND AND LEARN. WE DON'T TRY TO ESCAPE OUR OWN NATURE.
WE ARE CURIOUS. WE MERELY WANT TO KNOW WHAT IS OVER THE NEXT HILL.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 25 Feb 86 11:52:15 EST
From: bellcore!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!mrlguest@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Mike Young)
To: inuxc!space
Subject: Re: Live on TV
Newsgroups: net.space
In-Reply-To: <[MC.LCS.MIT.EDU].827198.860222.KFL>
Organization: Purdue Engineering Computer Network, West Lafayette, IN

In article <[MC.LCS.MIT.EDU].827198.860222.KFL> you write:
>    From: pur-ee!ecn-pc!wdm@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Tex)
>
>       If I recall correctly, the Apollo One Crew did not die "live on TV,"
>       and the conscience of the nation was still raised.
>
>  Neither did the Challenger crew.  The launch was not covered live on
>any broadcast TV network.
>								...Keith

You may not consider it a "broadcast network", but I did see the
launch live on CNN.

------------------------------

Date: 25 Feb 86 11:35:09 PST (Tuesday)
From: Ayers.PA@xerox.com
Subject: Re: "zillion fatal doses of Plutonium"
To: Space@s1-b.arpa

Please let's stop the "zillion fatal doses of Plutonium" non-science
nonsense in the space digest. 

Slocum@hi-multics.arpa writes that

    This orbiter carrys a load of 43 pounds of Plutonium on-board. ... 
    Plutonium is widely felt to be the most poisonous substance
anywhere, 
    even if you disregard the radioactivity.  It has been said that less
    than a pound spread thinly enough could kill every human being. Now,
    imagine the shuttle exploding with this cargo.  Ten miles up. 
    Practically maximum possible dispersion. In the very least, several 
    thousand, perhaps several hundred thousand people would develop 
    cancer and plutonium poisoning.
    
This statement is not science. It fails the basic agree-with-the-data
test.

I pointed out earlier that much much more than 43 pounds of Pu has been
vaporized in the upper atmosphere by A-Bomb tests. "Maximum possible
dispersion" indeed -- we're not talking about a break-apart here, but
genuine vaporization-and-condense-into-tiny-particles.

Slocum states that "in the very least, several thousand ... people would
develop ... plutonium poisoning" from his 43 pounds.  [Even though it
wouldn't be that well dispersed, and would be centered over the Atlantic
ocean.]

If that was true, then the entire state of Nevada's population would be
dead by now from the A-Bomb tests of the 50s and 60s.

------------------------------

Posted-Date: Tue 25 Feb 1986 11:22:10 EST
Date: Tue 25 Feb 1986 11:22:10 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Re: Planet prefixes
To: Kim Althoff <decwrl!pyramid!pesnta!pesnta!kima@ucbvax.berkeley.edu>
In-Reply-To: decwrl!pyramid!pesnta!pesnta!kima's message of Sat, 22 Feb 86 18:18:44 pdt
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa

More on postfixes for orbital terms:

	peribarythron -- closest approach of an orbit to a black hole.

------------------------------

Date:  Tue, 25 Feb 86 11:13 CST
From: Brett Slocum <Slocum.CSCDA@hi-multics.arpa>
Subject:  Re: Uranian poles, etc.
To: space@s1-b.arpa

If you take Earth as an example, the rotational North pole and the
pole above the plane of the planet's orbit are both the same: the
North Pole.  It is interesting to note that the North magnetic pole is
at the South rotational pole.  As one submitter reported, this
orientation switches from time to time.  In fact, if you look at ocean
floor material near the mid-Atlantic ridge, you find alternating bands
of magnetic polarization.  There is one theory of periodic species
extinction that says polarity switches bring on the next round of
extinctions.  This is a theory for mass extinctions in addition to
extra-terrestrial bombardment.

Brett Slocum 
<Slocum.CSCDA\@HI-MULTICS.ARPA>

------------------------------

Posted-Date:  25 Feb 86 11:39 CST
Date:  Tue, 25 Feb 86 11:38 CST
From: Brett Slocum <Slocum.CSCDA@hi-multics.arpa>
Subject:  Re: plutonium
To: space@s1-b.arpa, ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu

    Plutonium is an extremely dangerous poison; it collects
    in the bones and interferes with the production of white
    blood cells.

                     New Columbia Encyclopedia

Just thought you might like some evidence to back up what I said.

Brett Slocum Slocum@HI-MULTICS

------------------------------

Date: 25 Feb 86 22:49:35 GMT
From: brahms!weemba@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Matthew P. Wiener)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Subject: Keeping track of new moons
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

  Is it possible to keep track of the newly discovered Uranian moons?
In particular, did Voyager 2 get enough of an orbit?  Were there
enough recognizable features?  Would the next flyby merely end up
rediscovering them?
  Were there similar problems with the new moons of Jupiter and
Saturn?  They had the advantage of two flybys.  And have they gotten
real names yet?  In other words, was the discussion about naming the
moons moot?
  ucbvax!brahms!weemba	Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720

------------------------------

Date: 23 Feb 86 23:29:32 GMT
From: hplabs!ames!eugene@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Eugene Miya)
Organization: NASA-Ames Research Center, Mtn. View, CA
Subject: Re: Andrew Fine's posting (in some defense)
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Sometimes, reading this net is like listening to the converted
preaching to themselves.  We take ourselves, pretty seriously
at times.  Mr. Fine raised several good points and I've read
several interesting responses.  What did offend me was the way that
several people jumped all over him after ignoring his disclaimer.
I do not propose jumping all over those people.
The real waste happens when all that fingers went up and down.
Permit me to relate a little story.  The time was January 1970
when I presented a report on the future of going into space to
a junior high history class.  This was some months after the
moon landing (remember that?).  I had a lot of flack because I
had believed in space: many of my friends wanted to feed the poor or
end the war in Nam (all noble goals).  A lot of the flack was the
type Mr. Fine brought up.
Someone pointed out this is done every year before Congress.
Rather than just archive tis stuff to tape.  Why don't some of the
readers of the space digest put together a document of the
most asked questions (something like posted to net.general
or was it net.announce?) with some simple answers?
You know someone is going to raise Mr. Fine's questions again in the
future.
It was be a nice gesture of some good writer on the net could
remove the real flames, and collect the justifications posted.
Who know's, someone may have a son or daughter who gets a class
assignment on justifications for space.  This could help.
A series of these summary documents could be a unifying theme
behind a network memory rather than have the network consist of
mere flames.  Perhaps, such a document could be the next justifcation
to appear before Congress?  We could certainly post it every few months
for revision and those uninterested can delete from mail or type
'n' on news software.
I plead "conflict-of-interest" as well as "too busy."  Volunteers?
For the other person who asked why everybody wants to leave
earth: there is certainly a matter of preference here.  What
I am concern with we leave our egos at the door when we leave
this planet.
--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  {hplabs,ihnp4,dual,hao,decwrl,allegra}!ames!aurora!eugene
  eugene@ames-nas.ARPA
	author of that well known cook book
		"To Serve Martians"
		;-)

------------------------------

To: space
Date:    Tue, 25 Feb 86 08:51:08 PST
From: tencati@jpl-vlsi.arpa
Subject: Request for JPL photos


You can send mail (Us Postal) and request photos or information from:

		Jet Propulsion Laboratory
		Public Information Office
		Mail Stop 180-200
		4800 Oak Grove Drive
		Pasadena, Ca.  91109

They have photos and pamphlets *free* for the asking.  They can also send
you a price list for photos and other stuff that is not readily available.


Ron Tencati
Networked Computer Systems Group
JPL-VLSI.ARPA

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #165
*******************


0,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA06070; Wed, 26 Feb 86 23:01:04 PST
	id AA06070; Wed, 26 Feb 86 23:01:04 PST
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 86 23:01:04 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8602270701.AA06070@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #166

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 166

Today's Topics:
	   Re: Why does everyone want to leave this planet?
			 Re: Shuttle Ditching
		    No, we're still going to Venus
		Re: "zillion fatal doses of Plutonium"
				HOTOL
			 Long-Term Viability
		    Re: Scuttle the Space Program?
		Re: Morton-Thiokol Engineering Claims
		    Re: Scuttle the Space Program?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 24 Feb 86 10:41:47 GMT
From: tektronix!orca!kendalla@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Kendall Auel)
Subject: Re: Why does everyone want to leave this planet?
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

I would like to get back home.

------------------------------

Date: 25 Feb 86 00:30:30 GMT
From: hplabsb!bl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Bruce T. Lowerre)
Organization: Hewlett Packard Labs, Palo Alto CA
Subject: Re: Shuttle Ditching
References: <8602121901.AA00467@s1-b.arpa>, <8602151544.AA11436@decwrl.DEC.COM>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> What we SHOULD have done is launched the thing from Texas
> or La to pass OVER the Cape, so that the orbiter could easily glide
> straight to Canaveral after an abort.
> Hindsight sure is 20-20.... mike k
Yes, that would also make it easier to recover all the debris.  The
large wing section would be removed from the school building in Dallas,
the lower fuselage section from the housing development in Phoenix, the
left SRB pieces from the slum in Mexico, and the right SRB from downtown
Flagstaff.

------------------------------

Date: 24 Feb 86 00:36:17 GMT
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!oberon!smeagol!kwan@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Richard Kwan)
Organization: Spacecraft Data Systems, JPL, Pasadena, CA
Subject: No, we're still going to Venus
References: <482@ecn-pc.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>    One source mentions plans for a Venus Orbiting Imaging Radar to be launched
>    in the late 80's and equipped with synthetic aperture radar, capable of 
>    resolving to 100m at the planet surface.  I haven't heard anything about
>    it recently, so I assume it is dead.  
Well, we have been delayed by the loss of the Challenger, but we're
not dead yet.  The Venus Radar Mapper, now renamed Magellan, is a close
relative of the Galileo spacecraft.  (In fact, parts of Magellan will
be built from Galileo spares.)
Launch date:  some time after Galileo (which is now set for June 1987).
-- 
		Rick Kwan
		JPL Spacecraft Data Systems
		sdcrdcf!smeagol!kwan (UUCP)
		ia-sun2!smeagol!kwan@csvax.caltech.EDU (ARPA)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"...jumpin' into hyperspace ain't like dustin' crops, boy."  H. Solo
--------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 26 Feb 86 03:17:56 GMT
From: brahms!desj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (David desJardins)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Subject: Re: "zillion fatal doses of Plutonium"
References: <860225-113525-3597@Xerox>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <860225-113525-3597@Xerox> Ayers.PA@XEROX.COM writes:
>Please let's stop the "zillion fatal doses of Plutonium" non-science
>nonsense in the space digest. 
>
>I pointed out earlier that much much more than 43 pounds of Pu has been
>vaporized in the upper atmosphere by A-Bomb tests. "Maximum possible
>dispersion" indeed -- we're not talking about a break-apart here, but
>genuine vaporization-and-condense-into-tiny-particles.
   While of course this is correct, I do think that there is some possible
danger associated with an explosion on or near the launch pad.  An explosion
ten miles up over the Atlantic is not much of a concern, but it does seem
possible that an explosion on the launch pad could at the least contaminate
the launch area.  Talking about killing several thousand people is absurd,
but I think NASA should at least consider the probable effects of such an
accident...
   -- David desJardins

------------------------------

Posted-Date: Tue 25 Feb 1986 18:30:19 EST
Date: Tue 25 Feb 1986 18:30:19 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: HOTOL
To: space@s1-b.arpa

It looks like BAE will be going public with details on the HOTOL soon.
According to reports in New Scientist and AWST, the vehicle would
begin 19 test flights in 1996 and begin commercial operations sometime
between 1998 and the early 2000's.  Amortizing the airframe over 120
flights and the engines over 60 flights would give the HOTOL an
operating cost of $5.25 million/launch.  Payload size was not stated,
but judging from the illustration the payload bay would be a cylinder
approximately 30 feet long and 18 feet in diameter.

The vehicle would be automated but could carry a manned module in its
cargo bay.  The internal hydrogen tank must be pressurized for
structural integrity, limiting the time the vehicle could spend in
orbit to 50 hours in a continuously illuminated polar orbit (the worst
case).  The vehicle would take off horizontally on a wheeled trolley
and land on skids.  (Landing weight would be much lower than takeoff
weight, since most of the fuel would be gone.)  The vehicle would
breathe air until it reaches 26 kilometers, at this point it would
have burned 18% of its hydrogen and switched over to an onboard oxygen
supply.  It would reach an orbit of 300 kilometers.  Because the
vehicle would be less massive than the shuttle less heat would be
dissipated on reentry, so tiles would not be used.  Instead,
carbon-carbon would be used on high temperature areas and titanium and
nickel sandwich elsewhere.

The designers project a turnaround time of two days.  The vehicle
would operate autonomously in orbit (this sounds dubious) and land
using conventional MLS guidance.

Development cost would be somewhere around $6 billion.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 25 Feb 86 22:28:11 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@mc.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: Long-Term Viability
To: brahms!gsmith@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Cc: KFL@mc.lcs.mit.edu, Space@s1-b.arpa

    From: brahms!gsmith@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Gene Ward Smith)

       I'm confused -- do you have a high faith in scientific and technical
    advancement, or a very low one? It seems you adopt either point of view
    to suit your convenience.

  High technology without space colonization cannot save us.  If we
get all our energy by burning fuels which put carbon dioxide into the
Earth's atmosphere, we can't then simply remove the carbon dioxide
and convert it back into oxygen and carbon.  If we mine all our raw
materials here on Earth, forests and other ecosystems will suffer.  If
our increasing population all lives on Earth, there will be less room
for other creatures.  If all our wastes are left on Earth, we will
have a horrible pollution problem.  This is true no matter how good
our technology.

       Oooh --- it sounds so easy! We'll just roll out to the stars (THATS not
    hard) and live forever. Why do I find it strange to think that if you have
    just proven it impossible to do on the earth, it should be so easy
    somewhere else?

  Nobody said it would be easy.
  It's not a matter of 'somewhaere else' but of 'everywhere at once'.
The solar system alone can support a population of over ten to the
twentieth.  The galaxy, perhaps ten to the thirtieth.

    ... Some of you seem to think you are going to wish yourself to
    Epsilon Eridani. "If you wish upon a star ... "

  Nobody said star travel would be easy.  Just preferable to the
alternatives.
								...Keith

------------------------------

Date: 24 Feb 86 16:57:38 GMT
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA
Subject: Re: Scuttle the Space Program?
References: <932@nmtvax.UUCP>, <1866@jhunix.UUCP>, <877@masscomp.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <877@masscomp.UUCP> ahv@masscomp.UUCP (Tony Verhulst) writes:
>
>Sure.  Just like the future Americans did when indigenous people were
>found on this continent.
	Ah, but why did this happen. I think it was a result of
resource competition between a growing, expanding culture that was
running out of room and another, less aggressive one. In space there
are tow things that will prevent this. Space is *enormous*, so it will
remaoin cheaper to simply go elsewhere than to fight for a very long
time. Second, aliens that like the environment on Pluto would not be
interested in any of the same resources we are, and we would have no
need for anything that they had, so what would there be to fight
about?
-- 
				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)
UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen
ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa

------------------------------

Date: 24 Feb 86 23:22:07 GMT
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!ism780c!tim@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Tim Smith)
Organization: Interactive Systems Corp., Santa Monica, CA
Subject: Re: Morton-Thiokol Engineering Claims
References: <1301@decwrl.DEC.COM>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <1301@decwrl.DEC.COM> eros@chovax.DEC writes:
>
>  In my view, if the situation developed the way the engineers
>  are claiming it did, then they are equally (if not more) culpible
>  than the company executives who signed off on the launch OK and
>  the NASA management who insisted on it, since they KNEW that
>  seven people (more, if an explosion on the pad occurred) and
>  25% of the shuttle fleet were in extreme danger of destruction
>  and they chose not to put their reputations on the line by
>  publicly speaking out against the launch.
This seems unfair to the MT engineers.  Isn't the final decision to
launch made close enough to launch time that it wouldn't do any good
to go to the press?  If it didn't explode, they would probably lose
their jobs.
Also, perhaps they thought they _could_ stop the launch.  I heard 
on the news ( CNN, I think ), that the MT engineer in Florida who 
has to sign the form that says MT approves of the launch refused 
to sign.  If the MT engineers in Utah knew that the guy in 
Florida was on their side, they might have felt that even if they
couldn't convince NASA and MT management to postpone the launch, 
that the fact that they guy in Florida wouldn't sign would stop 
it anyway.  Management was able to send a signature over the 
phone to allow the launch to go on as scheduled.  By this time, 
the MT engineers probably only had time to sit back and watch, 
and hope that nothing happened.  
If all this turns out to be true, some management heads in NASA and MT
will probably be rolling soon ...
-- 
Tim Smith       sdcrdcf!ism780c!tim || ima!ism780!tim || ihnp4!cithep!tim

------------------------------

Date: 24 Feb 86 22:21:15 GMT
From: hplabs!hao!noao!astrovax!elt@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Ed Turner)
Organization: Princeton Univ. Astrophysics
Subject: Re: Scuttle the Space Program?
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Andrew J. Fine writes
>Does humanity (men and women) really *need* to populate space?  Do we really
>need to explore, in person or otherwise, other planets?  Historically, 
...
>The main problem with all of us is we are still essentially barbarians at
>heart.  The Viking who was the explorer was also the Viking that also raped
From net.poems
>FIRST STEPS
> 
>On the cool September morning
>after rain
>in an old house
>shuttered against the unexpected weather
>the baby stands over and again
>and walks and falls.
>Though it is much easier to crawl
>from one point to another, more efficient, safer
>the baby stands over and again
>and walks and falls.
>I see in her how many millions?
>Man must walk, man must raise
>the aristocracy of his hands
>reachers for far, high things,
>man must sieze his Adam.
>On the cool September morning
>with this one gesture the jungle is put by,
>the ritual of our deepest instinct
>repeats itself: the race rises from its knees
>to claim dominion: the baby walks.

I think that this poem both answers Fine's question as stated in the
first excerpt and agrees (in its last line) with his evaluation of our
motives stated in the second excerpt.  It rings true to me.  To make
the same point in prose: Whether we deserve to or not and whether it
is a "good thing" or not, we will surely try to populate space.  Some
think that our success is inevitable, but this is merely hubris in my
opinion.
  Ed Turner
  astrovax!elt

PS - On a side issue, several people have offered the opinion that
dispersal of people throughout the Solar System and/or to the stars
would offer us protection from self-destruction.  Surely this is a
failure of imagination; it seems inevitable to me that our capability
for destruction will grow as fast (faster if history is a guide) as
our other capabilities.  Of course, the time scales may change but
that is a different issue.  I imagine the various historical
colonizers of remote regions of the Earth must have felt that putting
"eggs in a different basket" would guarantee the safety of their
societies in a similar way.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #166
*******************


0,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA06758; Thu, 27 Feb 86 03:00:57 PST
	id AA06758; Thu, 27 Feb 86 03:00:57 PST
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 86 03:00:57 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8602271100.AA06758@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #167

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 167

Today's Topics:
		 Re: Re: Side comment on the disaster
       Re: Soviet permanently manned station (request for info)
			    Re:  loncrete
		       Re: Scuttle the Shuttle?
			  Re: Halley's Comet
			Re: rescue capability
			     Re: HOTOL ?
		       Re: Long-Term Viability
		    Animal reproduction in space?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 25 Feb 86 04:29:29 GMT
From: hplabs!hao!noao!astrovax!wls@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (William L. Sebok)
Organization: Princeton Univ. Astrophysics
Subject: Re: Re: Side comment on the disaster
References: <2803@amdahl.UUCP>, <740@astrovax.UUCP>, <484@ecn-pc.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Some context (attempting to edit it down to size):
In article <2803@amdahl.UUCP> ems@amdahl.UUCP (E. Michael Smith) writes:
>>How you gonna bring back that locomotive sized payload when you
>>want to fix it, retire it, analyse it, sell it, etc. if you don't have
>>a nice big cargo bay to put it in?
In article <740@astrovax.UUCP> I reply:
)It seems that we eventually need a small payload launch system and a large
)payload launch system (and even further down the road a spectrum of launch
)system sizes).
And in article <484@ecn-pc.UUCP> wdm@ecn-pc.UUCP (Tex) writes:
>   You didn't answer the question - what do you do when it is time to bring
>   back something large?
  You use the large payload launch system.  I spoke of having both
available.  Of course, I was speaking of an ideal world where
development costs are already paid, but it seems that we will
eventually want to to go in the direction of more than one size of
launch vehicle (just as other forms of transportation have done).

)One doesn't always need an 18 wheel truck to carry something that would fit
)in the trunk of your small car.
>   There are few items of interest in LEO that would
>   fit in the trunk of a small car.
  I was making an analogy.  The proper spectrum of launch vehicle
sizes would best be determined from the spectrum of payload sizes.

) Reusability is (to some extent) a separate issue: it would be
) nice if the the small payload lauch system were reuseable.  The small
) launch system could either be unmanned or have a single pilot.
>   Reuseabiltiy is a critical issue because
>   it is tied so closely to cost.  I also disagree that a small payload 
>   launch system is the way to go - once you start putting the mass of a
>   launcher into orbit, the incremental cost of additional payload is small-
>   Putting a several thousand pound launcher into orbit to deliver a one 
>   hundred pound payload does not make any sense. 
  At any time a hardnosed look at the economics must be made. At some
point the cost saving of not having to rebuild the whole vehicle
balances the cost of launching the mass of the vehicle.  This point
may change in time as we progress up the learning curve.  In the mean
time there are 2 more advantages to having a small launch vehicle
available 1) if it is manned more experience with manned launches
could be had under different conditions than that of the large
vehicles, 2) manned or unmanned our ability in space wouldn't be so
dependent on the well-being of few large launchers.  Since the small
vehicles would presumably be cheaper to build than the large vehicles,
one could build more of them and the loss of one would be less of a
disaster.

Bill Sebok			Princeton University, Astrophysics
{allegra,akgua,cbosgd,decvax,ihnp4,noao,philabs,princeton,vax135}!astrovax!wls

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 25 Feb 86 06:05:19 PST
From: sdcsvax!sally.UCSD.EDU!loral!pavo@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (james mees)
To: space@sdcc6.acc
Subject: Re: Soviet permanently manned station (request for info)

watch the next issue of aviation week (if you can get it), because it
will no doubt as usual contain more technical details than one is
likely to get out of the 'popular media'.  if you are interested in
the technical details of space and how/what/why we're doing there,
this magazine is an absolute requirement.

		jim

------------------------------

Date: 21 Feb 86 20:41:58 GMT
From: decvax!linus!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Subject: Re:  loncrete
References: <8602031911.AA16591@ji.berkeley.edu>, <6361@utzoo.UUCP>,, <855@lanl.ARPA>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> >... the engineering was done, but is now GONE.  We could not build a
> >Saturn V today:  all the specialized tooling is gone, and so are most of
> >the detailed plans and specifications.  ...
> 
> Why build another Saturn V at all?  Put a Lunar Lander and Lunar Orbiter
> into the Space Shuttle cargo bay.  Next flight - bring up a trans lunar
> booster.  Now dock the things together and go to the moon.  This stuff
> probably wouldn't even fill the whole cargo bay - even if it were roomier
> and more comfortable (and could stay on station longer) than the original
> Apollo stuff.
Of course, we'd use the Shuttle rather than re-building the Saturn V.
But my comments apply equally to the Lander -- note that the Apollo LM
development was a major pacing element in the whole program -- and the
other pieces of hardware you describe.  None of it exists in any form,
unless the Centaur G-prime would do for the booster (but as far as I
know it isn't man-rated, which is an issue).
> We could go to the moon again in much less than five years if it were
> an important project that got fully funded...
If it were a desperate-priority military project, maybe.  Not otherwise.
Project Apollo needed nearly the full time span between early planning
and Apollo 9 to get the Lunar Module designed and built.  And this was
with much simpler and more flexible management than it would have today.
There is less uncertainty about lunar conditions now, but that only helps
a little.  "much less than five years"!?!  What have you been smoking? :-)
NASA can't get *anything* major built in much less than five years.
> ...  We could not build a Wright Flier today either, but who
> would want to except as a historical exercise?  We could build something
> that would look a lot like a Wright Flier... it would
> be safer, with modern materials, more subtile and efficient airfoil, etc..
It would also cost many times as much and take longer to develop and test.
Especially if it was done by the government.  That is exactly the problem.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 21 Feb 86 20:46:11 GMT
From: decvax!linus!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Subject: Re: Scuttle the Shuttle?
References: <860208164138.380195@HI-MULTICS.ARPA>,, <175@alliant.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> You know, I've just had a thought. We don't need people on Earth.
> Why don't we replace all of them with robots? (:-)
As one of the panelists (sorry, I've forgotten who) at Boskone this year
observed:
	"When James van Allen starts using robots instead of graduate
	students in his own lab, then maybe I'll believe him!"
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 21 Feb 86 22:49:44 GMT
From: decvax!linus!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Subject: Re: Halley's Comet
References: <860205154812.158427@HI-MULTICS.ARPA>,, <405@3comvax.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> *Science 85* last year mentioned that in Edmund Halley's time
> people frequently spelled things phonetically and that Halley
> himself usually spelled his name "Hawley."  Thus we know that
> the descendant of Halley you heard is quite correct, and that
> Edmund Halley did, in fact, pronounce his name as "Hawley."  
  The JBIS special issue on Halley's Comet, which has been reviewed as
"a better overview than most of the Halley's Comet books", observes
that Halley's name was spelled in several different ways even at the
time, and that there is no longer any way to be absolutely sure just
how it was pronounced.  Reports from his descendants carry no special
weight, because the pronunciation of ordinary names changes too.  I
believe JBIS did say that "Hawley" is rather more likely to be
correct, though.

				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 23 Feb 86 01:12:49 GMT
From: decvax!linus!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Subject: Re: rescue capability
References: <8602170318.AA25485@s1-b.arpa>, <8602181610.AA02089@mitre-bedford.ARPA>,, <611@smeagol.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>     1.	Does the shuttle orbiter utilize the same docking collar
> 	specifications as Apollo?
No, a shuttle carrying a docking system (none have so far, for lack of
need) would use the international standard docking system, agreed on
between the US and USSR some years ago.	 I believe it's pretty much the
same as the one the Soviets use right now.
>     2. Was much thought given to the possibility of a stranded shuttle?
> 	I presume launching a second shuttle was an option...
That's why the shuttle carries "beach ball" rescue spheres for those
astronauts not fitted for space suits.  You'd need a lot of luck in the
timing, unless launch rate really picks up from the 1985 experience, though.
Right now (ignoring the suspension of launches since the Challenger disaster)
the odds of a second shuttle being ready in time aren't good.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 23 Feb 86 01:07:24 GMT
From: decvax!linus!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Subject: Re: HOTOL ?
References: <392@watdragon.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>    I recently read about the plans for a british "spaceplane" called HOTOL.
> Do the U.S. and/or U.S.S.R. have similar plans for a "spaceplane"...
The US is certainly studying the idea, under various names.  The USSR
presumably is too.  By the way, there is no commitment to HOTOL; it is
merely a proposal right now.
> Also, doesn't it make more sense to not build another shuttle, but instead
> design and build a spaceplane which would (seem to) be a lot safer.
					    
Rather than buy the terminal you typed that on, Waterloo obviously should
have waited ten years to buy a bitmapped graphics terminal.  It would have
been so much better to use.  Of course, that does mean that you'd have a
little trouble typing in any news for the intervening ten years.  That is
the sort of tradeoff you are proposing.	 Still think it's a good idea?
By the way, the idea that the spaceplane would be safer is curious.  What
makes you say that?  If anything, it might be less safe -- getting into
orbit without any staging or drop tanks is difficult, and is at the very
limit of practicality.  That means rather small margins.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

To: brahms!gsmith@ucbvax.berkeley.edu, space@mc.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Long-Term Viability
Date: 26 Feb 86 00:11:52 PST (Wed)
From: jef@lbl-rtsg.arpa

In regard to Mr. Gene Ward Smith's flaming response to my essay
on long-term viability...

Mr. Smith repeatedly and completely misses the entire point about
colonizing the stars.  He seems to think that all of humanity will
move en masse from Sol system to some other star, then settle in as
a single-planet species again.  I'm not going to bother pointing out
what a silly idea this is.

Mr. Smith says I'm wrong about the Earth going into an irreversable
inorganic greenhouse effect in only 100 million years.  Well, if
Mr. Smith's message had been about differences of scientific opinion,
then I would have been happy to supply references supporting my view.
Unfortunately, Mr. Smith's message was about flaming.

Mr. Smith says he is confused about whether I have a high faith in
science and technology, or a low one.  My message did not contain
anything about faith, since I have none in anything.  I submit that
Mr. Smith is merely confused.

Mr. Smith also advises me to learn some astronomy.  Well Mr. Smith,
I took my first astronomy course in 1973.  I was teaching astronomy
a year later.  What were you doing in 1973, Mr. Smith?

If I was into giving advice, I might advise Mr. Smith to learn some
manners.  A little spelling and punctuation practice wouldn't hurt
either - ambulence?  thats?

I might also advise Mr. Smith that it's considered polite to give
proper credit for quotes.  The quote Mr. Smith closed his message
with, "There are no differences but differences of degree between
degrees of difference and no difference", was penned by William Blake
after a trip on nitrous oxide.  I'm not sure what Mr. Smith was
trying to tell us with this quote - maybe that he wrote his message
while on drugs?  I would not be surprised.

Mr. Smith and I agree on one thing - that net.space contains a lot
of bull.  But he picked the wrong message to use as an example.  He
should have looked closer to home...
---
Jef

------------------------------

Date: 24 Feb 86 14:27:30 GMT
From: decvax!ittatc!bunkerb!pop@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Paul Pederson)
Subject: Animal reproduction in space?
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

  Where might I find information on experiments which have or will
take place regarding animal sexual reproduction processes in
zero-gravity and/or in space?
  Specifically, what are the problems (if any) of fertilization
without gravity, and do the eggs develop normally within the body?  It
would seem that the offspring would perhaps be more evenly developed
without the effects of gravity.  Is this so?  It would also seem that
there might potentially be a problem with the fertilized egg attaching
itself to the uterin wall, or doesn't weightlessness have an effect on
this?  How about birth itself?  With the absence of gravity, does the
birth take place faster?  (May seem like a silly question, but think
about it for a short while, and it may not seem so silly after all.)
  I would think that these, and other questions regarding reproduction
have already been addressed.  Naturally, if there is a desire to
establish long-term colonies in space or on planets with gravity pull
greater/lesser than earth, then experiments on reproduction would
naturally be a requirement.  There are many questions about this
subject which keep bouncing around in my head.  Any good sources for
answers to these questions?

-Paul Pederson    ..!ittatc!bunker!bunkerb!pop

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #167
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA07538; Thu, 27 Feb 86 07:01:00 PST
	id AA07538; Thu, 27 Feb 86 07:01:00 PST
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 86 07:01:00 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8602271501.AA07538@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #168

*** EOOH ***
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 86 07:01:00 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #168

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 168

Today's Topics:
		       Re: Long-Term Viability
	Re: Long-Term Viability - slight irrelevant correction
		       pls add me to your list
		Going to space vs. feeding the hungry
		Re: "zillion fatal doses of Plutonium"
			    Re: Live on TV
		    World Commentary on Challenger
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 26 Feb 86 11:17:05 GMT
From: brahms!gsmith@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Gene Ward Smith)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Subject: Re: Long-Term Viability
References: <37378.509789512@lbl-rtsg.arpa>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <37378.509789512@lbl-rtsg.arpa> jef@LBL-RTSG.ARPA writes:
>In regard to Mr. Gene Ward Smith's flaming response to my essay
>on long-term viability...
   It *was* excessively rude. Sorry about that.
>Mr. Smith repeatedly and completely misses the entire point about
>colonizing the stars.  He seems to think that all of humanity will
>move en masse from Sol system to some other star, then settle in as
>a single-planet species again.  I'm not going to bother pointing out
>what a silly idea this is.
   Don't bother, that isn't what I thought.
>Mr. Smith says he is confused about whether I have a high faith in
>science and technology, or a low one.  My message did not contain
>anything about faith, since I have none in anything.  I submit that
>Mr. Smith is merely confused.
   I submit that the highly emotional tone of both your original posting
and this response shows that my analogy does have some degree of appositeness.
I propose, and am quite serious about this, that there is a kind of hysterical
quasi-religious cult feeling about some of the postings to this newsgroup (a
minority, I should hasten to add).
>Mr. Smith also advises me to learn some astronomy.  Well Mr. Smith,
>I took my first astronomy course in 1973.  I was teaching astronomy
>a year later.  What were you doing in 1973, Mr. Smith?
    I have also taught astronomy, although I am not an astronomer. I
thought *and still think* that Mr. Jef's remarks about Sirius were
preposterous. Incidently, in 1956 at the age of eight I became the
youngest member of the Minneapolis amateur astronomy club. Where were
you in 1956? This kind of argument is silly.
>If I was into giving advice, I might advise Mr. Smith to learn some
>manners.  A little spelling and punctuation practice wouldn't hurt
>either - ambulence?  thats?
   My manners are bad; so is my spelling. On the other hand, the "when in
doubt, attack the spelling" school of argument is worse than my spelling.
>I might also advise Mr. Smith that it's considered polite to give
>proper credit for quotes.  The quote Mr. Smith closed his message
>with, "There are no differences but differences of degree between
>degrees of difference and no difference", was penned by William Blake
>after a trip on nitrous oxide.  I'm not sure what Mr. Smith was
>trying to tell us with this quote - maybe that he wrote his message
>while on drugs?  I would not be surprised.
   First the spelling, then the signature file?  If you want, I'll send
you pictures of my mother's dog and you can tell the whole network how
ugly it is.
   I thought the quote was funny. I also thought it was by Aldous Huxley,
but wasn't sure. Hence my lack of attribution. The emotional tone of this
paragraph and your entire response (as well as the posting I originally
responded to) illustrate the point I am trying to make. I believe this
is a technical issue in a newsgroup that should be devoted to such issues.
Your effusions do not seem to me to be well thought out.
>
>Mr. Smith and I agree on one thing - that net.space contains a lot
>of bull.  But he picked the wrong message to use as an example.  He
>should have looked closer to home...
Siriusly?
ucbvax!brahms!gsmith    Gene Ward Smith/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720
ucbvax!weyl!gsmith      "DUMB problem!! DUMB!!!" -- Robert L. Forward

------------------------------

To: brahms!gsmith@ucbvax.berkeley.edu, space@mc.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Long-Term Viability - slight irrelevant correction
Date: 26 Feb 86 11:26:32 PST (Wed)
From: jef@lbl-rtsg.arpa

    Date:  26 Feb 86 00:11:52 PST (Wed)
    From:  Jef Poskanzer <jef>
    Subject:  Re: Long-Term Viability
    To:  brahms!gsmith@Berkeley.ARPA, space@mit-mc.arpa
			   ... The quote Mr. Smith closed his message
    with, "There are no differences but differences of degree between
    degrees of difference and no difference", was penned by William Blake
    after a trip on nitrous oxide.

Let me be the first to point out that the quote actually came from
William JAMES, not Blake.
---
Jef

------------------------------

Return-Path: <zimmer@lll-tis-a>
Date: Wed Feb 26 18:12:02 1986
From: zimmer@lll-tis-a.arpa (Mark Zimmermann)
Subject: pls add me to your list
To: space@mc.lcs.mit.edu
Cc: supercomputer-request@nyu.arpa

Please add me to your list ... "zimmer@lll-tis" ... tnx!  ^z

------------------------------

Date: Wed 26 Feb 86 21:30:58-PST
From: Lynn Gazis <SAPPHO@sri-nic.arpa>
Subject: Going to space vs. feeding the hungry
To: space@mc.lcs.mit.edu

Were this a different news group, I would argue against the person
who has suggested that people are unemployed because they are unwilling
to work and think the jobs they are qualified for are beneath them.
Since that strays too much from the topic at hand, I will only say
that people who think we should redirect the money we spend on the
space program to feeding the hungry will be more convinced if we
show them why space exploration is a worthy goal than if we say
they are wrong to want to feed the hungry (though in some cases they
may be wrong about what is the best long-term solution to problems
of hunger).  Myself, I care a lot about feeding the hungry and housing
the homeless, but I feel that doing it at the expense of valuable
research is like eating our seed corn.

Lynn Gazis
sappho@sri-nic
-------

------------------------------

Date:  Wed, 26 Feb 86 23:39 CST
From: Brett Slocum <Slocum.CSCDA@hi-multics.arpa>
Subject:  Re: "zillion fatal doses of Plutonium"
To: space@s1-b.arpa

I'm sorry but this is not "non-science nonsense".

A previous message addressed the dispersal question.  I remember hearing
during the news coverage that the shuttle blew up with a force of about
a kiloton.  Add whatever you want for the Centaur Upper Stage.
Certainly that should be ample to pulverize a significant portion of the
43 pounds.  (BTW, Ulysses had about 25 pounds too.)  Give me a break,
the biggest piece to survive was a 12 foot piece of the airframe, (as I
recall).

> If that was true, the the entire state of Nevada's population would be
> dead by now from the A-Bomb tests of the 50's and 60's.

There is a BIG difference between low altitude atmospheric testing and
10 miles up.  The winds at that level or anywhere in between are
significant.  Particles released at this level could remain airborne for
a long time, perhaps circumnavigate the globe.  In the shuttle disaster,
the big pieces did come down mostly in the ocean over a ten mile radius.
Who knows where the little pieces came down, or whether they even have
come down yet.

The population density within a 50 mile radius of Cape Canaveral (or 10
miles downrange, even over the ocean) is an awful lot higher than the
Nevada Test Range.  Also, I recall that there is a higher than average
cancer rate in Nevada.  I thought I was being pretty conservative by
saying "several thousand, perhaps several hundred thousand".

None of this adds up to conclusive proof of anything (I never intended
to present a formal scientific proof), but by that same reasoning, the
tobacco companies still insist that there is no conclusive proof that
smoking tobacco causes lung cancer.

Brett Slocum <Slocum at HI-MULTICS.ARPA>

------------------------------

Date: 24 Feb 86 17:38:24 GMT
From: ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtgzy!ecl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (e.c.leeper)
Subject: Re: Live on TV
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> > > some of us are wondering why you have to die live on TV
> > 
> > If I recall correctly, the Apollo One Crew did not die "live on TV,"
> 
> Neither did the Challenger crew.  The launch was not covered live on
> any broadcast TV network.
But it was carried by CNN (I believe).  Broadcast TV is not the be-all and
end-all of TV.
					Evelyn C. Leeper
					...ihnp4!mtgzz!ecl
					(or ihnp4!mtgzy!ecl)

------------------------------

Date: 24 Feb 86 16:59:14 GMT
From: ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtgzy!ecl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (e.c.leeper)
Subject: World Commentary on Challenger
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

The following quotes regarding the Challenger from around the world are
courtesy of WORLD PRESS REVIEW:
AUSTRALIA: The Australian, Sidney:
	"The quest for knowledge, the journeys into space, must go on."
BRAZIL: Jornal do Brasil, Rio de Janeiro:
	"The expansion of mankind's frontiers transcends nationalities.
	... Science has claimed new martyrs ... but it is certain that
	the project will continue."
CANADA: Toronto Star, Toronto:
	"The ill-fated flight of the Challenger shocked the world....
	We mourn the deaths of Challenger's crew.  And we look to the
	future."
EGYPT: Al-Ahram, Cairo:
	[the space program] "will not be halted, [particularly considering
	that the Soviet Union is believed to be] preparing a major space
	operation."
FRANCE: La Monde, Paris:
	"The [seven crew members] were crusaders for the cause of progress."
GERMANY: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Frankfurt:
	"The debate over the costs and value of space travelm including
	its military uses, will be open and heated.  But the catastrophe
	has displayed the best trait of the American national character:
	intrepidness."
GERMANY: General-Anzeiger, Bonn:
	"Space-flight euphoria has been dampened.  What may affect Western
	Europe is that ... establishing a perfect anti-missile system in
	space has become ... more questionable."
GREAT BRITAIN: The Economist, London:
	[urges] "a bold new plan for exploration ... using unmanned
	spacecraft to visit Mars and ... robots to go beyond."
GREAT BRITAIN: The Economist, London:
	"The symbolism of the enterprise [and] the publicity of the
	tragedy have combined to deal a bad blow to the American people."
HONG KONG: South China Morning Post, Hong Kong:
	"Let us ... tell America there can be no turning back."
INDIA: Indian Express, New Delhi:
	"The accident has doubtless delivered a major blow to the U.S.
	space program.  [The tragedy] underlines the importance of
	keeping the space program ... peaceful.... Militarization of
	space could have consequences infinitely more disastrous."
INDIA: Times of India, New Delhi/Bombay:
	"The death of the seven ... is by far the worst tragesdy since man
	first put a satellite in orbit."
IRELAND: Irish Times, Dublin:
	"Is it possible that this sense of confidence led to some loss of
	vigilance?"
ISRAEL: Ha'aretz, Tel Aviv:
	"The blast is a brutal expression of the trial-and-error process
	in space.  Strolls on the moon and the repair of satellites have
	become so commonplace that ... the reality that this is only the
	beginning of the road is not easily accepted."
ISRAEL: Ha'aretz, Tel Aviv:
	"One question especially emerges--that of the Strategic Defense
	Initiative ("Star Wars")....  The Challenger disaster already has
	served Mikhail Gobachev in his campaign against it."
ITALY: La Repubblica, Rome:
	"Despite President Reagan's promise that 'the journey will
	continue,' there is strong fear that the Challenger may be ...
	what the Hindenberg was ...: a death certificate."
ITALY: La Stumpa, Turin:
	"The dream of an American reaching for space does not end in the
	burning wreckage of the Challenger."
JAMAICA: Sunday Gleaner, Kingston:
	"This has not been a purely American tragedy but one in which
	the world has shared."
JAPAN: Asahi Shimbun, Tokyo:
	"The Challenger disaster came as a shocking reminder that space
	exploration has yet to become routine."
JAPAN: Mainichi Shuimbun, Tokyo:
	"the worst accident in the history of space development."
QATAR: Gulf Times, Doha:
	"The Challenger disaster is catastrophic not only for the U.S. but
	also for universal man."
SAUDI ARABIA: Arab News, Jidda:
	"... a devastating setback for NASA."
SOUTH AFRICA: The Citizen, Johannesburg:
	"Space travel has been reduced to human terms."
SOUTH KOREA: Korea Herald, Seoul:
	"We are sure that this tragedy will not deter the U.S. in its
	quest to explore the universe.  The American pioneer spirit
	certainly will [prevail]."
SOUTH KOREA: Kyunghyang Shinmun, Seoul:
	[the disaster] "will hurt the American people's sense of honor
	and deal them a psychological blow."
USSR: Izvestia, Moscow:
	"The American masses continue to grieve for those who perished.
	But the businessmen associated with the shuttle program are
	pondering how to avoid losing their planned profits."
USSR: Pravda, Moscow:
	"In each of us that flaming column, carrying away the lives of
	seven valient persons, left a deep pain in the soul."
					Evelyn C. Leeper
					...ihnp4!mtgzz!ecl
					(or ihnp4!mtgzy!ecl)

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #168
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA00365; Thu, 27 Feb 86 19:01:21 PST
	id AA00365; Thu, 27 Feb 86 19:01:21 PST
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 86 19:01:21 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8602280301.AA00365@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #169

*** EOOH ***
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 86 19:01:21 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #169

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 169

Today's Topics:
		     Re: laser powered spacecraft
			 Re: Olber's paradox
			    Re: plutonium
			       Voyager
		      Re: "non-science nonsense"
 Slightly nasty reply to flip anti-space message, bear with me please
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 26 Feb 86 20:04:14 GMT
From: hplabs!amdahl!drivax!holloway@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Bruce Holloway)
Subject: Re: laser powered spacecraft
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

There was also a laser propelling a light-sailed spacecraft in
Dr. Robert Forward's book, "Flight of the Dragonfly". Seemed reasonable
at the time.
-- 
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Whatever I write are not the opinions or policies of Digital Research, Inc.,|
|and probably won't be in the foreseeable future.                            |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Bruce Holloway
....!ucbvax!hplabs!amdahl!drivax!holloway
(I'm not THAT Bruce Holloway, I'm the other one.)

------------------------------

Date: 26 Feb 86 19:55:07 GMT
From: hplabs!amdahl!drivax!holloway@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Bruce Holloway)
Subject: Re: Olber's paradox
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <8602210943.AA05597@s1-b.arpa> REM%IMSSS@SU-SCORE.ARPA writes:
>(If the number of the Fixt Stars were more than
> finite, the whole superficies of their apparent light would be infinite)
>
>M> Date: Fri, 14 Feb 86 09:53:56 PST
>M> From: mcgeer%ji@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Rick McGeer)
>M> Of course, the solution to the above paradox is that the universe
>M> expands, and hence the light from the furthest galaxies is redshifted,
>M> asymptotically to invisibility, and hence the total illumination of
>M> the sky is finite.
>
>Not quite correct, "A" (not "the") solution.
>
>Here's another, not needing redshift, nor even expansion although
>needing finite time: It's been a finite time since the Universe
>started, thus stars have burnt for only a finite time. Looking back in
>time, we see the complete life history up to the present for nearby
>stars, but only the early parts for stars further away because more
>recent life history hasn't had time to be transmitted to us at the
>speed of light. What we observe is a cone of space-time extending back
>to the origin of the Universe, a cone of finite space-time volume thus
>having only a finite amount of star*years of light-emitting, thus
>having only a finite total amount of light we can see. Therefore, even
>ignoring inverse-square dimming and redshift dimming, we have a finite
>total amount of light in the night sky. The inverse-square and
>redshift merely decrease an already-finite amount of light by orders
>of magnitude.
Another solution (maybe): All stellar objects tend to "clump" into
solar systems, galaxies, clusters, ad infinitum. So instead of spreading
evenly throughout the sky, we just see light from these collections, the
scope of said clumps depending on how far away the object(s) is/are.
-- 
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Whatever I write are not the opinions or policies of Digital Research, Inc.,|
|and probably won't be in the foreseeable future.                            |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Bruce Holloway
....!ucbvax!hplabs!amdahl!drivax!holloway
(I'm not THAT Bruce Holloway, I'm the other one.)

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 27 Feb 86 11:40:06 EST
From: ulysses!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!wdm@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Tex)
To: pur-ee!space
Subject: Re: plutonium
Newsgroups: net.space
In-Reply-To: <860225173815.083415@HI-MULTICS.ARPA>
Cc: 

In article <860225173815.083415@HI-MULTICS.ARPA> you write:
>
>    Plutonium is an extremely dangerous poison; it collects
>    in the bones and interferes with the production of white
>    blood cells.
>
>                     New Columbia Encyclopedia
>
>Just thought you might like some evidence to back up what I said.
>
>Brett Slocum Slocum@HI-MULTICS

   I, for one, would like some information to back up what you said.  Please
   supply it at your convenience.

   If you think this Encyclopedia reference backs you up, I am afraid you
   are mistaken.  Look up arsenic and then determine how many TONS of the
   stuff is sprayed on crops every year.  You will find that several
   thousand people have been "poisoned" but have not had the decency to die
   yet.

------------------------------

Date:         Thu, 27 Feb 1986 14:03 EST
From: Eric Freeman and Beth Robson
  <CN0001ER%UKCC.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu>
Subject:      Voyager
To: Jpl and all others who what to Comment <SPACE-INCOMING@s1-b.arpa>


            A Few questions to JPL about the Voyager SpaceCraft
            ---------------------------------------------------

The following questions are on the Voyager Computer Systems, both on
the SpaceCraft and the support systems on the ground.  We donot claim to
be experts of any type on the Voyager so please correct us were
applicable.

   From press releases the Voyager has 6 onboard systems...What is
   the function of each system and how are they integrated?

   Each Computer load sent to Voyager is said to be 2500/18 bit words.
   How is this load stuctured?  Is this the only changeable part of the
   systems memory (That is besides the data storage area's)?  How is the
   program information written, in Assembler? possibly Fortran? and
   then compiled and dumped to the Voyager in straight machine code?
   What type of system is used at JPL for the software development?
   What are the error checking techniques used with the Voyager
   for the program upload? (Standard parity checking? Some other
   checksum checking?, or is a more exact meathod needed since the
   Voyager program is so vital?)


    And although we will probably think of 100 other questions about
    the Voyager later here are a few other related questions....

     What changes are there in the present day probes such as the
     Galileo?  What are the computer systems on the Pioneer like?
     What is the present status of the Viking Landers, are they still
     "alive" but inactive?  Or is there any projects going on with those
     now?  What is in the future for unmanned space probes?

                            Thanks!
                    Eric Freeman and Beth Robson
                    Computer Science Students
                    University of Kentucky
                    CN0001ER"@UKCC

------------------------------

Date: 27 Feb 86 13:15:18 PST (Thursday)
From: Ayers.PA@xerox.com
Subject: Re: "non-science nonsense"
To: Space@s1-b.arpa

Regarding Mr. Slocum's "I'm sorry but this is not "non-science
nonsense".

Let me conjoin some of his statements 9my caps):

    "I remember HEARING during the news ... with a force of about a
kiloton"
    "that SHOULD be ample to pulverize a significant portion 
       of the 43 pounds"
    "WHO KNOWS where the little pieces came down, or whether  
       they even have come down yet."
    "I thought I was being pretty conservative by saying 
       'several thousand, perhaps several hundred thousand'.
     
Translation: 

    The facts are mostly unknown; I assert that the deaths would be over
10-3.
    
I repeat that this is not science, or reasoning.

Scientific reasoning might be something like this (an artificial line,
since I don't have many facts either):

    200 kilos of Pu were finely dispersed over xxx square kilometers of
Nevada,
      where the population density is ppp.
    Current medicine sets an upper limit of ten extra deaths from this
      contamination.
    We propose to disperse 50 kilos of Pu at a point over the Atlantic
fifty
      miles offshore.
    This is Pu288, rather than Pu289, which makes it ddd times as
deadly.
      [Thanks to dietz@slb-doll.CSNET for pointing this out.]
    We hypothesize the dispersion-into-breathable-dust efficiency of the
      shuttle explosion to be eee.
    We hypothesize a wind pattern of thus-and-so.
    
    Calculating, we discover ....
    
Mr. Slocum did not supply any of this. Yet he made a scientific-sounding
claim, complete with numbers.

Non science.

------------------------------

Date: 1986 February 27 13:17:20 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM@mc.lcs.mit.edu>
To: brahms!gsmith@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Cc: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Slightly nasty reply to flip anti-space message, bear with me please
Sender: REM%IMSSS@su-score.arpa (for undeliverable-mail notifications)
Reply-To: REM%IMSSS@SU-SCORE.ARPA

B> Date: 23 Feb 86 13:58:30 GMT
B> From: brahms!gsmith@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Gene Ward Smith)
B> Subject: Long-Term Viability
B> No matter where we lived, we would be vulnerable.

You obviously didn't listen to the original argument when it was
presented years ago (see some book by Asimov I think on size of
various disasters; anybody recall the name? also see archives of SPACE)
Here it is again: True any single point of life is somewhat as
vulnerable as any other single point. But the purpose in getting into
space isn't to simply move to a point in space and pull up roots from
Earth. The purpose is to spread throughout a wide volume so that a
disaster big enough to destroy all life on Earth is just to small to
destroy all life throughout a vast array of space colonies. Even
having a teensy life in space, in addition to life on Earth, is better
than either alone, because there are modes of disaster that affect one
or the other but not both. But largescale life in space is much better
than being stuck on this itty bitty Earth speck. (Compared to a single
human being, Earth is humungous. Compared the to the disaster we can
create with one thermonuclear war, Earth is a single point in space.)
Remember that it's very easy to kill a single ant, by stepping on it,
but difficult to kill that colony that is dispersed underground that
keeps sending ants one by one into your kitchen. You would have to
spend a lifetime stepping on ants one by one and still you'd never get
them all. If life were dispersed throughout the universe, we could
have thernuclear wars every year and still not stamp out all those
colonies. Thus getting into space on a large scale is a good survival
strategy. Sure there are bigger disasters that can get whole clumps of
colonies in space, but with enough colonies over a large enough
volume, the only disaster that can get them all is the total
destrution of the whole universe, which won't happen for a very long
time if our current theories of cosmology are even approximately correct.

B> A large, space-going cephalopod could come along and eat the whole planet.
B> Get serious (pun intended) Sirius isn't going to blow up. Why don't you 
B> learn some Astronomy if you like space so much? It is very interesting
B> stuff.

Why don't you learn some Astronomy. (Sorry, just retaliating; I could
slightly wrong too, so please anyone who knows better please do
correct any errors I make.) Sirius *is* going to blow up, go supernova
probably, in about 10 million years, long before our Sun goes
red-giant. But probably Sirius and the Sun will have drifted far away
by then. More dangerous are Betelguese and Antares, either of which
could go supernova within the next 1000 years, before they drift too far away.

>Well, we actually don't have very much time at all - 100 years, 200 at the
B> Oh no! An emergency! Call an ambulence!

Are you trying to be an asshole here? Come on, this isn't an
emergency, like within 3 minutes the Earth will die, and nobody said
it was, so what the hell are you trying to get at? Given that it will
take us 50 or 100 years to get fully developed space habitat, we'd
better get working soon if we have only 100 years. Instead of looking
only at emergencies (if it doesn't need to be done this very minute,
then don't make any plans at all, keep putting it off), how about
looking at longrange plans too? If we wait until we have only a week
left to get into space, we aren't going to have enough time. Look at
the 9 years it took just to get a few astronauts on the moon, and an
additional 12 years to get the very first flight of the shuttle. We
have to continue working year by year, not say "well, it doesn't have
to be done yet so let's wait longer". (Ad hominum remark: do you wait
until April 15 before even looking at your income tax forms?)

>Ecotopia can't support five billion people.  Maybe one billion.  That
>means four billion people must die - which is about fifty times more than
>have died in all wars so far combined.
B> And space colonization, even if successful, would not prevent it. Birth
B> control might.

Not clear. If people on Earth are offered a choice, do it the old way
having as many children on Earth as they want, with not enough food
for them, so most will die, or do it a new way, have one child on
Earth and as many as they want in space, with the latter having
abundant room to live and abundant energy and materials for growing
abundant food, we may be able to have birth control on Earth without
people who use that birth control basically dying out by not having
any children anywhere. We may prevent overpopulation of Earth without
simply doing genocide by birth-control on the present Earth population.

B> I'm confused -- do you have a high faith in scientific and technical
B> advancement, or a very low one? It seems you adopt either point of view
B> to suit your convenience.

He's saying that 6E9 people on Earth requires high-tech, which in turn
requires either cheap energy on Earth (read fossil fuels, which can't
last more than 100-200 years) or cheap energy in space (which can last
at least 5 billion years around this star and longer if we move behond).

B> Oooh --- it sounds so easy! We'll just roll out to the stars (THATS not
B> hard) and live forever. Why do I find it strange to think that if you have
B> just proven it impossible to do on the earth, it should be so easy somewhere
B> else?

Because there isn't enough sunlight falling on this teensy itty bitty
speck of planet we call Earth, whereas there's immense sunlight total
emitted by the Sun that we could collect and use if we went out there
and collected it. Work out the trigonometry yourself. The Earth is
8,000 miles in diameter, located 93,000,000 miles from the Sun. What
fraction of the solid angle is occupied by the Earth? I think it's
something like one part in a billion. If solar energy striking Earth
can provide food for 1 billion people (the other 5 billion die of
starvation, and the 1 billion must maintain zero population growt),
total solar energy can provide food for 1,000,000,000 billion people
(6 billion we have now plus 999,999,994 more billion as our population
grows. It's the nine orders of magnitude more energy out there, just
for the Sun, not counting all the 100 billion other stars in the
galaxy, and the billions of other galaxies, that makes longterm life
possible in space and impossible except for the lucky few survivors on Earth.

B> Why is there so much unmitigated bullbleep on net.space?

Come on, the above isn't bull bleep (except for your remarks; sorry
for ad hominum, just retaliating). There are good solid reasons for
getting to space if we want to survive long.

B> Is this some kind of obscure religious cult I haven't heard about?

No, it's just our desire to survive tied with our understanding of our
current situation and of the prognosis based on current scientific
theories. Unless and until science says the Sun isn't getting warmer
or won't go red-giant and will burn forever via some magic
perpetual-motion machine or God's intervention or somesuch. I don't
believe that possible, so I'll stick with current theory that the Sun
won't go on much longer than 5-10 billion years further. If you choose
to ignore science and believe some unsupported view, I'd say it is you
who is following some religious cult.

B> I thought space colonization was a possibility technology could offer
B> us -- if we used our knowledge and planning ability.

It is. That's the point of this mailing list / digest, first decide
what we want to do, long range goals and tasks toward those goals,
then decide how to get those tasks accomplished. So we've been
debating why go into space and on what scale, and how best to get into space.

B> Some of you seem to think you are going to wish yourself to Epsilon
B> Eridani. "If you wish upon a star ... "

I am not aware of anyone on this list who claims just wishing will get
us there. We have been doing a lot more than wishing; brainstorming,
petitioning Congress and President, and some of us are even helping
finance private venture.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #169
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA01118; Thu, 27 Feb 86 23:01:34 PST
	id AA01118; Thu, 27 Feb 86 23:01:34 PST
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 86 23:01:34 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8602280701.AA01118@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #170

*** EOOH ***
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 86 23:01:34 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #170

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 170

Today's Topics:
			    Re: plutonium
	  Re: "At the moment Uranus's south pole points..."
			  Re: Ulysses probe
Re: [decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-chovax!eros@ucbvax.berkeley.edu: Morton-Thiokol Engineering Claims]
			  Re: Ulysses probe
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 27 Feb 86 10:28:00 PST
From: mcgeer%ji@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Rick McGeer)
To: ulysses!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!wdm@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: plutonium
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa

	In "A Step Farther Out" (not fiction) Pournelle gives the lethal doses
of both plutonium and arsenic.  Arsenic has a much smaller lethal dose.

						-- Rick.

------------------------------

From: sdcsvax!sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU!dcdwest!ittatc!decvax!decwrl!glacier!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm@ucbvax.
Return-Path: <ittatc!decvax!decwrl!glacier!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 86 09:12:12 pst
Posted-Date: Thu, 27 Feb 86 09:12:12 pst
To: oliveb!space
Subject: Re: "At the moment Uranus's south pole points..."
Newsgroups: net.space
In-Reply-To: <860217-235409-1418@Xerox>

I believe that north and south poles are defined on the basis of the
direction of rotation.  That pole is the north pole (regardless of
the orientation in which it points) which is the axle of rotation
in the same direction as Earth.  Thus Venus's north pole is defined
to point nearly due south with respect to Earth because its rotation
takes place in the opposite direction.  

Cheers!

Michael McNeil	..!ucbvax!hplabs!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm

	*Salvati*.  Now what shall we do, Simplicio, with the fixed
	stars?  Do we want to sprinkle them through the immense abyss
	of the universe, at various distances from any predetermined
	point, or place them on a spherical surface extending around
	a center of their own so that each of them will be at the
	same distance from that center?  
	*Simplicio*.  I had rather take a middle course, and assign
	them an orb described around a definite center and included
	between two spherical surfaces...  
		Galileo Galilei, 1638, *Dialogues
		Concerning Two New Sciences*

------------------------------

To: space@mc.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Ulysses probe
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 86 20:48:53 -0500
From: James R. Van Zandt <jrv@mitre-bedford.arpa>


>brahms!desj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (David desJardins)
>In article <27219.509662022@csvax.caltech.edu> jon@CSVAX.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>>          Ulysses is a European probe, to  be  launched  from  the  Shuttle,
>>      which will go over one the Sun's poles ...
>>
>>     How can it go over one pole but not both?

It *will* go over both poles.

>   I don't have any idea what these people are talking about.  The whole
>idea is that Ulysses is being launched to rendezvous with Jupiter just
>like Voyager and Galileo, but it will swing around Jupiter and back over
>the solar pole.  Presumably it will then leave the solar system; what
>would cause it to circle around to the other pole??

It can't leave the solar system because it doesn't have enough energy. 
It'll be in an elliptical orbit around the sun like any planet, but the
plane of the orbit will be tilted with respect to the plane of (for
example) the earth's orbit.  If it were easy to supply the delta V to
place the probe far out of the plane of earth's orbit, we wouldn't have
to use Jupiter in the first place.  As it is, Jupiter is a convenient
place to "turn a corner" in space.

I suspect that scientists wanted two probes so they could observe both
poles of the sun *at the same time*.  With only one probe the long
delays that make it difficult to correlate what's seen at the two
poles.  Does anyone know what the period and inclination of the probe's
orbit will be?

          - Jim Van Zandt

------------------------------

Date: Thu 27 Feb 86 13:06:33-PST
From: Tom Garvey <Garvey@sri-ai.arpa>
Subject: Re: [decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-chovax!eros@ucbvax.berkeley.edu: Morton-Thiokol Engineering Claims]
To: WILKINS@sri-ai.arpa, space-incoming@s1-b.arpa
Cc: Garvey@sri-ai.arpa, pmartin@sri-ai.arpa
In-Reply-To: Message from "Wilkins  <WILKINS@SRI-AI.ARPA>" of Thu 27 Feb 86 11:44:58-PST

It seems to me that there are people who get paid to perform analyses
and make recommendations, and there are other, (usually) higher-paid
people who are paid to take analyses and recommendations and make
decisions based upon them.  There is always an element of risk
involved in actually making the decision (that's why they get paid
more!).  To expect the Morton Thiokol engineers to take a
possibly-career-ending action like going to the media with their
doubts and concerns (after all, they didn't KNOW the o-rings would
fail, they thought there was a high probability they would fail) is
expecting a bit too much.  If they had helped the NY Daily News scrub
the mission, no one would ever know whether they were right, lots of
other engineers and bureaucrats would have been "appalled," and their
impact on future decision processes would likely be lessened; if the
mission didn't get scrubbed and was uneventful, they would be the
boys/girls who cried wolf, and they would probably be taken out of the
decision loop altogether (and allowed to seek employment elsewhere);
if they turned out to be right (which, unfortunately, they did), they
are seen to be the geniuses that should have been given the GO/NO-GO
decision in the first place.  As long as there is someone (or -ones)
emplaced to make these decisions, that person should make them,
subject to higher review (until the buck stops).  I suspect that if
the committee to determine the flight-worthiness of the shuttle was
essentially composed of every engineer involved in the program (i.e.,
any one could scrub the mission by going to the media), we would still
be waiting for the first launch (we'd probably still be awaiting the
proper set of conditions at Kitty Hawk, but then no one would have
died in an airplane crash).
	Despite their obvious enjoyment of their role, I'd prefer to see
the media involved in fewer decision processes.

Cheers,
Tom
-------

------------------------------

Date: 28 Feb 86 05:39:39 GMT
From: brahms!desj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (David desJardins)
Subject: Re: Ulysses probe
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <8602280148.AA08000@mitre-bedford.ARPA> jrv@MITRE-BEDFORD.ARPA (James R. Van Zandt) writes:
>>>Ulysses is a European probe, to  be  launched  from  the  Shuttle,
>>>which will go over one the Sun's poles ...
>>>How can it go over one pole but not both?
>
>It *will* go over both poles.
>It can't leave the solar system because it doesn't have enough energy. 
>It'll be in an elliptical orbit around the sun like any planet, but the
>plane of the orbit will be tilted with respect to the plane of (for
>example) the earth's orbit.  If it were easy to supply the delta V to
>place the probe far out of the plane of earth's orbit, we wouldn't have
>to use Jupiter in the first place.  As it is, Jupiter is a convenient
>place to "turn a corner" in space.
>   ...  Does anyone know what the period and inclination of the probe's
>orbit will be?
   While I don't have the information necessary to give a definitive
answer (hopefully someone with better information can do that), I feel
I can add something to the above.  The use of Jupiter is to deal with
momentum problems; in order to pass over the pole of the sun one needs
(1) to cancel the orbital momentum of the Earth and (2) to add momentum
out of the plane of the ecliptic.  Passing around Jupiter is a convenient
way to change the momentum vector in almost any way desired, subject of
course to certain energy constraints.
   Since presumably after the Jupiter encounter the spacecraft will not
pass near any other planets, the path that it takes will be completely
determined by its velocity after the Jupiter encounter.  If its kinetic
energy is greater than the depth of the solar potential well it will
pass by the Sun and follow a hyperbolic path out of the solar system.
If its kinetic energy is below this threshold it will enter an elliptic
orbit (with aphelion at least as far from the Sun as Jupiter and thus a
period of several years) and so eventually will indeed pass over both poles.
   A quick computation (mv^2/2 = GMm/r) gives an escape velocity of about
1.9 x 10^4 m/s, or 11.6 mi/s, which is high but possible.  If Ulysses'
velocity after the Jupiter encounter exceeds this (in any direction) it
will escape.  I think that it will leave the Jupiter encounter at a
*slower* speed than it arrived due to the use of Jupiter to kill its
angular momentum (the opposite of the "slingshot effect"), so it would
have to arrive at a higher velocity.  For comparison, the Earth's orbital
velocity is 3.0 x 10^4 m/s, but of course the spacecraft will lose energy
in moving from Earth's orbit to Jupiter's.
   If anyone does have definitive information (so we can end all of this
silly speculation :-)) the numbers I would most appreciate are the actual
velocity after the Jupiter encounter and the distance the spacecraft will
pass from the solar pole.  But any reliable data would be appreciated.
Thank you...
   -- David desJardins

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #170
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA01965; Fri, 28 Feb 86 03:01:03 PST
	id AA01965; Fri, 28 Feb 86 03:01:03 PST
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 86 03:01:03 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8602281101.AA01965@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #171

*** EOOH ***
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 86 03:01:03 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #171

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 171

Today's Topics:
			 Re: Planet prefixes
			  Sirius Supernova?
			  Re: Ulysses probe
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 25 Feb 86 04:19:19 GMT
From: ihnp4!poseidon!brent@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Brent P. Callaghan)
Subject: Re: Planet prefixes
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

I can remember during the Apollo program that the CSM was
inserted into lunar orbit at "pericynthion".
Now how did Cynthia get into all this...  :-)
-- 
				
Made in New Zealand -->		Brent Callaghan
				AT&T Information Systems, Lincroft, NJ
				{ihnp4|mtuxo|pegasus}!poseidon!brent
				(201) 576-3475

------------------------------

Date: 28 Feb 86 09:56:08 GMT
From: brahms!gsmith@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Gene Ward Smith)
Subject: Sirius Supernova?
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <8602272123.AA08936@s1-b.arpa> REM%IMSSS@SU-SCORE.ARPA writes:
>B> A large, space-going cephalopod could come along and eat the whole planet.
>B> Get serious (pun intended) Sirius isn't going to blow up. Why don't you 
>B> learn some Astronomy if you like space so much? It is very interesting
>B> stuff.
>Why don't you learn some Astronomy. (Sorry, just retaliating; I could
>slightly wrong too, so please anyone who knows better please do
>correct any errors I make.) Sirius *is* going to blow up, go supernova
>probably, in about 10 million years, long before our Sun goes
>red-giant. But probably Sirius and the Sun will have drifted far away
>by then. More dangerous are Betelguese and Antares, either of which
>could go supernova within the next 1000 years, before they drift too far away.
    Please don't apologize for your sarcasm. I like it, because it is the
style I find easiest to use myself. Worry about being polite impedes the
flow of thought.
    Since this has turned into an Astronomy discussion, I am cross-posting
it there. I don't know if you or the first poster are talking about a
type I or type II supernova to start with. Sirius A is about 2.3 solar
masses (all I am saying is off the top of my head, I am hoping the experts
will settle this one) and this is too small for iron core collapse, carbon
detonation, etc. A type I supernova model exists where a dwarf is forced
beyond the Chandresekar limit. Sirius B I recall as 1.05 solar masses, well
below the limit. When Sirius is in its giant stage, it will presumably
give some matter up to Sirius B. If this becomes a big deal, it looks like
the usual nova (not supernova) situation.
   Once more off the top of the old head, I recall Betelguese and Antares
as being both about 400 light years away; hardly close enough to sterilize
the planet Earth or whatever.  Eta Carinae (?) is even closer to supernova.
    Sirius right now is firmly on the main sequence. I think its luminosity
is about 23 times the Sun (which checks with my figure for its mass) and
this would give it one tenth the time of the Sun on the main sequence; i.e.,
about a billion years. How much has gone? I don't know, but why do you
assume most of it? You might think it has picked up some mass from the
giant stage of Sirius B, which would mean it was burning slower before,
and its time on the main sequence far from nearly over.
   My sarcasm in the first posting was caused partly by the fact that the
author seemed to suggest that Sirius was a kind of ticking bomb, sitting
there quietly on the main sequence. What gives with you people making plans
100 or 200 million years in advance, anyway? This is pretty silly, because
there is no way you can even guess about 100 million years from now, and
no way (despite the "Its urgent to do it in 100 or 200 years! Help!") rant
of the article I responded to, to *do* anything sensible in planning for
things 100 million years from now. Grow up, folks!
ucbvax!brahms!gsmith    Gene Ward Smith/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720
ucbvax!weyl!gsmith      "Are you by any chance from South Africa?" - RR

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 27 Feb 86 22:31:16 PST
From: mcgeer%ji@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Rick McGeer)
To: jrv@mitre-bedford.arpa
Subject: Re: Ulysses probe
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa

	When Ulysses is in its cometary orbit, what will be its closest
approach to earth?

						Rick.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #171
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA01203; Fri, 28 Feb 86 23:01:35 PST
	id AA01203; Fri, 28 Feb 86 23:01:35 PST
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 86 23:01:35 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8603010701.AA01203@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #172

*** EOOH ***
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 86 23:01:35 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #172

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 172

Today's Topics:
    Re: Slightly nasty reply to flip message, bear with me please
		Re: "zillion fatal doses of Plutonium"
			    Re: plutonium
		    Comment on this mailing list.
		      Trans Atmospheric Vehicle
			    Re: plutonium
		    Dimitri Simes on Gorbachev...
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 28 Feb 86 11:52:08 GMT
From: brahms!gsmith@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Gene Ward Smith)
Subject: Re: Slightly nasty reply to flip message, bear with me please
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <8602272123.AA08936@s1-b.arpa> REM%IMSSS@SU-SCORE.ARPA writes:
>B> Date: 23 Feb 86 13:58:30 GMT
>B> From: brahms!gsmith@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Gene Ward Smith)
>B> Subject: Long-Term Viability
>B> No matter where we lived, we would be vulnerable.
>
>You obviously didn't listen to the original argument when it was
>presented years ago (see some book by Asimov I think on size of
>various disasters; anybody recall the name? also see archives of SPACE)
    This argument has been around a *lot* longer than you seem to think. 
Any competent sci-fi author could come up with a scenario where going
into space *decreased* survival chances. However, that isn't the point;
it may well be true that space colonization and the attempt to colonize
other star systems will increase long-term viability. What won't do anything
is vauge, ill-considered "planning" concerning events far in a future which
all experience has shown is not that predictable.
>>Well, we actually don't have very much time at all - 100 years, 200 at the
>B> Oh no! An emergency! Call an ambulence!
>
>Are you trying to be an asshole here? Come on, this isn't an
>emergency, like within 3 minutes the Earth will die, and nobody said
>it was, so what the hell are you trying to get at? Given that it will
    My snotty comment was a way (not very good, I guess) of registering
disagreement with the idea "into space in 100-200 years, or not at all".
The logic of this sounded terrible to me.
>to be done yet so let's wait longer". (Ad hominum remark: do you wait
>until April 15 before even looking at your income tax forms?)
   I won't dignify that with a response, since of course it's true.
(Ad hominem remark: never mind.)
>>Ecotopia can't support five billion people.  Maybe one billion.  That
>>means four billion people must die - which is about fifty times more than
>>have died in all wars so far combined.
>B> And space colonization, even if successful, would not prevent it. Birth
>B> control might.
>
>Not clear. If people on Earth are offered a choice, do it the old way
>having as many children on Earth as they want, with not enough food
>for them, so most will die, or do it a new way, have one child on
>Earth and as many as they want in space, with the latter having
>abundant room to live and abundant energy and materials for growing
>abundant food, we may be able to have birth control on Earth without
>people who use that birth control basically dying out by not having
>any children anywhere. We may prevent overpopulation of Earth without
>simply doing genocide by birth-control on the present Earth population.
   Hey, did I get the Pope on this net or what? "Genocide by birth-control?"
If you stop and think a minute, you will realize what population will be
attained if exponential growth at the present rate is continued through
the 5 billion years or more you "plan" on having the human race around.
(Of course, this IS harder than trigonometry.)
>B> Oooh --- it sounds so easy! We'll just roll out to the stars (THATS not
>B> hard) and live forever. Why do I find it strange to think that if you have
>B> just proven it impossible to do on the earth, it should be so easy somewhere
>B> else?
>
>grows. It's the nine orders of magnitude more energy out there, just
>for the Sun, not counting all the 100 billion other stars in the
>galaxy, and the billions of other galaxies, that makes longterm life
>possible in space and impossible except for the lucky few survivors on Earth.
    By the way, I WISH certain people on the net would quit thinking so
much about colonizing superclusters as a serious argument for building
another shuttle.  When you feel an attack like that coming on, get a cold
washcloth, lie down, and put it on your forehead. You'll feel a lot better.
And people won't laugh at you when you say "billllyuns and billllyuns".
>B> Why is there so much unmitigated bullbleep on net.space?
   I really would like an answer to this question. It has begun to 
seriously puzzle me.
 
>Come on, the above isn't bull bleep (except for your remarks; sorry
>for ad hominum, just retaliating). There are good solid reasons for
>getting to space if we want to survive long.
(Ad hominem forgiven)  What solid reasons?  They've sounded like highly
speculative reasons, and calling them solid is bullbleep.
>B> Is this some kind of obscure religious cult I haven't heard about?
>
>No, it's just our desire to survive tied with our understanding of our
>current situation and of the prognosis based on current scientific
>theories. Unless and until science says the Sun isn't getting warmer
>or won't go red-giant and will burn forever via some magic
>perpetual-motion machine or God's intervention or somesuch. I don't
>believe that possible, so I'll stick with current theory that the Sun
>won't go on much longer than 5-10 billion years further. If you choose
>to ignore science and believe some unsupported view, I'd say it is you
>who is following some religious cult.
    Let's clarify the question then.  Is this deep fear of eventual
red-gianthood the basis of some obscure religious cult I haven't heard
about?  To quote Bertrand Russell, "Religion is based, I think, primarily
and mainly upon fear.  It is partly the terror of the unknown....  Fear
is the basis of the whole thing--fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat,
fear of death.... Science can help us to get over this craven fear in
which mankind has lived....  Science can teach us ... no longer to invent
allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to
make this world a fit place to live in...."
>I am not aware of anyone on this list who claims just wishing will get
>us there. We have been doing a lot more than wishing; brainstorming,
>petitioning Congress and President, and some of us are even helping
>finance private venture.
Siriusly?
ucbvax!brahms!gsmith    Gene Ward Smith/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720
        Fifty flippant frogs / Walked by on flippered feet
    And with their slime they made the time / Unnaturally fleet.

------------------------------

Date: 28 Feb 86 03:16:55 GMT
From: nike!topaz!harvard!bu-cs!bzs@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: "zillion fatal doses of Plutonium"
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>Ayers.PA@XEROX.COM writes in reply to fears of plutonium poisoning from
>a space accident:
>If that was true, then the entire state of Nevada's population would be
>dead by now from the A-Bomb tests of the 50s and 60s. 
Perhaps, but surely you've seen the several articles on towns near the
test sites in Nevada where the incidence of leukemia and other cancers
is alarmingly high and attributed to exposures caused by the early tests.
They are certainly not all dead, but I am not sure I envy them.
There seems to be a lot of agreement among the medical community that
there is NO SUCH THING as a safe level of exposure. Why do you flail
against this 'safe' assumption so? It took us 30+ years to accept that
(and still not universally.)
I do not feel comfortable with these people gambling like this with my
future. Perhaps if they would hear us it would motivate research into
safer sources of power for space flights? I believe at this point in
time nuclear fission is the easy way out for such projects. Surely we
can just label it unacceptable and provide funding for those who can
propose plausible alternatives. Fusion, for example, would appear to
be very promising and from friends who work in this area I hear the
funding is barely adequate, I have no idea why as they seem to be making
slow but steady progress and it seems like a wonderful source of power
for all sorts of things.
	-Barry Shein, Boston University

------------------------------

Date:  Fri, 28 Feb 86 08:57 CST
From: Brett Slocum <Slocum.CSCDA@hi-multics.arpa>
Subject:  Re: plutonium
To: space@s1-b.arpa

(Please excuse the mild sarcasm :-)

Since the scientific proof obviously does not exist to back up my
statement, I retract my entire statement.  Plutonium is completely
harmless, and there would be no additional danger in having the shuttle
carrying the Galileo and Ulysses probes explode over the present
explosion.  In fact, a plan has been developed to introduce plutonium
into children's breakfast cereal as a replacement for sugar.

After all, we've been doing this stuff for years and nobody can prove
that anybody has ever died from it.  Therefore, it must not be harmful.

Sincerely,

Brett Slocum

------------------------------

Date:  Fri, 28 Feb 86 09:12 CST
From: Brett Slocum <Slocum.CSCDA@hi-multics.arpa>
Subject:  Comment on this mailing list.
To: space@s1-b.arpa

I was not aware of the requirement for presenting complete scientific
evidence to back up all statements on this mailing list.  I will rectify
this in the future, and I will expect all participates to do likewise.
Thank you.

Brett Slocum

P.S.  Yes, I know.  More Sarcasm.

------------------------------

Date:         Fri, 28 Feb 86 10:34:11 EST
From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Reply-To:  ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA
To: space digest <space@s1-b.arpa>
Subject:      Trans Atmospheric Vehicle
              Interview with Keysworth


     Several people have been asking questions about the "Aerospace
Plane".  I recently read in Physics Today an interview with George
Keyworth II, the outgoing director of OSTP and Reagan's science
advisor, that discussed a lot of this material.
I am posting relevant exerpts herewith.
     Note "Scramjet" means "Supersonic Combustion RAMJET".
The reason Scramjets are a research topic of the 80's, while ramjets
were a topic of the 40's, is that it is much harder to make a ramjet
work without slowing the incoming air down.
                       ---Geoffrey A. Landis, Brown University
                     Reply to: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA

<Exerpts from an interview with George Keyworth II>
--from Physics Today, Feb. 1986

     "Even my concerns, which I think were well known early on,
about whether the space station was being represented in
a candid fashion, are completely withdrawn when I now
see the prospects of reducing the cost of launching
material into space by a factor of 100 or so with an
aerospace plane.  I think such a vehicle suggests a new set of
dimensions for space travel.
     Q: Do you think there's much of a chance of funding such a plane?
     In my years here I haven't seen anything that has received as high
a level of support in such a short period as the aerospace plane.  I
think we'll doubttless proceed with it, flying a prototype in the early
1990's.  The Air Force, DARPA, NASA have all been committed to this
project for several years.  It's not a brand new program.
     Q: Philosophically, though, isn't it the sort of thing this
Administration has opposed--a civilian project funded by Federal
dollars?
     It began in DARPA because it was pertinent to defense.  But it also
has applications for a full spectrum of space capabilities as well as
major importance in commercial air transport.  The commercial aspects
will see large involvement by the private sector.  In a classical sense,
it is a defense spinoff to the civilian community...
...We're talking about an airplane that files at possibly Mach 15 at
altitudes of up to 150,000 feet or more.  We're talking about a plane
with a range virtually unlimited, because it is capable of reaching
space orbit.  It would climb at a high rate, so that the significant
shock distrubance--noise--would be drastically reduced.  Most of all,
there is the possibility--still premature in our thinking--of being cost
effective because it could carry large payloads.
     Q: Are the Soviets working on something like this?
     Not to the best of our knowledge.  I would say that it's fairly
unlikely because of the range of technologies that have come
together--materials, propulsion, design--giving us a rare exponential
opportunity.  There is no single advance or invention involved, like the
transistor, say, but an array of new ideas and technologies... an hour
to Europe from Washington, an hour and a half to Japan.  Incredible!
     Q: What sort of support do you seek from industry?
     Defense and NASA will need to spend $3 billion to $4 billion to
build and fly a prototype in 1991 or so.  By doin that, we will gain a
lot of experience with ultrahigh speeds and the companies in this domain
can then proceed to build commercial aircraft.  Virtually every
aerospace firm in this country, including engine manufacturers, has been
involved in the project for the last three years.  They are all very
excited about it.  Everyone in defense and space sees applications and
opportunities with the aerospace plane.  The only hitch is that there
may be a tug of war over who pays for what...
...the aerospace plane, or as some call it, the TAV, the Trans
Atomopheric Vehicle, is critical if we're to maintain preeminence in
technology, broadly, and aerospace in particular.
Q: can you discuss the President's feelings about ... HST
                            <nb: HST=Hypersonic transport.    --GL>
     A president's job is to make policy.  ...the president has
not been briefed on it yet.  What I'm saying is that Ronald REagan
does not spend a lot of time poring over each item in the federal
budget.... the TAV is only a small part of DARPA, which is in turn a
very small part of Defense.  Neither item is a Presidential priority.
<note by GL: I think that part is slightly dated.>
<the interview goes on to discuss Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, SDI, and other
things.>

     My apologies for any typos.         --GL


     Other comments:
     (1) If Gallileo passes close over the south pole of the sun, and
is in an elliptical orbit crossing Jupiter's orbit, it will be
VERY FAR from the sun when it passes over the north pole (nb. The facts
given are enough to calculate how far, if you assume that Jupiter's orbit
is normal to the polar axis of the sun, but I'm too lazy to do it).

     (2) There are four solutions to the Olber's problem.  (a) The
Universe is finite in space  (b) The universe is finite in time
(c) Some mechanism removes energy from light coming from the farther
stars (eg., redshift)  (d) The universe is hierarchically clumped,
so that the average density of luminous matter approaches zero on
large enough scales

Geoffrey A. Landis, Brown University
Reply to: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 28 Feb 86 11:49:04 PST
From: mcgeer%ji@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Rick McGeer)
To: Slocum.CSCDA@hi-multics.arpa
Subject: Re: plutonium
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa

	An Air Force assesment of a pad explosion carrying Ulysses or Galileo
predicted fatalities in the launch area and substantial contamination of
eastern Florida.  I don't know what the effects of the contamination would
be; I expect they would depend on the winds.  Certainly site fatalities can
be avoided by proper restriction of the area and precautions for those who
must be present.

	Reference is this week's Newsweek.

						-- Rick.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 28 Feb 86 11:58:28 PST
From: mcgeer%ji@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Rick McGeer)
To: info-cobol@mit-ccc.arpa
Subject: Dimitri Simes on Gorbachev...
Cc: ponder@kim.berkeley.edu, randy@kim.berkeley.edu, space@s1-b.arpa

	Last night, Carnegie Sovietologist Dimiti Simes was interviewed by CBS' 
"Nightwatch" on Mikhail Gorbachev's speech to the Party.  His thoughts:

	"Well, this should do away with the notion that Gorbachev is another
	John Kennedy or the New Soviet Man.  What we have here, gentlemen, is
	a bunch of Stalinist Yuppies"

					-- Rick.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #172
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA01838; Sat, 1 Mar 86 03:01:33 PST
	id AA01838; Sat, 1 Mar 86 03:01:33 PST
Date: Sat, 1 Mar 86 03:01:33 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8603011101.AA01838@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #173

*** EOOH ***
Date: Sat, 1 Mar 86 03:01:33 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #173

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 173

Today's Topics:
		       Re: SPACE Digest V6 #162
       Jealous about astronauts exciting jobs -> simulated jobs
 will space save us, or will weapons keep ahead of us? good question
    watch industry, and get moving on robotics applicable to space
		      Voyager onboard computers
			  Re: (More Ulysses)
			   Re: sicko jokes
    Re: rocket engine not equivalent to balancing pencil on finger
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: kyle.wbst@xerox.com
Date: 28 Feb 86 15:14:23 EST
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V6 #162
In-Reply-To: ota@s1-b.arpa's message of Tue, 25 Feb 86 23:02:32 PST,
 <8602260702.AA00779@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Cc: kyle.wbst@xerox.com

re: Teleoperators....

Remote control of devices on the moon is not simple. I suggest the
advocates of this approach read the following old book:

"Delayed Sensory Feedback & Behavior" by Karl U. Smith, W.B. Saunders
Co., Philadelphia & London, 1962.

I will quote from a portion of it starting on p. 94...

"All signs indicate that a feedback delay of the order of magnitude
involved in earth control of space craft would be seriously detrimental
to guidance operations. The effects of delayed visual feedback vary with
the type and complexity of the task, but all performances requiring
visual control display gross disturbance with even short periods of
delay, and accuracy tends to diminish as delay intervals increase. In
addition, persons performing with delayed feedback typically show
striking emotional disturbances and loss of motivation in task
performance."

------------------------------

Date: 1986 February 28 13:31:52 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@su-ai.arpa>
To: august@jpl-vlsi.arpa
Cc: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Jealous about astronauts exciting jobs -> simulated jobs

A> Date:    Tue, 25 Feb 86 08:24:54 PST
A> From: august@jpl-vlsi.arpa
A> Subject: RE: Why does "everyone" want to leave the planet?
A> The concept of a "free lunch" was proven to be truly impossible in the
A> late 19th/early 20th century. There *is* enough work to go around, is it
A> possible that some people have been taught that they *don't* have to
A> work, and that *someone* will give them their daily bread? The work
A> ethic is dying in this country. People *won't* work because they *feel*
A> that the job they are qualified for is *beneath* them! Wake up!

I have a great idea! (Yeah, nobody appreciates my idea, I'm ahead of
my time, but I still think my idea is great.) Let's create a new
department of simulated work, perhaps as part of the department of
labor. If somebody thinks he wants some job, we set up a computer
simulation of that job (easy, in a few years most interestin jobs will
be conducted mostly via electronic mail so our simulation merely does
the same thing that the real electronic mail system would do in the
future). The person can really try the job and realize how much harder
and ulcer-making it really is compared to the facade of glory that
radiates into the media. Most times the person will realize the grass
really isn't greener, and will go back to the original job he has and
appreciate how much easier it is than the glorified difficult job.
Occasionally the person will actually enjoy the challange of the
simulated job and prove himself to be competant, which can be
determined by the program, sort of like taking a job-qualification
exam (civil service etc.), and so the person get a reccommendation the
next time such a job opens.

I propose you and Kirk Kelley be in charge of this new department.
Kirk can manage the teams of programmers that develop the software,
and you can manage the specifications for the various job simulations
and the procedures for training disenchanted workers to "play" the
fantasy work game and the procedures for evaluating success of
play-work in terms of reccommendations for actual employment.

------------------------------

Date: 1986 February 28 14:29:11 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@su-ai.arpa>
To: hplabs!hao!noao!astrovax!elt@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Cc: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
Subject: will space save us, or will weapons keep ahead of us? good question

ET> Date: 24 Feb 86 22:21:15 GMT
ET> From: hplabs!hao!noao!astrovax!elt@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Ed Turner)
ET> ... several people have offered the opinion that dispersal of people
ET> throughout the Solar System and/or to the stars would offer us
ET> protection from self-destruction.  Surely this is a failure of
ET> imagination; it seems inevitable to me that our capability for
ET> destruction will grow as fast (faster if history is a guide) as our
ET> other capabilities.  Of course, the time scales may change but that is
ET> a different issue.  I imagine the various historical colonizers of
ET> remote regions of the Earth must have felt that putting "eggs in a
ET> different basket" would guarantee the safety of their societies in a
ET> similar way.

(P.s. I like your initials.)
As you are aware, I'm one of those who say getting our eggs in more
baskets will help long-term survival. I have rebuttal to your proposed
counterexample. The Lewis&Clark expedition and the following wagon
trains and sailing ships were essentially the last pushing of the
frontier. Sure there are little nooks and crannies that got explored
later, such as Antarctica, the Amazon jungle, outback of Australia,
Papua New Guinea, and some places not yet explored much such as the
ocean floor, but mostly we've been for the past century just filling
in the gaps rather than pushing the frontier. It took a hundred years
of this non-frontier after Lewis&Clark before thermonuclear weapons
made this all one basket again. If there had been a black death in
Europe, the New World might been able to escape it by careful
restrictions on cross-Atlantic travel.

Now as we go into space during the next century, probably we can
escape total anihilation simply by being dispersed. Weapons will
eventually catch up with solar-system inhabitants, but by that time
the frontier will have been extended to nearby stars. Weapons will
eventually catch up with nearby stars, but by that time the frontier
will have been extended to the whole galaxy. Perhaps somebody will
someday figure out a doomsday machine for the whole galaxy, but by
that time we will have extended to the whole Universe. Due to billions
of years transit time across the Universe, I doubt any doomsday
machine could possibly destroy the whole Universe; it'd evolve into
something else before it managed to traverse all that time, probably
waging war against variants of itself and leaving miniscule humans
untouched. In short, I'm not sanguine, weapons might catch up with us
and destroy us even in large space, but I rather doubt it and would
rather rely on that strategy than stay here on teensy Earth.

------------------------------

Date: 1986 February 28 15:36:02 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@su-ai.arpa>
To: decvax!linus!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Cc: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
Subject: watch industry, and get moving on robotics applicable to space

?> You know, I've just had a thought. We don't need people on Earth.
?> Why don't we replace all of them with robots? (:-)

HS> Date: 21 Feb 86 20:46:11 GMT
HS> From: decvax!linus!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
HS> Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
HS> As one of the panelists (sorry, I've forgotten who) at Boskone this year
HS> observed:
HS> 	"When James van Allen starts using robots instead of graduate
HS> 	students in his own lab, then maybe I'll believe him!"

I see you're in Canada. I don't know what is happening up there, but
here in the US a lot of companies (mostly auto manufacturers and a few
other industries) are converting their "coolie" labor to robot arms,
and in Japan it seems they're trying to put robots everywhere! (I
apologize for my ignorance of robotics in Canada, except for the arm
built for STS, and for people originally from Canada who have done
fine research at Stanford and CMU.)

First, I'd suggest we watch the auto makers in USA and especially
watch Japan. When we see the appropriate kind of robotics being used
in Japanese industry, we'll know we're a couple years behind in
applying it to spcae, because it becomes cost-effective in space
before it does on Earth (because on Earth coolie labor is cheap but in
space there is often no substitute for robotics).

Second, I suggest the governent funding experimental robotics on Earth
for tasks that would be useful in space or on the Moon. In particular
I suggest funded robotics experiments for mining and crude processing
of mined materials. This will not only develop the technology, but
prove cost-effectiveness in space or on Moon. The argument is, if with
a little government funding it's cost-effective on Earth, then it is
already cost-effective purely on its own merits in space or on Moon
where human coolie labor is not competing with robotics.

Here's an off-the-wall numerical example to illustrate my point:
Suppose there's a task that gives you 1 million dollars gross revenue,
and you have to spend 100,000 dollars to pay your labor force, and
50,000 dollars for management and other overhead, net profit 850,000
dollars. Alternately you could invest 500,000 dollars to develop
robotics, which do the job for only 10,000 dollars of electricity and
maintenance. Net profit drops to 490,000 dollars. CLearly robotics
isn't cost effective compared to human labor, although in an absolute
sense it isn't actually in the red. -- Now go into space with your
process. Suppose it costs 200,000 dollars to launch your robotics, and
5 million dollars to launch an equivalent human labor force. Humans
are complete cost-ineffective, you end up in the red, whereas robotics
profit has dropped to 290,000 dollars, but now that 290,000 profit is
the best you can do, so it is truly cost-effective, no other company
using humans could wage a price war and knock you out, like they could
on Earth if you were using robotics. The problem is, even though
robotics is feasible in space, it's a risky venture and you can't
afford to get started. -- Enter government. The US loans you 500,000
development cost, to be repaid gradually after you start reaping net
profits from the process in space. Now on Earth it is cheaper (with
government funding) to go robotics than humans, so you do it, and when
you have the process developed the US loans you another 200,000 for
the launch, so you go ahead with that too, and within a couple years
from launch you start getting profits and start paying back your loan,
within a couple more years you've paid it back and shown a net profit
to boot.

The figures are just handwaves. I have no idea of the true figures for
lunar oxygen&titanium mining or any other task. This example is just a
way of thinking about the actual figures. If actual figures are
comparible (scaled up of course, more investment but more return),
then government start-up funding on Earth leading to space would seem good.

------------------------------

Date: 28 Feb 86 17:03:00 PDT
From: WEISMAN, WILLIAM D. <wdweisman@jpl-milvax.arpa>
Subject: Voyager onboard computers
To: space-incoming <space-incoming@s1-b.arpa>
Reply-To: WEISMAN, WILLIAM D. <wdweisman@jpl-milvax.arpa>

   
In response to the inquiry regarding the Voyager spacecraft onboard
computers:

Voyager has three onboard computers, each with two processors.  The 
spacecraft's attitude and articulation control subsystem (AACS) and
computer command subsystem (CCS) each have two 4-k (18-bit words)
plated wire memories, while the flight data subsystem (FDS) consists
of two 8-k (16-bit words) semiconductor memories.

Usually, the contents of one computer subsystem's processors are re-
dundant, to safeguard against loss of one processor.  The CCS processors
operate in parallel, using about 3k per machine for spacecraft house-
keeping and failure protection and only about 1k per machine (2k total)
for the sequences that direct the spacecraft (and its other two computers)
to observe the planets.

During the Uranus mission, some redundancy was given up to reconfigure
the second of the two FDS processors to compress image data, allowing
transmission of the same amount of information using less than half
the number of bits.  This was done by transmitting the brightness of
the first pixel in each line of an imaged scene, and then transmitting
only the relative difference between adjacent pixels in the remainder
of the line.  Each image contains 640K pixels.  Previously, each pixel
required 8 bits to describe it and its gray level from 0 to 255.  The
image data compression technique reduced this requirement to about 3
bits per pixel, cutting the bits per image from 5.12 million to less
than 2 million.

* * * * * *

I copied the foregoing information, more or less verbatim, from the
Voyager Mission Status Report #78, Feb. 10 1986.  Undoubtedly, the
people in the Spacecraft Data Systems area could supply much more
detailed technical information.

           Bill Weisman
           JPL Information Processing Center
           Altadena,  CA
           WDWEISMAN@JPL-MILVAX.ARPA

The usual disclaimers apply.

------

------------------------------

Date: 28 Feb 86 23:27:31 GMT
From: brahms!desj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (David desJardins)
Subject: Re: (More Ulysses)
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <8602281534.AA03027@s1-b.arpa> ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA
(Geoffrey A. Landis) writes:
>     (1) If Galileo [Ulysses?] passes close over the south pole of the
>sun, and is in an elliptical orbit crossing Jupiter's orbit, it will be
>VERY FAR from the sun when it passes over the north pole (nb. The facts
>given are enough to calculate how far, if you assume that Jupiter's orbit
>is normal to the polar axis of the sun, but I'm too lazy to do it).
   The one thing I am sure of is that if it orbits the sun and passes
over the north pole it will also pass over the south pole.  I think this
response does not take into account the use of Jupiter to kill the space-
craft's angular momentum.  Obviously if it still has any angular momentum
in the plane of the ecliptic it can never pass over the pole (since when
over the pole its angular momentum is zero by definition!).
   Still looking for a definitive statement on this subject.
   -- David desJardins

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 23 Feb 86 08:34:43 est
From: tektronix!watmath!M.W.Tilden@ucbvax.berkeley.edu,
        Hardware <tektronix!watmath!mwtilden@ucbvax.berkeley.edu>
To: ucbvax!space
Subject: Re: sicko jokes
Newsgroups: net.space
In-Reply-To: <8602212135.AA06700@oliven.ICO>

In article <8602212135.AA06700@oliven.ICO> you write:
>THTHTHTHBBBBBBBB!

Well, thanks for at least spelling it right...

M Tilden

(Seriously, made my day. Intelligent interogatives are so hard to find 
 now days, yours summed it up nicely.)

------------------------------

From: decwrl!decvax!ihnp4!ihwpt!knudsen@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 86 08:48:09 est
To: decvax!space
Subject: Re: rocket engine not equivalent to balancing pencil on finger

Your analysis is good.  However, while a rocket is first lifting
off, and for a while afterwards, the relevant moment arm IS still
that of gravity, not just the engine's thrust.

So, the more a rocket leans over, the harder gravity will
pull it over some more ..

Oops -- you really are right on all counts! Cancel the above.
But you still need to point the thrust vector thru the
center of gravity (or oscillation, or percussion),
which explains why space shuttles take off a bit sideways,
with the orbiter a little bit under the tank.
	mike k

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #173
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA00598; Sat, 1 Mar 86 23:01:16 PST
	id AA00598; Sat, 1 Mar 86 23:01:16 PST
Date: Sat, 1 Mar 86 23:01:16 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8603020701.AA00598@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #174

*** EOOH ***
Date: Sat, 1 Mar 86 23:01:16 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #174

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 174

Today's Topics:
	      Re: oft quoted startrek motto I don't like
			Re: plutonium toxicity
		     Re: will space save us, etc?
		    MIR  APOGEE/PERIGEE CORECTIONS
		Re: Soviet permanently manned station.
			  Galileo plutonium
       Many solutions to olber's paradox!! (Keep an open mind!)
			  fear and distaste
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 1 Mar 86 04:17:48 GMT
From: brahms!desj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (David desJardins)
Subject: Re: oft quoted startrek motto I don't like
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <8602282233.AA04464@s1-b.arpa> REM%IMSSS@SU-AI.ARPA
(Robert Elton Maas) writes:
>..........
>Space isn't a frontier, it's a whole series of frontiers. A few
>centuries ago space meant the ocean and the new world, right now it
>means low Earth orbit, later it'll mean dyson sphere, then it'll mean
>travel to other stars at sub-light speeds using generation ships,
>someday it'll mean travel to other galaxies.
   I find this order of events fascinating and a little ridiculous.
Travel to other stars is a long way off but certainly conceivable.
Dyson spheres are science fiction (no offense).  Not that they aren't
theoretically possible (if you're willing to live without gravity),
but the technology required is incomparably greater than that needed
for interstellar ships.  It is like the difference between traveling
to the New World (Vikings managed this 1000 years ago) and building
new continents on the sea floor!
   -- David desJardins

------------------------------

Date:         Fri, 28 Feb 1986 23:32 EST
From: Kenneth Ng  <KEN%NJITCCCC.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu>
Subject:      Re: plutonium toxicity
To: Space Digest <SPACE@s1-b.arpa>

The following is taken from "Hazards from Plutonium Toxicity", by
Bernard L. Cohen, published in Health Physics, May 1977, page
365.

     For insoluble reactor-Pu, the most important exposure is to the
     GI tract, so the cancer causing dose is 2.8 g of reactor-Pu,
     and the LD50 is 2.0 gram.  The LD50 in gram for other substances
     taken orally are selenium oxide: 0.3; potassium cynaide: 0.7;
     mercury dichloride: 0.8; and caffeine: 14.  All of these cause
     death within a short time.  There seems to be no data on the
     amount of carcinogens that must be taken orally in order to
     induce cancer, and there is no known mechanism for Pu taken
     orally to cause early death other than with truly massive does.

That is the toxicity of plutonium directly. Of course that assumes one
can get a population to consume the metal directly.  On a more realistic
note, let's say that the space shuttle with the plutonium exploded directly
over New York City at a low altitude.  According to page 375 of the same
report, one death per 18 grams released will occur over a long time,
the breakdown is as follows:

     Source:                           grams released to kill one person
     Inhalation from initial cloud     24
     Resuspension in 1st year          70
     Resuspension after 1st year       5000
     Very long term                    2500
     Plant uptake into food            > 500

As a final note, atmospheric atomic testing as blown about 3 TONS of
plutonium into the atmosphere, taken from "The Health Hazards of NOT
Going Nuclear", by Petr Beckmann, page 139.

------------------------------

Date: 1 Mar 86 05:09:14 GMT
From: brahms!weemba@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Matthew P. Wiener)
Subject: Re: will space save us, etc?
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <8602282233.AA04465@s1-b.arpa> REM%IMSSS@SU-AI.ARPA (Robert Elton Maas) writes:
>                                If there had been a black death in
>Europe, the New World might been able to escape it by careful
>restrictions on cross-Atlantic travel.
And maybe not.
>Now as we go into space during the next century, probably we can
>escape total anihilation simply by being dispersed. Weapons will
>eventually catch up with solar-system inhabitants, but by that time
>the frontier will have been extended to nearby stars. Weapons will
>eventually catch up with nearby stars, but by that time the frontier
>will have been extended to the whole galaxy. Perhaps somebody will
>someday figure out a doomsday machine for the whole galaxy, but by
>that time we will have extended to the whole Universe. Due to billions
>of years transit time across the Universe, I doubt any doomsday
>machine could possibly destroy the whole Universe; it'd evolve into
>something else before it managed to traverse all that time, probably
>waging war against variants of itself and leaving miniscule humans
>untouched.
Is this net.sf-lovers or what?  Seriously, nobody knows a damn thing
about what will happen when we get out there.  Us minuscule humans
might run into majuscule xenophobic aliens who keep sensors around
Alpha Centauri, Procyon, Epsilon Eridani, etc.  A nearby surprise
supernova could botch your plans, etc.  AI robots could attack their
human creators, etc.
>           In short, I'm not sanguine, weapons might catch up with us
>and destroy us even in large space, but I rather doubt it
You doubt it.  Glad you know what's going on.  Me, I have *no* idea what
will happen in 1000+ years, and can imagine dozens of scenarios.
>                                                          and would
>rather rely on that strategy than stay here on teensy Earth.
Are you relying on that strategy to keep the race alive or do you just
want to go out there?  I would rather NOT rely on any strategy.  I would
prefer genuine sanity, peace on earth, pax in caelo.
And no sci-fi.
ucbvax!brahms!weemba	Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720

------------------------------

Date: 28 Feb 86 16:37:46 GMT
From: decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-pipa!biro@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: MIR  APOGEE/PERIGEE CORECTIONS
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

MIR UPDATE
From the NASA element set I calculated the APOGEE and  PERIGEE of MIR 
(old and new) and SALYUT_7.  One can see that MIR  has had successful 
correction of both the APOGEE and PERIGEE in the three days or so and 
it does look like a rendezvous trajectory  with SALYUT_7 or the Large 
Cosmos 1686 module that has been attached to SALYUT_7.  I think   the
rough dimensions of SALYUT_7 is about 23 Meters long and dia. about 4
Meters. This would makes its  internal volume about  100 cubic meters, 
an its weight at about 26,000 Kg, based on the dimensions of SALYUT_6.  
Aviation Week stated that MIR was launch by Proton booster,So I would 
assume that MIR is in simular in size and weight.
SPACECRAFT	MIR	MIR	SALYUT_7
ELEMENT SET	  2	 15	 48
DAY of 1986	 52.124	 55.963  50.750
APOGEE   KM	293.363 338.759	348.988
PERIGEE  KM	171.361	324.338	346.401
INCLINATION	 51.613	 51.614	 51.627
Also several people have asked about a good reference source for
Soviet Space Programs. The U.S. Government  Printing  Office has 
3 good books that they sell.
SOVIET SPACE PROGRAMS:
PART 1.  dealing with launch vehicles and sites and goals
PART 2.  Manned Space Programs and Space Life Sciences
PART 3.  Unmanned space activities
Part 1 is out of print, Part 2 was advable when I got my copy
about a year ago, and Part 3 at that time was not yet advable.  
john

------------------------------

Date: 27 Feb 86 17:48:36 GMT
From: ihnp4!iham1!spock@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Ed Weiss)
Subject: Re: Soviet permanently manned station.
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <562@mmm.UUCP>, allen@mmm.UUCP (Kurt Allen) writes:
> >What are the current plans concerning the Hubble telescope? Any
> >chance, that it would be launched this year?
> 
> 	Aviation Week and Space tech. reported that NASA hopes to
> 	keep the Hubble telescope as near to schedule as possible. That
> 	announcement occured before the decision to redesign the SRB
> 	seals was announce, which will probably take around a year.
> 
> 		Greetings from Northern USA (Minnesota)
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 	Kurt W. Allen
> 	3M Center
> 	ihnp4!mmm!allen
There was an announcement that the SRB seals would be redesigned?  I didn't
think anything of this sort would be decided until the inquiry is finished.
Anyone know any details.
-- 
					Ed Weiss
					ihnp4!iham1!spock
					--> Live Long and Prosper <--

------------------------------

Return-Path: <ihnp4!utzoo!henry>
Date: Sat, 1 Mar 86 11:08:21 EST
From: ihnp4!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov
To: dietz@slb-doll.CSNET
Subject: Galileo plutonium
Cc: arms-d@xx.lcs.mit.edu, space@s1-b.arpa

Paul Dietz writes, in part:

> ... A solution to the radiation problem
> might be to launch the radioisotope source separately and assemble in
> orbit (probably not feasible for current probes) ...

What probably would be feasible would be what was done for the isotope
cartridges the later Apollo missions carried for their lunar-surface
experiment packages:  The isotope slug goes up as part of the same payload,
but inside an armored cask.  At deployment time, the astronauts transfer it
from the cask to the generator.  This would mean that NASA would have to
get over some of its fetish about avoiding in-space assembly, though.

				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 1986 March 01 07:48:35 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@su-ai.arpa>
To: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
Cc: "mcgeer%ji"@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Many solutions to olber's paradox!! (Keep an open mind!)

M> Date: Fri, 14 Feb 86 09:53:56 PST
M> From: mcgeer%ji@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Rick McGeer)
M> Of course, THE solution to the above paradox is that the universe
              *** (key word, emphasized by REM later)
M> expands, and hence the light from the furthest galaxies is redshifted,
M> asymptotically to invisibility, and hence the total illumination of
M> the sky is finite.

REM> Not quite correct, "A" (not "the") solution.
REM> Here's another, not needing redshift, ... It's been a finite time
REM> since the Universe started, ...

BH> Date: 26 Feb 86 19:55:07 GMT
BH> From: hplabs!amdahl!drivax!holloway@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Bruce Holloway)
BH> Subject: Re: Olber's paradox
BH> Another solution (maybe): All stellar objects tend to "clump" into
BH> solar systems, galaxies, clusters, ad infinitum. So instead of spreading
BH> evenly throughout the sky, we just see light from these collections, the
BH> scope of said clumps depending on how far away the object(s) is/are.

Of course! (As Dr. McCoy said when he had put on the thinking-cap
containing all the medical and other knowledge of the ancient
civilization and realized how trivial it was to do brain surgery when
you know so much.) I should have thought of that myself, having workd
with Mandelbrot and Gosper and Farmwald and Moravec on fractal stuff
at SU-AI... Indeed, if the large-scale clumping of the Universe has
sufficiently small fractal dimension, then even in a static and
infinite-time Universe you see only a finite amount of light from any
point due to inverse-square diminuation and less than square
accumulation of stars. It sounds paradoxial, after all with infinite
time the density of light should increase linearily, exceeding any
given level, but actually in fractal universe with increasingly large
voids as you go out further you get an effect similar to a single
local cluster with emptiness beyond: most of the light that is emitted
goes out to fill the infinite void beyond, with the part that stays
local being buonded in intensity.

Here's another idea: if the Universe has sufficiently strong negative
curvature, then even with fractal fadeout exactly matching curvature
fadeout so that number of stars within R radius is R**2, the
defocusing caused by curvature causes light intensity to fade out more
rapidly than 1/R**2 so that the integral can again be bounded.

Clearly I was more right than I imagined when I said there was more
than one obvious (after the fact) solution to Olber's paradox. This
shows how narrow-minded even scientists can be when they think they
know everything there is to be known about some topic and there is
exactly one obvious solution so it must be correct. No wonder ignorant
masses believe EST or any number of other fads is "the only way". I
like this shared brainstorming on topics that we thought we already
knew! (Inflationary Universe, quantum strings and rings,
11-dimensional Universe, blackbody radiation from black holes,
Bayesian cosmology, ...; and the great questions now of Proton decay
and solar neutrinos)

------------------------------

Date: 1986 March 01 08:42:22 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@su-ai.arpa>
To: brahms!gsmith@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Cc: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
Subject: fear and distaste

GWS> Date: 28 Feb 86 11:52:08 GMT
GWS> From: brahms!gsmith@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Gene Ward Smith)
GWS>     Let's clarify the question then.  Is this deep fear of eventual
GWS> red-gianthood the basis of some obscure religious cult I haven't heard
GWS> about?  To quote Bertrand Russell, "Religion is based, I think, primarily
GWS> and mainly upon fear.  It is partly the terror of the unknown....

Fear of the unknown, and fear of false legends, is what Bertrand
Russell is talking about. Only a fool wouldn't be afraid of a loaded
gun pointing at him or 40,000 thermonuclear weapons on launch vehicles
or a tiger that escaped from the zoo and was seen in his neighborhood
while his kids are outside playing or the sun going red giant before
we have our eggs out of this one basket. Fear is what drives us to
take remedial action. (Sometimes we have distaste, not fear, so I'm
not saying fear is essential, in fact in case of red giant the word
fear should read distaste both in this paragraph and in your critique
of our proposals to take remedial action. We aren't "afraid" of the
Sun knocking out Earth, but we are worried about it because we don't
want that to happen to us even that far down the road. Sometimes the
distinction may be that we fear that which we cannot change and which
will hurt us if it happens, while we have mere distaste for what we
can effectively control. I'm truly afraid of a thermonuclear this year
or next year etc. I'm merely planning to avoid red giant death.)

GWS> Science can help us to get over this craven fear in which mankind has
GWS> lived....  Science can teach us ... no longer to invent allies in the
GWS> sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this
GWS> world a fit place to live in...."

Science can also teach us what to truly beware, and to either change
it if we can, or be truly and justly afraid of it if we are helpless.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #174
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA01541; Sun, 2 Mar 86 03:01:13 PST
	id AA01541; Sun, 2 Mar 86 03:01:13 PST
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 86 03:01:13 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8603021101.AA01541@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #175

*** EOOH ***
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 86 03:01:13 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #175

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 175

Today's Topics:
			nearby supernovas etc.
		 absolutely vs. relatively safe level
		   Wanted: program for tidal times
		Re: "zillion fatal doses of Plutonium"
	   Re: Scuttle the Shuttle?(Boskone Panalist, etc.)
			    Re: Love Song
			   Apology for mail
		    Re: Scuttle the Space Program?
			Re: GAMEBRAINS trivia.
	       Re: Space Shuttle Children's Fund(Free?)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 1986 March 01 08:26:05 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@su-ai.arpa>
To: brahms!gsmith@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Cc: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
Subject: nearby supernovas etc.

GWS> Date: 28 Feb 86 09:56:08 GMT
GWS> From: brahms!gsmith@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Gene Ward Smith)
GWS> Subject: Sirius Supernova?
GWS> Sirius A is about 2.3 solar masses (all I am saying is off the top of
GWS> my head, I am hoping the experts will settle this one) and this is too
GWS> small for iron core collapse, carbon detonation, etc.

Thanks for the correction. I think I was remembering something I read
more than five years ago, before we realized that although 1.4 solar
masses or so is the limit for iron-core collapse, there's an awful lot
of solar wind loss during the red giant stage so it takes more like
ten or twenty solar masses at the outset to end up with 1.4 at the
critical time. (Or was it 2.4? I forget?) I stand corrected, no
supernova at all ever in Sirius.

By the way, in latest Sky&Telescope there's a note on Sirius being
reddish in recorded history (in fact about 600 AD), because at that
time its white-dwarf companion was in the red giant stage. It's hard
to believe the conversion from red giant to white dwarf could occur so
quickly, although with Sirius gobbling most of the loose hydrogen as
fast as it is shed, and ionizing & light-pressure-shoving the rest of
the emitted hydrogen, I could imagine it within the realm of
possibility. Any news since S&T publishing date on that topic that you
know of?

GWS> When Sirius is in its giant stage, it will presumably give some matter
GWS> up to Sirius B. If this becomes a big deal, it looks like the usual
GWS> nova (not supernova) situation.

Well, even not being a supernova, it could upset Earth and not well
enough protected space colonies a bit if it does. But of course, as I
pointed out, it won't be any where near Earth then.

GWS> Once more off the top of the old head, I recall Betelguese and Antares
GWS> as being both about 400 light years away; hardly close enough to sterilize
GWS> the planet Earth or whatever.

I'm not sanguine. I understand the visible light flux from either will
be about 3 magnitudes brighter than Venus as viewed from Earth, easily
visible in day (or was that 3 magnitudes brighter than full moon?? Nah.)
Due to the thermal cutoff of blackbody radiation being up in the gamma
rays or at least x-rays, the x-ray flux will be tens of times more
intense than the visible light. Right? That would play havoc with
upper atmosphere and half-protected space colonies.

GWS> Eta Carinae (?) is even closer to supernova.

How close? (My guess of <1000yrs for Betelguese and Antares was a
rather gross ballpark figure; would appreciate better estimate if you
have it, likewise for Eta Carinae or whatever.) But up here in
Northern hemisphere I'm not too worred about Eta Carinae -:)

GWS> Sirius right now is firmly on the main sequence.

No argument there, that was my position all along, why its demise
isn't at all soon.

GWS> ... one tenth the time of the Sun on the main sequence; i.e.,
GWS> about a billion years.

I must have mis-remembered somehow. Thanks for correction. Ok, that
proves my point even more, in a billion years not only will Sirius
have drifted even further from Sun, but it'll be moot because the Sun
will already be roasting Earth to death.

GWS> How much has gone? I don't know, but why do you assume most of it?

No, I assumed somewhere in middle, just had total life on main
sequence wrong. What star could I have been thinking of that lives
only one million years? Deneb is the most massive/bright star I know
of nearby enough to be first magnitude, but even it must be at least
100,000 years if Sirius is 1 million years, right?

GWS> What gives with you people making plans 100 or 200 million years in
GWS> advance, anyway?

I beg to differ. If current theory says we have only 200 million years
before we roast, and that isn't enough time for fossil fuels to be
re-supplied, then there's a reasonable chance it's absolutely urgent
to get into space this time around instead of blowing our chance and
having to wait for the next round of fossil fuels. We might be
mistaken, worrying unnecessarily, but if we're right why blow it? Some
people pray to God because if he exists it's worthwhile and if not it
doesn't hurt. I think the argument for getting into space based on
current theory is a lot better than the reasons for praying.

GWS> Grow up, folks!

Sorry, I beg to differ again. We are grown up, we are seriously
considering the longterm survival of our species, based on current
theories of the prognosis of the Universe, rather than just living for
today and not giving a damn for the future. If we're wrong, we're
wrong, but it's not because we aren't grown up, it's because current
theory is wrong. In general, the best survival technique is to make
use of the current scientific theories tempered with awareness of how
new the theories are and how they might be wrong. Ignoring current
theories completely is foolish in my opinion. Committing suicide just
because the Heat Death will likely get us in the end anyway, is
equally foolish. There's a middle ground where we guard against
disasters our current theories predict, without totally giving up in
cases our theories say we'll die anyway. If we were totally sure of
the 200,000 year limit hence the 50-year practial limit, it would be
right to enslave the world's economy to have a crash program to get
space developed ASAP. As it is I'm content to generally push for space
development, being ready to institute a crash program if our
5th-generation computers tell us absolutely for sure how the Sun
really works inside and what or prognosis is.

------------------------------

Date: 1986 March 01 08:49:53 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@su-ai.arpa>
To: nike!topaz!harvard!bu-cs!bzs@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Cc: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
Subject: absolutely vs. relatively safe level

BS> Date: 28 Feb 86 03:16:55 GMT
BS> From: nike!topaz!harvard!bu-cs!bzs@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Barry Shein)
BS> There seems to be a lot of agreement among the medical community that
BS> there is NO SUCH THING as a safe level of exposure.

There is no such thing as an absolutely safe level of just about
anything. A single drop of water in the wrong place can short circuit
a weapon and kill someone. A more reasonable definition of safe level
than what you seem to be referring to is whatever it takes to offset
reproduction. When young people are killed off before they can
reproduce, in such numbers that the ones that remain can't reproduce
fast enough to make up for the ones that died, then we have a truly
fatal dose of whatever it is. Anything less than that is just a
painful way to slow down the population explosion. Yes, I don't want
lots and lots of that pain, but a teensy teensy bit of it is nothing
compared to the many other hazards we face today and not worth all
this absolutist nonsense such as the NO SAFE LEVEL you claim.

------------------------------

Date: 27 Feb 86 17:16:12 GMT
From: hplabs!amdahl!drivax!braun@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Karl Braun)
Subject: Wanted: program for tidal times
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

I'm looking for a program that will output predicted times for low/hi,
major/minor tides.  Please send email.
thanx in advance.
-- 
			  kral
ihnp4!-------- \
mot! ---------- \
                 >    drivax!braun
ucscc!--------- /
amdahl!------- /

------------------------------

Date: 27 Feb 86 19:31:27 GMT
From: ihnp4!ihlpa!animal@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (D. Starr)
Subject: Re: "zillion fatal doses of Plutonium"
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> 
 [concerning the claim that plutonium fuel from Galileo would have
 posed dangers had that probe been aboard Challenger...]
> 
> If that was true, then the entire state of Nevada's population would be
> dead by now from the A-Bomb tests of the 50s and 60s. 
The state of Nevada's not dead, but the state of Utah, which is downwind
of the bomb test sites, has an unusually high cancer rate.

------------------------------

Date: 27 Feb 86 23:59:26 GMT
From: hplabs!oliveb!oliven!barb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Barbara Jernigan)
Subject: Re: Scuttle the Shuttle?(Boskone Panalist, etc.)
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Dale:
> The same point applies equally well for teleoperated devices.
> If they were so great, and the time lag easily overcome, they
> would be widely used. 
If they could overcome political/sociological resistance to them.  Look
at Japan's overwhelming use of robotics in industry compared to the U.S.
There are more barriers than technology in this maze.
Barb
"...from depths unseen and dreams undreamt, I sing the gleaming
cantos of unvanquished space..."
                                     Berke Breathed

------------------------------

Date: 25 Feb 86 20:09:10 GMT
From: ucla-cs!srt@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Love Song
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <2561@genat.UUCP> phoenix@genat.UUCP () writes:
>                     ... The woman who wrote the song is Diana Gallagher,
>and it is copyrighted by her...
>
And you had permission to reprint it here, I assume?
    Scott R. Turner
    ARPA:  (now) srt@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA  (soon) srt@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU
    UUCP:  ...!{cepu,ihnp4,trwspp,ucbvax}!ucla-cs!srt
    FISHNET:  ...!{flounder,crappie,flipper}!srt@fishnet-relay.arpa

------------------------------

Date: 24 Feb 86 15:28:24 GMT
From: ihnp4!mmm!allen@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Kurt Allen)
Subject: Apology for mail
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

	For those people who received mail from me and are wondering
	why, I apologize. That mail was supposed to have gone on the
	net as followup articles. I am now older and wiser ( a little) and
	it shouldnt happen again.
		sorry
-- 
	Kurt W. Allen
	3M Center
	ihnp4!mmm!allen

------------------------------

Date: 25 Feb 86 22:19:42 GMT
From: decvax!linus!philabs!cmcl2!lanl!jkw@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Jay Wooten)
Subject: Re: Scuttle the Space Program?
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> PS - On a side issue, several people have offered the opinion that dispersal
> of people throughout the Solar System and/or to the stars would offer us
> protection from self-destruction.  Surely this is a failure of imagination;
> it seems inevitable to me that our capability for destruction will grow as
> fast (faster if history is a guide) as our other capabilities....
True, but dispersal would protect against (localized) natural calamaties,
such as a large comet or meteor impact.  Humans would have to be spread
pretty widely to hold out against a supernova within a few light-years of
Earth, tho...
       ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
       ~ 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: 24 Feb 86 14:40:31 GMT
From: unmvax!nmtvax!kenyon@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Rob Kenyon -A stranger in a stranger land)
Subject: Re: GAMEBRAINS trivia.
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <> miller@loral.UUCP (David P. Miller) writes:
>	
>        5.  What was the world's costliest program error ?.
>
>   I believe that the mistake was not a missing hyphen, but a period which
>should have been a comma.  It was in the FORTRAN statement similar to:
>
>   DO 10 I=1.3    => should have been     DO 10 I=1,3
>John. 
>
>Question: Is John Van Zandt correct, or is GAMEBRAINS tm. right ?.
>
I have heard from multiple sources that it was the old "period for
a comma" trick.  Too bad $18M was lost because someone fell for it.
-- 
Robert Kenyon                                p /
...ucbvax!unmvax!nmtvax!kenyon                /
kenyon@nmt                                   / g
You know how that rabbit feels, going under your speeding wheels...

------------------------------

Date: 26 Feb 86 02:24:32 GMT
From: ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtgzz!dls@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (d.l.skran)
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle Children's Fund(Free?)
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>> 
>> Summary: Taking Care of Your Own
>> Xref: ucbvax net.space:4057 net.columbia:1844 net.followup:3860
>> 
>> In article <971@dcl-cs.UUCP>, craig@dcl-cs.UUCP (Craig Wylie) writes:
>> > Perhaps you should see the comment above, when you supply free education,
>> > free medical care and goverment subsidised housing then you can 
>> > be insulting, until then you are not taking care of your own at all.
>> > 
>> 
>> Hear! Hear! Just What I have wanted to say.
>> 
I am astounded that anyone talks about "free" services. Nothing is free.
This debate is fundamental to defending space exploration, scientific
reserach, artistic endevour, or any non-essential activity.
If we must wait until everyone has a college education, or a high school
education, or whatever, we will wait FOREVER.
If we wait until everyone lives in a palace, or even a small house, we will
wait FOREVER.
If we wait until everyone has the best possible medical care, we will not
only wait FOREVER, but we will be bankrupt almost immediately as we
chase an ever higher standard of care.
The simple truth is that better housing, better education, and
better medical care for all are worthy goals that deserve serious
attention.
But they do not deserve ALL our attention, or all our efforts.
If we do not understand this basic point, we have sold out
our children's and grandchildren's future.
Dale Skran
Speaking for himself

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #175
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA05593; Sun, 2 Mar 86 23:01:45 PST
	id AA05593; Sun, 2 Mar 86 23:01:45 PST
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 86 23:01:45 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8603030701.AA05593@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #176

*** EOOH ***
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 86 23:01:45 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #176

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 176

Today's Topics:
	   Re: Scuttle the Shuttle?(Boskone Panalist, etc.)
		    Re: It could have been worse.
			    Teleoperators
			  A *real* blast-off
		  Re: World Commentary on Challenger
	Re: Non-USA Exploration of Space - Europe/USA Rivalry
			  Re: Ulysses probe
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 26 Feb 86 02:05:27 GMT
From: ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtgzz!dls@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (d.l.skran)
Subject: Re: Scuttle the Shuttle?(Boskone Panalist, etc.)
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>> 
>> > You know, I've just had a thought. We don't need people on Earth.
>> > Why don't we replace all of them with robots? (:-)
>> 
>> As one of the panelists (sorry, I've forgotten who) at Boskone this year
>> observed:
>> 
>> 	"When James van Allen starts using robots instead of graduate
>> 	students in his own lab, then maybe I'll believe him!"
>> -- 
>> 				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
The panelist was none other than Ben Bova, President, National
Space Society(formerly NSI).
And a good point it was.  Mr. Dietz, TAKE NOTICE.
The same point applies equally well for teleoperated devices.
If they were so great, and the time lag easily overcome, they
would be widely used. Mr. Dietz persistently underestimates the
effort needed to produce working teleoperated devices.
Dale

------------------------------

Date: 25 Feb 86 17:42:08 GMT
From: pur-ee!ecn-pc!wdm@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Tex)
Subject: Re: It could have been worse.
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

And now, the latest installment in Plutonium Hysteria:
In article <860222195435.678780@HI-MULTICS.ARPA> Slocum@HI-MULTICS.ARPA writes:
>Plutonium is widely felt to be the most poisonous substance anywhere,
>even if you disregard the radioactivity.  
    The MOST POISONOUS substance anywhere.  Do you have any references?
>It has been said that less
>than a pound spread thinly enough could kill every human being.
   Yes, but has it been said by anyone who knows what they are talking
   about?
>
>Now, imagine the shuttle exploding with this cargo.  Ten miles up.
>Practically maximum possible dispersion.
   Except for the fact that it would have probably remained intact and sank to
   the bottom of the Atlantic, thereby posing very little danger to anyone.
>In the very least, several thousand, perhaps several hundred thousand
>people would develop cancer and plutonium poisoning.
   Yes, I guess that is why Western North America is practically devoid of
   human population - those damn bomb test killed millions.
>In the shuttle tragedy, we lost seven lives, and Challenger.  It could
>have been much worse.
   Had the Galileo been aboard, the biggest loss (next to the crew, of course),
   would have been the Galileo, period.  Not even the most hysterical expert
   predicts that several thousand people would have died.  
   I never believed so many people read the National Enquirer and "news"papers
   of that sort, but that is the only place I can think of where so many people
   are getting these ideas.

------------------------------

Posted-Date: Sat 1 Mar 1986 11:45:47 EST
Date: Sat 1 Mar 1986 11:45:47 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Teleoperators
To: space@s1-b.arpa

It's clear from the pounding I've received that I'm being too optimistic
on teleoperators.  Mea culpa.

The Oberg's have just written a book (whose titles escapes me) that
has a chapter on space robotics and teleoperators.  I don't recall
all it said, but one interesting point was this: if the cost of
man-hour of work in space is around $35K it makes no sense to automate
a task that will be performed fewer than about 1000 times, because
development cost swamps operating cost.  They also quoted a report
on teleoperators and robotics that said manned presence in GEO is very
difficult due to shielding requirements (you would need a "submarine
made of lead" according to one expert).  [GEO must be in the fringes
of the radiation belts?]  I'm not sure I believe that 1000 times
figure, but development costs are nonnegligible, especially for
special purpose devices (like space station assemblers, for example).

One difficulty they described with teleoperators is the operator
remains in normal gravity, making it hard to overcome up/down
orientation biases.  Astronauts in zero gee apparently quickly adapt
to the lack of a preferred orientation.

------------------------------

Posted-Date: Sat 1 Mar 1986 12:00:21 EST
Date: Sat 1 Mar 1986 12:00:21 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: A *real* blast-off
To: space@s1-b.arpa

The advantages of using lunar material in space for shielding, rocket
fuel, structural metals, and so on are well known.  The lack of
atmosphere on the moon and its much shallower gravitational
potential (5% as deep as Earth's) make lifting mass using mass drivers
or rockets potentially much easier.  Unfortunately, rockets must import
(at least) hydrogen, and mass drivers are large, complex, require on-site
maintenance and a large power supply.

I suggest a brute force approach.  A thermonuclear explosive
detonated in the moon's regolith will propel large quantities of
debris into space.  For example, a 10 megaton bomb, if it transfers
10% of its energy to kinetic energy of escaping ejecta, can accelerate
about 1 million tons of ejecta to lunar escape velocity.  The actual
quantity of ejecta expelled will depend on the size of the bomb,
the density of the regolith and how deeply the bomb is buried.

There are several problems.  If the moon were the only body involved
the debris would either escape completely or eventually return to
the lunar surface.  However, the sun and earth also affect the
trajectories of the ejecta, so some pieces can end up in somewhat stable
orbits.  We must be able to collect the ejecta in a reasonably short
time.  Collisions between debris particles will cause dissipation;
perhaps some can settle into a ring or into the L4 or L5 points.

High collection efficiencies are not needed as long as the uncollected
ejecta deorbits quickly (by hitting the moon or by being sent by the
moon into solar orbit), because not much machinery is needed on the
lunar surface.  If orbited lunar soil is worth $5/lb even 1% collection
efficiency yields about $100 million worth of material.

------------------------------

Date: 27 Feb 86 13:35:06 GMT
From: hplabs!hao!noao!hsi!archer@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Garry Archer)
Subject: Re: World Commentary on Challenger
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> The following quotes regarding the Challenger from around the world are
> courtesy of WORLD PRESS REVIEW:
> 
======== Here appeared numerous quotes from around the world, 
======== then the following:
> 
> USSR: Izvestia, Moscow:
> 	"The American masses continue to grieve for those who perished.
> 	But the businessmen associated with the shuttle program are
> 	pondering how to avoid losing their planned profits."
> 
> USSR: Pravda, Moscow:
> 	"In each of us that flaming column, carrying away the lives of
> 	seven valient persons, left a deep pain in the soul."
> 
While the first quote was a typical (but certainly true) anti-Capitalist
observation, the second quote from Pravda was exactly the way I felt when 
I watched the Challenger disintegrate.  It was the best quote of the bunch.
-- 
		Garry Archer			ihnp4!hsi!archer
		Health Systems International
		New Haven, CT  06511
		USA

------------------------------

Date: 1 Mar 86 08:24:31 GMT
From: hplabs!ames!eugene@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Eugene Miya)
Subject: Re: Non-USA Exploration of Space - Europe/USA Rivalry
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> Any country with the
> intelect, resources, resolve, dedication, desire and money can explore space.
							^^^
					Hope those on ARPA can tab correctly.
My favorite line from the film The RIght Stuff: Remember, no bucks,
no Buck Rogers.
--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  {hplabs,ihnp4,dual,hao,decwrl,allegra}!ames!aurora!eugene
  eugene@ames-nas.ARPA
	Would you think any less of me, if I told you I considered
	jobs with JSA or ESSA instead?

------------------------------

Date: 1 Mar 86 03:32:33 GMT
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!umcp-cs!mangoe@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Charley Wingate)
Subject: Re: Ulysses probe
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>>	    Ulysses is a European probe, to  be  launched  from  the  Shuttle,
>>	which will go over one the Sun's poles ...
>>	    Originally there was to have been an American  probe  launched  at
>>	the same time to go over the other solar pole. Funding was cut a few
>>	years ago, making the Europeans rather mad as I recall.
Actually, there is an American instrument on Ulysses, built by JHU/APL
[insert sales pitch for Space Division here]; there were to be European
instruments on the American vehicle.
Between this and the Halley fiasco, I doubt the ESA is going to be
interested in doing much with NASA for a while.
>>     How can it go over one pole but not both?
>    I don't know if there are any plans to  keep  talking  to  Ulysses
>after the first polar flyby. Maybe the geometry will be wrong, or  the
>spacecraft will lose radio lock on Earth  while  flying  'behind'  the
>sun.
I forgot to ask my father about the orbital dynamics, but the statement that
it will cross one pole but not the other indicates to me that it's going to
take a hyperbolic orbit, and thus leave the solar system.  THis is just
aguess on my part, though.
C. Wingate

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #176
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA06757; Mon, 3 Mar 86 03:01:01 PST
	id AA06757; Mon, 3 Mar 86 03:01:01 PST
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 86 03:01:01 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8603031101.AA06757@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #177

*** EOOH ***
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 86 03:01:01 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #177

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 177

Today's Topics:
		      Re: nearby supernovas etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 2 Mar 86 05:01:00 GMT
From: brahms!weemba@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Matthew P. Wiener)
Subject: Re: nearby supernovas etc.
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <8603020306.AA00249@s1-b.arpa> REM%IMSSS@SU-AI.ARPA (Robert Elton Maas) writes:
>                                         If we were totally sure of
>the 200,000 year limit hence the 50-year practial limit, it would be
>right to enslave the world's economy to have a crash program to get
>space developed ASAP.
There really IS a bizarre religious cult in net.space!  And what do you
plan to do when people object?  Shoot them and tell them it's for their
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
children?  You make Hitler sound reasonable.
ucbvax!brahms!weemba	Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #177
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA07903; Mon, 3 Mar 86 07:17:36 PST
	id AA07903; Mon, 3 Mar 86 07:17:36 PST
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 86 07:17:36 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8603031517.AA07903@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #178

*** EOOH ***
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 86 07:17:36 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #178

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 178

Today's Topics:
			     Re: Paranoia
				Japan
			     Re: Paranoia
		      Remember the Lunar Buggy ?
			 re: Shuttle Ditching
		Re: Morton-Thiokol Engineering Claims
			    Re: Scramjets
			    Re: Live on TV
	  Re: "At the moment Uranus's south pole points..."
	  Re: "At the moment Uranus's south pole points..."
			    Re: Scramjets
		    Re: Scuttle the Space Program?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 1 Mar 86 21:39:52 GMT
From: tektronix!reed!omen!caf@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX)
Subject: Re: Paranoia
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <6430@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
>Protecting the innocent generally takes priority over finding the guilty.
Except for TV Network news.

------------------------------

Date: Sun,  2 Mar 86 02:26:24 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@mc.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: Japan
To: vger!al@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Cc: KFL@mc.lcs.mit.edu, Space@s1-b.arpa

    From: vger!al@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  ( Informatix)

    'Defense' research is a driving force in the US/USSR arms race.  This
    race has two credible outcomes - mutual nuclear disaster and mutual
    economic exhaustion (while Japan laughs all the way to the bank).  ...

  Japan is able to do this by being under our defense umbrella, while
paying none of the costs.  Perhaps we should send them a bill.

								...Keith

------------------------------

Date: 25 Feb 86 17:22:46 GMT
From: decvax!linus!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Paranoia
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> I'm sure that there are people working for NASA on this mailing list.
> Are there people at the Marshall Space Flight Center?  What about Morton
> Thiokol?  If so, why haven't we heard from them?  ...
> 
> I'll tell you why we haven't heard from them -- because they have been
> told not to say anything.  The paper movers are covering their asses.
> NASA would prefer that the accident be an engineering mistake rather
> than a management one.
Don't be silly.  You'll find the same behavior after, say, a major air
crash, even when there is no possibility of a "coverup".  The reason that
everyone is keeping quiet is because everyone is scared to death of the
US's litigation-crazy lawyers.  Nobody wants to get sued.  Or fired for
exposing their employer to a possibility of being sued.  I believe there
has already been at least one incident of somebody getting fired for talking
out of turn to the press.  (Incidentally, he was *not* exposing a "coverup";
he was simply shooting off his mouth to the effect that it couldn't possibly
have been his company's fault, and pointing the finger at somebody else,
at a time when he couldn't possibly have had the evidence to justify such
an accusation.)
This is quite apart from the obvious fact that most of the people who
might comment clearly realize that they do not have complete information,
and hence could not present a complete story without making a lot of
possibly-incorrect assumptions.
Protecting the innocent generally takes priority over finding the guilty.
(This is not to say that there aren't some guilty parties to be found.)
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 25 Feb 86 04:41:08 GMT
From: ihnp4!poseidon!brent@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Brent P. Callaghan)
Subject: Remember the Lunar Buggy ?
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

I got to thinking the other day about all those
ex-Apollo lunar buggies sitting around up there
on the moon (3 by my count).
It seems a shame that they were never equipped to
continue a roving around after the astronauts had left
like the little Russian "Lunokhod" did for weeks
(or was it months).
The on-board colour TV camera was fully controllable
directly from earth so mission control could follow
the astronauts movements when they got somewhere
interesting.  I figure they only had to add a few
tiny relays and they could have driven the buggy
from earth.  A modest solar panel could have
recharged the batteries every lunar morning for
a day of travelling about.  The range would be
unlimited.
Can anybody think of a good reason why the
use of these expensive little conveyances
was so limited ?
-- 
				
Made in New Zealand -->		Brent Callaghan
				AT&T Information Systems, Lincroft, NJ
				{ihnp4|mtuxo|pegasus}!poseidon!brent
				(201) 576-3475

------------------------------

Date: 26 Feb 86 17:42:40 GMT
From: decvax!linus!axiom!paul@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Paul O`Shaughnessy)
Subject: re: Shuttle Ditching
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

NASA and its contractors have consistently maintained that a ditching
of the shuttle during the SRB boost phase of the flight is impossible
to perform survivably.  The most believable reasons which I have heard
on the net and in the media go something like this:
Very early in the launch, detatching and landing the shuttle is impossible
simply because there is insufficient altitiude.  By the time there is 
sufficient altitude for anything other that a nosedive, the spacecraft is
travelling at several times the speed of sound through atmosphere which
is still quite dense.  If the shuttle were to detach from the fuel tank
at this point, it would not veer away gracefully as we might imagine, but
would flip over backwards and its wings (at least) would be torn up by the
excessive aerodynamic force.  I don't think that such a detatchment is 
possible until the spacecraft is quite high, which is after the SRB's
are jettisoned.
I've also read that jettisoning the SRB's while they're still burning 
full force is near impossible because their exhaust would explode the 
fuel tank or frazzle the shuttle as they raced ahead of the spacecraft.
Is this true?  I certainly don't trust everything I read or hear, and
I post this not as truth but as a concentrate of recent publications.
Confirmations or corrections are appreciated.  Also, could any of these
ditching modes be made safe?
------------
Paul O'Shaughnessy
Axiom Technology Corp.
Newton, Massachusetts
'Home of the AT100'

------------------------------

Date: 26 Feb 86 20:17:45 GMT
From: cbosgd!cbdkc1!gwe@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  ( George Erhart x4021 CB 3D288 RNB )
Subject: Re: Morton-Thiokol Engineering Claims
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <209@bu-cs.UUCP> bzs@bu-cs.UUCP (Barry Shein) writes:
>Re: Why didn't MT go to the media with their concerns about the O-Rings?
MT was involved in some important (i.e. $400 million) contract talks with
NASA at the time of the accident. It is easy to speculate that the MT upper
management would downplay the engineers concerns in order to keep up a
good front with NASA. It is amazing to see the kind of pressure that comes
with contract negotiations for that kind of money.
-- 
George Erhart at AT&T Bell Laboratories Columbus, Ohio 
614-860-4021 {ihnp4,cbosgd}!cbdkc1!gwe

------------------------------

Date: 24 Feb 86 20:30:27 GMT
From: sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!oberon!smeagol!jplgodo!steve@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Steve Schlaifer x3171 156/224)
Subject: Re: Scramjets
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Essentially, a scramjet is a ramjet designed to operate at much higher speed
(I have heard numbers like Mach 12 to Mach 25).  If they can be made to get
up to Mach 25 then they will have achieved orbital velocity.  The big
advantage is that they don't have to carry an oxidizer for the fuel (they use
atmospheric oxygen).  There was an interesting article in a recent issue
of High Technology about them and the current work being done.  Maybe you
could find it in a local library.
-- 
...smeagol\			Steve Schlaifer
......wlbr->!jplgodo!steve	Advance Projects Group, Jet Propulsion Labs
....group3/			4800 Oak Grove Drive, M/S 156/204
				Pasadena, California, 91109
					+1 818 354 3171

------------------------------

Date: 26 Feb 86 16:02:40 GMT
From: decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!cmcl2!lanl!jkw@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Jay Wooten)
Subject: Re: Live on TV
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> > If I recall correctly, the Apollo One Crew did not die "live on TV,"
>
> Neither did the Challenger crew.  The launch was not covered live on
> any broadcast TV network.
I watched it live on the CNN (Cable News Network).  CBS, NBC, and ABC were
too busy with soap operas &/or game shows...
	  Jay Wooten  Los Alamos National Lab  ARPA:jkw@lanl.ARPA

------------------------------

Date: 24 Feb 86 23:53:18 GMT
From: sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!oberon!smeagol!jplgodo!steve@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Steve Schlaifer x3171 156/224)
Subject: Re: "At the moment Uranus's south pole points..."
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <399@utastro.UUCP>, ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) writes:
> The angular momentum vector of the Earth points toward the North Celestial
> Pole.  Put it another way, looking down on the Earth from a point above
> the North Pole the Earth's rotation is counterclockwise.  Therefore,
> by convention, the north pole of any planet is that pole from which
> the rotation appears counterclockwise.
Unfortunately, the IAU (International Astronomical Union) didn't see it that
way.  Essentially, they decided that the north pole is the one above the 
invariant plane (ecliptic) regardless of which way the planet spins.  It's
going to be lots of fun when we get really interested in asteroids and 
comets :-(
-- 
...smeagol\			Steve Schlaifer
......wlbr->!jplgodo!steve	Advance Projects Group, Jet Propulsion Labs
....group3/			4800 Oak Grove Drive, M/S 156/204
				Pasadena, California, 91109
					+1 818 354 3171

------------------------------

Date: 24 Feb 86 21:22:47 GMT
From: sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!oberon!smeagol!jplgodo!steve@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Steve Schlaifer x3171 156/224)
Subject: Re: "At the moment Uranus's south pole points..."
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <287@drivax.UUCP>, holloway@drivax.UUCP (Bruce Holloway) writes:
> In article <860217-235409-1418@Xerox> Murray.pa@XEROX.COM writes:
> >How do I tell which end is North and which is South? I assume that the
> >"North" pole of Mars is the one that's pointing roughly parallel to the
> >North pole of Earth. That doesn't transfer to Uranus very well.
> 
> I think "North" probably means the pole that, when looking down directly
> above it, the planet seems to be turning counter-clockwise. Is this right?
> 
According to the IAU, the planetographic north pole of a planet is the one
that is above the invariant plane.  This is very close to the ecliptic plane.
For some planets, Venus for example, this means that when you look down on the
north pole, the planet spins clockwise.  For others, Earth for example, the
spin is counter-clockwise.  In this system, Uranus spins clockwise when you
are above the north pole.  Don't flame me over this choice of convention I
don't like it myself.
Opinions expressed are my own and not necessarily JPL or NASA.
-- 
...smeagol\			Steve Schlaifer
......wlbr->!jplgodo!steve	Advance Projects Group, Jet Propulsion Labs
....group3/			4800 Oak Grove Drive, M/S 156/204
				Pasadena, California, 91109
					+1 818 354 3171

------------------------------

Date: 24 Feb 86 23:39:08 GMT
From: sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!oberon!smeagol!kwan@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Richard Kwan)
Subject: Re: Scramjets
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> A while back there was a discussion of scramjets on the net.  Unfortunately,
> I wasn't paying much attention at the time.  My impression of them is
> that they use atmospheric oxygen to make major reductions in weight
> for most of the launch phase.  Is this true?
I wasn't on the net when that discussion took place, and since I haven't
seen much comment yet, I'm gonna stick my neck out a bit.
(...attempting to revitalize old memory cells... sputter.. reboot.....)
Many years ago (197X?), I attempted to study various types of propulsion
technology.  As I remember, there are a couple significant parameters
in picking your engine type.
1.  Specific impulse (Isp): thrust per pound of propellant.  At least,
    that's the way I learned it, a carry over from non-metric
    engineering.  (Thrust per unit mass is probably more meaningful.)
    Propellant naturally includes both fuel and oxidizer.  You are
    correct that in the case of air breathers, they get their oxidizer
    from the atmosphere.  Thus, their Isp's are higher.  Rockets tend
    to have Isp's in the low 100's; turbojets in the 3000's (?), and
    ramjets somewhere in between.
2.  Engine thrust-to-weight (T/We) ratio:  thrust per pound of engine.
    (How about thrust(newtons)/engine-mass(kilograms), T/Me?) As I
    remember, turbojets were around 6 (T/We), ramjets higher, rockets
    ... well, way up there.
Thus, although jet engines give you much higher Isp's than rockets,
they also require a lot more massive machinery to function.  Of course,
turbojets are much more massive than ramjets.
The problem with ramjets is that you need something else to get them up
to a functioning velocity, i.e., rocket (lots of extra propellant) or
turbojet (lots of extra machinery).
Scramjets need an even higher startup velocity than most ramjets.
I would presume greater than Mach 1 (unless there is some mixed mode
tricks that can be played; any propulsion scientists care to comment?).
Given the engine mass, you get into the rocket/scramjet tradeoff area.
...and then, there are proposals for turbo-ram-rockets...
-- 
		Rick Kwan
		JPL Spacecraft Data Systems
		sdcrdcf!smeagol!kwan (UUCP)
		ia-sun2!smeagol!kwan@csvax.caltech.EDU (ARPA)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"...jumpin' into hyperspace ain't like dustin' crops, boy."  H. Solo
--------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 2 Mar 86 03:08:27 PST
From: space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa
Apparently-To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

------------------------------

Date: 25 Feb 86 22:05:30 GMT
From: decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!rochester!ritcv!pmm1920@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Scuttle the Space Program?
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <497@nrcvax.UUCP> andre@nrcvax.UUCP (Andre Hut) writes:
>In article <932@nmtvax.UUCP> fine@nmtvax.UUCP (Andrew J Fine) writes:
>>Let's ask ourselves a few questions:
>>
>>******************************************************************************
>>Does humanity (men and women) really *need* to populate space?  Do we really
>
>...Why do you even get out of bed?
>-- 
Good Point !

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #178
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA10790; Mon, 3 Mar 86 23:01:32 PST
	id AA10790; Mon, 3 Mar 86 23:01:32 PST
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 86 23:01:32 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8603040701.AA10790@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #179

*** EOOH ***
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 86 23:01:32 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #179

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 179

Today's Topics:
			     Uranus jokes
	Re: Non-USA Exploration of Space - Europe/USA Rivalry
			   Re: TDRS spare?
		Re: Soviet permanently manned station.
	  Re: "At the moment Uranus's south pole points..."
		Re: Morton-Thiokol Engineering Claims
		    Exploitation vs. Colonization
			    Re: Scramjets
		 Re: "zillion fatal doses of Plutoni
			  Re: Ulysses probe
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 25 Feb 86 21:41:28 GMT
From: decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!hao!noao!terak!anasazi!chad@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Chad R. Larson)
Subject: Uranus jokes
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <1995@orca.UUCP> kendalla writes:
>
>Last week on Saturday Night Live:
>	Why is it that newscasters feel obliged to change the name of
>	a planet just because its embarassing to say over the air? What's
>	so bad about telling 20 million viewers that scientists have
>	discovered black rings around UrAnus??
>I was wondering about that...
According to my Webster's Unabridged, the preferred pronunciation
has the emphasis on the first syllable.  The pronunciation used by
the SNL news guy is the secondary one.
	-crl
_____________________________________________________________________
UUCP:    {mot!terak}!anasazi!chad      	        Voice: Hey, Chad!
Ma Bell: (602) 870-3330                         ICBM:  N33deg,33min
Surface: International Anasazi, Inc.                   W112deg,03min
         7500 North Dreamy Draw Drive
         Suit 120
         Phoenix, AZ 85020
-- 
_____________________________________________________________________
UUCP:    {mot!terak}!anasazi!chad      	        Voice: Hey, Chad!
Ma Bell: (602) 870-3330                         ICBM:  N33deg,33min
Surface: International Anasazi, Inc.                   W112deg,03min
         7500 North Dreamy Draw Drive
         Suit 120
         Phoenix, AZ 85020

------------------------------

Date: 26 Feb 86 19:56:27 GMT
From: decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!mcvax!ukc!dcl-cs!david@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (David Coffield)
Subject: Re: Non-USA Exploration of Space - Europe/USA Rivalry
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <15528@rochester.UUCP> ray@rochester.UUCP writes:
>  No one country has a monopoly in space exploration.  Any country with the
>intelect, resources, resolve, dedication, desire and money can explore space.  
>If a country doesn't have most of these, than the closet they'll get to space
>is their nearest TV set when they watch the launch of another country's rocket.
>The bottom line here is: If you can, do it, if not, make some popcorn,
>sit back, and watch.  
Another bottom line is: If you can spell, post articles, if you can't, sit back
and watch.

------------------------------

Date: 24 Feb 86 07:23:41 GMT
From: ihnp4!stolaf!umn-cs!quest!dave@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (dave)
Subject: Re: TDRS spare?
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> It occurs to me that TDRS is so very important that we ought to
> build one or two spares now that one was lost in the Challenger explosion.
> Perhaps we ought to fit the spares for launch by expendable booster
> if that is possible (is the interim upper stage too large for anything
> other than STS?).
Unfortunatly, TDRS cost ~$100M so I doubt congress will approve
funding for "spares".
-- 
David Messer   UUCP:  ...ihnp4!quest!dave
                      ...ihnp4!encore!vaxine!spark!14!415!sysop
               FIDO:  14/415 (SYSOP)

------------------------------

Date: 26 Feb 86 14:39:54 GMT
From: ihnp4!stolaf!mmm!allen@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Kurt Allen)
Subject: Re: Soviet permanently manned station.
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>What are the current plans concerning the Hubble telescope? Any
>chance, that it would be launched this year?
	Aviation Week and Space tech. reported that NASA hopes to
	keep the Hubble telescope as near to schedule as possible. That
	announcement occured before the decision to redesign the SRB
	seals was announce, which will probably take around a year.
		Greetings from Northern USA (Minnesota)
-- 
	Kurt W. Allen
	3M Center
	ihnp4!mmm!allen

------------------------------

Date: 24 Feb 86 07:50:19 GMT
From: ihnp4!stolaf!umn-cs!quest!dave@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (dave)
Subject: Re: "At the moment Uranus's south pole points..."
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> How do I tell which end is North and which is South? I assume that the
> "North" pole of Mars is the one that's pointing roughly parallel to the
> North pole of Earth. That doesn't transfer to Uranus very well.
The north pole is the one in which the planet, when looked at
from above, rotates counter-clockwise.  I believe, although I
may be wrong (I remember the last time, in 1973 that... well,
thats a long story) that Uranuses north pole actually points
south of the ecliptic -- unlike most other planets.
-- 
+-----------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| Disclaimer:                       |     David Messer                 |
| I'm always right and I never lie. |                                  |
| My company knows this and agrees  |     UUCP:  ...ihnp4!quest!dave   |
| with everything I say.            |     FIDO:  14/415  (Sysop)       |
+-----------------------------------+----------------------------------+

------------------------------

Date: 26 Feb 86 17:20:26 GMT
From: ihnp4!stolaf!mmm!mrgofor@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (MKR)
Subject: Re: Morton-Thiokol Engineering Claims
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <1301@decwrl.DEC.COM> eros@chovax.DEC writes:
>
>  Over the last few days, engineers at Morton-Thiokol have been falling
>  all over one another to express how sure they were that the O-rings
>  on the SRBs would fail during launch and how schedule-minded and
>  inflexible NASA management was about delaying the mission.
>  
>  This brings up an interesting question - if these folks were
>  so sure of the danger to the SRBs (in fact, one senior engineer said
>  that he and other engineers expressed surprise at launch time that
>  Challenger cleared the tower without incident) why didn't they go
>  to the media with their concerns?  
>  
>  Tony Eros
>  !decwrl!chovax!eros
	If the MT engineers were 75% sure that the shuttle would not make
it, would that justify "going to the media" (aka "going over their bosses'
heads")? What, then, if the 25% chance happened and all went well? They'd
be in the bread lines, that's what. The bosses made the decisions, and at
some point, you have to acknowledge the authority of those "in power". You
really don't want that sort of anarchy going on in a company that handles
such sensitive ventures as this. You want to invest the authority in the 
right people and in the right decision-making systems, and follow those
rules.
	It seems to me that the problem came in that the decision-making
power was in the wrong hands. It should have been more responsive to the
engineers, who are closer to the real-life physical laws at work, rather
than resting ultimately with paper-pushing private-sector politicians whose
main concern is appearances rather than substance. To blame the engineers
for not risking their (and their families') future and security is dependent
upon what they saw as the likelyhood of a mishap. If it was 90% or more, 
perhaps I would agree with you. If it was 50% or below, you're asking
those engineers to toss a coin over their own asses. After all, they *did*
make their objections known to the right people. 
-- 
					--MKR
There is none so blind as he who cannot see.

------------------------------

Date: 27 Feb 86 00:43:04 GMT
From: decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!lll-crg!lll-lcc!qantel!intelca!oliveb!olivea!oliven!barb  (Barbara Jernigan)
Subject: Exploitation vs. Colonization
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

[First I want to apologize for a glitch in our site's new net interface 
(the Software Perversities have been waging a full scale attack on me) --
the helio/geo musing was SENT from my TERMINAL as MAIL, because it
was a MUSING -- if I'd meant to post it, I would have checked the OED
first.  (I have since reverted to the old interface.)]
Now, an aside on the exploitation of space issue, paraphrased from
the Grab Bag section of this last Sunday's San Francisco Chronicle.
The question was why the English succeeded in the new world where the
Spanish and French failed.  Answer?  The English brought their families.
Now, of course the issues then were hardly so simple (or were they???);
but the comment points out a -- to me -- interesting juxtaposition of
ideologies:  Exploitation vs. Colonization.  A man is *less* (I said *less*)
likely to despoil his own yard.
Besides, I think the doorway to space, to be a *doorway* and not a dead-end,
must open on Colonization.  At some point we (at least *some* of us ;-) need 
to leave the nest -- without thought of return.  Otherwise our sojourns into
space will remain curiosities.
Comment anyone?
Barb
(P.S. Visited NASA Ames yesterday -- second only to the prototype aircraft
for my personal entertainment were the artists' renditions of SPACE STATIONS -- 
colony-style -- hanging in the Tour Facility.  The dream is alive and kicking!)

------------------------------

Date: 28 Feb 86 01:57:47 GMT
From: bellcore!petrus!karn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Phil R. Karn)
Subject: Re: Scramjets
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> 1.  Specific impulse (Isp): thrust per pound of propellant.  At least,
>     that's the way I learned it, a carry over from non-metric
>     engineering.  (Thrust per unit mass is probably more meaningful.)
>     Propellant naturally includes both fuel and oxidizer.  You are
>     correct that in the case of air breathers, they get their oxidizer
>     from the atmosphere.  Thus, their Isp's are higher.  Rockets tend
>     to have Isp's in the low 100's; turbojets in the 3000's (?), and
>     ramjets somewhere in between....
I have several problems with this.
Specific impulse is often erroneously specified in "seconds"; the correct
units should be "meters/sec", i.e., velocity.  The error occurs because Isp
is usually defined in English units as
		pounds-force of thrust x seconds
		--------------------------------
		pounds-mass of propellant
and somebody made the mistake of "cancelling out" the pounds-force factor
with the pounds-mass factor. A good example of how the English system of
measurements befuddles thinking, but I digress...
In metric units, things are much clearer:
		newtons of thrust x seconds
		---------------------------
		kilograms of propellant
Since a newton is the force required to accelerate 1 kg by 1 meter/sec^2, it
has dimensions Kg-m/sec^2. When the other factors are included, this all
reduces to meters/second.
This way of expressing specific impulse has a much more elegant and
straightforward meaning: it is simply the velocity of the rocket exhaust
relative to the rocket.  The faster the exhaust, the higher the specific
impulse and the less mass (i.e., propellant) that must be ejected to gain a
specified impulse (momentum). Since momentum is simply mass times velocity,
this is a linear relationship. You only need half as much propellant mass if
you kick it out twice as fast. However, the energy that must be imparted to
the exhaust increases as the SQUARE of the exhaust velocity (the kinetic
energy of the exhaust is 1/2 m v^2).  If as a measure of the "energy
efficiency" of a rocket you divide the energy imparted to the exhaust by the
impulse obtained, you get:
energy	= 1/2 mass x velocity^2  ==> 1/2 x velocity
-------	  ---------------------
impulse = mass x velocity
This means that the amount of power required to sustain a given amount of
thrust goes up linearly with exhaust velocity (i.e. specific impulse).  This
is why people don't generally use rocket motors to propel automobiles.  If
to cruise down the road at a nice legal 55 mph you need X newtons of
"thrust" to balance air and road drag, it is much more energy efficient to
do this by exerting a force of X newtons against the road at 55 mph than it
is to push with the same force against a stream of hot gases traveling at
several thousand meters per second.  Similarly with airplanes, it is much
more efficient to scoop up as much of the air mass around you and push on
that than it is to push solely on the combustion products of your engine.
So what this says is that for anything other than spacecraft, where you're
not surrounded by something you can grab and push on, you want the LOWEST
specific impulse you can attain. Hence propellers and high-bypass turbojets
are more fuel-efficient than low bypass jets or rocket engines for air
travel. It's not clear to me that "specific impulse" has any meaning,
though, for an air-breathing (and air-pushing) aircraft, nor for an
automobile.
With chemical rockets, the combustion products of the reaction that produces
energy are used as the ejection mass on which the rocket "pushes".  This
means that the specific impulse of a chemical rocket is theoretically
determined by the propellants' energy density, i.e., joules per kilogram.
(I've neglected some other effects here such as the molecular weight of the
combustion products and other, non-useful ways that the combustion energy is
dissipated, but suffice to say that there is a theoretical exhaust velocity
associated with each propellant combination.)
Unlike airplanes and cars, spacecraft must carry all their reaction mass
with them.  Since work must be done to carry this mass to the point where it
is finally ejected, for any specified total delta-vee there is an OPTIMUM
specific impulse if your goal is to minimize energy requirements. Below this
point less power is needed to generate each unit of thrust, but this is
outweighed by the extra thrust (and power) needed to loft the extra ejection
mass required. On the other hand, above this point you can carry less
reaction mass, but the extra energy required to eject it at the higher
velocity more than counteracts the savings in lofting propellant mass.
So why do rocket designers always seem to be striving for higher specific
impulse? One reason is that other considerations besides energy efficiency
are important. Rockets are mechanically easier to build if they have lower
fuel-to-payload mass ratios; in particular, fewer stages may be needed. The
other reason is that in most situations, chemical rocket propellants always
seem to have less than the optimum specific impulse, so an increase is
almost always desirable.
If you go away from chemical rockets, however, the rocket's energy no longer
need be stored in its reaction mass. For example, in a nuclear rocket engine
energy from a nuclear reactor is applied it to an inert (for the purposes of
thrust) material such as hydrogen gas. It is then possible to vary the
specific impulse of the engine as an operating parameter.  If you want more
specific impulse, feed less mass to your reactor (operating at a constant
power level), or alternatively, crank up the reactor while feeding it mass
at a constant rate.  Either causes the mass to be ejected at a higher
velocity, increasing specific impulse (and the amount of power required for
each unit of thrust). Other engines in which this is possible include the
ion engine, the plasma engine and the electrothermal thruster.  In many
cases, the engine has to be operated at a LOWER specific impulse than it is
capable of because it is easier to carry additional reaction mass than
additional energy for accelerating it.  Unfortunately, all of these
non-chemical engines, with the exception of the nuclear engine, are
currently incapable of generating enough thrust to overcome their weight;
they are useful only in space when you've got plenty of time to accumulate
momentum.
Phil

------------------------------

Date: 27 Feb 86 07:41:00 GMT
From: sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!ism780c!ism780!jimb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: "zillion fatal doses of Plutoni
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> If that was true, then the entire state of Nevada's population would be
> dead by now from the A-Bomb tests of the 50s and 60s.
  Have you ever been in Elko or Winnemucca or Carson city on a Saturday
  night?  You might wonder.  :-;

------------------------------

Date: 26 Feb 86 20:04:11 GMT
From: trwrb!trwspp!spp5!brahms@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Bradley S. Brahms)
Subject: Re: Ulysses probe
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>   I don't have any idea what these people are talking about.  The whole
>idea is that Ulysses is being launched to rendezvous with Jupiter just
>like Voyager and Galileo, but it will swing around Jupiter and back over
>the solar pole.  Presumably it will then leave the solar system; what
>would cause it to circle around to the other pole??
Well, the same force that whould cause Ulysses to go around Jupiter could
cause Ulysses to orbit the sun, namly gravity.  If the trajectory was
correct, Ulysses would be caught by the sun and orbit over the pools.
However, I have no idea if this is the plan or not.
			-- Brad Brahms
			   usenet: {decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!trwrb!trwspp!brahms
			   arpa:   Brahms@usc-eclc

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #179
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA11681; Tue, 4 Mar 86 03:01:11 PST
	id AA11681; Tue, 4 Mar 86 03:01:11 PST
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 86 03:01:11 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8603041101.AA11681@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #180

*** EOOH ***
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 86 03:01:11 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #180

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 180

Today's Topics:
	       The Exodus (of Childes and other types)
			Re: GAMEBRAINS trivia.
			      Re: HOTOL
		 Re: Please remove me from this list
			     Nuclear OTV
		Re: "zillion fatal doses of Plutonium"
			      Supernovas
		       Evading the dreaded axe.
		 Re: Re: Side comment on the disaster
				Safety
		      HOTOL Airbreathing Rocket
			    Cancer in Utah
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 28 Feb 86 01:06:18 GMT
From: decvax!cwruecmp!hal!ncoast!allbery@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Brandon Allbery)
Subject: The Exodus (of Childes and other types)
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Expires:
Quoted from <515@cisden.UUCP> ["Re: Why does everyone want to leave this planet?"], by phillips@cisden.UUCP (Tom Phillips)...
+---------------
| In article <2960@ut-ngp.UUCP> cgeiger@ut-ngp.UUCP (Charles S. Geiger, Esq.) writes:
| >Well, why?  While I am very interested in astronomy and all that
| >sort of thing, I don't understand why anyone would want to
| >permanently migrate to another planet.  There's just so much *here*
| >to see and learn, certainly enough to last a lifetime!  Most
| >importantly, this is our home.
| >Frankly, I hope all of you gung-ho types will get the opportunity
| >to leave and will take advantage of it.  That way all the
| >exploiters, conquerors, or, to be charitable, "adventurous" types
| >(what's so unadventurous about staying here and learning about your
| >own planet?) will leave, and I can be at peace here.
+---------------
"What space travel does do is drain off the best brains:  those smart enough
to see a catastrophe before it happens and with the guts to pay the price --
abandon home, wealth, friends, relatives, everything -- and *go*."
				L. Long (R.A. Heinlein, TIME ENOUGH FOR LOVE)
If you're a ``Childe'' or another who's willing to go out there, fear not
these.  We can go and leave them behind, and be better for it.  (I dislike the
implication that I am an exploiter, a conqueror -- my drives are deeper than
the superficial desire for power.  I desire knowledge, gained in the only way
that means anything -- going out and wrestling it from the universe.  I desire
freedom -- the freedom of limitless space.  I desire to see humanity out
amongst the worlds -- this one DOES have a selfish cause:  I know that my
chances of survival are between infinitesimal and zero without the rest of
humanity, and I truly believe that humanity is doomed if it doesn't get itself
spread out so that no planetary disaster (not just nuclear war -- consider
the Ice Age we should be in, except for a warm spell whose end is due soon)
can wipe it out.
Will the ``Childe''s of the Net please stand up?
--Brandon
-- 
In mid-winter, all of us Midwesterners would *love* a taste of California...
	(r-r-r-rumble) (SHA-A-KE!!!)		      ...but not *that* badly!
decvax!cwruecmp!ncoast!allbery  ncoast!allbery@Case.CSNET  ncoast!tdi2!brandon
(ncoast!tdi2!root for business)      6615 Center St. #A1-105, Mentor, OH 44060
Phone: +01 216 974 9210      CIS 74106,1032      MCI MAIL BALLBERY (part-time)

------------------------------

Date: 27 Feb 86 21:49:00 GMT
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiucdcsp!silber@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: GAMEBRAINS trivia.
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

John is correct, insofar as I know.  I've seen the example he presents in
three classes at two universities, but as of yet not in print.  I doubt
that it was a missing hyphen since most of these programs start out in
FORTRAN, and I can't see any point to a hyphen in any sort of program.

------------------------------

Date: 27 Feb 86 22:14:00 GMT
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiucdcsp!silber@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: HOTOL
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

I haven't really been keeping up with the development of HOTOL, so this may
be an inane question, but was there any discussion/possibility of it being
a human-piloted craft?  It seems to me that if they allow humans as 'cargo',
it should be possible to include a flight-deck module, at least for manned
flights.  On the otherhand, this may not be really necessary.  I saw on
PBS recently that the new generation of jet-liners are capable of flying
themselves under normal conditions including take-off and landing, and that
the crews spend most of their time checking the instruments and occasionally
dealing with unforseen circumstances.

------------------------------

Date: 26 Feb 86 23:21:00 GMT
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!convex!ctvax!kerry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Please remove me from this list
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>/* Written  4:20 am  Feb 19, 1986 by HCGRS@CLEMSON.CSNET in ctvax:net.space */
>/* ---------- "Please remove me from this list" ---------- */
>How many times do I have to request deletion from this list before
>somebody acts on it?  10 times?  20?  30?  Just tell me, please, and
>I'll be happy to have my mailer generate as many messages as needed.
       I believe the number is 1.0E123456789.

------------------------------

Posted-Date: Sun 2 Mar 1986 10:14:11 EST
Date: Sun 2 Mar 1986 10:14:11 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Nuclear OTV
To: space@s1-b.arpa

I just read in AWST about an interesting idea for an orbital transfer
vehicle.  The vehicle uses a small nuclear reactor (about the size of
a 55 gallon oil drum) to heat hydrogen.  The nuclear fuel could supply
enough energy for 100 round trips from low orbit to geosynchronous orbit
and back again.  Hydrogen would be brought up for each flight.  As I
recall, solid core nuclear rockets can reach a specific impulse of 1200
seconds (vs. 450 or so for oxygen/hydrogen rockets).

------------------------------

Date: 28 Feb 86 00:16:21 GMT
From: decwrl!glacier!oliveb!olivea!oliven!barb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Barbara Jernigan)
Subject: Re: "zillion fatal doses of Plutonium"
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>    -- David desJardins
>    ...I do think that there is some possible
> danger associated with an explosion on or near the launch pad.  An explosion
> ten miles up over the Atlantic is not much of a concern, but it does seem
> possible that an explosion on the launch pad could at the least contaminate
> the launch area.  Talking about killing several thousand people is absurd,
> but I think NASA should at least consider the probable effects of such an
> accident...
Do you suggest they haven't?  I am, perhaps, naive, but I'm also married to
a conscientious engineer.  He can't be an oddity (though he *is* unique ;-).
I'm sure the engineers from the word go consider the possibility of an 
explosion shredding the payload.  *I* wouldn't send a volatile substance 
(especially something as gnarly as Plutonium) up without encasing it in some 
pretty strong stuff -- and I doubt that NASA (even their ignorant beaurocrats) 
would be so naive as to *not* at least acknowledge a worst case scenario in
their designs.  They may make mistakes, but they're not stupid.
Any JPL designers out there to affirm or nay-say?
Barb

------------------------------

Date: Sun,  2 Mar 86 14:01:16 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@mc.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: Supernovas
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Cc: KFL@mc.lcs.mit.edu

  Supernovas are very rare events.  It is estimated that they happen
no more than once per century in a galaxy our size.  That is about ten
to the eleventh stars.  So any given star (such as Sirius) only has
about a one in ten to the thirteenth chance of going supernova in any
given year.
  Our galaxy has a volume of about ten to the fourteenth cubic
lightyears.  So the supernova density is about ten to the minus 16th
supernovas per cubic light year per year.  We can expect one every
2 thousand years within 10,000 lighyears, one every 2 million years
within 1000 lightyears, one every 2 billion years within 100
lightyears, and one every 2 trillion years within ten lightyears.
None of these except the last would hurt us.
  There are plenty of good reasons for going into space, but
supernovas aren't one of them.  Lets try to stick to realistic
reasons if we are going to preach to the not yet converted.
								...Keith

------------------------------

Date:     Sun,  2 Mar 86  11:58:52 EST
From: SHADOW%UMass.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu  (Local UMass address is The
  SHADOW@Mailer.CY175)
Subject:  Evading the dreaded axe.
To: SPACE@s1-b.arpa

With the recent wave of testimonials given by both NASA Launch Control
executives, and Morton Thiokol engineers, it would appear that someone is
definitely trying to evade the presidential axe from falling on them.  I
realize that at first this sounds like an obvious statement, but there are
subtlties about it which extend beyond the surface of the apparent shift-
ing of blame now going on between these two factions.  The first thing to
notice is all the letters the three major networks seem to be uncovering
through their nefarious sources which all seem to have forewarned of the
shuttle disaster.  With the number of these letters always increasing, it
seems to me as if the people who wrote them did so, knowing that the recipient
could toss them aside when nothing went wrong, and yet, had that on their
record when the inquisition came knocking on their door.  In other words,
forecasting doom seems to be the best way of covering your butt if the
unthinkable happens.  With all the noise Morton Thiokol is raising, I now
begin to wonder whether it's the engineers, or the bureaucrats who are being
entrusted with the future of manned space flight.  Certainly, if it is
latter, then NASA can expect more disasters like this to plague them into the
next century, if we ever get off the ground before then.  Outstanding service
from a major aviation firm is measured by its ability to stand by their
clients when the worst happens.  From Morton Thiokol's slipshot testimony
AFTER the fact, NASA should seriously look for a new SRB developer.

                                                  - James Belfiore
                                                    (SHADOW@UMass.Bitnet)

------------------------------

Posted-Date: Sun 2 Mar 1986 12:29:23 EST
Date: Sun 2 Mar 1986 12:29:23 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Re: Re: Side comment on the disaster
To: "William L. Sebok" <hplabs!hao!noao!astrovax!wls@ucbvax.berkeley.edu>
In-Reply-To: hplabs!hao!noao!astrovax!wls's message of 25 Feb 86 04:29:29 GMT
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa

[debate between E. M. Smith and Bill Sebok on reusuability and size of
  launchers]

There are additional advantages to small launchers.  Generically,
building a small ANYTHING is a good way to get experience before
building a large economy-sized model.  Small jets were built before
747s.  Small rockets were launched before the Saturns.  It's
generally easier to try out competing technologies at the prototype
stage.  The motto "plan to throw one away, you will anyway" applies
to any complex system, not just to software.

>   Reusability is a critical issue because
>   it is tied so closely to cost.

One of the shuttle's problems is that it's not really reusable.
The ET gets thrown away ($40 million (?) right there).  The SRB's
require extensive refurbishment.  The tiles need to be inspected.
The main engines require constant maintenance and rebuilding.
I'd like to see hard numbers on the number of man-years of effort
needed for one shuttle flight vs. a similar number for one expendable
flight (including the effort in building the shuttle, amortized, and
the effort in building the expendable booster).  I expect the ratio
is quite small.

------------------------------

Date: Sun,  2 Mar 86 14:43:55 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@mc.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: Safety
To: REM%IMSSS@su-ai.arpa
Cc: KFL@mc.lcs.mit.edu, Space@s1-b.arpa

    From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@su-ai.arpa>

    There is no such thing as an absolutely safe level of just about
    anything ... A more reasonable definition of safe level ... is whatever
    it takes to offset reproduction. When young people are killed off before
    they can reproduce, in such numbers that the ones that remain can't
    reproduce fast enough to make up for the ones that died, then we have a
    truly fatal dose of whatever it is. Anything less than that is just a
    painful way to slow down the population explosion. ...

  I agree that the idea that anything that can be dangerous should be
eliminated is an unreasonable position, but I think your position is
just as unreasonable in the other direction.
  By your standard, if introducing a substance into the environment
would cause 50% of the population before they reach 20 and 90% of the
population before they reach 30 to die horribly and painfully of
cancer, it should still be permissible because it would still be
possible to breed fast enough to outrace this scourge.
  By your standard, the dark ages were perfectly acceptable.  Despite
the terrible diseases and the raw sewage in the streets and the stink
and the mindless superstitions and the pitiful life expectancy and the
enormous infant mortality rate, the population did expand except
during a few particularly horrible decades in the 14th century.
  The term 'population explosion' is a pernicious term.  It makes
population sound like a bad thing.  Remember that if the pouplation
were to be less, many people alive today either would be dead or would
never would have been born.  Instead of imagining 'our little brown
brothers' or other third world peoples to be the subjects (victims) of
population reduction measures (i.e. final solution), try imagining
your parents, your wife or girlfriend, the people on the net, or
yourself, as being one of the 'reduced'.  It puts things in a whole
new light, doesn't it?
  The main point in going into space is to be able to support a much
higher population.  MUCH higher.  And every person a billionaire, by
todays standards.
  As for safety, the only rational approach is to weigh costs against
benefits.  Ideally this weighing should be done by the individual
concerned in each case.  The Challenger astronauts knew what sort of a
chance they were taking.  My attitude towards the Challenger disaster
would be very different if the astronauts were not volunteers.
  Most people seem to be willing to take considerable chances for
small gains.  Consider the number of people who still smoke, or who
drive without seatbelts.  This is an enormous risk to gain ratio.
  I consider myself a fairly cautious person.  I don't smoke, drink,
or take drugs (not even aspirin (or tylenol!)).  I don't stay around
people who are smoking, even if it means I lose my job.  I drive a car
as seldom and as slowly as possible, and always wear a seatbelt.  I
eat little meat and eggs, and no pork.  I don't have sex with
strangers.  I test the battery in my smoke detector every two weeks.
  But I do not hesitate to use a microwave oven, use small radioactive
pellets in experiments at work, spend hours every day in front of a
video terminal, or ride airplanes.
  (And it does seem to work.  I have not been sick in fifteen years,
not even a cold or flu.)
  I believe, very strongly, in both quality of life and in quantity of
life.  The more of both, the better.
								...Keith

------------------------------

Date: 2 Mar 86 14:42:43 EST
From: Hank.Walker@unh.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: HOTOL Airbreathing Rocket
To: BBoard.Maintainer@a.cs.cmu.edu

An article in New Scientist briefly described the airbreathing rocket
planned for use in the British Aerospace HOTOL.  The basic idea seems to be
to use liquid hydrogen to condense air, separate out the liquid oxygen, and
then burn it with the hydrogen in a rocket.  At higher altitudes, the engine
would switch to onboard oxygen.  The article didn't discuss it much, but
there seem to be obvious problems with water and carbon dioxide ice buildup,
as well as how to do the condensation rapidly and separate the oxygen and
nitrogen.  This all sounds very heavy.  Does anyone know more?  The CMU
library copies of Aviation Week disappear or are read to shreds moments
after arrival.

------------------------------

Date: Sun,  2 Mar 86 15:16:40 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@mc.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: Cancer in Utah
To: ihnp4!ihlpa!animal@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Cc: KFL@mc.lcs.mit.edu, Space@s1-b.arpa

    From: ihnp4!ihlpa!animal@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (D. Starr)

    The state of Nevada's not dead, but the state of Utah, which is downwind
    of the bomb test sites, has an unusually high cancer rate.

  References please?  I have been told that Utah has the US's lowest
cancer rate, mosty because so few people smoke there.
								...Keith

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #180
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA12606; Tue, 4 Mar 86 07:01:18 PST
	id AA12606; Tue, 4 Mar 86 07:01:18 PST
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 86 07:01:18 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8603041501.AA12606@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #181

*** EOOH ***
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 86 07:01:18 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #181

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 181

Today's Topics:
			  Re: Dyson Spheres
		Re: Morton-Thiokol Engineering Claims
			    Ulysses probe
			    Re: plutonium
		  Re: Comment on this mailing list.
			     Re: Ulysses
		  Re: MIR  APOGEE/PERIGEE CORECTIONS
			    Re: plutonium
			    Re: plutonium
----------------------------------------------------------------------

To: brahms!desj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu, SPACE@mc.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Dyson Spheres
Date: 02 Mar 86 09:05:18 PST (Sun)
From: jef@lbl-rtsg.arpa

    Date:  1 Mar 86 04:17:48 GMT
    From:  brahms!desj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (David desJardins)
    Dyson spheres are science fiction (no offense).  Not that they aren't
    theoretically possible (if you're willing to live without gravity),
    but the technology required is incomparably greater than that needed
    for interstellar ships.

The Dyson spheres that have appeared in science fiction are indeed science
fiction (big surprise), and are not even theoretically possible, but they
are not what Dyson was talking about.  All his paper said was that older
intelligent species would eventually need all the solar energy their sun
produces, and so they would enclose it with a sphere of solar power
generators, and if we want to find them we should look for infrared stars.
But note well: the sphere does *not* have to be solid!  The easy (!) way
to build a Dyson sphere is as billions of solar power satellites in
solar orbit.
---
Jef

------------------------------

Date: 28 Feb 86 11:26:21 GMT
From: cbosgd!osu-eddie!pritch@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Norman Pritchett)
Subject: Re: Morton-Thiokol Engineering Claims
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <564@mmm.UUCP> mrgofor@mmm.UUCP (MKR) writes:
>In article <1301@decwrl.DEC.COM> eros@chovax.DEC writes:
>>
>>  Over the last few days, engineers at Morton-Thiokol have been falling
>>  all over one another to express how sure they were that the O-rings
>>  on the SRBs would fail during launch and how schedule-minded and
>>  inflexible NASA management was about delaying the mission.
>>  
>>  This brings up an interesting question - if these folks were
>>  so sure of the danger to the SRBs (in fact, one senior engineer said
>>  that he and other engineers expressed surprise at launch time that
>>  Challenger cleared the tower without incident) why didn't they go
>>  to the media with their concerns?  
>>  
>>  Tony Eros
>>  !decwrl!chovax!eros
>
>	If the MT engineers were 75% sure that the shuttle would not make
>it, would that justify "going to the media" (aka "going over their bosses'
>heads")? What, then, if the 25% chance happened and all went well? They'd
>be in the bread lines, that's what. The bosses made the decisions, and at
>some point, you have to acknowledge the authority of those "in power". You
>really don't want that sort of anarchy going on in a company that handles
>such sensitive ventures as this. You want to invest the authority in the 
>right people and in the right decision-making systems, and follow those
>rules.
>
Even after the accident, they couldn't voice their concerns until after the
cuase was determined.  There is the likelyhood that some other failure may
have been the cause and the M-T engineerings coming out immediately would
have prevented an objective anylsis of the evidence.
-- 
Norm Pritchett, The Ohio State University
BITNET: TS1703 at OHSTVMA	Bellnet: (614) 422-0885
UUCP: cbosgd!osu-eddie!pritch	CSNET: pritch@ohio-state
ARPANET: NPRITCHETT%osu-20@ohio-state (or) pritch@ohio-state

------------------------------

Date: Mon,  3 Mar 86 02:05:00 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@mc.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: Ulysses probe
To: brahms!desj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Cc: KFL@mc.lcs.mit.edu, Space@s1-b.arpa

    From: brahms!desj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (David desJardins)

       I don't have any idea what these people are talking about.  The whole
    idea is that Ulysses is being launched to rendezvous with Jupiter just
    like Voyager and Galileo, but it will swing around Jupiter and back over
    the solar pole.  Presumably it will then leave the solar system; what
    would cause it to circle around to the other pole??

  I just spent several hours working out the math, and I am somewhat
confused.  I assume that unlike the Voyager and Pioneer probes, that
Ulysses has some onboard fuel to be used in the vicinity of Jupiter.
If the Jupiter pass is completely passive, as with Pioneer and
Voyager, the furthest out of the ecliptic it could get would be 26
degrees, not 90 degrees as would be necessary to go over either of the
Sun's poles.
  I have proven to my satisfaction that the orbit does not escape from
the solar system but will continue to pass over both poles if it
passes over one.
  Can someone from JPL or NASA give us the facts?
								...Keith

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 2 Mar 86 23:11:49 EST
From: ulysses!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!wdm@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Tex)
To: pur-ee!space
Subject: Re: plutonium
Newsgroups: net.space
In-Reply-To: <860228145732.368978@HI-MULTICS.ARPA>
Cc: 

In article <860228145732.368978@HI-MULTICS.ARPA> you write:
>(Please excuse the mild sarcasm :-)
>
>Since the scientific proof obviously does not exist to back up my
>statement, I retract my entire statement.  Plutonium is completely
>harmless, and there would be no additional danger in having the shuttle
>carrying the Galileo and Ulysses probes explode over the present
>explosion.  In fact, a plan has been developed to introduce plutonium
>into children's breakfast cereal as a replacement for sugar.
>
>After all, we've been doing this stuff for years and nobody can prove
>that anybody has ever died from it.  Therefore, it must not be harmful.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Brett Slocum

Upset that some people refused to jump on the hysteria bandwagon?

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 2 Mar 86 23:14:28 EST
From: ulysses!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!wdm@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Tex)
To: pur-ee!space
Subject: Re: Comment on this mailing list.
Newsgroups: net.space
In-Reply-To: <860228151236.353975@HI-MULTICS.ARPA>
Cc: 

In article <860228151236.353975@HI-MULTICS.ARPA> you write:
>I was not aware of the requirement for presenting complete scientific
>evidence to back up all statements on this mailing list.  I will rectify
>this in the future, and I will expect all participates to do likewise.
>Thank you.
>
>Brett Slocum
>
>P.S.  Yes, I know.  More Sarcasm.

   Be serious; "complete scientific evidence" is hardly a requirement, but when
   you post something really stupid, expect people to react as if it is really
   stupid.
   Predicting several tens of thousands of deaths as the result of a shuttle
   explosion falls in the category of "really stupid."

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 3 Mar 86 03:57:03 PST
From: jon@csvax.caltech.edu (Jonathan P. Leech)
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Re: Ulysses

    Recently I made the following statement:

      "Ulysses is a European probe, to be launched from  the  Shuttle,
       which will go over one the Sun's poles..."

    this has lead to an unfortunate amount of flaming  and  confusion.
What I should have said was that, as far as I know (which is  not  all
that far), there are no plans for  the	Ulysses  mission  to  continue
around to the other pole, i.e. ESA will not be	receiving  information
from it at that time. This is based solely on  some  sketches  of  the
flight plan I saw years ago. What I said was not  intended  to	be  an
assertion about orbital mechanics; I really don't know if the  mission
will remain in Solar orbit or not.  There was a scientist who  is  ***
ACTUALLY PARTICPATING *** in the Ulysses mission who made a couple  of
comments about it (name  unfortunately	forgotten)  -  perhaps	he  is
willing to clear this up.

    -- Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu)
    __@/

------------------------------

Date: 3 Mar 86 04:51:27 GMT
From: uwvax!puff!hammen@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Zaphod Beeblebrox)
Subject: Re: MIR  APOGEE/PERIGEE CORECTIONS
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <1426@decwrl.DEC.COM>, biro@pipa.DEC writes:
> 
> .......
>
> Also several people have asked about a good reference source for
> Soviet Space Programs. The U.S. Government  Printing  Office has 
> 3 good books that they sell.
> 
> SOVIET SPACE PROGRAMS:
> PART 1.  dealing with launch vehicles and sites and goals
> PART 2.  Manned Space Programs and Space Life Sciences
> PART 3.  Unmanned space activities
> 
> Part 1 is out of print, Part 2 was advable when I got my copy
> about a year ago, and Part 3 at that time was not yet advable.  
> 
> john
Another excellent source of information are the books by James Oberg,
'Red Star In Orbit' and 'The New Race For Space.'  Oberg is a NASA employee
who works one of the consoles at the Johnson Space Center.  He provides
detailed pictures, evidence and descriptions of the Soviet space program.
Some of his material may be flawed, but I generally find it better reading
(not necessarily more factual) than the US government books.  There are a 
couple of older books, 'The Kremlin and the Kosmos', by Nicholas Daniloff,
and 'The Russian Space Bluff' by some Russian defector I can't remember.
There are also books by Peter Smolders and Evgeny Riabchenkov (sp?) which
are again rather old (10-15 yrs.) but nonetheless interesting.
Robert J. Hammen		{seismo,allegra,ihnp4}!uwvax!puff!hammen
U. of Wisc. CS Dept.					    !gumby!hammen
U. of Wisc. Plasma Physics Dept. hammen@puff.wisc.edu
Manta Software Corp.		 hammen@gumby.wisc.edu
MAIL: 45 N. Orchard St. Madison WI 53715     AT&T: (608)251-2846

------------------------------

Date:  Mon, 3 Mar 86 10:58 CST
From: Brett Slocum <Slocum@hi-multics.arpa>
Subject:  Re: plutonium
To: space@s1-b.arpa

Now, sarcasm aside.

In regards to the plutonium question, I should have stated that plutonium
is a rather poisonous substance, not the most poisonous.  Since few
studies have been done since the 50's due to lack of government interest
and money and volunteers, it is difficult to exactly determine 
the toxicity.  I tend to take potential risks seriously, unlike the
NASA and MT management (and some readers of this forum) appear to. 

I don't buy the harmlessness of dropping radioactive materials into the
ocean.  Yes, the United States did it for a while (and stopped), and
Britain is still doing it, but there have been problems from this
activity.  Areas in coastal Ireland, which is the closest land area
to the British dumping area, have reported very high incidences of
cancer, attributable to the dumping activity.  Also, some of the material
has been found as far away as Scandinavia.  Now, I realise that the
amount involved in dumping are high, but the material is put into
steel or lead casks and supposedly remains intact.  In the case of the shuttle,
most of the material may remain intact, but some will not, and little of
it would be as well protected as the dumping casks.  

As far as the death of thousands, I'm not talking about dying instantly
or even in a month from the accident. I'm talking ten years down the road.
Cancer works that way. 

In reference to hysteria, I find the negative responses to my original posting
to show a remarkable level of propaganda in the opposite direction. They
seem to be saying "No experts believe plutonium to be exceptionally
dangerous", "No additional deaths would occur", "Nobody has ever died
from atmospheric releases of plutonium", "It's safe to dump it in the
ocean", etc. with as little to back them up as I did.  They sound like
spokespersons for Kerr-McGee or the rest of the nuclear power industry or
the U.S. government.

Now, I hope that we can leave this topic alone and move on to other things.

    -- Brett Slocum <Slocum at HI-MULTICS.ARPA>

P.S. My reference was not the National Enquirer, but The Nation, which
is respected, but somewhat anti-nuclear.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 3 Mar 86 10:23:44 PST
From: mcgeer%ji@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Rick McGeer)
To: Slocum@hi-multics.arpa
Subject: Re: plutonium
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa

	Calling The Nation a respected journal is more than a little dicey...
there are some of us who give The Nation about as much credence as Pravda.
Whatever your feelings about The Nation, I'm sure you'll admit that it is
hardly a technically-literate publication.

	Anyway, NOBODY said that "'Nobody has ever died from atmospheric
releases of plutonium'"; or "'it's safe to dump it in the ocean'".  What
people DID say, and which you DID NOT, was that the risks from plutonium,
or any other material can be measured and have been measured.  Indeed,
it is not true that "few studies have been done since the '50's due to lack
of government interest"; the subject has been extensively studied and
debated.  Indeed, one correspondent in the last few days gave precise
figures from a 1977 text on the subject.  Further figures can be found in
Petr Beckmann's "The Health Hazards of Not Going Nuclear" or Michio Kazuo's
"Nuclear Power: Both Sides".


						-- Rick.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #181
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA01222; Tue, 4 Mar 86 23:01:50 PST
	id AA01222; Tue, 4 Mar 86 23:01:50 PST
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 86 23:01:50 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8603050701.AA01222@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #182

*** EOOH ***
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 86 23:01:50 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #182

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 182

Today's Topics:
		 Info on Japanese Amateur Satellite 1
		   ISPM / Ulysses / Olysses Orbits.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 1 Mar 86 09:53:40 GMT
From: bellcore!petrus!karn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Phil R. Karn)
Subject: Info on Japanese Amateur Satellite 1
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Posted: Sat  Feb 22, 1986   2:54 AM GMT              Msg: KGIG-2396-4697
From:   TOKAMOTO
To:     DOCS
Subj:   JAS1.DOC
     I---------------------------------------------------I
     I                                                   I
     I                 J   A   S   -   1                 I
     I                                                   I
     I---------------------------------------------------I
    Introduction:
    JAS-1 is an amateur radio satellite, promoted by JARL as
    a joint venture  with  NASDA.  NEC constructed  "system"
    units (space frame, power supply etc.),   while  JAMSAT,
    with   its   selected  volunteer   JAS-1  project  team,
    designed and  built the "mission"  units  (transponders,
    telemetry/command  and house keeping micro-computer) and
    ground support systems.
    JAS-1  has   been  completed  and  has  passed  all  the
    necessary  tests.   It is in  a clean room  waiting  for
    the launch, currently scheduled for August 1986.
    The outline of this unique satellite is explained in the
    following.
    Many thanks to Harold Price, NK6K,  for  his  assistance
    in the preparation of this article.
                                          February 11, 1986
                                          N6MBM/JA2PKI
                                          Tak Okamoto
                                          191 Pinestone,
                                          Irvine, CA 92714
                                      Hamnet : 72307,3224
                                    Telemail : TOKAMOTO
   - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    JAS-1 Mission Objectives:
    1.  JAS-1 will provide reliable world-wide amateur radio
    communications.
    2.  JAS-1  will enable  radio amateurs to study tracking
    and command techniques.
    3.  JAS-1  will  offer an in-space  "proving ground" for
    radio amateur developed  and built transponders and sub-
    systems.
    4.  JAS-1 will provide NASDA an opportunity to carry out
    a "multi-payload" launch using their new "H-1" launcher.
    (NASDA has never engaged in a multi-payload launch, thus
    the  JAS-1   project  will  offer  NASDA   an  excellent
    opportunity by providing  them with  an  active  payload
    having  its own  telemetry-beacon  and  transponder  for
    ranging.)
   - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1. Form and general dimensions:
    The   spacecraft   takes    the   form   of  a  26-facet
    polyhedron,  which  measures  400 mm  X  400 mm X 470 mm
    and weighs 50 kilograms.
2. Launch and Orbit:
    JAS-1 will be launched into a circular low-earth  orbit,
    which will be non-sun synchronous and non-polar.
    Launch vehicle             : H-1   2 stage rocket
    Launch number              : Test Flight # 1
    Launch site                : Tanegashima Is.  Japan
    Launch date                : August 1986
    Estimated inclination      : 50 degrees
    Estimated altitude         : 1500 k.m.
    Estimated period           : 120 minutes
    Estimated window per pass  : 20 minutes/pass
    Estimated passes per day   : 8 passes/day
3. Designed life:
    Estimated lifetime is 3 years
4. Special Features of JAS-1:
    JAS-1 carries  two separate mode J transponders.  One is
    a  linear  transponder,   and  the  other is  a  digital
    "store-and-forward" transponder mainly for non-real-time
    communication between stations located in different time
    zones.
    The reasons for selecting mode J for this first Japanese
    amateur radio communications satellite are:
    a)  It is becoming increasingly difficult to use 145-MHz
    for  a satellite downlink because of man-made electrical
    noise and other interference.
    b)  The planners of JAS-1 wanted to provide a  successor
    to  AMSAT  OSCAR-8's  mode  J,   which  was   originally
    developed by JAMSAT's engineering team back in 1976.
    c)   435 MHz   is  much  quieter than   145 MHz   as   a
    downlink  band,  it is comparatively free from  man-made
    noise and sky-temperature effects.
    The   digital  transponder  will  provide   "error-free"
    information exchange.
5. Transponders:
    a) The linear transponder = mode JA :
    The  passband  will  be  100 kHz wide.  The  transponder
    will have an output of 1 watt   p.e.p.   Ground stations
    will   need  an  uplink  power  of  100 watts   e.i.r.p.
    The sidebands will be reversed, i.e., the uplink is LSB, 
    the downlink is USB.  There will be a 100 mW c.w. beacon
    switchable to PSK when needed.
    Uplink   pass band : 145.90 MHz - 146.00 MHz
    Downlink pass band : 435.80 MHz - 435.90 MHz
    Beacon    freq.    : 435.795 MHz
    Translate freq.    : 581.80 MHz
    b) The digital transponder = mode JD :
    There  will  be four 145 MHz band input  channels  using
    Manchester  coded  FM for the uplink.   Ground  stations
    will  need  100  watts  e.i.r.p.   There  will  be   one
    downlink   channel in the 435 MHz band  using  PSK,  the
    output will be 1 watt RMS.
    Channels are :
    Uplink   channel 1 : 145.850 MHz
      ,,     channel 2 : 145.870 MHz
      ,,     channel 3 : 145.890 MHz
      ,,     channel 4 : 145.910 MHz
    Downlink channel   : 435.910 MHz
    The data format is HDLC.   The protocol is AX.25 Level 2 
    Version  2.  The data  transfer  rate  is 1200  bps  for 
    both uplink  and downlink.
    The reasons for not using  Bell-202 type  FSK modulation
    are:
    a)  To  reduce the  parts count  onboard  JAS-1.   Using
    Manchester  coded FM for uplink reduces JAS-1's  onboard
    decoder chip count by 16.
    b)  To  improve the downlink margins.   Due  to  JAS-1's
    tight  power  budget,  only 1 watt is generated  by  the
    downlink  transmitter.    A  more  efficient  modulation
    scheme like PSK is required.
    JAS-1  will be  a store  and  forward  system but not  a
    real time digipeater.  Digipeating is  not an  effective 
    use of a low orbit satellite such as JAS-1, which  has a 
    limited communication foot print and visibility time.
    JAS-1  has  4 uplink channels  for  1  downlink channel.
    This  is  because  the  difference of channel efficiency
    between  uplink  and  downlink.  An  uplink  channel  is 
    shared by several ground  users.  Since the ground users
    can't hear each other, and are listening to the downlink 
    channel  anyway,  the  uplinks  are  subject  to  packet 
    collisions.  This  scheme is called "Pure ALOHA", and is
    known to have a theoretical  maximum  channel throughput 
    of 18.4%.  The JAS-1  downlink is 100%  efficient, since
    only JAS-1  transmits  there.  To  balance  capacity, as 
    well as add redundancy, four uplink channels  are  used.
    
    The combined uplink efficiency is then 4 * 18.4% or 76%.
    The remaining downlink time is used for general messages
    and telemetry data.
    JAS-1  will  accept a connect from only one station at a 
    time  with  the  software  scheduled  for  initial  use.
    Multiple  connections  will  be  supported in subsequent 
    software updates.  General packet operation is scheduled
    to begin in November 1986.
6.  Digital Hardware:
    The microprocessor  is  a MIL-STD-883B  screened NSC-800
    running  with  a  1.6MHz clock.    This   is   the  only 
    processor on board. It controls the  digital transponder 
    and also acts as an IHU (Integrated Housekeeping Unit).
    The  on-board  memory  has   a  1.5MB  physical  storage
    capacity.   48  chips  of  NMOS  256K  DRAMs  are  used.
    A hardware  based error-detection/correction circuit  is
    incorporated  to protect  the entire  1.5 MB and provide
    an  1 MB  error  free  memory  area.  The system program
    occupies  some  32KB,  the  rest  is  used  for  message
    storage.
    The   memory  unit  is  physically   divided  into  four 
    identical  256KB  memory  cards,  any one  of  which can
    be assigned as the system area.  Up to three  cards  can 
    be turned off.   This design provides system  redundancy 
    and allows command stations to control power consumption 
    without a total loss of service.
    JAS-1 has five hardware HDLC controllers.   Four of them
    are for the uplink channels and one is for the  downlink 
    channel.   In  total,  these controllers consist of some 
    140 CMOS MSIs,  yet their power consumption is less than 
    that of a single NMOS LSI HDLC controller like WD-1933.
    JAS-1 does not have any ROM but has simple hardware boot
    strap  circuit  instead.   This  design  is  to increase
    system flexibility and reliability.
7. Power system:
    25  of  JAS-1's 26 faces are covered with a total of 979
    pieces of solar cells.  They  will generate 8.5 watts of
    power at the beginning of life.
    JAS-1 employs  11 Ni-Cd battery cells with a capacity of
    6 AH.  These  supply  14 volts  average to  JAS-1's main
    power buss.  The 14 volts is converted  and regulated to
    +10V, +5V and -5V.
8. Antenna system:
    JAS-1 has three antennas.
    2 m reception antenna
     Slant 1/4 wave Mono-pole   Isotropic        -4 dBi gain
    70 cm transmission antenna
     Mode-JA : Slant Turnstile L.H.C.P.  +Z axis +3 dBi gain
     Mode-JD : Slant Turnstile R.H.C.P.  -Z axis +3 dBi gain
9. Attitude control:
    Forced  shaking   using  the earth's geomagnetic  field.  
    JAS-1 has two 1 ATm sq. permanent magnets in its Z axis.
10. Telemetry:
    Analog  system  telemetry  has 12 analog channels and 33
    system status flags.  This telemetry can be sent without
    the  help  of the NSC800 microprocessor  and   will   be  
    turned  on automatically  by the separation from the H-1 
    launcher.   The telemetry is sent on the 100mW beacon on 
    435.795MHz in CW,  switchable to PSK.
    Digital system  telemetry has  29 analog channels and 33
    system status flags.  This software driven telemetry can
    be   sent  in any  format,   and can include short  text 
    messages.  This telemetry can be sent on either the mode 
    JD  downlink  channel  (435.910MHz) or the  mode  JA  CW 
    beacon (435.795MHz).
11. Command:
    A  simple  3-channel  tele-command system  is  used  for
    global    control   functions,    e.g.   JA  transponder
    "ON"/"OFF",  JD transponder "ON"/"OFF"  and  independent
    "ON"/"OFF" of the A-0  beacon. An additional 37 channels
    are  available   mainly  for  controlling   the  digital
    transponder.
    Onboard command from the NSC-800 is also available.
12. Ground stations:
    Mode-JA:
    A ground station setup which  was used for Amsat Oscar-8
    mode-J  can be used  for JAS-1 mode-JA. A station with a
    10 watt 2 m SSB transmitter and a 10dBi beam for uplink;
    and a 70 cm receiver (with low NF) with a 15dBi beam for 
    downlink; should be adequate for this job.
    Mode-JD:
    In addition  to the mode-JA set up,  FM mode is required
    for the 2 m transmitter.
    Since   JAS-1 uses the standard AX.25 protocol and  1200 
    bps data rate,   ground stations  will be able to use  a 
    TAPR-style  TNC,  a  2 m FM  transmitter  and  a  70  cm 
    receiver without modification.
    The JAS-1 modem, a special interface board, will be made
    available  containing  the  Manchester modulator  and an
    audio   PSK  demodulator   allowing   connection  to the 
    "modem  disconnect"   connector  of  a  TAPR-style  TNC.
    The modem also connects to the  audio  input and PTT  of 
    the  2m  FM  transmitter  and  to the  audio  output and
    frequency control (option) of a 70 cm SSB receiver.
    Although  JAS-1 will be available  to individual access,     
    the   general   amateur  community   will  benefit  from
    "JAS-1 gateways".    Messages  relayed  through gateways
    can  be  sent  worldwide  and  is  as  easy  as  sending
    messages to distant stations via a W0RLI HF gateway.
13. Outline of project history/schedule:
    November   1982 : Freezing of conceptual/preliminary design
    December   1982 : Preliminary Design
    April      1983 : Detail Design
    - June     1984   Engineering Modules Integration & Test
                      Ground Support System Integration
    July       1984 : Flight Model #1 Integration & EIC/MIC
    - December 1984
    January    1985 : Flight Model #1 General Test
    - March    1985
    January    1985 : Flight Model #2 Integration & EIC/MIC
    - August   1985
    August     1985 : Flight Model #2 General Test
    - November 1985
    November   1985 : Software development.
    -  ?
References:
JARL News, JAS-1 User's Guide (Those are available only in
Japanese.)

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 03 Mar 86 17:45:02 cet
To: SPACE-INCOMING@s1-b.arpa
From: WMORTENS%ESTEC.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: ISPM / Ulysses / Olysses Orbits.

To: Space-incoming
From: Uffe K. Mortensen, ESA. (The European Space Agency)
Subject: ISPM / Ulysses / Olysses Orbital Parameters.

The spacecraft will indeed pass the two poles. In the original ISPM
project simultaneous passage of the two poles was planned, thus a
'north' and a 'south' spacecraft. The US dropped their participation
unexpectedly, so only the ESA 'south' spacecraft is left. The project
team has just returned to here, a minimal launch delay of 13 months is
is expected. For the benefit of those interested, the south-going  mission
summary is given below. Slight modifications will occur due to launch
delay, but baseline will be the same :
                        yymmdd
Injection date :        860515
Jupiter arrival:        870729
Perihelion date:        900727
End of mission:         910327

Days above 70 degr   :    Pass 1  :  114.346
                          Pass 2  :  121.157      Total :  235.503

Maximum Latitude (degr) : 80.29

Pass 1 begin  :         891209         (1st pole)
       Max lat:         900214
       End :            900402
Pass 2 begin  :         901126         (2nd pole)
       Max lat:         910115
       End :            910327

With   a :  Semi-major axis of ellipse or hyperbole   (km)
       e :  Eccentricity
       i :  Inclination to Earth ecliptic of 1950 (deg)
       W :  Longitude of ascending node in Earth ecliptic  (deg)
       w :  Argument of periapsis (from node)  (deg)
       TA:  True anomaly: angle from periapsis to s/c.  (deg)

The Keplerian elements are ( the educated reader can actually verify the
tables above, given these Keplerian elements ) :

EPOCH(GMT)      May 25,1986    July 29, 1987    July 27,1990
                11:18:59       18:46:18         05:37:02
Event           Inj.+10days    Jup. clos. appr. Perihelion
Body            Sun            Jupiter          Sun
a               1232414000     -603540.7        476058800
e               .8778867       1.727720         .5630249
i               2.085896       140.9467         76.45379
W               53.98539       174.4186         -163.8009
w               -171.8402      125.9262         4.835791
TA              5.054956       .02913453        0

Valid
from :          May 16,1986    June 21,1987     Sept. 6, 1987
to   :          June 21,1987   Sept.6, 1987     March 28, 1991
---------------------------------------------------------------

The element above should be sufficient to do more detailed
predictions etc for those interested.

---- Uffe.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #182
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA02028; Wed, 5 Mar 86 03:01:16 PST
	id AA02028; Wed, 5 Mar 86 03:01:16 PST
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 86 03:01:16 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8603051101.AA02028@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #183

*** EOOH ***
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 86 03:01:16 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #183

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 183

Today's Topics:
		     fossil fuels, space station
			  bizarre religions
		       Don't ever do that again
			   Re: space plane
			  Re: Uranus's pole
		  Re: No, we're still going to Venus
	  Re: next generation shuttle: electrically assisted
			  Re: Apollo 1A fire
	   Re: Occasional men on moon, teleoperator mostly
			Re: bizarre religions
			Redesign of SRB seals
			 Re: Shuttle Ditching
		    Re: Did the Challenger Wobble?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 1986 February 19 06:30:01 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@su-ai.arpa>
To: "dietz%slb-doll.csnet"@csnet-relay.arpa
Cc: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
Subject: fossil fuels, space station

But if you find massive amounts of methane, and you burn it to make
energy, you deplete the oxygen in the atmosphere, replacing it by
carbon dioxide and water vapor. You have to get rid of that carbon
dioxide, for example by dissolving it in water and letting it combine
with minerals to form carbonate, or by having a great increase in
plant life so that the carbon dioxide gets incorporated in biomass and
then the plants die and sink to the bottom of the ocean, but in either
case then you have an atmosphere with neither oxygen nor carbon
dioxide in it, just 99% nitrogen and 1% argon etc.

Space platform to fasten things to will prevent them drifting
aimlessly and needing individual tracking and re-rendezvous. Therefore
I'm in favor of immediate construction of a space platform to fasten
things to between the time they're launched and the time they're
fitted together. Pressurized crew quarters, power bus, etc. can be
added to the platform later as needed. But a canonical place to stash
things so they don't drift around and collide with each other or other
things (STS) or get lost, seems first priority in the "space station" category.

------------------------------

Date:           Mon, 3 Mar 86 12:49:46 PST
From: Jordan Brown <lcc.jbrown@locus.ucla.edu>
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject:        bizarre religions


> There really IS a bizarre religious cult in net.space!  And what do you
> plan to do when people object?  Shoot them and tell them it's for their
> greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
> (etc)
> children?  You make Hitler sound reasonable.
> ucbvax!brahms!weemba	Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720

ten, twenty, maybe thirty lines would have been funny.  400 wasn't.  It
wasn't even accurate - 400 lines x 15 per line x about 25
years/generation is only 150k years, not 200k.  You also left out the
"grand".  I calculate that our site probably spent five minutes
receiving that wonderful message, at a cost of probably 25 cents.  Now
multiply that by the THOUSANDS of sites on usenet, not all with local
connections.  Not bad, you just made AT&T several hundred dollars.

------------------------------

Date:     Mon, 3 Mar 86 14:01 ???
From: Sonny Crockett <WELTYC%rpicie.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa
Subject:  Don't ever do that again


Mr Weimer, disagreeing with something someone said is no excuse
for posting an over 400 line message consisting of the same word
to the NET.  Learn how to use mail, and send your message to the
person you are responding to.  If you really want the rest of us
to see what you think, your posting to the net could have made use
of an elipsis, the latin phrase et-cetera, or even a combination
of the two, effectively eliminating the redundant lines.  Most of
us who have reached and passed through infancy probably got the
jist of what you were saying before the third "great".  Perhaps I
should have sent this message to your parents or babysitter suggesting
they watch you more carefully?  The main reason for my anger (rather 
immaturely displayed myself) is that many of us have to pay for 
mail transfers across phone lines, a little more consideration is
requested.  Sorry about posting this, but I wanted to insure that 
anyone else thinking about doing something similar will think twice.
Please do (think twice).

					-Christopher A. Welty
					 RPI/CIE Systems Mgr.

------------------------------

Date: 26 Feb 86 18:50:01 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: space plane
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> I've heard that the new "space plane" is supposed to get things into
> low earth orbit at 1% of the cost of the shuttle.  Are there good reasons
> for that, or is it just hype from aerospace marketing types?
It is a reasonable claim, although it would be comforting to see a prototype
flying to confirm it.  Full reusability plus less-strained engines would go
a long way toward lowering costs.  Even the present Shuttle would look a lot
better if it had fully-reusable liquid-fuel boosters and carried the external
tank into orbit for some sort of productive use there.  (If you count the
tank as payload, the Shuttle is suddenly carrying a lot more payload into
orbit.)
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date:         Mon, 03 Mar 86 23:38:48 EST
From: ST801179%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Reply-To:  ST801179%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA
To: SPACE-INCOMING@s1-b.arpa
Subject:      Re: Uranus's pole

Excuse me a minute. It seems to me that the question of which pole was which
was resolved quite some time ago,a little while ago, and the again just now.
Can we PLEASE find something else to talk about?????????

------------------------------

Date: 26 Feb 86 19:16:26 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: No, we're still going to Venus
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> Well, we have been delayed by the loss of the Challenger, but we're
> not dead yet.  The Venus Radar Mapper, now renamed Magellan, is a close
> relative of the Galileo spacecraft.  (In fact, parts of Magellan will
> be built from Galileo spares.)
> 
> Launch date:  some time after Galileo (which is now set for June 1987).
Last I heard the future of Magellan wasn't 100% clear, because those
Galileo spares will remain Galileo spares (as opposed to Magellan parts)
until Galileo is launched.  Or has this changed?
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 26 Feb 86 19:09:48 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: next generation shuttle: electrically assisted
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> People can be launched at hundreds or thousands of g's if they
> are immersed in a fluid of the same density as the body.  The fluid
> must permeate the lungs to prevent internal damage.  Fortunately,
> fluids such as perfluorocarbons can dissolve large amounts of oxygen,
> so you don't suffocate...
This is speculation, not established fact.  Nobody has yet produced such
a fluid which has adequate capacity for *both* oxygen and carbon dioxide,
as I recall.  Getting it in (without triggering cough reflexes) and getting
it out again afterwards are also problematic.
> Another idea is to use highly compressed xenon gas (it's expensive, though).
It's also an anesthetic even at ordinary pressures, and its physiological
effects at high pressure are uncertain.
There is also a potential problem with the muscular effort needed to breathe
liquids or very-high-pressure gases; work has been done on this for
deep-diving operations.  The last report I saw estimated maximum dive depth
of about 1 mile, limited by the effort needed to breathe.  That would be
about 160 atmospheres.  This was with the lightest mix they could get --
oxygen in hydrogen (!) -- to reduce the breathing effort to the absolute
minimum.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 26 Feb 86 19:00:32 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Apollo 1A fire
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> The Apollo flight [with the fire] was Apollo-1A...
Not quite right.  See one of the NASA History books, "Chariots for Apollo"
I think.  The only completely official designation for the mission beforehand
was "Apollo 204", which is analogous to "Shuttle mission 51L".  It was the
fourth flight of a Saturn booster, so the booster people were calling it
"Apollo 4".  It was the first manned Apollo, so the crew were calling it
"Apollo 1".  NASA HQ had not approved an official "Apollo n" designation,
although some of its actions could be construed as tacit approval for
"Apollo 1".  Somewhat after the fire, NASA HQ made the "Apollo 1" name
for the never-flown mission official.  The next Saturn launch, an unmanned
test, was officially named "Apollo 4".  This raised the question of whether
the earlier unmanned tests should be retroactively numbered this way, the
problem being that "Apollo 1" really ought to refer to the first unmanned
test.  It was proposed to call the three unmanned tests 1A, 2, and 3.  NASA
HQ didn't think much of the "1A" business, and the final official word was
as follows:
	- The never-flown Apollo 204, which had the fire, was "Apollo 1".
	- The post-fire missions started with "Apollo 4", the first post-
		fire unmanned test.
	- The pre-fire unmanned tests do not have "Apollo n" designations,
		and are known only by their "Apollo xxx" mission codes.
		Hence there was no "Apollo 2" or "Apollo 3", and also no
		"Apollo 1A".
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 26 Feb 86 22:47:08 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Occasional men on moon, teleoperator mostly
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> Only if the task is really beyond the capability of any any
> state-of-art teleoperators, and there is no backup equipment for the
> item needing repair, should we send humans.
This will happen a lot, since the current state of teleoperator technology
is really pretty pitiful.  Since you don't want to wait for the space
station, I assume you don't want to wait for better teleoperator technology
(which is probably farther away, since no new technology is needed to build
a space station) (if you can assume efficiently-run teleoperator systems,
I can assume an efficiently-built space station, with none of the silly
money-wasting high-tech frills NASA is touting).
> (Alternately, only when
> sending humans is the cheapest way to get the task done should we send
> humans.)
Same comment:  sending a small number of humans to keep the machinery
running is the cheapest way to work things.  Note that the costs of keeping
humans on site drop A LOT if the humans are permanently-resident colonists
rather than maintenance workers flown in on demand.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 4 Mar 86 05:01:40 GMT
From: brahms!weemba@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Matthew P. Wiener)
Subject: Re: bizarre religions
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <8603032118.AA09438@s1-b.arpa> lcc.jbrown@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU (Jordan Brown) writes:
>ten, twenty, maybe thirty lines would have been funny.  400 wasn't.  It
>wasn't even accurate - 400 lines x 15 per line x about 25
>years/generation is only 150k years, not 200k.  You also left out the
>"grand".  I calculate that our site probably spent five minutes
>receiving that wonderful message, at a cost of probably 25 cents.  Now
>multiply that by the THOUSANDS of sites on usenet, not all with local
>connections.  Not bad, you just made AT&T several hundred dollars.
I wish to extend my apologies to the entire network.  I have received
megabytes of fan mail, overflowing my quota severely.  Most of it was
remarkably polite.  I suspect a lot more of it was bounced: if you really
want to send me <rude phrase> repeated 8000 times, roll a die and wait
that many days, to reduce clashes and give me a daily chance to clear out
my busted quota.
In my (pitiful) defense, I am disturbed by people talking about 200000 and
2000000 and 200000000 years of the future as though they were tomorrow, and
am frightened by appeals to totalitarianism.  I, and I suspect most of the
network, do not believe in straightforward linear extrapolations.  I find
it questionable even whether we will still be flesh and blood humans 20000+
years from now.  Adding zeroes here and there is NOT a trivial operation.
The difference between saying great**8000 and what I did (sorry again) was
to emphasize the need for care and thought.  But most of you clearly don't
need help from me in that department.
And the first ten sites that send me a SSAE get their quarter back.  :-)
ucbvax!brahms!weemba	Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720

------------------------------

Date: 28 Feb 86 14:32:14 GMT
From: ihnp4!mmm!allen@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Kurt Allen)
Subject: Redesign of SRB seals
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Aviation Week and Space Technology reported that the presidential
board are "expected to recommend a significant redesign of the [SRB]
seals-changes that will take 18 to 24 months to incorporate if they require
new steel solid rocket booster forgings". I was incorrect when I earlier
said that the decision had been made to redesign the seals.
Re MIR. (Soviet Space Station) AVW&ST reports that is on course to rendezvous
with the earlier Salyut 7, and is expected to dock with it. Seems a might
smarter way to design a station thus, than to design it to be built all at 
once as [I think] we are doing.
-- 
	Kurt W. Allen
	3M Center
	ihnp4!mmm!allen

------------------------------

Date: 28 Feb 86 14:18:47 GMT
From: ihnp4!mmm!allen@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Kurt Allen)
Subject: Re: Shuttle Ditching
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <172@axiom.UUCP> paul@axiom.UUCP (Paul O`Shaughnessy) writes:
>NASA and its contractors have consistently maintained that a ditching
>of the shuttle during the SRB boost phase of the flight is impossible
>to perform survivably.
There are a few more scenarios that I have been made aware of recently, that
would preclude shuttle survival in case of a SRB failure. These are
1) If one of the SRB's fails to ignite at launch. As it is impossible
to stop the other SRB the shuttle would pinwheel uncontrollably, with
no possibility of survival.
2) The shuttle lands at 190 knots. It is not expected to maintain structural
integrity ditching in the ocean at this speed.
-- 
	Kurt W. Allen
	3M Center
	ihnp4!mmm!allen

------------------------------

Date: 25 Feb 86 21:45:25 GMT
From: decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!rochester!bullwinkle!uw-beaver!fluke!ssc-vax!bcsaic!pamp@  (pam pincha)
Subject: Re: Did the Challenger Wobble?
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <8602202058.AA00624@mcchi-proteus> cater%mcchi2@MCC.ARPA (John P. Cater) writes:
>It's my guess that what you see on your tape, when speeded up, is nothing
>more than the normal course and alignment corrections produced by the
>steerable rocket engines.  These adjustable jets make the orbiter-
>SRB system fly slightly like a bicycle rides (a constant wobbling motion) to
>maintain positional stability.  Remember, that system in not in a 
>maximally stable position when flying vertical and being pushed from the 
>rear (try balancing a pencil on your fingertip -- the only possible
>way to do it is to wobble your finger back and forth to maintain
>vertical stability).  So I think you are seeing a normal artifact of the
>guidance control. I may be wrong, but my bet's on normal guidance wobble.
> 
Actually, the information coming out in the time table info at the
commission talks seem to indicate that the Shuttle DID WOBBLE just
before the accident. In fact the guidence system was trying to correct
for the wobble just as everything blew. I suggest you try to correlate
the tracking data with the tape. I don't believe that this fellow
picked-up just a normal event.
(Note: For those interested, CNN and C-SPAN cable networks have been
airing the Comission talks. C-Span even showed a whole week's worth
of talks the last couple of weekends. I recommend watching. It's rather
instructive.)
P.M.Pincha-Wagener

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #183
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA02876; Wed, 5 Mar 86 07:01:13 PST
	id AA02876; Wed, 5 Mar 86 07:01:13 PST
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 86 07:01:13 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8603051501.AA02876@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #184

*** EOOH ***
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 86 07:01:13 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #184

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 184

Today's Topics:
			  Re: Ulysses probe
		Re: Morton-Thiokol Engineering Claims
			   Re: space plane
			Re: Cray during launch
		       ARIANE LAUNCH CALENDAR.
			Re: bizarre religions
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue,  4 Mar 86 01:06:20 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@mc.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Ulysses probe
To: desj@brahms.berkeley.edu
Cc: KFL@mc.lcs.mit.edu, Space@s1-b.arpa

    From: desj@brahms.berkeley.edu (David desJardins)

       The course desired is really only 1% or so out of the ecliptic;
    most of the velocity is obviously toward the Sun.

    Perhaps we are using words differently.  I was refering to the
angle between the plane of the ecliptic and the plane of Ulysses'
orbit.  If Ulysses is to pass over the Sun's north or south pole, this
angle must be 90 degrees.

       But any course should be achievable by approaching Jupiter in the
    right orientation (i.e. slightly above or below and to the left or
    right), including 90% if this is what you want (except that turns
    near 180 degrees would require orbits intersecting the planet).

  I used to think so too, until I sat down and tried to analyze the
situation.

    What does 26 degrees come from?

  Ok, let me explain my derivation.
  All units are in the Meters-Kilogram-Seconds system of units.  All
velocities are relative to the Sun except when stated otherwise.  The
symbols used are as follows.  They represent the average values of
these quantities if the quantities vary.

RE  = Radius of the Earth's orbit    = 1.50E+11 meters
RJ  = Radius of Jupiter's orbit      = 7.78E+11 meters
VE  = Velocity of Earth              = 2.98E+4  meters/second
VJ  = Velocity of Jupiter            = 1.31E+4  meters/second
AE  = Acceleration of Earth          = 5.93E-3  meters/second/second
AJ  = Acceleration of Jupiter        = 2.21E-4  meters/second/second
VP  = Perihelion velocity of Ulysses = 3.86E+4  meters/second
VA  = Aphelion velocity of Ulysses   = 7.45E+3  meters/second

Note that RJ/RE = (VJ/VE)**2 = (AE/AJ)**2 = 5.20

  To get VP and VA, I assumed that Ulysses will follow an elliptical
path whose perihelion and starting point is on the orbit of Earth, and
whose aphelion is on the orbit of Jupiter.  This is the least energy
method of getting to Jupiter.  And it explains why Ulysses can't be
launched until June 1987 if it can't be launched in May 1986, i.e.
when it reaches aphelion at Jupiter's orbit, Jupiter has to be there
to meet it.
  So I used equations I derived (derivation on request) for the
perihelion and aphelion velocity of an object in an elliptical orbit.
Where the perihelion is RE and the aphelion is RJ, the perihelion
velocity VP equals SQRT(2*AE*RE*RJ/(RE+RJ)) and the aphelion velocity
VA equals SQRT(2*AJ*RJ*RE/(RJ+RE)).
  So Ulysses will approach Jupiter with a velocity of 7,450 meters per
second.  But note that Jupiter is moving in the same direction at a
velocity of 13,100 meters per second.  So Jupiter will actually
overtake Ulysses.  The two will come together at a relative velocity
of VJ-VA or 5,650 meters per second.
  Of course as Ulysses approaches Jupiter it will move faster.  It
will swing by Jupiter in a hyperbola, and will then slow down relative
to Jupiter and will leave the vicinity of Jupiter at 5,650 meters per
second, the same speed as it arrived.  Note, however that this is
5,650 meters per second relative to Jupiter.  Not relative to the Sun.
If Ulysses made a 180 degree turn around Jupiter, it would then be
going at a speed of VJ+VA or 18,750 meters per second.  The solar
escape velocity in the vicinity of Jupiter is SQRT(2)*VJ or 18,500
meters per second.  As such, Ulysses would have sufficient speed to
escape from the solar system (just barely).
  But that will only happen if Ulysses makes a turn that is close to
180 degrees.  Since the idea is to give it velocity in an out-of-
ecliptic direction, not enough velocity component will be left in the
forward direction for it to escape from the solar system.  As such,
whatever trajectory it gets into will have to be a closed ellipse
about the sun.  The aphelion of that ellipse will be in Jupiter's
orbit.  It will keep returning to that position in space.
Fortunately, Jupiter will (I think) not be there, so its orbit will
not be interfered with.
  The best way to see what velocities Ulysses can leave Jupiter at is
to construct a vector diagram.  From the origin (representing zero
speed relative to the Sun) construct a horizontal line segment of
length 13,100.  The end of that line represents the velocity of
Jupiter.  Construct a sphere of radius 5,650 centered on the endpoint
of the line.  The point where the sphere intersects the line segment
represents the velocity with which Ulysses approached Jupiter.  The
surface of the sphere represents the velocities with which it can
leave Jupiter.  The circle where the sphere intersects the horizontal
plane represents the velocities available if it is to remain within
the ecliptic plane.  Solar escape velocity is represented by the
exterior of a sphere of radius 18,500 centered on the origin.  Only a
small part of the original sphere is outside this sphere, and no part
of that small part extends far from the horizontal (ecliptic) plane.
  What is wanted is a velocity represented by a point directly above
or below the origin.  Only a velocity like that will bring Ulysses
over a solar pole.  No such point exists on our sphere, however.
  The angle between the plane of the ecliptic and the plane of Ulysses
orbit it equal to the angle between a line passing through the point
on the sphere which represents the velocity of Ulysses leaving Jupiter
and the horizontal plane.  Imagine yourself sitting at the origin
studying the sphere.  It should be clear that the point representing
the greatest such angle is on the top (or bottom) edge of the sphere,
as visible from where you sit.  Note that the topmost (or bottommost)
point on the sphere has a lesser elevation as seen from your vantage
point.
  So contruct a line tangent to the sphere at that point.  The line
segment between the origin and the point on the sphere will have
length SQRT(2*VJ*VA-VA**2) or 11,800.  Thus that is the aphelion
velocity of Ulysses' new orbit.  The angle to the ecliptic is
ARCSIN((VJ-VA)/VJ) or 25.5 degrees.  That will NOT bring Ulysses over
either pole of the Sun.
  The only explanation I can think of is that fuel is expended during
the close pass to Jupiter.  This would have the effect of increasing
the velocity with which Ulysses leaves Jupiter, i.e. increasing the
radius of the sphere in the vector diagram.  Since a point directly
over (or under) the origin is needed, the radius must be greater than
13,100.  Thus a delta-vee (change of velocity) of 7,450 meters per
second is necessary.
  If the fuel is burned at or near the closest point to Jupiter, much
less delta-vee is needed, due to the fact that you are gaining energy
by expending the fuel in a deep gravity well.  I haven't worked out
just how much you would gain, but it would be considerable, and the
smaller delta-vee needed is certainly within the realm of today's
technology.  After all, the Galileo probe has to do the same thing,
in order to stay in orbit around Jupiter rather than flying right back
out of the Jupiter system.
  The time it will take for Ulysses to rach Jupiter is
Pi*(RE+RJ)**2/(4*RE*SQRT(AE*RJ)) or 6.64E+7 seconds or 2 years and 1
month.  If Galileo and Ulysses are launched in June of 1987, they
should arrive at Jupiter in July of 1989.  This quite close to the
time when Voyager will start closely approaching Neputne.  I hope
there are enough people to control all three probes at once!
  These equations are all of my own derivation (available at request)
and there is a small chance they may not be correct.  The numbers
certainly suffer from roundoff errors, and only the first two digits
should be trusted.  Earth's and Jupiter's orbits are not quite
circular, so these numbers might be off by as much as ten percent or
so for the actual time of the Ulysses launch and approach to Jupiter.
  Can someone tell me how I can get technical information on these
probes from JPL or NASA or wherever?  All I have been able to get is
very nontechnical publications.
								...Keith

------------------------------

Date: 27 Feb 86 17:15:07 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Morton-Thiokol Engineering Claims
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> This seems unfair to the MT engineers...
> If it didn't explode, they would probably lose their jobs.
The way they've been presenting it so far, they said "don't launch", argued
with management, management said "launch", at which point the engineers
quietly gave in.  They decided that it was not worth risking their jobs in
an attempt to avert [what they now claim was obviously] a major risk of
loss of a shuttle.
If any of them are licensed Professional Engineers, I trust their state
licensing boards will take notice of this gross dereliction of duty.
"A commander in chief cannot take as an excuse for his mistakes in warfare
an order given by his minister or his sovereign, when the person giving
the order is absent from the field of operations and is imperfectly aware
or wholly unaware of the latest state of affairs.  It follows that any
commander in chief who undertakes to carry out a plan which he considers
defective is at fault; he must put forward his reasons, insist on the plan
being changed, and finally TENDER HIS RESIGNATION rather than be the
instrument of his army's downfall."	- Napoleon [emphasis added]
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 3 Mar 86 22:45:11 PST
From: mcgeer%ji@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Rick McGeer)
To: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: space plane
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa

>> I've heard that the new "space plane" is supposed to get things into
>> low earth orbit at 1% of the cost of the shuttle.  Are there good reasons
>> for that, or is it just hype from aerospace marketing types?
>It is a reasonable claim, although it would be comforting to see a prototype
>flying to confirm it.  Full reusability plus less-strained engines would go
>a long way toward lowering costs.  Even the present Shuttle would look a lot
>better if it had fully-reusable liquid-fuel boosters and carried the external
>tank into orbit for some sort of productive use there.  (If you count the
>tank as payload, the Shuttle is suddenly carrying a lot more payload into
>orbit.)
>-- 
>				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
>				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
>

I hope so, too, Henry, but as Robert Truax points out: "the TAV is going to be
a combination of the Space Shuttle and the Concorde, and there's no way
that *that's* going to be cheap".

Well, Truax has an axe to grind,  Let's hope he's wrong.

					-- Rick.

------------------------------

Date: 28 Feb 86 19:06:04 GMT
From: sdcsvax!ncr-sd!ncrcae!ncsu!uvacs!edison!steinmetz!davidsen@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Davidsen)
Subject: Re: Cray during launch
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <493@tekig5.UUCP> waynekn@tekig5.UUCP (Wayne Knapp) writes:
>> Hmmm, if 5 minutes time on a Cray costs less than 10 million dollars,
>> and it will prevent loss of another 2000 million dollar orbiter,
>> then it sounds like a good idea, providing NASA knows what software
>> to run on it to make effective use of it. Anybody have Cray cost figures?
>> -------
>
>You can buy a Cray for less than 10 million.  5 minutes time shouldn't be
>more than a $1000.
The following figures are reasonably available and checkable: a new Cray2
costs about $16 million. Adding some standard figures for installing and
maintaining the environment (water cooled), operator salaries, etc, the cost
is about $25 million for five years, or about $571/hr. The problem is, that if
you divide the cost by the number of hour of launch the rate gets pretty high,
and there are not a lot of people who want to tie up their machine to let NASA
use it a few times a year.
The issue of cost is specious! A Cray (1, 2, or XMP) is not a realtime machine
and would probably be totally unsuited to such monitoring. It is the perfect
engine to run simulations before launches, and to look a data after a launch
and find posible problems, but I have seen no evidence that it is intended for
or suited to realtime monitoring.
Finally, the accountability question: given the problems in aborting a shuttle
launch during the SRB phase, would we want a machine to decide to try it?
Please take all answers to that question to mod.risks, not here.
Having done a little realtime work myself (including designing and writing a
multiprocessor R/T operating system), I feel that having redundant small
systems doing the monitoring is both cheaper, easier to impliment, and more
reliable. The problem is knowing what things to monitor, and how to recover
from a failure.
The intrinsic problem is that the shuttle is (at least) one step away from a
practical solution to getting things into space. Many posible alternatives
have been suggested in this group, indicating that others agree with me that
the next launch vehicle must have (a) lower cost, (b) shorter turnaround, (c)
higher payload percentage, and (d) better failure modes. Hopefully the shuttle
will be allowed to continue until that "next step" is taken.
+================================================================+
All figures in this posting are public information. all opinions
are my own.
-- 
	-bill davidsen
	seismo!rochester!steinmetz!--\
       /                               \
ihnp4!              unirot ------------->---> crdos1!davidsen
       \                               /
        chinet! ---------------------/        (davidsen@ge-crd.ARPA)
"It seemed like a good idea at the time..."

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 04 Mar 86 09:50:58 cet
To: SPACE-INCOMING@s1-b.arpa
From: WMORTENS%ESTEC.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: ARIANE LAUNCH CALENDAR.

From: Uffe K. Mortensen, ESA. (The European Space Agency)
This is the present Ariane launch calendar (4 mar 86),
for those interested :
***************************
*  Ariane Launch Calendar *
***************************
L    Date       Payload                  Model    Pad
---  ---------  ------------------------ -------- -------
V17  12 March   G-Star 2  and  Brasilsat Ariane-3 ELA-2
V18  end april  Intelsat-V and F14       Ariane-2 ELA-1
V19  June       ECS-4 and Spacenet       Ariane-3 ELA-1
V20  end Aug    TV-sat                   Ariane-2 ELA-1
---  ---------  ------------------------ -------- -------

---- Uffe.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 4 Mar 86 01:03:27 pst
From: weemba@brahms.berkeley.edu (Matthew P. Wiener)
To: space@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: bizarre religions
Newsgroups: net.space
In-Reply-To: <8603032118.AA09438@s1-b.arpa>
Cc: 

In article <8603032118.AA09438@s1-b.arpa> you write:
>ten, twenty, maybe thirty lines would have been funny.  400 wasn't.  It
>wasn't even accurate - 400 lines x 15 per line x about 25
>years/generation is only 150k years, not 200k.  You also left out the
>"grand".  I calculate that our site probably spent five minutes
>receiving that wonderful message, at a cost of probably 25 cents.  Now
>multiply that by the THOUSANDS of sites on usenet, not all with local
>connections.  Not bad, you just made AT&T several hundred dollars.
 
Thank you for providing the most painless out possible.  Several of the
letters asked me if I knew how much it cost, and I couldn't believe it
was that expensive, but I didn't know.  I wasn't even TRYING to be funny.
Guess I succeeded.  (If you don't believe me, think about it in a year.
No newcomer will believe you when you tell him that someone posted 400
lines of great**15. NO one!)  I assumed 33 1/3 years/generation.  And I
am more embarrassed about leaving out the "grand" than having done the
posting itself!  I mean, if one (=me) is going to be asinine, do it right!

I once posted a >800 line article to net.math and net.philosophy on the
philosophy of math.  I got ONE reply, asking me to summarize.  But no one
flamed me for costing their site money!

I've also been told not to argue too seriously with REM.  Oh well.

At least REM didn't say 20000000 years.  :-)

And next time, I'll buy up AT&T stock first.  :-)
-- 

ucbvax!brahms!weemba	Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #184
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA01444; Wed, 5 Mar 86 23:01:42 PST
	id AA01444; Wed, 5 Mar 86 23:01:42 PST
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 86 23:01:42 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8603060701.AA01444@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #185

*** EOOH ***
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 86 23:01:42 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #185

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 185

Today's Topics:
			     Repairanoia
     Plutonium poisonosity... poisonariousness... (ah, whatever)
	  Re: "At the moment Uranus's south pole points..."
		Re: Morton-Thiokol Engineering Claims
		     Re: Save the Unborn Shuttles
		 Clumping doesn't fix Olber's paradox
		Re: Morton-Thiokol Engineering Claims
		Re: "zillion fatal doses of Plutonium"
		   Results of Poll about Joy Rides
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 4 Mar 86 04:23 EST
From: John Batali <BATALI@oz.ai.mit.edu>
Subject: Repairanoia
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
In-Reply-To: The message of 25 Feb 86 12:22-EST from Henry Spencer <decvax!linus!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu>

The reason I sent my "Paranoia" message was mostly to provoke some
responses from "insiders" at NASA to post some juicy bits about what
went on and what is going on now.  Alas, that effort failed.

I don't buy at all this "speculation is bad" argument which NASA
presented on the afternoon of the explosion and which two messages have
parrotted.  Speculation is precisely the way to locate possible sources
of the problem.  NASA seems to prefer to keep the investigation narrow
and controlled, thus limiting the amoung of changes which must be made
in the aftermath of the investigation.  Speculation might expose more
problems.  More problems mean more changes, mean that beaurocrats will
lose power.

A good illustration of this comes from the revelations about the Thiokol
meeting.  Had there been no gag order, the engineers at MT would have
been on the phones to the press the day after the accident.  As it turns
out, the photos of the accident pointed pretty clearly to the seals (and
thus to MT) as a part of the problem.  But had there been no such clear
evidence (which, by the way, was subject to press "speculation" even
during the day of the explosion) we might never have learned about the
late-night arguments.

And even more alarming: How many other groups of engineers watched the
launch with trepidation, having lost last-minute or ongoing disputes
with managers about the safety of their subsystems?  With the gag order
and no public evidence we may never know.  Again, the only such group to
surface was the Rockwell ice team who also suggested that the launch be
delayed -- and the matter of ice all over the launch pad was also public
knowledge and a matter of "speculation" the day of the accident.

The thing that really bothers me is the dramatic contrast between the
almost mystical devotion to space evident in some of the contributors to
this list (a devotion I share) and the fact that NASA, which should be
the keeper of this sacred flame, appears to be acting like just another
goverment agency.

------------------------------

Date: 1 Mar 86 22:51:01 GMT
From: ihnp4!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Plutonium poisonosity... poisonariousness... (ah, whatever)
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>> Plutonium is widely felt to be the most poisonous substance anywhere,
>> even if you disregard the radioactivity.  
> The MOST POISONOUS substance anywhere.  Do you have any references?
Well, the first poster is exactly right.  Plutonium is *widely* *felt*
to be the most poisonous substance even disregarding radioactivity.  The
facts, however, do not support this contention *even* *with* the
radioactivity.  My source is an article from Science News last year (or
maybe the year before that).  Sadly, I don't have it available to quote
from, but my near-photographic memory should be trusted by all,
especially since I always leave my copies of SN near photographs.  :-)
The gist of it was that Plutonium is about as chemically poisonous as
any other heavy metal (can you say "arsenic"?)    However, organic
molecules such as dioxin are worse by orders of magnitude.  And botulism
toxin is worse by still more orders of magnitude than dioxin.  Even
accounting for radioactivity, biological toxins like botulism are far
worse than Plutonium.
>> It has been said that less
>> than a pound spread thinly enough could kill every human being.
>   Yes, but has it been said by anyone who knows what they are talking
>   about?
Yes indeed, this is the point.  "It has been said." And those who said
it have been wrong.  Now, if you took that pound, split it into 4.5*10^9
or so equal parts, and implanted each of these less-than-100 nanogram
parts in the lung in such a way as to alpha-irradiate the surrounding
tissue, you might get significant excess cancer deaths over the next few
years.  But that's about the worst that could happen, and that's only if
we try our worst with the most advanced techniques to use the Pu to kill
folks.
A pound of botulism toxin now, split 4.5*10^9 ways and injected into
each of the population...  I'm not sure about that.
>> In the shuttle tragedy, we lost seven lives, and Challenger.  It could
>> have been much worse.
Indeed it could.  Conceivably, the explosion could have happened on the
pad, or worse still, (and just barely conceivable) could have happened
in a populated area if the shuttle went off course and the RSO couldn't
detonate the ET.  However, *the* *worst* scenarios aren't made
significantly more disasterous by having radioactives aboard.  So there.
-- 
Wayne Throop at Data General, RTP, NC
<the-known-world>!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw

------------------------------

Date: 1 Mar 86 19:24:53 GMT
From: decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!ut-sally!utastro!ethan@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Ethan Vishniac)
Organization: U. Texas, Astronomy, Austin, TX
Subject: Re: "At the moment Uranus's south pole points..."
References: <860217-235409-1418@Xerox>, <399@utastro.UUCP>, <578@jplgodo.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <578@jplgodo.UUCP>, steve@jplgodo.UUCP (Steve Schlaifer x3171 156/224) writes:
> Unfortunately, the IAU (International Astronomical Union) didn't see it that
> way.  Essentially, they decided that the north pole is the one above the 
> invariant plane (ecliptic) regardless of which way the planet spins.
> 
After much checking around here I see that I was in error.  It seems a bizarre
convention to me, but it is the IAU standard.  What tripped me up is that the
pole of Uranus is habitually described as tipped more than 90 degrees, which
is only possible if you worry about the direction of the angular momentum 
vector.
-- 
"Ma, I've been to another      Ethan Vishniac
 planet!"                      {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan
                               ethan@astro.UTEXAS.EDU
                               Department of Astronomy
                               University of Texas

------------------------------

Date: 3 Mar 86 20:40:04 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-lcc!lll-crg!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!teddy!kdj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Organization: GenRad, Inc., Concord, Mass.
Subject: Re: Morton-Thiokol Engineering Claims
References: <1301@decwrl.DEC.COM>, <564@mmm.UUCP>, <1406@osu-eddie.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

I feel strongly that a system to report concerns/problems from
engineers to management must be maintained.  If management decides not
to listen to engineerings concerns on such a critical matter, then the
management is at fault, not the engineers.  It was managements
responsibility to reliably represent the engineers concerns to the
officials at NASA.  And, I believe we will find this to be the problem.

------------------------------

Date: 3 Mar 86 21:04:52 GMT
From: voder!kontron!cramer@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Clayton Cramer)
Organization: Kontron Electronics, Irvine, CA
Subject: Re: Save the Unborn Shuttles
References: <[MC.LCS.MIT.EDU].826580.860221.KFL>, <418@utastro.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> > From: unmvax!nmtvax!fine@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Andrew J Fine)
> > If humanity can simply change from mere descendants of carnivorous apes to
> > something totally gentle, altrustic, and noble, then Earth will be enough.

This debate about our eating habits of our ancestors reminds me of
a discussion I had several years ago with a friend of mine who's
a vegetarian.  He made some disparaging remark about eating meat,
and that it was unnatural, so I said, "Hold it, Steve, man has been
eating meat for at least 250,000 years.  There are evidences in the
Peking Man finds of cooking and eating meat (i.e. other people)."
Steve's response was, "A quarter million years?  How long has man
been on the planet?  Three million?  It's just a passing fad."

------------------------------

Date: 3 Mar 1986 20:46:46-EST (Monday)
From: "Josh Knight"   <JOSH%YKTVMH.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu>
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Clumping doesn't fix Olber's paradox


BH> Date: 26 Feb 86 19:55:07 GMT
BH> From: hplabs!amdahl!drivax!holloway@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Bruce Holloway)
BH> Subject: Re: Olber's paradox
BH> Another solution (maybe): All stellar objects tend to "clump" into
BH> solar systems, galaxies, clusters, ad infinitum. So instead of spreading
BH> evenly throughout the sky, we just see light from these collections, the
BH> scope of said clumps depending on how far away the object(s) is/are.

REM> From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@su-ai.arpa>
REM> Subject: Many solutions to olber's paradox!! (Keep an open mind!)
REM> Of course!
     ...(material deleted)...
REM>                  I should have thought of that myself, having workd
REM> with Mandelbrot and Gosper and Farmwald and Moravec on fractal stuff
REM> at SU-AI... Indeed, if the large-scale clumping of the Universe has
REM> sufficiently small fractal dimension, then even in a static and
REM> infinite-time Universe you see only a finite amount of light from any
REM> point due to inverse-square diminuation and less than square
REM> accumulation of stars. It sounds paradoxial, after all with infinite
REM> time the density of light should increase linearily, exceeding any
REM> given level, but actually in fractal universe with increasingly large
REM> voids as you go out further you get an effect similar to a single
REM> local cluster with emptiness beyond: most of the light that is emitted
REM> goes out to fill the infinite void beyond, with the part that stays
REM> local being buonded in intensity.

.From "The New Cosmos" by Albrecht Unsold (translated by W.H. McCrea,
Springer-Verlag 1969, NY), p 328:

     H.W.M Olbers 1826 appears to have been one of the first astronomers
     to have considered a cosmological problem from an empirical
     standpoint.  Olber's paradox asserts:  Were the universe infinite
     in time and space and (more or less) uniformly filled with stars,
     then - in the absence of absorption - the whole sky would radiate
     with a brightness that would match the mean surface brightness of
     the stars, and thus about that of the surface of the sun.

I don't think clumping, no matter what its statistical characteristics
can avoid the paradox.  Basically, if one extends one's line of sight
far enough, one finds it ending up on a star, i.e. the entire surface
is covered with star surface.  At this point it is only surface brightness
that matters.  Olber's paradox is "why is the night sky dark" not "why
is the sky not infinitely bright".  I'm not as sure about my conclusion
if one assumes one is at the center of the universe, but I tend not
to make that assumption ;-).

As an aside, it is interesting to note that in the early part of this
century, an incorrect accounting for interstellar absorption caused many
astronomers to believe our galaxy was a small elliptical one, rather
than the large spiral it really is.  Of course one of the artifacts
of this error was to place the solar system near the center of the
galaxy.

			Josh Knight
			IBM T.J. Watson Research Center
josh@yktvmh.BITNET,  josh.yktvmh@ibm-sj.arpa

------------------------------

Date: 4 Mar 86 06:46:56 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-lcc!lll-crg!seismo!harvard!adelie!axiom!paul@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Paul O`Shaughnessy)
Subject: Re: Morton-Thiokol Engineering Claims
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>TENDER THEIR RESIGNATIONS...
  Strong stuff, and engineers as well as society might be better off
if they stuck to their guns more often and did not give in.
Unfortunately, the reward structure in the military and aerospace
industry of the USA is slightly f**ked up.  Engineers (or accountants,
or anybody) who make too much fuss over fraud, be it financial or
technical, are labelled as troublemakers and blacklisted.  The long
arm of government is employed to destroy these people's careers in
detail.  It is an atmosphere in which even the courageous must pause
and consider if THIS is the issue upon which they will ruin their
livelihood.  Contrary to rumor, engineers ain't rich.  They also must
consider whether their calculations and intuition are correct, AND
they must consider the effect of their action (resignation, for
example).  If one or a couple of engineers had resigned in protest,
and even gone to the press with stories of sloppy decisions in the
program, I doubt that the politicians would have respected their
actions any more than they presently respect those who, at some risk,
criticize useless or dangerous weapons systems.  The shuttle would
have flown anyway.
  I strongly agree with Mr. Spencer's sentiments, but doubt that much
will  change while engineers can gaze at the ruined careers of those
who did speak up.

------------------------------

Date: 2 Mar 86 05:38:58 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Subject: Re: "zillion fatal doses of Plutonium"
References: <221@bu-cs.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> There seems to be a lot of agreement among the medical community that
> there is NO SUCH THING as a safe level of exposure...
  I believe the agreement is that this is the proper assumption for
purposes of health planning, not that it is necessarily physical fact.
If nothing else, there comes a point where exposure is an
insignificant fraction of the natural background exposure.

				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 3 Mar 86 20:52:10 GMT
From: hplabs!oliveb!felix!birtch!ken@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Ken B)
Organization: Birtcher, Santa Ana, Calif.
Subject: Results of Poll about Joy Rides
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Well, I had 16 responses to the poll about buying lottery tickets
for a ride on the shuttle (or other space vehicle).
14 Yes votes.
1  No vote.
1  Probably.
I was actually amazed at the lack of responses I received. I know it
made it from the West Coast to the East Coast (by the signature lines).
I did receive a letter from someone at NASA, saying that they (NASA)
couldn't do anything, because of the term 'lottery'.
"The only problem real problem with what you propose is that one word:
lottery.  The US Government is not in an official position to do
something like that.  The requirements are still somewhat stringent
(despise what you may have heard).  You might just as well apply
to the astronaut corp.  Seriously.  I did post one call for astronaut
candidates a year ago."
I thank him for his letter, but, I disagree with what he says.  If the
government wants to do something, it can and will.  I don't see how
a lottery for going on the shuttle is any different from a lottery for 
going to war (conscription, I.E. "the draft")  But, that may not be
comparing apples to apples.
To all of you who replied, thank you.
	Ken Brown
-- 
	uucp:  ...{!glacier!oliveb,!ihnp4!trwrb} !felix!birtch!ken
These ramblings are my own, and are surely not those of my employer.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #185
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA02288; Thu, 6 Mar 86 03:01:33 PST
	id AA02288; Thu, 6 Mar 86 03:01:33 PST
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 86 03:01:33 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8603061101.AA02288@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #186

*** EOOH ***
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 86 03:01:33 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #186

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 186

Today's Topics:
			Re: GAMEBRAINS trivia
		       Redesign booster seals?
		  Re: World Commentary on Challenger
			   joy-ride summary
		      HOTOL Airbreathing Rocket
  Some answers to questions (hey guys, I'm in the middle of COMPCON)
		  Re: Comment on this mailing list.
			    Re: plutonium
		    Re: It could have been worse.
	       Re: Clumping doesn't fix Olber's paradox
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:           Tue, 4 Mar 86 07:52:44 PST
From: Rich Silva <lcc.rich@locus.ucla.edu>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa
Subject:        Re: GAMEBRAINS trivia


  >From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiucdcsp!silber@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
  >Subject: Re: GAMEBRAINS trivia.
  >
  >John is correct, insofar as I know.  I've seen the example he presents in
  >three classes at two universities, but as of yet not in print.  I doubt
  >that it was a missing hyphen since most of these programs start out in
  >FORTRAN, and I can't see any point to a hyphen in any sort of program.
                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I do find subraction useful from time to time.....:-)

Rich Silva
Locus Computing Corporation		       lcc!rich@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU
				{ucivax,trwrb}!lcc!rich
 {ihnp4,randvax,sdcrdcf,ucbvax,trwspp}!ucla-cs!lcc!rich

------------------------------

Date: 4 Mar 86 10:38:50 GMT
From: decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-star!fisher@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Burns Fisher ZKO1-1/D42 DTN 381-1466)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Subject: Redesign booster seals?
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Kurt Allen writes: 
>	Aviation Week and Space tech. reported that NASA hopes to
>	keep the Hubble telescope as near to schedule as possible. That
>	announcement occured before the decision to redesign the SRB
>	seals was announce, which will probably take around a year.
> 
What decision to redesign the SRB seals?  Has anyone else heard of such
a decision?  Perhaps it is a good idea, but I certainly have not seen it!
Burns
...decwrl!rhea!star!fisher

------------------------------

Date: 4 Mar 86 11:40:16 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-lcc!well!rab@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Bob Bickford)
Organization: Whole Earth Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA
Subject: Re: World Commentary on Challenger
References: <1604@mtgzy.UUCP>, <320@hsi.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <320@hsi.UUCP>, archer@hsi.UUCP (Garry Archer) writes:

> > USSR: Izvestia, Moscow:
> > 	"The American masses continue to grieve for those who perished.
> > 	But the businessmen associated with the shuttle program are
> > 	pondering how to avoid losing their planned profits."
  This can be made into an accurate statement by inserting the word
"also" just before the word "pondering"; "...are also pondering..."
(meant in the sense of 'in addition to').

> > USSR: Pravda, Moscow:
> > 	"In each of us that flaming column, carrying away the lives of
> > 	seven valient persons, left a deep pain in the soul."
  This just goes to prove.... There are some warm, sensitive human
beings in Russia, too.
       Robert Bickford     (rab@well.uucp)
================================================
|   Now THESE are definitely my own opinions.  |
================================================

------------------------------

Date:           Tue, 4 Mar 86 14:56:34 PST
From: "Niket K. Patwardhan" <bilbo.niket@locus.ucla.edu>
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject:        joy-ride summary

Thanks to all you folks who took the time to respond. Here is a summary of
the responses I got.

Total number  30

Shuttle ride:		$100 up to everthing one could mortgage. I got
			castigated quite a bit for the low-ball evaluations.

Exoatmospheric ballistic joyride	$10 to $1000  (4 respondents)
(This is what I was asking about
but I guess the shuttle disaster
completely obscured this fact)

I also found one person was against the idea of joy-rides at all.

PS I'm switching corporations, and any further stuff sent to me will
go into oblivion until I find another way to get on the net.

------------------------------

Posted-Date: Tue 4 Mar 1986 08:35:18 EST
Date: Tue 4 Mar 1986 08:35:18 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: HOTOL Airbreathing Rocket
To: Hank.Walker@unh.cs.cmu.edu
In-Reply-To: Hank.Walker's message of 2 Mar 86 14:42:43 EST
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa

I agree, the icing problem makes air liquification implausible.  I
speculate the HOTOL engine does the following: it has a (or several)
rocket-like fuel injectors burning a hydrogen-rich LOX/LH mixture
(the LOX is from onboard tanks).  Some of the hydrogen flows through
heat exchanger pipes in an air intake.  This cools the incoming air
as it is compressed, but only enough to keep the engine from melting.
The air is then mixed with the hydrogen-rich rocket exhaust in the
aft section of the engine.  Above Mach 12 the vehicle leaves the
atmosphere and the fuel injectors serve as conventional rockets.

------------------------------

From: eugene@ames-nas.arpa (Eugene Miya)
Date:  4 Mar 1986 2134-PST (Tuesday)
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa
Cc: 
Subject: Some answers to questions (hey guys, I'm in the middle of COMPCON)

I've seen good questions and bad (poorly worded) questions recently.
I conclude:
  Don't trust a computer scientist to do chemistry (re: H2 burns
clear).  Some computer people need a little bit more of a foot in
reality (poor word), how about empiricism? I know people on the net
(not recently posted) who believed that Asimov's Laws of Robots
[pointer to a recent RISKS discussion] were in grained into the
designs of robots.  Fancy that: the inability of some humans to
discriminate robot abilities.

Venus Radar Mapper (VOIR, VRM, Magellan):
  It is THE deep space mission which NASA endorses as the project most
desired after Galileo starts (Ulysses is regarded as an ESSA mission).
We've lost numerous other opportunities for interesting space missions
and we will gain new opportunities.

Ulysses:
  I spoke to a friend who was formerly on this mission aka
International Solar Polar.  Its a close to 90 degree plane solar
orbiter.  There's some manuevuring fuel on board, but the orbit is
highly eccentric: sorry, I don't know the current planned orbital
elements.

Segmented or not SRBs:
  I can answer this one as I used to work for Rockwell.  In the
aircraft industry, there are "two" philosophies in putting planes
together: call one the Unix philosphy and the other the Multics, PL/1
philosophy.  I kid you not.  The first philosophy is characterized by
companies like Rockwell, the second is characterized by companies like
Boeing [use of these names came to me by a Rockwell engineer I worked
with].  You would do better to question the concept of having
governments doing work on a lowest cost basis.

Escape modules:
  A mixed blessing.  We have an F-111 and I worked on the B-1 in the
area of question.  People have died in escape modules and we have
given thought to taking them out and replacing them with ejection
seats.  It is an issue that the pilots tend to prefer not to think
about like crash helmets.

Pilots:
  You have to have the greatest respect for them.  A few people would
have us pour oxygeninated fluorinert into their lungs :-)!  What they
have to put up for you guys!  Actually, if I had decided to be a
pilot, I wouldn't trust any of your computer jockeys.

Lastly, I'm doing a little test of network communications.  If you
think you have the farest ARPAnet host from the San Francisco, send me
return mail. Please time stamp when you got this (receive time) and
send your reply time.  ARPAnet hosts only I suspect Norway or England
is the host fartherest from.  Next if anybody is read in Israel on
CSnet, I would appreciate the same thing.  I'll say more when I have
some time: I've further answers about Crays, Voyager and Pioneer
software development, SETI, etc.

--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  eugene@ames-nas.ARPA

This space available for rent.

------------------------------

Date: 3 Mar 86 23:36:33 GMT
From: voder!kontron!cramer@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Clayton Cramer)
Organization: Kontron Electronics, Irvine, CA
Subject: Re: Comment on this mailing list.
References: <860228151236.353975@HI-MULTICS.ARPA>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> I was not aware of the requirement for presenting complete scientific
> evidence to back up all statements on this mailing list.  I will rectify
> this in the future, and I will expect all participates to do likewise.
> Thank you.
> 
> Brett Slocum
> 
> P.S.  Yes, I know.  More Sarcasm.
No, the only requirement is to use your brain before posting things that
are utterly implausible.  (Like one pound of plutonium killing every
person on Earth.)

------------------------------

Date: 3 Mar 86 23:06:02 GMT
From: voder!kontron!cramer@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Clayton Cramer)
Organization: Kontron Electronics, Irvine, CA
Subject: Re: plutonium
References: <860225173815.083415@HI-MULTICS.ARPA>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>     Plutonium is an extremely dangerous poison; it collects
>     in the bones and interferes with the production of white
>     blood cells.
>                      New Columbia Encyclopedia
> 
> Just thought you might like some evidence to back up what I said.
> 
> Brett Slocum Slocum@HI-MULTICS
The quote above says, "extremely dangerous poison", not "most poisonous
substance".  Also, the quote is describing the radiological effects of
plutonium.  You used the phrase, "ignoring radioactivity", or words to
that effect.

------------------------------

Date: 3 Mar 86 20:31:37 GMT
From: voder!kontron!cramer@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Clayton Cramer)
Organization: Kontron Electronics, Irvine, CA
Subject: Re: It could have been worse.
References: <860222195435.678780@HI-MULTICS.ARPA>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> Though the present tragedy is quite nasty, consider what could have
> happened.  Let's say that the next scheduled shuttle flight exploded
> instead.  This next flight was to carry the Galileo orbiter.  This
> orbiter carrys a load of 43 pounds of Plutonium on-board.  (I may have
> the figure wrong).
> 
> Plutonium is widely felt to be the most poisonous substance anywhere,
> even if you disregard the radioactivity.  It has been said that less
> than a pound spread thinly enough could kill every human being.
> 
>     Brett Slocum
  This is nonsense.  There's already vast quantities of plutonium in
the Earth's crust.  Plutonium forms naturally by U-238 atoms capturing
neutrons.  The last figures I saw quoted for plutonium concentrations
in the Earth's crust was .01 ppb.  Multiply by AT LEAST several
quintillion tons for the mass of the Earth's crust: 10^18 tons *
10^-11 = 10^7 tons of plutonium in the crust.
  Also, ignoring plutonium's radioactivity (which, because of its
chemical similarity to calcium and other transition metals, causes it
to concentrate in the bones), plutonium is just another heavy metal,
with pretty typical heavy metal toxicity.  I wouldn't want to have any
big chunk in my diet (just like I wouldn't want a lot of barium in a
form that would enter my system), but to claim it's the most poisonous
substance is more nonsense from the anti-nuclear groups.  (Perhaps
some of them can study chemistry and physics one of these days,
instead of taking classes in poetics and English literature.)

------------------------------

Date: 5 Mar 86 04:38:09 GMT
From: brahms!desj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (David desJardins)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Subject: Re: Clumping doesn't fix Olber's paradox
References: <8603041333.AA12454@s1-b.arpa>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <8603041333.AA12454@s1-b.arpa> JOSH@YKTVMH.BITNET ("Josh Knight")
writes:
>I don't think clumping, no matter what its statistical characteristics
>can avoid the paradox.  Basically, if one extends one's line of sight
>far enough, one finds it ending up on a star, i.e. the entire surface
>is covered with star surface.  At this point it is only surface brightness
>that matters.  Olber's paradox is "why is the night sky dark" not "why
>is the sky not infinitely bright".  I'm not as sure about my conclusion
>if one assumes one is at the center of the universe, but I tend not
>to make that assumption ;-).
   Well, you may not think this, but you are wrong.  If the universe
is sufficiently "clumped" it is quite possible for most rays out from
the Earth to never intersect a star.  But this still misses the point,
because even if all rays intersected stars, it would be quite possible
for most of the sky to appear dark.  First, because light is quantized
into photons and so most of the sky would still not be omitting a photon
more than occasionally, and second, because "dark" is a relative term,
i.e. there is still some scattered light coming from parts of the sky
that you see as "dark."
   -- David desJardins

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #186
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA03300; Thu, 6 Mar 86 07:01:28 PST
	id AA03300; Thu, 6 Mar 86 07:01:28 PST
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 86 07:01:28 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8603061501.AA03300@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #187

*** EOOH ***
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 86 07:01:28 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #187

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 187

Today's Topics:
			  Re: Ulysses probe
	       Re: Clumping doesn't fix Olber's paradox
			Re: Galileo plutonium
			   Re: TDRS spare?
		  Re: Exploitation vs. Colonization
		      Re: nearby supernovas etc.
		       teleoperators in the lab
		      Space Station Contractors
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 5 Mar 86 06:08:40 GMT
From: brahms!desj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (David desJardins)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Subject: Re: Ulysses probe
References: <[MC.LCS.MIT.EDU].837830.860304.KFL>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <[MC.LCS.MIT.EDU].837830.860304.KFL> KFL@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU
("Keith F. Lynch") writes:
>
>Note that RJ/RE = (VJ/VE)**2 = (AE/AJ)**2 = 5.20
   Actually this should be RJ/RE = (VJ/VE)**2 = (AE/AJ)**.5 = 5.20.
>  To get VP and VA, I assumed that Ulysses will follow an elliptical
>path whose perihelion and starting point is on the orbit of Earth, and
>whose aphelion is on the orbit of Jupiter.  This is the least energy
>method of getting to Jupiter.
   This assumption is the problem.  If we relax this only slightly we
can achieve a much more satisfactory result.
>  ... Ulysses will approach Jupiter with a velocity of 7,450 meters per
>second.  But note that Jupiter is moving in the same direction at a
>velocity of 13,100 meters per second.  So Jupiter will actually
>overtake Ulysses.  The two will come together at a relative velocity
>of VJ-VA or 5,650 meters per second.
>  ... and will leave the vicinity of Jupiter at 5,650 meters per
>second, the same speed as it arrived.  Note, however that this is
>5,650 meters per second relative to Jupiter.  Not relative to the Sun.
   A very good analysis.  We desire to leave the Jupiter encounter with
an absolute (relative to Sun) velocity directly out of the ecliptic.
Its magnitude should be relatively small, depending on how close we wish
to pass to the solar pole.  Thus we need to leave with a relative (to
Jupiter) velocity slightly greater than that that of Jupiter (with a
component equal to Jupiter's velocity but in the opposite direction, and
a smaller component out of the plane of the ecliptic).
   Since I don't know how close Ulysses is supposed to pass to the Sun,
I am simply going to note that it should be much less than the orbital
velocity of Jupiter.  Thus we desire to leave Jupiter with a *relative*
velocity slightly greater than the orbital velocity of Jupiter; we must
arrive at Jupiter with this same relative velocity.
   I will use the following notation:
Vir = radial component of initial velocity (after leaving Earth)
Vit =  theta component of initial velocity
Vfr = radial component of final velocity   (when arriving at Jupiter)
Vft =  theta component of final velocity
   These quantities are related by the following equations:
                   RE * Vit = RJ * Vft                        (1)
1/2 (Vir^2 + Vit^2) - AE*RE = 1/2 (Vfr^2 + Vft^2) - AJ*RJ     (2)
   Here (1) represents conservation of angular momentum; (2) represents
conservation of energy.
   If we solve (1) and (2) with Keith Lynch's assumption that
Vir = Vfr = 0, we get his solution of:
>VP [ = Vit ] = Perihelion velocity of Ulysses = 3.86E+4  meters/second
>VA [ = Vft ] = Aphelion velocity of Ulysses   = 7.45E+3  meters/second
   But let us not make this assumption.  The *relative* velocity on
arrival at Jupiter is the vector (Vfr,Vft-VJ).  If we want its magnitude
to be approximately equal to VJ, we have the constraint equation:
       Vfr^2 + (Vft - VJ)^2 = VJ^2                            (3)
   We can now eliminate Vfr and Vft from (1), (2), and (3) with the
following result:
   1/2 Vir^2 + 1/2 Vit^2 - (RE/RJ)*VJ*Vit = AE*RE - AJ*RJ     (4)
   (4) is a constraint on the *initial* velocity which will cause
Ulysses to arrive at Jupiter with the correct *final* velocity.
   The relative velocity with which we leave the Earth is the vector
(Vir,Vit-VE).  In order to minimize the thrust requirement we can
minimize the magnitude of this vector:
                   Vir^2 + (Vit - VE)^2                       (5)
   Minimizing (5) with respect to the constraint (4), using Lagrange
multipliers, yields the solution:
                                              Vir = 0
     1/2 Vit^2 - (RE/RJ)*VJ*Vit - (AE*RE - AJ*RJ) = 0
   Using the quadratic formula with the actual values yields:
              Vir = 0         Vit = 4.05E+4 m/s
   Note that an initial velocity of 3.86E+4 m/s was required for the
minimum-energy path to Jupiter, so we see that a relatively small
addition to the initial delta-V will suffice to encounter Jupiter
with the required velocity.
>  The only explanation I can think of is that fuel is expended during
>the close pass to Jupiter.  This would have the effect of increasing
>the velocity with which Ulysses leaves Jupiter, i.e. increasing the
>radius of the sphere in the vector diagram.  Since a point directly
>over (or under) the origin is needed, the radius must be greater than
>13,100.  Thus a delta-vee (change of velocity) of 7,450 meters per
>second is necessary.
   We see that a much smaller delta-V will suffice if provided upon
leaving Earth orbit.
>  Can someone tell me how I can get technical information on these
>probes from JPL or NASA or wherever?  All I have been able to get is
>very nontechnical publications.
   Ditto.
   Note that my analysis seems to confirm that I was wrong when I
said that Ulysses would follow a hyperbolic path around the Sun and
leave the solar system.  It appears that additional launch energy
would be necessary to cause this to happen.  It should indeed go
into an eccentric orbit with perihelion near the site of its Jupiter
encounter.
   -- David desJardins

------------------------------

Date: 4 Mar 86 21:16:56 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-lcc!lll-crg!mordor!ut-sally!utastro!ethan@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Ethan Vishniac)
Subject: Re: Clumping doesn't fix Olber's paradox
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <8603041333.AA12454@s1-b.arpa>, JOSH@YKTVMH.BITNET ("Josh Knight") writes:
> I don't think clumping, no matter what its statistical characteristics
> can avoid the paradox.  . . .
  The point that one`s line of sight always ends on a star is in fact
sensitive to the nature of the clustering.  If the clustering is
arranged hierarchically, with a suitable fractal dimension, then the
average line of sight *will not* end on a star.  It is not a question
of placing the observer at the center of the universe, any random
position *in a galaxy* will have this property.  Nevertheless, such
models are unsatisfactory for other reasons.

"Ma, I've been to another      Ethan Vishniac
 planet!"                      {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan
                               ethan@astro.UTEXAS.EDU
                               Department of Astronomy
                               University of Texas

------------------------------

Date: 2 Mar 86 20:25:00 GMT
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiucdcsb!carroll@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Galileo plutonium
References: <8602250453.AA05631@s1-b.arpa>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Didn't the above ground tests in the 50's and 60's release several tons
of (obviously) vaporized plutonium into the atmostphere? Clearly, it 
killed millions of people off pretty quick.

------------------------------

Date: 4 Mar 86 21:28:51 GMT
From: hplabs!hao!ames!al@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Al Globus)
Organization: NASA-Ames Research Center, Mtn. View, CA
Subject: Re: TDRS spare?
References: <8602171212.AA29341@s1-b.arpa>, <363@quest.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

  [TDRS] Spares have already been funded and are under construction.
Launch dates will have to wait for resolution of the Challenger
accident.

------------------------------

Date: 2 Mar 86 08:01:00 GMT
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!aglew@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Exploitation vs. Colonization
References: <519@oliven.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>Why did the English succeed in the new world, where the French and Spanish
>failed?
  Funny, it seems to me that most of the western hemisphere speaks
Spanish, or would do if they wanted to advance beyond their native
village.  Also, there are 6 million Quebecers - roughly as many French
speaking people in one particular part of the new world as there are
people in Sweden.  Or is Sweden a failure too?
  (a moment of silence for Olof Palme, please. I didn't agree with all
of his politics, but he was a great man from a small country).
  But you are probably right about one thing: no space colony will
succeed if its best and brightest have to go back to Earth to advance
their careers.  This was the big trouble in French Canada - the
seigneurial class always  went back to France for university and
advancement - while the British colonies established their own
universities, not just glorified seminaries.

------------------------------

Date: 4 Mar 86 17:49:39 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-lcc!lll-crg!seismo!cmcl2!lanl!jlg@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Jim Giles)
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Subject: Re: nearby supernovas etc.
References: <8603020306.AA00249@s1-b.arpa>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <8603020306.AA00249@s1-b.arpa> REM%IMSSS@SU-AI.ARPA (Robert Elton Maas) writes:
>I beg to differ. If current theory says we have only 200 million years
>before we roast, and that isn't enough time for fossil fuels to be
>re-supplied, ...
  Not true. Most of the oil and gas in Texas, The Gulf of Mexico, the
Middle East, and the North Sea come from vegetation living in the
Tythes Seaway which was a shallow strip of warm seas lying between
(what became) North America and (what became) North Africa and Europe.
This seaway existed (to various extents) between 120 and 80 million
years ago.  60 to 80 million years is plenty of time for oil and gas
formation.
  Besides, if the fossil fuels run out, we can use the (increasing)
solar power to make hydrogen and oxygen from seawater.  Or we might
have home- made fusion soon.  Of course, all these advances may not be
able to keep pace with population pressure.  Our culture may note
survive the loss of will to advance.  Someone in the future will
continue though, and it WILL be possible for them to.
  This is not to say that I oppose the space program - I support it.
I think we should devote more resources to it than we have.  But, if
we don't, we will become somone else's dead past - like the Romans,
Greeks, Assyrians, Babylonians, and Egyptians before us.
  J. Giles
  Los Alamos

------------------------------

Date: Wednesday,  5 Mar 1986 02:26:21-PST
From: redford%jeremy.DEC@decwrl.dec.com  (John Redford)
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: teleoperators in the lab


Re: Ben Bova's comment that James Van Allen should replace the grad
students in his lab with robots before he replaces the astronauts in
space:

The January issue of Byte has an article about automating an organic
chemistry lab ("Automation in Organic Synthesis" by Gary W. Kramer
and Philip L. Fuchs, Byte, Jan '86, pg 263).  These guys are chemists
at Purdue.  They use a robot arm to  handle samples and a number of
uproc-driven instruments to do things  like clean sample tubes and
control experiments.  The problem in this  field is that a large
number of experiments must be carried out to  learn the precise
effects of variables on the chemical reaction rate  and yield.  The
experiments don't vary much from run to run and are  tedious to do,
and so are prime candidates for automation.  Their  system is fairly
elaborate and took quite a while to develop, but can  make organic
synthesis quite a bit easier.

So robots are already starting to replace grad students.  I'm sure
that grad students bored by endless experiments don't mind.  However,
I  wouldn't take this as a big point in favor of using robots in
space.  You can  only automate what you fully understand.  Chemical
experiments have  been done for centuries, and the techniques and
problems are well known.  Very little work of any kind has been done
in space.  Look at how  long it took and how hard it was to repair the
Solar Max satellite.   It wasn't because the astronauts were stupid or
clumsy; it's just  that no one had ever done it before and no one knew
what was involved.

A more serious example was Viking.  An enormous amount of work went
into developing the three life-detection experiments; they were
probably the most sophisticated automated experiments ever built.
And yet the net results were ambiguous: one experiment detected life
and the other two didn't.  After a lot of analysis it was decided
that the positive indication was the result of strange soil chemistry
and not of life, but it would have been a lot more reassuring to have
someone there to run still another experiment.  There would have been
no lack of grad students to volunteer for THAT job.

Now, teleoperators are a great deal more flexible than robots, and
could be put into use a great deal more quickly.  As Dietz has
pointed out, they are already in use for deep-sea work (there's an
article about this in the latest "High Technology").  The key problem
there (as many have pointed out) is the time lag.  Even in LEO there
will be a significant lag when the satellite is on the far side of
the earth from the operator.  Assuming that the signal goes through
submarine cables at 0.7c and there are no delays in switching, the
best-case delay is about 100 ms.

One answer for this might be computer simulation of the motion of the
arm.  When the operator moves the arm, the computer predicts what
happens  and displays that on the screen.  When the real position
comes back,  the screen is updated to reflect it.  This will cause an
occasional  sudden jerk in the position on the screen, but that should
be uncommon.  This might help the problems with operator fatigue that
were  mentioned earlier.

At longer ranges, though, there's no substitute for having someone
there. GEO is probably marginal, and the Moon is right out.  LEO is
practically next door.  In fact, ever since the Shuttle started
sending up IEEE members, the Institute has taken to calling it Area
10. If we want to do things farther away than our low-orbit backyard,
we'll have to put people there.

John Redford
DEC-Hudson

Posted:	Wed 5-Mar-1986 11:51 Jerusalem Local Time (GMT+2)
To:	RHEA::DECWRL::"space@angband"

------------------------------

Date: 3 Mar 86 15:26:16 GMT
From: sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!oberon!hartsoug@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Mike Hartsough)
Subject: Space Station Contractors
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Quick question: 
Have contracts for the Space Station been awarded yet, or are the
"Primary Contractor" hopefuls still in the "Design Proposal" (or whatever)
stage?
I recall reading a while back something about the big 4 or 5 contenders
and who they are, but I've lost the reference.
Would anyone care to update us on the current status of these contenders?
Thanks,
 
-- 
	Michael J. Hartsough
	hartsoug@oberon.UUCP
It is to the interest of the commonwealth of mankind that there should
be someone who is unconquered, someone against whom fortune has no power.
			---- Seneca
That's why I'm here.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #187
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA06650; Thu, 6 Mar 86 23:01:08 PST
	id AA06650; Thu, 6 Mar 86 23:01:08 PST
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 86 23:01:08 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8603070701.AA06650@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #188

*** EOOH ***
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 86 23:01:08 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #188

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 188

Today's Topics:
		  Re: No, we're still going to Venus
		      Re: nearby supernovas etc.
		    Re: Scutle the Space Program?
		Re: "zillion fatal doses of Plutonium"
	     Remote-controlled Spacecraft on the Moon...
			     Olber Redux
	       Re: Clumping doesn't fix Olber's paradox
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 3 Mar 86 23:23:34 GMT
From: sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!oberon!smeagol!earle@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Greg Earle)
Organization: Spacecraft Data Systems, JPL, Pasadena, CA
Subject: Re: No, we're still going to Venus
References: <482@ecn-pc.UUCP>,, <615@smeagol.UUCP>, <6439@utzoo.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> > Well, we have been delayed by the loss of the Challenger, but we're
> > not dead yet.  The Venus Radar Mapper, now renamed Magellan, is a close
> > relative of the Galileo spacecraft.  (In fact, parts of Magellan will
> > be built from Galileo spares.)
> > 
> > Launch date:  some time after Galileo (which is now set for June 1987).
> 
> Last I heard the future of Magellan wasn't 100% clear, because those
> Galileo spares will remain Galileo spares (as opposed to Magellan parts)
> until Galileo is launched.  Or has this changed?
  No, it hasn't changed.  The Galileo spares are not being released to
VRM until further notice.  The Lab Test Set (that is worked on by the
Spacecraft Data Systems group, of which Rick Kwan [who posted the
original article] and I are members) is scheduled to ship to Martin
Marietta in April.  The LTS tests the Command Data Subsystem (CDS) of
the spacecraft, and follows it right up to the launch site.  Launch is
still (hopefully) scheduled for 1988 or so.  (Fingers crossed :@) I
believe I mentioned this (re: spares not being released to VRM) a
while back in a posting  about Galileo's current status.  I wonder if
it got out!?!?

	Greg Earle
	JPL Spacecraft Data Systems group
	sdcrdcf!smeagol!earle (UUCP)
	ia-sun2!smeagol!earle@csvax.caltech.edu (ARPA)

------------------------------

Date: 5 Mar 86 00:42:28 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-lcc!lll-crg!seismo!cmcl2!lanl!jlg@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Jim Giles)
Subject: Re: nearby supernovas etc.
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>...       Most of the oil and gas in Texas, The Gulf of Mexico, the Middle
>East, and the North Sea come from vegetation living in the Tythes Seaway
>which was a shallow strip of warm seas lying between (what became) North
>America and (what became) North Africa and Europe.  This seaway existed
>(to various extents) between 120 and 80 million years ago.  60 to 80
>million years is plenty of time for oil and gas formation.
  I misspelled Tethys.  Also, the North Sea oil fields were not really
part of the Tethys Seaway, athough the area was frequently connected
to the Tethys realm.  Since this area was fairly far north at the
time, the vegetation responsible for the oil there may have predated
the Tethys formation.  The Tethys Seaway was first created about 160
million years ago.  Remnants of it are still to be seen: the
Mediteranean, the Black Sea, the Caspian Sea, and the Aral Sea.

>This is not to say that I oppose the space program - I support it.  I think
>we should devote more resources to it than we have.  But, if we don't, we
>will become somone else's dead past - like the Romans, Greeks, Assyrians,
>Babylonians, and Egyptians before us.
  This last is a (loose) paraphrase of something from Jacob Bronowski's
"Ascent of Man."
  "I am infinitely saddened to find myself suddenly surrounded in the
West by a sense of terrible loss of nerve, a retreat from knowledge
into - into what?  Into Zen Buddhism; into falsely profound questions
about: Are we not really just animals at bottom; into extra-sensory
perception and mystery.
  "... It sounds very pessimistic to talk about western civilization
with a sense of retreat.  I have been so optimistic about the acsent
of man; am I going to give up at this moment?  Of course not.  The
ascent of man will go on.  But do not assume that it will go on
carried by western civilization as we know it.  We are being weighed
in the balance at this moment.  If we give up, the next step will be
taken - but not by us.  We have not been given any guarantee that
Assyria and Egypt and Rome were not given.  We are waiting to be
somebody's past, and not necessarily that of our future.
  "... If we do not take the next step in the ascent of man, it will
be taken elsewhere, in Africa, in China.  Should I feel that to be
sad?  No, not in itself.  Humanity has a right to change its colour.
And yet, wedded as I am to the civilization that nurtured me, I should
feel it to be infinitely sad.  I, whom England made, whom it taught
its language and its tolerance and excitement in intellectual
pursuits, I would feel it a grave sense of loss (as you would) if a
hundred years from now Shakespeare and Newton are historical fossils
in the ascent of man, in the way that Homer and Euclid are.
  "...  We are all afraid - for our confidence, for the future, for
the world.  That is the nature of human imagination.  Yet every man,
every civilization, has gone forward because of its engagement with
what it has set itself to do.  The personal commitment of a man to his
skill, the intellectual commitment and the emotional commitment
working together as one, has made the Ascent of Man"
						- J. Bronowski
J. Giles
Los Alamos

------------------------------

Date:  Wed, 5 Mar 86 10:33 EST
From: Jong@his-billerica-multics.arpa
Subject:  Re: Scutle the Space Program?
To: space@s1-b.arpa

Ed Turner questions whether colonizing space really provides more
chance of preserving the culture that did the colonizing, and
looks to Earth's history of colonization for examples.  I think
there are several differences to consider:

1.  Earth was, during the colonial era, everywhere populated.
    Much of space probably isn't (but more on that later).

2.  The colonial powers wanted to exploit the minerals and other
    resources on the New World and Africa; more so, I think, than
    they wanted merely to replicate themselves.

Did Spain successfully preserve its culture by colonizing?  Well,
what language do they speak in the villages near the ancient
Mayan temples?  The most recent wave of colonizations came from
England; English is the dominant language on the planet.

I think colonizing space is a wise idea, if the goal is to
preserve humanity.  There's plenty of material to sustain such
colonies, and perhaps it will be feasible to trade.

Of course, if we encounter another civilization out there, the
odds are it won't be anywhere near the level we're at.  Most
likely, we would encounter an unimaginably more advanced
civilization.  Earth history suggests we'd be in a lot of
trouble, whether that other civilization was kindly disposed
toward us or not.  Cultural interaction has usually been a
devastating experience.  (I'm thinking of the Spanish
conquistadores who introduced smallpox to the South American
natives, sometimes inadvertantly, sometimes deliberately.  Even
the benign American conquerors of Japan have had enormous impact
of Japanese culture.)

As to Ed's other point, about humanity's destructive tendencies,
I wonder if the news that the colony on Epsilon Tau had blown
themselves to pieces would have a sobering effect on the rest of
the Federation.  (Or would they all gather at night to admire the
glow?  :-)

------------------------------

Date: 4 Mar 86 17:50:44 GMT
From: ihnp4!ihwpt!knudsen@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (mike knudsen)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Subject: Re: "zillion fatal doses of Plutonium"
References: <221@bu-cs.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> I do not feel comfortable with these people gambling like this with my
> future. Perhaps if they would hear us it would motivate research into
> safer sources of power for space flights? I believe at this point in
> time nuclear fission is the easy way out for such projects. Surely we
> can just label it unacceptable and provide funding for those who can
> propose plausible alternatives. Fusion, for example, would appear to
				  ^^^^^^^
> be very promising and from friends who work in this area I hear the
> funding is barely adequate, I have no idea why as they seem to be making
> slow but steady progress and it seems like a wonderful source of power
> for all sorts of things.
> 
> 	-Barry Shein, Boston University
  Fusion may or may not be viable in the foreseeable future.  I've
always been in favor of it, but it keeps eluding our grasp.  Major
problem seems to be one of critical size-- the smallest possible
fusion reactor is HUGE, like maybe it would fit in the AstroDome,
maybe not.  Hopefully, someday, a great source of power for our cities
and industry.  But you'll never see one of these in space.  Several
acres (!) of solar cells would be a better bet.
	mike k

PS: the real near-term solution is to beef up the shells of the
plutonium power supplies so they cana take a shuttle explosion and
crash into the sea without rupturing.  The present designs can
*almost* do that now; I heard they are verified to 1600 units of blast
but the shuttle blowup may be around 2000 or 2400.  The argument is
whether they need to be beefed up the extra 50% or less.

------------------------------

Date:     Wed, 5 Mar 86 11:29 EST
From: Steve Dourson - Delco <dourson%gmr.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa
Cc: dourson%gmr.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
Subject:  Remote-controlled Spacecraft on the Moon...


I read with particular interest Kyle's comments on remote control of 
devices on the moon:
___________________________
> From: kyle.wbst@xerox.com
> re: Teleoperators....
> Remote control of devices on the moon is not simple. I suggest the
> advocates of this approach read the following old book: 
> "Delayed Sensory Feedback & Behavior" by Karl U. Smith, W.B. Saunders
> Co., Philadelphia & London, 1962. 
>  I will quote from a portion of it starting on p. 94... 
>  "All signs indicate that a feedback delay of the order of magnitude
>  involved in earth control of space craft would be seriously
>  detrimental to guidance operations. The effects of delayed visual
>  feedback vary with the type and complexity of the task, but all 
>  performances requiring visual control display gross disturbance with
>  even short periods of delay, and accuracy tends to diminish as delay
>  intervals increase. In addition, persons performing with delayed
>  feedback typically show striking emotional disturbances and loss of
>  motivation in task performance."
------------- 

I don't yet have personal experience with operating remote-controlled
spacecraft on the moon, but the symptoms described here remind me of
the frustration computer users and CAD (computer-aided design system)
operators experience with heavily loaded computer systems.  I believe
the causes are similar, except that in the case of the computers,
disturbance to the operator may be further aggravated because the
system's response delay varies unpredictably over as much as a 5:1
range, perhaps several times within an hour. 

I have personally seen and experienced loading-related system response
delays of as much as 15 seconds, with 3-5 seconds typical during a
time interval of reduced system response.  I have also observed 2 of 4
CAD operators on a 4-station system to get up and walk out when one of
the others suddenly put a heavy processing load on the system,
resulting in 10 second delays between operator commands and feedback.
I heard one operator remark, "I can't take this any more: I've got to
get away from it for a while". 

These observations may shed light on a problem right here on Earth.
The impact of system response delays on people and on the accuracy of
their work is important.  In this context, what is considered to be a
"striking emotional disturbance"?  I would appreciate it if anyone on
the net who works with remote-controlled spacecraft, or with people
who do, would comment further on THEIR experiences.  Thanks. 

Stephen Dourson
dourson%gmr.csnet@CSNET-RELAY      (arpa)
dourson@gmr                        (csnet)

------------------------------

Date:         Wed, 05 Mar 86 13:07:27 EST
From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
To: space digest <SPACE@s1-b.arpa>
Subject:      Olber Redux

I don't quite understand your posting about defocussing due to
negative curvature being a solution to the Olber paradox.  The problem
is with the total amount of energy; whether it is focussed or
defocussed does not change the situation.  Even in the most radical
case, where defocussing results in light eventually returning to its
source, the problem remains (the brightness of the night sky then has
components due to nearby luminous objects).

          --Geoffrey A. Landis, Brown University
            Reply to: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA

------------------------------

Date: 6 Mar 86 01:57:02 GMT
From: brahms!desj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (David desJardins)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Subject: Re: Clumping doesn't fix Olber's paradox
References: <8603041333.AA12454@s1-b.arpa>, <12178@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

JOSH@YKTVMH.BITNET ("Josh Knight") writes:
>>   Well, you may not think this, but you are wrong.  If the universe
>>is sufficiently "clumped" it is quite possible for most rays out from
>>the Earth to never intersect a star.
>
>What I meant by "not assuming that one is at the center of the universe"
>is that I assume the Universe is homogeneous and isotropic.  There is no
>preferred place and no preferred direction.  If any distribution
>satisfies this assumption, and extends infinitely in time and space,
>I believe there is no way to avoid the paradox.
   Well, "homogeneous" = "not clumped."  If the universe is clumped,
then it is not homogeneous.  This seems clear by definition.
   If the universe has an appropriate fractal dimension, it is possible
for it to be infinite in every direction and yet to have *no* point
from which all rays of sight terminate on a star.  You essentially need
only for stars to be in clumps ("galaxies"), galaxies in clumps ("clusters"),
clusters in clumps, etc., and adjust the "clumping parameters" correctly.
I think I can prove this with an arrangement where the fractions N1,N2,...
(Ni = fraction of sky covered by cluster level i) have the property that
the infinite product (1-n1)*(1-n2)*(1-n3)*... converges to a value > 0.
   Of course, the above seems hard to justify cosmologically.  But we
have accepted stranger things...
   -- David desJardins

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #188
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA07645; Fri, 7 Mar 86 03:01:07 PST
	id AA07645; Fri, 7 Mar 86 03:01:07 PST
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 86 03:01:07 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8603071101.AA07645@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #189

*** EOOH ***
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 86 03:01:07 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #189

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 189

Today's Topics:
      hyperbolic space makes for solution to Olber's paradox too
			     Re: Paranoia
		   Re: fossil fuels, space station
			 Re: perflurocarbons
			    Re: plutonium
		     Re: Redesign booster seals?
			  Re: Ulysses probe
		Re: "zillion fatal doses of Plutonium"
		   Re: Scramjets (specific impulse)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 1986 March 06 01:01:37 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@su-ai.arpa>
To: "JOSH%YKTVMH.BITNET"@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Cc: SPACE@s1-b.arpa, rwg@scrc-yukon.arpa

BH> Date: 26 Feb 86 19:55:07 GMT
BH> From: hplabs!amdahl!drivax!holloway@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Bruce Holloway)
BH> Subject: Re: Olber's paradox
BH> Another solution (maybe): All stellar objects tend to "clump" into
BH> solar systems, galaxies, clusters, ad infinitum. So instead of spreading
BH> evenly throughout the sky, we just see light from these collections, the
BH> scope of said clumps depending on how far away the object(s) is/are.

REM> From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@su-ai.arpa>
REM> Subject: Many solutions to olber's paradox!! (Keep an open mind!)
REM> Of course! ...   I should have thought of that myself, having workd
REM> with Mandelbrot and Gosper and Farmwald and Moravec on fractal stuff
REM> at SU-AI... Indeed, if the large-scale clumping of the Universe has
REM> sufficiently small fractal dimension, then even in a static and
REM> infinite-time Universe you see only a finite amount of light from any
REM> point due to inverse-square diminuation and less than square
REM> accumulation of stars.

JK> Date: 3 Mar 1986 20:46:46-EST (Monday)
JK> From: "Josh Knight"   <JOSH%YKTVMH.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu>
JK> Subject: Clumping doesn't fix Olber's paradox
JK> I don't think clumping, no matter what its statistical characteristics
JK> can avoid the paradox.  Basically, if one extends one's line of sight
JK> far enough, one finds it ending up on a star, i.e. the entire surface
JK> is covered with star surface.

You are wrong. See Mandelbrot "The Fractal Geometry of Nature", page
91.  If the Hausdorff dimension of the stars is sufficiently low,
you'll still see lots of empty-to-infinity space even with infinite
stars.  True any cone is sure to hit a star (unity probability), but
that star fills only a tiny part of the cone so the light coming down
that cone at you isn't very bright. Any infinitesimal (mathematical)
ray has less-than-unity probability of striking a star, even with
infinite total stars.

I suspect you don't understand the principle of clustering of low
fractal dimension, maybe don't even understand Hausdorff dimension.
Have you ever heard of the Cantor ternary set, where you remove the
middle third of a segment, and the middle third of the two remaining
segments, etc.? If not, study some topology or analysis book that has
this simple example. Once you have that, you can study more
complicated examples such as needed for Olber's paradox resolution. Do
Cantor's set upward (larger scales) as well as smaller scales for a
one-dimensional example of clustering in an infinite universe.
(Rubber-stamp Cantor's set offset to the right two units, so there's a
one-unit gap between original and copy, i.e. the pattern is CxC where
C is Cantor's set and X is a completely empty segment, then
rubber-stamp that pattern offset by 6 so the pattern is now CxCxxxCxC,
then stamp that offset 2*3**2 = 18 units giving
CxCxxxCxCxxxxxxxxxCxCxxxCxC, etc. Alternate direction each time so you
extend in both directions to avoid having the original set at either
end of the universe.) If you grok that example in fullness, you will
be prepared to tackle the 3-dimensional case.

------------------------------

Date: 1986 March 06 00:04:43 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: hyperbolic space makes for solution to Olber's paradox too

B> Date:         Wed, 05 Mar 86 13:05:59 EST
B> From:  ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
B> Subject:      Olber Redux
B> I don't quite understand your posting about defocussing due to
B> negative curvature being a solution to the Olber paradox.
B> The problem is with the total amount of energy;

Wrong. The problem is the density of energy. An infinite amount of
energy spread into infinite space can have any arbitrary density
depending on the fractal dimension of the generators (stars) and the
fractal dimension of space. Our null hypothesis is that space is flat
(dimension 3) and clustering of stars stops above a certain size,
being uniformly distributed in superclusters above that (dimension 3).
Dimension 3 means what we're measuring (matter or space) is C * R**3
(C a constant) inside a sphere of radius R. But having clustering
increase at higher scales causes mass to be less than dimension 3 so
that average density is zero, while having space of negative curvature
(hyperbolic) causes dimension of space to be greater than 3 and again
average density is zero. Currently we have evidence for both!! We have
not yet seen a cutoff in clustering, in fact just recently a void that
is something like a billion lightyears long has been discovered, and
for all we know the larger scale we examine the larger voids we'll
find. The inflationary-universe theory opens the possibility that on
the largest scale the universe may in fact be grossly hyperbolic.

------------------------------

Date: 4 Mar 86 21:16:50 GMT
From: sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Stanley Friesen)
Subject: Re: Paranoia
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <350@vger.UUCP> al@vger.UUCP ( Informatix) writes:
> 
>  NASA would prefer that the cause of
>the accident be found and fixed as quickly as possible.
>  The problem is not to wreck vengence, the problem is to resume
>space flight.
	Ditto to this in spades! I couldn't care less whose *fault*
the accident was. Lets forget all about *blaming* anyone, there is no
more useless activity in the human reportoire. The thing to do is find
out the cause of the accident, fix it, and get going again as fast as
possible. Is anyone out there with authority listening?
-- 
				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)
UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen
ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa

------------------------------

Posted-Date:  6 Mar 86 09:05 CST
Date:  Thu, 6 Mar 86 09:04 CST
From: Brett Slocum <Slocum@hi-multics.arpa>
Subject:  Re: fossil fuels, space station
To: REM%IMSSS@su-ai.arpa
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa

> ...  increase in > plant life so that the carbon dioxide can be
incorporated in biomass

Plants do not store CO2 in tissues.  Pllants take CO2 and H2O, add
sunlight for energy, add chlorophyll as a catalyst, and they produce O2
and carbohydrates, which they store.  They do absorb some O2 at night,
but plants are net producers of oxygen.

--Brett Slocum <Slocum at HI-MULTICS.ARPA>

------------------------------

Date:  Thu, 6 Mar 86 09:08 CST
From: Brett Slocum <Slocum@hi-multics.arpa>
Subject:  Re: perflurocarbons
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> This is speculation, not established fact.

I recall a striking photo in a science magazine that showed a mouse
submerged in an aquarium of oxygenated perflurocarbons, or a similar
liquid.  It seemed to be doing fine, and had adjusted somewhat to the
environment.

--Brett Slocum <Slocum at HI-MULTICS.ARPA>

------------------------------

Date: 5 Mar 86 12:15:04 GMT
From: tektronix!reed!omen!caf@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX)
Subject: Re: plutonium
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa


0,,
From Mar 3 AW&ST, a quote from "another source close to nuclear power
machinery" :
	"The RTG has more armor plate than an M-1 tank.  We launched one
from Vandenberg, the rocket blew up and dropped the RTG into San Bernadino Bay.
We recovered it, wiped it dry, launched it again and it is up there now,
powering away ..."

------------------------------

Date: 5 Mar 86 12:27:54 GMT
From: tektronix!reed!omen!caf@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX)
Subject: Re: Redesign booster seals?
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

According to Mar 3 AW&ST, the following changes may be made to the SRBs:
Add high strength bolts in thr area of the 177 pins joining the segments
Catches similar to joints on the new composite SRB's
Changes in insulation putty
Improved O-ring seals, possible the .291 in diameter seals used in the
composite SRB's, permanently sealed.
External band heaters
According to Mulloy, there are 829 Criticality 1 items on the shuttle,
including 213 on the SRB system.
Could somebody from Nasa post some of that list?

------------------------------

Date: 4 Mar 86 19:54:58 GMT
From: sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!oberon!smeagol!jplgodo!steve@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Steve Schlaifer x3171 156/224)
Subject: Re: Ulysses probe
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <[MC.LCS.MIT.EDU].836296.860303.KFL>, KFL@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU ("Keith F. Lynch") writes:
>     From: brahms!desj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (David desJardins)
> 
>        I don't have any idea what these people are talking about.  The whole
>     idea is that Ulysses is being launched to rendezvous with Jupiter just
>     like Voyager and Galileo, but it will swing around Jupiter and back over
>     the solar pole.  Presumably it will then leave the solar system
> 
>   I just spent several hours working out the math, and I am somewhat
> confused.  I assume that unlike the Voyager and Pioneer probes, that
> Ulysses has some onboard fuel to be used in the vicinity of Jupiter.
> If the Jupiter pass is completely passive, as with Pioneer and
> Voyager, the furthest out of the ecliptic it could get would be 26
> degrees, not 90 degrees as would be necessary to go over either of the
> Sun's poles.
The information I have about Ullyses indicates that the plan was to leave Earth
in an elliptical trajectory inclined about 2 degrees from the ecliptic.  A
hyperbolic flyby of Jupiter with an inclination of 141 degrees (i.e. retrograde
about Jupiter coming in ahead and above the planet) would then result in an
elliptical orbit about the sun which was inclined about 77 degrees to the
ecliptic passing over the South polar region first.  Indeed, such an orbit
would then pass over the North polar region at a later date but that was not
of immediate interest.  Also note that the mission would not pass directly over
the Sun's south pole but would pass very high over the polar region.
I am not directly involved with the mission but have limited access to the
mission design.  The information above is only approximate and was derived
by means of conic orbit approximations given the planned heliocentric orbits.
Opinions expressed are my own and not necessarily those of the Ulysses mission,
JPL or NASA.
-- 
...smeagol\			Steve Schlaifer
......wlbr->!jplgodo!steve	Advance Projects Group, Jet Propulsion Labs
....group3/			4800 Oak Grove Drive, M/S 156/204
				Pasadena, California, 91109
					+1 818 354 3171

------------------------------

Date: 4 Mar 86 21:43:01 GMT
From: sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!oberon!smeagol!kwan@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Richard Kwan)
Subject: Re: "zillion fatal doses of Plutonium"
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> >    -- David desJardins
> > ...  Talking about killing several thousand people is absurd,
> > but I think NASA should at least consider the probable effects of such an
> > accident...
> 
> Do you suggest they haven't?  
> ...  *I* wouldn't send a volatile substance 
> (especially something as gnarly as Plutonium) up without encasing it in some 
> pretty strong stuff -- and I doubt that NASA (even their ignorant beaurocrats) 
> would be so naive as to *not* at least acknowledge a worst case scenario in
> their designs.  They may make mistakes, but they're not stupid.
> 
> Any JPL designers out there to affirm or nay-say?
> 
> Barb
    Well, I'm not really a designer.  At least, not for a spacecraft.
    Greg Earle and I have tried to speak to this matter in earlier
messages, though now we wonder if they got out.  I was at an "all hands"
briefing concerning Galileo a while back.  As of that meeting, the
prevailing opinion was that the plutonium WOULD NOT have leaked if
Galileo were in the explosion.  HOWEVER, after the primary investigation
is over, people here at JPL want to get their hands on the available
data and verify that.  What did they design for?  I have no idea.
(sigh... I'm not even sure who to ask.)
    But, ya gotta remember, any scenarios projected in the past have
strictly been scenarios.
    And Barb, I tend to agree that the engineers here are not stupid.
Some are a little weird... (please, JPLers, no flames :-)  {-: oh, yeah;
I can attest, each one of them is unique.  :-}
DISCLAIMER: I don't work on Galileo; I work on Magellan (Venus Radar
Mapper) which will fly economy class by using Galileo spare parts.
But that doesn't matter.  I don't know enough to speak authoritatively
on either anyway.
-- 
		Rick Kwan
		JPL Spacecraft Data Systems
		sdcrdcf!smeagol!kwan (UUCP)
		ia-sun2!smeagol!kwan@csvax.caltech.EDU (ARPA)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"...jumpin' into hyperspace ain't like dustin' crops, boy."  H. Solo
--------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 4 Mar 86 22:28:59 GMT
From: sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!oberon!smeagol!kwan@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Richard Kwan)
Subject: Re: Scramjets (specific impulse)
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In <617@smeagol.UUCP> I originally said... 
> > 1.  Specific impulse (Isp): thrust per pound of propellant.  At least,
> >     that's the way I learned it, a carry over from non-metric
> >     engineering.  (Thrust per unit mass is probably more meaningful.)
> >     Propellant naturally includes both fuel and oxidizer.  You are
> >     correct that in the case of air breathers, they get their oxidizer
> >     from the atmosphere.  Thus, their Isp's are higher.  Rockets tend
> >     to have Isp's in the low 100's; turbojets in the 3000's (?), and
> >     ramjets somewhere in between....
And in <34@petrus.UUCP>, Phil Karn responded:
> I have several problems with this.
With good reason.  I blew it.
> Specific impulse is often erroneously specified in "seconds"; the correct
> units should be "meters/sec", i.e., velocity.
I don't know what got into me.  You are correct.  "Seconds" is the
accepted units in the English system.
> This way of expressing specific impulse has a much more elegant and
> straightforward meaning: it is simply the velocity of the rocket exhaust
> relative to the rocket.
Some other classical examples:  How much thrust do you get if you burn
one pound of propellant for one second?  Or, how many seconds can you
burn one pound of propellant if you maintain one pound of thrust?
Hence, we get pound(thrust)-seconds per pound of pound of propellent.
The numerator is impulse; thus, the per pound measure is termed
"specific impulse."  But as you say, the metric version, meters/sec,
is probably clearer.
> ... It's not clear to me that "specific impulse" has any meaning,
> though, for an air-breathing (and air-pushing) aircraft, nor for an
> automobile.
Perhaps so.  Some clarifications are in order.
1.  All the figures I gave for specific impulse were in seconds.  I have
    not worked with the metric form.
2.  Certainly for air breathers, the velocity analog does not work.
    The figures I gave for air breathers are for
	thrust x time / *fuel*.
    Thus, the unusually high performance rating is due to not carrying
    oxidizer.  (Not my idea; sorry, can't remember the source.)
By the way, Hank Walker <dmw@UNH.CS.CMU.EDU> reminded me that there
IS such a thing as a variable geometry engine.  He points out:
    ...you can convert a scramjet to a ramjet, and perhaps start
    as low as Mach 0.5.  Scramjets are really only useful above
    Mach 5...
You propulsion specialists can take it from here.
-- 
		Rick Kwan
		JPL Spacecraft Data Systems
		sdcrdcf!smeagol!kwan (UUCP)
		ia-sun2!smeagol!kwan@csvax.caltech.EDU (ARPA)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"...jumpin' into hyperspace ain't like dustin' crops, boy."  H. Solo
--------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #189
*******************


0,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA08960; Fri, 7 Mar 86 07:01:09 PST
	id AA08960; Fri, 7 Mar 86 07:01:09 PST
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 86 07:01:09 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8603071501.AA08960@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #190

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 190

Today's Topics:
		   Perfluorocarbons in the Lungs...
		   More (yawn) on the Olber Paradox
			      RTG Safety
	   Re: Why does everyone want to leave this planet?
			    Re: Scramjets
			  re: teleoperators
		      Re: nearby supernovas etc.
			   Re: sicko jokes
		Re: Morton-Thiokol Engineering Claims
			   Specific Impulse
		Re: Morton-Thiokol Engineering Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted-Date: Thu 6 Mar 1986 08:42:08 EST
Date: Thu 6 Mar 1986 08:42:08 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Perfluorocarbons in the Lungs...
To: space@s1-b.arpa

Eugene Miya sent me a caustic letter in which he proposed I let them
pour Cray-2 coolant into my lungs.  Since I don't seem to be able
to send mail to Mr. Miya, I'll have to post the response here.

As Mr. Miya may not be aware, there are many different kinds of
perfluorocarbon compound.  Some, such as the compound used in Fluosol
artificial blood emulsion, have a very large capacity for dissolving
oxygen.  This stuff has been used in people, and can be frozen for
storage (unlike real blood).  Experimental animals have breathed
some perfluorocarbons.  The stuff used in the Cray-2 is probably not
optimized for carrying oxygen.

------------------------------

Date:         Thu, 06 Mar 86 11:45:42 EST
From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
To: space digest <SPACE@s1-b.arpa>
Subject:      More (yawn) on the Olber Paradox

GL>> I don't quite understand your posting about defocussing due to
GL>> negative curvature being a solution to the Olber paradox.
GL>> The problem is with the total amount of energy;

REM> Wrong. The problem is the density of energy.
    Sorry, that's what I meant; I misspoke.
REM>An infinite amount of
REM>energy spread into infinite space can have any arbitrary density
REM>depending on the fractal dimension of the generators ...
     This is what I meant when I refered to the clumping of stars
such that the average density is zero.  My question was not about
this, which I think I understand reasonably well. My question was
about your discussing "defocussing" due to negative curvature as
being another, different solution to the problem.

Message to "Josh Knight":
JK>I don't think clumping, no matter what its statistical characteristics
JK>can avoid the paradox.
You may not think it, but it is true none the less.  Think some more.

Message to David desJardins:
DdJ> ... even if all rays intersected stars, it would be quite possible
DdJ> for most of the sky to appear dark.
DdJ> First, because light is quantized into photons and so most of the
DdJ> sky would still not be emitting a photon more than occasionally;
DdJ> second, because "dark" is a relative term,
DdJ> i.e. there is still some scattered light coming from parts of
DdJ> the sky that you see as "dark."
     Wrong.  Work it out.  If the universe is flat, infinite
in time and space, and light does not lose energy traversing it (eg., is
not redshifted, then the 1/R2 attenuation of light exactly cancels the
R2 increase in number of stars per shell at distance R.  The brightness
of the sky is thus the brightness of the surface of the average star:
ie., the sky is everywhere as bright as the sun.   The sun emits plenty
of photons per second; the fact that light is quantized is irrelevant.
Darkness may be relative, but I don't think *anyone* will argue that
the surface of the sun is "Dark".

                   --Geoffrey A. Landis, Brown University
                     Reply to: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA

------------------------------

Posted-Date: Thu 6 Mar 1986 13:43:50 EST
Date: Thu 6 Mar 1986 13:43:50 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: RTG Safety
To: space@s1-b.arpa

The 3/3/86 issue of AWST has a short piece on the safety of the Galileo
RTG.  According to the article, the worst-case shuttle accident
(explosion on the pad, in which the RTG is ejected into the
flame-deflection pit) causes the RTG to experience an overpressure of
750 pounds per square inch.  Mockup RTGs have been tested in shock tubes
at 2000 lb/in^2 without rupturing.  In the Challenger accident
overpressures are estimated to have been in the 10 - 100 lb/in^2 range.

------------------------------

Date: 4 Mar 86 18:17:05 GMT
From: ihnp4!tellab1!barth@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Barth Richards)
Subject: Re: Why does everyone want to leave this planet?
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <2006@orca.UUCP> kendalla@orca.UUCP (Kendall Auel) writes:
>I would like to get back home.
Good luck!
I read about one poor zeeb who came for a week and got stranded for fifteen
years. It seems the Earth is just too far from the spacelanes to hitch a
lift.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 6 Mar 86 11:37:22 pst
From: David Smith <dsmith@hplabsc>
To: space%s1-b@csnet-relay.arpa
Subject: Re: Scramjets

> Specific impulse is often erroneously specified in "seconds"; the correct
> units should be "meters/sec", i.e., velocity.  The error occurs because Isp
> is usually defined in English units as
> 		pounds-force of thrust x seconds
> 		--------------------------------
> 		pounds-mass of propellant
> and somebody made the mistake of "cancelling out" the pounds-force factor
> with the pounds-mass factor. A good example of how the English system of
> measurements befuddles thinking, but I digress...
> In metric units, things are much clearer:
> 		newtons of thrust x seconds
> 		---------------------------
> 		kilograms of propellant
> Since a newton is the force required to accelerate 1 kg by 1 meter/sec^2, it
> has dimensions Kg-m/sec^2. When the other factors are included, this all
> reduces to meters/second.
> This way of expressing specific impulse has a much more elegant and
> straightforward meaning: it is simply the velocity of the rocket exhaust
> relative to the rocket.

This is true enough, but note that the metric system is abused almost as
frequently as the English system.  The above English abuse is in using
pounds-mass instead of slugs.  The usual corresponding metric abuse is in
using kilograms-force.  So often we see jet and rocket engines rated in
kilograms of thrust;  or specific fuel consumption (inverse of specific
impulse) as kilograms (mass) per kilogram (force) per hour.  Phonograph
needle tracking forces are rated in grams.


			David Smith
			hplabs!dsmith
			dsmith%hp-labs@csnet-relay

------------------------------

Posted-Date: Thu 6 Mar 1986 12:56:41 EST
Date: Thu 6 Mar 1986 12:56:41 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: re: teleoperators
To: John Redford <redford%jeremy.DEC@decwrl.dec.com>
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa

  Aviation Week (March 3, 1986, pages 73) has an article on Canadian
plans to upgrade their manipulator arm for use on the space station.
According to the article, about $300 to $600 million in funding is
required.  The Integrated Service and Test Facility would be a
shelter with a removable cover and a seven degree of freedom
manipulator arm 50 - 60 feet long (three d.o.f. at the wrist,
one at the elbow and three at the shoulder).  A smaller robot
about 20 feet long could be picked up by the larger arm.  The small
robot would have two arms, a coarse are with 7 d.o.f. and a fine
control arm with 8 d.o.f.

  The large manipulator arm would not suffer from some of the control
singularities of the current shuttle arm, and would be able to
manipulate up to 200,000 pounds of payload (the mass of a shuttle
orbiter).  The shuttle arm must be lightweight and waves around
when carrying heavy payloads.

  The Canadians want their facility to be able to undo bolts and screws
and ultimately be able to remove boxes and circuit cards.  According
to James A. Middleton of Spar Aerospace, Ltd. this depends on designing
spacecraft interfaces to make the task as simple as possible, with units
mounted in the spacecraft with snap fasteners or something similar.

  So, it looks like teleoperators could be feasible, but will initially
be part of a space station.  I should have realized the space station 
would provide a good environment for field testing space robotics.

  John Redford writes: "If we want to do things farther away than our
low-orbit backyard, we'll have to put people there."  If speed-of-light
delays are crippling humans will be needed in GEO and beyond, but
they'll be advised to use remote manipulators for radiation protection.
If the space station gets built it probably won't be hard to try
experiments controlling the arm(s) from the ground via the TDRS
satellites.

------------------------------

Return-Path: <wanginst!infinet!barnes>
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 86 10:10:05 est
From: decwrl!decvax!wanginst!infinet!barnes@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Jim Barnes)
To: wanginst!space
Subject: Re: nearby supernovas etc.
Newsgroups: net.space
In-Reply-To: <8603020306.AA00249@s1-b.arpa>

In article <8603020306.AA00249@s1-b.arpa> you write:
>By the way, in latest Sky&Telescope there's a note on Sirius being
>reddish in recorded history (in fact about 600 AD), because at that
>time its white-dwarf companion was in the red giant stage. It's hard
>to believe the conversion from red giant to white dwarf could occur so
>quickly, although with Sirius gobbling most of the loose hydrogen as
>fast as it is shed, and ionizing & light-pressure-shoving the rest of
>the emitted hydrogen, I could imagine it within the realm of
>possibility. Any news since S&T publishing date on that topic that you
>know of?
>

I recently (two months ago?) read an article in the Boston Globe
that said roughly the same thing - Sirius was reddish within recorded
history.  I posted the same question to net.astro.  The general response
received was that the redness was due to the time of day when the
observations were made.  ie. Sirius sets near the sun during the dog
days of the summer, hence the reddish color is due to the sunset, not
the color of the star.  Current theories of stellar evolution do not
allow for a star to evolve that rapidly.
-------------------------

decvax!wanginst!infinet!barnes 		Jim Barnes

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 6 Mar 86 09:54:09 pst
From: decwrl!pyramid!hplabs!oliveb!oliven!barb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Barbara Jernigan)
Posted-Date: Thu, 6 Mar 86 09:54:09 pst
To: oliveb!space
Subject: Re: sicko jokes
In-Reply-To: your article <8602231334.AA00270@watmath.UUCP>

I've had [spelling] experience -- my favorite characters are a pair of demidracs
who have quite a vocabulary.  I believe Terynth prompted the raspberry.
(Yes, he's chuckling to himself over a pint of stolen ale -- "Ththrribbbt?")

Maybe it was a good thing that "rn" posted instead of mailed -- the net
is enjoying the 'entertainment'.

Thanks!
         ___________________
              ______________\ 
                 ___________ |
         	    ______  /
	       .	 / /	  o 
	     .ooo.     ./ /.	. o@ooo0
	    .ooooo.   .ooooo.  .oooo              Barb
        oo..oo	 oo...ooo ooo..ooo  \ 
     .oo  oo	  oooooo   oooooo   
		    ooo	     ooo

------------------------------

Date: 3 Mar 86 04:19:41 GMT
From: decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!brl-adm!brl-smoke!abc@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Brint Cooper )
Subject: Re: Morton-Thiokol Engineering Claims
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <6442@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
>
>If any of them are licensed Professional Engineers, I trust their state
>licensing boards will take notice of this gross dereliction of duty.
Then he adds some irrelevant blather about military affairs.
First, in most states, licensing boards have no authority over engineers
working on government (defense, space) contracts.
Second, it's a noble sentiment to berate the engineers for not running
to the media with their complaints.  It's not so easy if you're the
engineer and you know that your press conference will cost you not only
your job but very likely your chances for another job.  Neither the bank
who holds your house mortgage and the university that bills you $10K
every year for your kid's tuition (yes, tuition) are interested in your
nobility.
It seems agreed by all that the engineers protested and were overruled
by "management."  Assumption of responsibility is the commodity
purchased by those big salaries paid to industrial managers in this
country.  If the story turns out to be as it has been told, it's the
managers' heads that should roll.
-- 
Brint Cooper
	 ARPA:  abc@brl.arpa
	 UUCP:  ...{seismo,decvax,cbosgd}!brl!abc

------------------------------

Date:         Thu, 06 Mar 86 14:36:07 EST
From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
To: space digest <SPACE@s1-b.arpa>
Subject:      Specific Impulse

     The metric unit (newton seconds thrust per kilogram propellant)
which is measured in meters per second, is properly defined as the
exhaust velocity, Ve, *not* the specific impulse.

          Ve = g Isp

Where Isp is specific impulse, and g is the acceleration of gravity.
This is true in any system of units.
     However, you are right that Ve is a much more convenient way to
specify propellant characteristics, since you can plug it right into
the rocket equation,

                    Delta V = Ve ln(Mi/Mf)

     Where Mi/Mf is the mass ratio.
     Specific impulse (and exhaust velocity) are most useful for
systems where the energy and the reaction gas are the same.
In this case, it is *always* to your advantage to increase the
specific impulse (or exhaust velocity).   For
objects like nuclear engines, where the energy comes from a different
source than the reaction gas, it is a less useful concept.

                   --Geoffrey A. Landis, Brown University
                     Reply to: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA

------------------------------

Date: 5 Mar 86 18:32:16 GMT
From: hplabs!well!hoptoad!laura@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Laura Creighton)
Subject: Re: Morton-Thiokol Engineering Claims
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

There is a lot to be said about being able to wake up in the morning and
look in the mirror, though.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #190
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA12736; Fri, 7 Mar 86 23:01:12 PST
	id AA12736; Fri, 7 Mar 86 23:01:12 PST
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 86 23:01:12 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8603080701.AA12736@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #191

*** EOOH ***
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 86 23:01:12 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #191

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 191

Today's Topics:
			   Re: space plane
			   Olber's paradox
			  Size of the Galaxy
		      Re: GAME trivia (quickie)
			Re: Size of the Galaxy
			      Re: Safety
			  Plutonium toxicity
			   Re: TDRS spare?
			    Re: plutonium
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Return-Path: <ihnp4!utzoo!henry>
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 86 20:18:04 EST
From: ihnp4!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov
To: ucbvax!mcgeer@ji.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: space plane
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa

> ...as Robert Truax points out: "the TAV is going to be a combination of the
> Space Shuttle and the Concorde, and there's no way that *that's* going to
> be cheap". ... Well, Truax has an axe to grind,  Let's hope he's wrong.

Alas, he may well be right.  I would be a lot happier about the TAV if it
was being done by private industry.  My money right now is on Gary Hudson.

Concorde, by the way, would probably have been a financial success (or at
least only mildly unsuccessful) if all those options had turned into orders.
The current transatlantic services generally make a (small) profit, if you
discount the high costs of maintaining such a small fleet.

				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: Thu,  6 Mar 86 22:35:04 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@mc.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: Olber's paradox
To: JOSH%YKTVMH.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Cc: KFL@mc.lcs.mit.edu, Space@s1-b.arpa

    From: "Josh Knight"   <JOSH%YKTVMH.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu>

    I don't think clumping, no matter what its statistical characteristics
    can avoid the paradox.

  Not true.  An infinite hierarchy of clumping can avoid it, even in
an infinite, infinitely ancient, non-expanding universe.  We know that
stars clump in galaxies, galaxies in clusters, and clusters in
superclusters.  If we assume that superclusters, in turn, clump into
hyperclusters, ad that hyperclusters are not evenly distributed
either, but clump into untraclusters,... and so on and so forth
forever, we can avoid Olber's paradox.  The paradox requires that
there be an average density of the universe.  But in the inifinite
hierarchy model there is no average density.  The larger a sphere you
describe about the Sun, the lower the density of material within it.
(Which is not to say we have any prefered position, the same would be
true from any other star in any other galaxy anywhere).
  This inifinite hierarchy model was quite popular at one time.  It is
a shame that it is out of fashion these days, as it is really quite
attractive.
  "In an infinite universe I am bound to recur" -- Nietzche
								...Keith

------------------------------

Date: Thu,  6 Mar 86 22:37:45 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@mc.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: Size of the Galaxy
To: JOSH%YKTVMH.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Cc: KFL@mc.lcs.mit.edu, Space@s1-b.arpa

    From: "Josh Knight"   <JOSH%YKTVMH.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu>

    As an aside, it is interesting to note that in the early part of this
    century, an incorrect accounting for interstellar absorption caused many
    astronomers to believe our galaxy was a small elliptical one, rather
    than the large spiral it really is.

  Actually, I think it was the other way around.  For a while it was
thought that this galaxy was unusually large.
								...Keith

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 6 Mar 86 20:12:59 pst
From: eugene@ames-nas.arpa (Eugene Miya)
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Re: GAME trivia (quickie)

.From my CPSR It's Not Trivial deck.  The nearest reference to that
famous FORTRAN bug is The Annuals of Computing 1984.  Sorry, I can't
find the deck with the issue number.

--eugene miya

------------------------------

Date: 7 Mar 86 05:47:26 GMT
From: brahms!weemba@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Matthew P. Wiener)
Subject: Re: Size of the Galaxy
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>>As an aside, it is interesting to note that in the early part of this
>>century, an incorrect accounting for interstellar absorption caused many
>>astronomers to believe our galaxy was a small elliptical one, rather
>>than the large spiral it really is.
>
>  Actually, I think it was the other way around.  For a while it was
>thought that this galaxy was unusually large.
You are both essentially correct.  Incorrect accounting for absorption
made our galaxy seem much smaller than it actually *is*.  An incorrect
method of finding the distance to galaxies made other galaxies all seem
five times too small, giving the impression that our galaxy was unusually
large *relative* to other galaxies.
Now why can't all net.arguments have a happy ending?  Everybody's right
this time!
ucbvax!brahms!weemba	Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720

------------------------------

Date: 5 Mar 86 04:32:36 GMT
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!oberon!smeagol!earle@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Greg Earle)
Subject: Re: Safety
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

*** Warning! Massive flame approaching!  Danger Will Robinson! ***
In article <[MC.LCS.MIT.EDU].835728.860302.KFL>, Keith Lynch writes:
>   The term 'population explosion' is a pernicious term.  It makes
> population sound like a bad thing. 
Do you live in a cave?  It IS a bad thing - most (if not all) of the world's
ecosystem problems can be directly traced to humankind multiplying like flies
and devouring all available space!!!!  Try coming to East L.A. sometime.
I'll let you see the pregnant women pushing toddlers in strollers, while they
hold pre-schoolers by the arms, with the older kids walking behind.  Then tell
me that 'population isn't a bad thing'.
> Remember that if the population
> were to be less, many people alive today either would be dead or would
> never would have been born.
Hindsight is always 20/20.  Everybody at some time in their lives considers
the fact that they 'might not have been born'.  Well, we have, so what's the
point in talking about it?  If we hadn't been born, we wouldn't be here to
talk about it.  These things happen.  And why would 'many people alive
today ... would be dead'???  Huh?
> Instead of imagining 'our little brown
> brothers' or other third world peoples to be the subjects (victims) of
> population reduction measures (i.e. final solution), try imagining
> your parents, your wife or girlfriend, the people on the net, or
> yourself, as being one of the 'reduced'.  It puts things in a whole
> new light, doesn't it?
No, it doesn't.  You don't need a 'final solution' NOW; you need to
curtail the population STARTING now.  You don't have to kill people
that are already here!
>   The main point in going into space is to be able to support a much
> higher population.  MUCH higher.  
AGGGGGHHHH!  Where's my Uzi? :@)
You are at MIT, right?  You get WGBH?  Try watching it sometime.
A few days ago there was a special program on endangered wildlife.
It was 'hosted' by Mike Farrell and Loretta Swit (ex-MASH).  The segments,
as I recall, dealt with:
Grizzly bears in the US
Seals and Sealing
Whales and Whaling
Dolphins in the Japanese North Pacific
Chimps in Africa
Wolves in Canada
Elephants and Rhinos in Africa and India
and probably others I forgot.
The main point in all of these was:
(1) EVERYONE OF THESE SPECIES HAS ENCOUNTERED *MASSIVE* REDUCTIONS IN THEIR
POPULATION, MAINLY *BECAUSE OF DESTRUCTION OF HABITAT BY ENCROACHMENT
OF THE ENDLESS MASSES OF HUMANOIDS ON THIS PLANET*.
(2) ALMOST ALL OTHER FACTORS IN REDUCING THE POPULATIONS OF THESE AND OTHER
SPECIES IS DIRECTLY RELATED TO HUMAN GREED.
Grizzly bears have practically been eradicated from the Continental U.S.,
yet there is still a Hunting season in Montana!  Against an endangered species!
I shouldn't need to mention the clubbing of baby seals to make coats for
Fucking Rich Moron women.
Fishermen in Japan were slaughtering dolphins because they *thought* they
were the cause of their low fishing yields! When it was really over-fishing!
Wolves have nearly been eradicated in North America because 'we don't 
understand them'.
Black Rhinos are nearly extinct because their tusks are used to make knife
handles in North Yemen and Hong Kong!
There are almost no Chimps/Gorillas left outside of Government allocated
preserves in Africa.  They were taking up room for people ...
And the list goes on and on and on and on ...
My idea of the main point in going into space is that an unintended offshoot
will be to get all the *fucking people* off of the earth, so maybe the Planet
and the animals (who beat us here by a LONG time) will have a slim chance
of repairing all the damage that humans have caused to the ecosystem.
>   I believe, very strongly, in both quality of life and in quantity of
> life.  The more of both, the better.
> 								...Keith
If you were talking about animals, I'd agree.  Unfortunately, your whole
article drips of Anthropocentrism, so I'll assume the implicit 'human life',
and violently disagree with 'the more of both, the better'.  It's about
time that people realized that human beings are not the only things on this
planet.
To everyone else: sorry I posted this to net.space.  I just couldn't help it.
*** Massive flame off ***
-- 
				::::::\:::::::::
				::::'  \:  `::::
				::'   /:\    `::
Anarchy, Peace, and Freedom	::   / ::\    ::	Devastate to Liberate
				::  /_____\   ::
				::./:' :: `\..::
				::/:.  ::  .\:::
				:::::::::::::\::
	Greg Earle		sdcrdcf!smeagol!earle (UUCP)
	JPL 			ia-sun2!smeagol!earle@csvax.caltech.edu (ARPA)

------------------------------

Date:         Fri, 7 Mar 1986 04:12 EST
From: Kenneth Ng  <KEN%NJITCCCC.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu>
Subject:      Plutonium toxicity
To: Space digest <SPACE@s1-b.arpa>

About that reference that plutonium is the most dangerous substance
known to mankind.  If that were so we'd have a pretty safe world.
Unfortunately there are many substance far more toxic than plutonium.
Arsenic trioxide, a pesticide often sprayed on food, is about 50 times
as toxic.  Biological toxins such as Botulism and Arrsanax (sp) are
several thousand to a million times as toxic.

The last time I saw a cancer chart of the United States, the highest
cancer rates in the country are the northeast corridor (New Jersey
and New York), and the coasts of Texas and Louisiana.  Since these
areas of the country are heavy petrochemical refineries, I suspect
that petrochemical products are far more cancer causing than radiation.
Utah, Colorado, and Nevada have below the national average.  The
chart I'm looking at was prepared by the National Cancer Institute,
the year is not given unfortunately.

Also, the government has more information on the effects of plutonium
than it does many forms of air pollution.  From the Manhattan Project
we have 17000 workers exposed to plutonium.  Of them, 25 have way
over the permissable level in their lungs.  As of 1973 none of them
have developed cancers. This is from "A 27 Year Study of Selected
Los Alamos Plutonium Workers", Report LA-5148-MS, Los Alamos Sci
Labs, January 1973.

By the way, if the plutonium package was on board the Space Shuttle,
it may have been one of the few objects to survive somewhat intact.
I cannot recall which one, but one of the SNAP nuclear power systems
was tested by blowing up a rocket fully fueled on the launch pad.
This was, of course, in the days when NASA could afford to do such
things!

Finally, some of the material I present may not be entirely correct.
By profession I am not an expert in nuclear energy, or plutonium
toxicity.  I am a computer scientist.  One of my major hobbies is
reading.  I have tried to put references in for those curious, but
there just seems to be too much to remember nowadays.  If anyone is
an expert on these matters and I've misrepresented something, please
enter the correction for us all.  I'd also appreciate some new reading
sources.

------------------------------

Date: 5 Mar 86 16:11:54 GMT
From: nbires!boulder!cisden!lmc@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Lyle McElhaney)
Subject: Re: TDRS spare?
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> > It occurs to me that TDRS is so very important that we ought to
> > build one or two spares now that one was lost in the Challenger explosion.
> 
> Unfortunatly, TDRS cost ~$100M so I doubt congress will approve
> funding for "spares".
> 
Ah, but there *was* a spare, fortunately; now its no longer a spare. It
was meant to be a backup earthside, in case of failure of one of the on-orbit
TDRS's. Ultimately, TDRS-A was to be replaced and semi-retired, available
for emergencies, leaving TDRS-B and TDRS-C to handle operations, and TDRS-4
on the ground. Now, everything is moved up.
Initial planning for TDRS started in 1978; like the shuttle, it is not
deemed prudent to build too many backups, because the technology is obsoleted
so fast.
Lyle McElhaney
...hao!cisden!lmc

------------------------------

Date: 5 Mar 86 18:22:27 GMT
From: voder!kontron!cramer@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: plutonium
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> Now, sarcasm aside.
> 
> In regards to the plutonium question, I should have stated that plutonium
> is a rather poisonous substance, not the most poisonous.  Since few
> studies have been done since the 50's due to lack of government interest
> and money and volunteers, it is difficult to exactly determine 
> the toxicity.  I tend to take potential risks seriously, unlike the
> NASA and MT management (and some readers of this forum) appear to. 
> 
> I don't buy the harmlessness of dropping radioactive materials into the
> ocean.  Yes, the United States did it for a while (and stopped), and
> Britain is still doing it, but there have been problems from this
> activity.  Areas in coastal Ireland, which is the closest land area
> to the British dumping area, have reported very high incidences of
> cancer, attributable to the dumping activity.  Also, some of the material
> has been found as far away as Scandinavia.  Now, I realise that the
> amount involved in dumping are high, but the material is put into
> steel or lead casks and supposedly remains intact.  In the case of the shuttle,
> most of the material may remain intact, but some will not, and little of
> it would be as well protected as the dumping casks.  
> 
> As far as the death of thousands, I'm not talking about dying instantly
> or even in a month from the accident. I'm talking ten years down the road.
> Cancer works that way. 
> 
> In reference to hysteria, I find the negative responses to my original posting
> to show a remarkable level of propaganda in the opposite direction. They
> seem to be saying "No experts believe plutonium to be exceptionally
> dangerous", "No additional deaths would occur", "Nobody has ever died
> from atmospheric releases of plutonium", "It's safe to dump it in the
> ocean", etc. with as little to back them up as I did.  They sound like
> spokespersons for Kerr-McGee or the rest of the nuclear power industry or
> the U.S. government.
> 
Go back and take a look at the postings.  No one made the statements you
are showing above in quotes.  The statements that were made:
   1. took exception to the hysterical and GROSSLY INACCURATE statements 
   that you made about plutonium's dangers not associated with the 
   radiological hazards.
   
   2. took exception to your ABSURD statement that one pound would kill
   everyone on Earth.
   
   3. asked for a basis for your "thousands" of deaths that would result.
   And even then, it was a request for information to back up your claim.
NO ONE claimed it was safe to dump in the ocean -- just that the risks
are pretty small from ONE accident.
> Now, I hope that we can leave this topic alone and move on to other things.
> 
Not as long as you keep misrepresenting what people said in response to
your posting.  Reading the postings before responding to them is always
a good idea.
>     -- Brett Slocum <Slocum at HI-MULTICS.ARPA>
> 
> P.S. My reference was not the National Enquirer, but The Nation, which
> is respected, but somewhat anti-nuclear.
Respected?  By who?  And if they publish statements so clearly false,
why do YOU respect them?

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #191
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA13897; Sat, 8 Mar 86 03:01:15 PST
	id AA13897; Sat, 8 Mar 86 03:01:15 PST
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 86 03:01:15 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8603081101.AA13897@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #192

*** EOOH ***
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 86 03:01:15 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #192

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 192

Today's Topics:
		Re: Morton-Thiokol Engineering Claims
		Re: Morton-Thiokol Engineering Claims
		    Re: Re: nearby supernovas etc.
		       Re: will space save us?
	   Re: Why does everyone want to leave this planet?
		      Re: nearby supernovas etc.
		 Re: "zillion fatal doses of Plutoni
			Re: Galileo plutonium
		 Re: "zillion fatal doses of Plutoni
    Re: hyperbolic space makes for solution to Olber's paradox too
			   Re: Colonization
		Re: "zillion fatal doses of Plutonium"
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 5 Mar 86 23:06:22 GMT
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!ism780c!tim@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: Morton-Thiokol Engineering Claims
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <6442@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
>
>If any of them are licensed Professional Engineers, I trust their state
>licensing boards will take notice of this gross dereliction of duty.
There is a story in the March 5, 1986 L.A.  Times about engineers 
who find safety problems in big expensive projects, and what 
happens to them after they go public.  The story contains many 
interesting examples of engineers who voiced concerns over safety 
and were fired.  I recommend going to your local library and 
reading it.  It is very interesting.  
They say that the MT engineer in Florida who refused to authorize 
the launch _was_ still trying to get it stopped, even after 
management went over his head.  
How certain should an engineer be that something will fail before 
he blows his career trying to stop it?  If he does go public to 
stop something from happening, and is proven correct in his 
fears, he will still be considered a trouble maker, and his 
career will be shot.  
-- 
Tim Smith       sdcrdcf!ism780c!tim || ima!ism780!tim || ihnp4!cithep!tim

------------------------------

Date: 5 Mar 86 23:27:29 GMT
From: tektronix!tekred!joels@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Joel Swank)
Subject: Re: Morton-Thiokol Engineering Claims
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> 	If the MT engineers were 75% sure that the shuttle would not make
> it, would that justify "going to the media" (aka "going over their bosses'
> heads")? What, then, if the 25% chance happened and all went well? They'd
> be in the bread lines, that's what. The bosses made the decisions, and at
> some point, you have to acknowledge the authority of those "in power". You
> really don't want that sort of anarchy going on in a company that handles
> such sensitive ventures as this. You want to invest the authority in the 
> right people and in the right decision-making systems, and follow those
> rules.
> 
The engineers weren't at all sure the SRBs would fail. The main point made
by Allen McDonald was that they DIDN'T KNOW what effects the weather would
have on the seals. This lack of data should be enough to scrub launch. Instead,
NASA used it as a point in FAVOR of launching. This seems contrary to their
policy in the past, when the engineers had to PROVE beyond a reasonable
doubt that their systems would work.
Joel Swank
Tektronix, Redmond, Oregon

------------------------------

Date: 5 Mar 86 03:47:00 GMT
From: hplabs!hp-pcd!orstcs!jamesp@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (jamesp)
Subject: Re: Re: nearby supernovas etc.
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>/***** orstcs:net.space / ucbvax!weemba /  9:01 pm  Mar  1, 1986*/
>There really IS a bizarre religious cult in net.space!  And what do you
>plan to do when people object?  Shoot them and tell them it's for their
>greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
...BILLYUNS and BILLYUNS of great's, about 400 lines worth...
>greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
>children?  You make Hitler sound reasonable.
>
>ucbvax!brahms!weemba	Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720
set FLAME="ON, GAMMA-RAY INTENSITY"
This message would take 12 minutes to transmit at 300 baud! 12 minutes at
$.25/minute (long distance rates) for 300 sites would be $1200!
(or are you just trying to be one of the top 25 news submitters, by volume?)
$1200 could be used to feed 60 starving children in Asia for a month!  If you
really care about children, you will refrain from posting messages like
this.  Consider your hand THOROUGHLY slapped!
You could save everyone the expense and keep your greats to THREE lines,
at most!
set FLAME="SMOLDER, SMOLDER"
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
"All that is gold does not glitter;	   tektronix!orstcs!jamesp
 Not all those who wander are lost."	(In real life: James Perkins)

------------------------------

Date: 6 Mar 86 17:47:29 GMT
From: hplabs!oliveb!oliven!barb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Barbara Jernigan)
Subject: Re: will space save us?
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

A lot of flaming has been going back and forth whether or not colonization
of space means survival of the species -- and using/opposing that argument to 
justify the manned space program.  Both sides have their point:  eggs are
safer when they're not in one basket -- long range thinking on the 100 million-
year scale is a tad silly.
Well, although I agree with the need to fly from the nest of Mother Earth,
my *REAL* reason for wanting to explore space is (compulsive) CURIOSITY.  That 
there are financial and species-preservational gains is also nice -- but, it's 
icing on the (interstellar) cake.
We humans (or some of us, anyway) don't much like the prospect of having
everything known and measured (though we're a damn sight away from that
on earth, the territory no longer seems as virgin).  Now, above us,
beckonning with the whispered, seductive voices of our imaginations, are the
stars.  And, true to our native species, we want to GO!!!
Those that have heard the Call, understand (though we try to cloak the
DESIRE in the respectable clothing of justifications).  Those that have not
label us irresponsible and crazy (and perhaps they're right).
It *is* a cult -- a religion of wanting to KNOW, driving us to push the limits 
of our experience lest life become too mundane.
Continue to justify -- we need the funding, and funding in this bureaucratic
world must have "reason."  But know, in our heart-of-hearts, the Truth -- 
the need to explore new frontiers is part of Who and What we are.
Barb
     ...from depths unseen and dreams undreamt, I sing
     the gleaming cantos of unvanquished space...
                                 -- Berke Breathed

------------------------------

Date: 6 Mar 86 17:19:11 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!looking!jan@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Jan Gray)
Subject: Re: Why does everyone want to leave this planet?
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <172@jc3b21.UUCP> fgd3@jc3b21.UUCP (Fabbian G. Dufoe) writes:
>
>     I am reminded of the story (probably apocryphal) of the man who, in
>the 1930s, recognized the imminence of a global war.  A peaceful man, he
>wanted no part of it.  After long and careful study he identified a place
>of no strategic importance to anyone.  He packed his bags and moved to
>Guadalcanal.
A few years back, a family from British Columbia, fearing nuclear war,
moved to the Falkland Islands...
Jan Gray	Looking Glass Software, Waterloo, Ont.	    (519) 884-7473

------------------------------

Date: 6 Mar 86 04:11:00 GMT
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiucdcsb!carroll@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: nearby supernovas etc.
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

I can't believe I paged all the way to the end...

------------------------------

Date: 6 Mar 86 04:01:00 GMT
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiucdcsb!carroll@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: "zillion fatal doses of Plutoni
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

	Perhaps it is true that any radiation is dangerous, but people who
scream about a possible 0.5 REM/year exposure, but live in Denver or 
equivalent (where they get about 30 extra REM/year compared to a sea level
local) confuse the **** out of me. If the .5 is so bad that we need to
shut it all down, why is the extra 30 ok? Also, try to avoid sleeping with
anyone; they're radioactive too ya know.

------------------------------

Date: 6 Mar 86 03:58:00 GMT
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiucdcsb!carroll@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Galileo plutonium
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

	There is a big difference between "harmless", "dangerous", and
"so deadly that it will kill off millions of people if any of it gets
loose". The evidence I have seen indicates that plutonium goes in the
second category, not the first or third. BTW, Mr. Pournelle is talking
about plutonium OXIDE, the normal form it is found in. Metallic
plutonium is quite a bit more toxic (as are all the heavy metals).

------------------------------

Date: 6 Mar 86 21:32:57 GMT
From: ihnp4!ihlpa!animal@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (D. Starr)
Subject: Re: "zillion fatal doses of Plutoni
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

[support your local librarian--find the references yourself!]
I found an interesting tidbit in the Chicago Tribune this morning,
courtesy of the N. Y. Times.  It said that officials of the federal
Energy Department do acknowledge that "a shuttle explosion on the 
launching pad could, under some circumstances, release a harmful
cloud of radioactive material.  
"But the officials said they could not describe during an open
session of Congress the health or environmental consequences of such
an accident because the damage estimates are classified." (quotes are
from the article as it appeared in the Trib)
So, it looks like the official line is that we'll just have to trust
that the government (DOD, NASA, whatever) does know what the hazards
are, and will take appropriate precautions.  Sleep well tonight, Florida.
* * * *
On this same topic, a while back I said that Utah, which is downwind of
the Nevada nuclear testing range, had an unusually high incidence of
cancer.  I got some mail about that observation, and stand corrected--
somewhat.  As a whole, the state has a lower than average cancer incidence,
attributed to its large Mormon population (Mormons do not use tobacco
or alcohol).  However, the southwestern corner of the state (the section
most immediately downwind of Nellis AFB/Nuclear Test Site) does have a
higher than usual incidence of leukemia.  According to the daily papers,
exposure to plutonium has been linked to this disease.

------------------------------

Date: 6 Mar 86 18:52:05 GMT
From: nike!im4u!ut-sally!utastro!ethan@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Ethan Vishniac)
Subject: Re: hyperbolic space makes for solution to Olber's paradox too
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

First, let me just point out that fractal models of clustering have
the following problems:
    1) Deep counts of galaxy numbers, usually done in a number of
       small areas scattered across the sky, show only small variations.
       [One has to be careful about this.  Different observers use
       slightly different techniques so a given data sample should include
       only the work of one group at a time.]  In one sample I happen to
       have on hand (Tyson, Jarvis, Valdes or some permutation of those
       names) the total counts vary by less than 10% on the average.
       Moreover, some fraction of this variation (or all of it) may be
       due to absorption by gas clouds in our galaxy.  Presumably this
       could be checked by using IRAS data.
    2) No *dynamical* model of such a universe has ever been constructed.
       That is, one that includes the general expansion and includes
       reasonable evolution of the clustering.
 
    3) The microwave background is isotropic to at least a few parts in
       10^5.  If its origin is cosmological, the most likely interpretation,
       then the limits this sets on gravitational fluctuations in the
       universe is quite severe on very large scales.
    4) Lastly, the theory of cosmological nucleosynthesis gives results
       which are nicely consistent with a nearly homogeneous big bang model.
       It is not apparent how this could be preserved in a model with
       fractal clustering.
It is certainly true that the fractal model takes care of the night
sky.
> 
> not yet seen a cutoff in clustering, in fact just recently a void that
> is something like a billion lightyears long has been discovered, and
> for all we know the larger scale we examine the larger voids we'll
> find. The inflationary-universe theory opens the possibility that on
> the largest scale the universe may in fact be grossly hyperbolic.
The first comment might be possible if galaxies are not a good tracer
of mass in the universe, except that an indefinite extension of teh
clustering hierarchy would violate point #1.  The second is somewhat
mysterious to me.  The inflationary hypothesis suggests that on the
largest scale the geometry of the universe could be nearly anything,
but on visible scales (billions of light years) should be close to
a flat Friedman model.
This seems more like net.astro than net.space.  I am cross listing it.
Perhaps discussion should continue there.
-- 
"Ma, I've been to another      Ethan Vishniac
 planet!"                      {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan
                               ethan@astro.UTEXAS.EDU
                               Department of Astronomy
                               University of Texas

------------------------------

Posted-Date: Fri 7 Mar 1986 07:57:02 EST
Date: Fri 7 Mar 1986 07:57:02 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Re: Colonization
To: Jong@his-billerica-multics.arpa
In-Reply-To: Jong's message of Wed, 5 Mar 86 10:33 EST
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa

>2.  The colonial powers wanted to exploit the minerals and other
>    resources on the New World and Africa; more so, I think, than
>    they wanted merely to replicate themselves.

This will probably be true when space is opened up also.  Once space
transportation technology is sufficiently cheap we'll be getting
most of our iron, platinum group elements and energy from space
(the question is how cheap is "sufficiently").

> Of course, if we encounter another civilization out there, the
> odds are it won't be anywhere near the level we're at.  Most
> likely, we would encounter an unimaginably more advanced
> civilization.

While it's hard to predict what other species (or, indeed, other humans)
will do, I'd guess that another technological civilization in the
galaxy would have colonized everywhere by now.  A more plausible
scenario for finding intelligent ET's would be dolphin-like creatures
on water-worlds without technology.  All talk of aliens is wildly
speculative, of course.

------------------------------

Date: 5 Mar 86 17:39:19 GMT
From: hplabs!pesnta!valid!jao@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (John Oswalt)
Subject: Re: "zillion fatal doses of Plutonium"
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

I'm sure that 43 pounds of plutonium in the atmosphere would kill
zillions of people, for very small values of zillion.
-- 
John Oswalt (..!{hplabs,amd,pyramid,ihnp4}!pesnta!valid!jao)

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #192
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA15334; Sat, 8 Mar 86 07:01:13 PST
	id AA15334; Sat, 8 Mar 86 07:01:13 PST
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 86 07:01:13 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8603081501.AA15334@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #193

*** EOOH ***
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 86 07:01:13 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #193

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 193

Today's Topics:
		    Re: It could have been worse.
			  Ice in the seals?
		Re: Morton-Thiokol Engineering Claims
	     Re: Do we really need to leave this planet?
		      Re: nearby supernovas etc.
		     Re: will space save us, etc?
		    Re: It could have been worse.
			    Re: plutonium
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 5 Mar 86 14:25:05 GMT
From: decvax!mcnc!rti-sel!wfi@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (William Ingogly)
Subject: Re: It could have been worse.
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <563@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>...to claim it's the most poisonous substance is more
>nonsense from the anti-nuclear groups.  (Perhaps some of them can study
>chemistry and physics one of these days, instead of taking classes in
>poetics and English literature.)
I have little respect for many of the neo-Luddites who belong to
anti-nuclear groups. However, to claim that EVERYONE who has mixed
feelings about nuclear energy or is flat out against nuclear energy
knows nothing about chemistry and physics is bilge. There are nuclear
physicists who are against nuclear energy, for Ghod's sake. Get YOUR
facts straight, mister.
But the thing I find most offensive about this posting is the slam
against people with liberal arts backgrounds. Perhaps some of the
semi-literate chemists and physicists I've known can study their
culture, instead of taking classes on overspecialized topics that tell
them nothing about why they're narrow-minded, asocial, and incapable 
of communication. Liberal arts bigotry is as ridiculous and offensive 
as hard science bigotry, n'est-ce pas? Sheesh.
                        -- Cheers, Bill Ingogly

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 7 Mar 86 07:39 pst
From: "attenberger stan%d.mfenet"@lll-mfe.arpa
Subject: fusion reactors in space  

     Concerning Mike Knudsen's claim that you will never see
fusion reactors in space due to their large size:  "Conventional"
designs for tokamak reactors call for doughnut shaped plasmas about
eight meters across.  Energy conversion devices, shielding,
stabilizing structures, and peripheral equipment take up more space,
but I don't think that you can justify the statement that the
smallest possible reactor may not fit in the Astrodome.  Alternate
designs such as "spherical tokamaks" would be more compact,
possibly about 2.4 meters across.  That would probably fit
in your office, including the vacuum vessel.  Of course, the
peripherals would still occupy several offices.
     Barring a major breakthrough, I don't see fusion being used
as a power source for a rocket.  But how about as a power
plant for an orbiting industrial lab?  You would have free vacuum,
reduced shielding and structure requirements...  I don't know of
anyone who is actually working on fusion reactors for space (let's
do it on the ground please, first) but I wouldn't rule out their
possible use in space.
disclaimer:  the above personal opinion should not be construed
to be a statement of the ORNL Fusion Energy Division.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 7 Mar 86 08:51:12 PST
From: ihnp4!npois!jay@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: ucbvax!space

Keith,
	I have read your several articles about the Ulysses probe, with
some interest. I have also seen some general public type publicity about
the mission, though it was more than a year ago. (New York Times).
	My impreesion was that the mission was supposed to circle Jupiter
from the front, and have velocity taken away by it's encounter with
the giant planet. It was then supposed to fall in towards the sun
with an eliptical orbit perihelion about 10 million miles, aphelion
somewhere near Jupiter's orbit.
	One thing that confuses me about all this though, is why don't
we use the planet Mars, or Venus to accomplish the same thing in
considerably less time.
	I would think that It should take a maximum of two encounters
with Venus to put this probe in the desired orbit, plus it would be
close enough to the sun that cheaper solar power could be used for
the whole mission.
	Orbital dynamics is not my forte, so what do I know. You
have posted a bit to the net on this stuff, perhaps you can tell me.

	Anton Winteroak		ihnp4!npois!jay

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 07 Mar 86 11:47 PST
From: Dave Platt <Dave-Platt%LADC@cisl-service-multics.arpa>
To: Space <Space@s1-b.arpa>
Subject: Ice in the seals?
Randomness: Beware of a tall dark man with a spoon up his nose.

According to an article in the LA Times this morning, the presidential
commission on the Challenger disaster reconvened yesterday to look over
a large mass of data gathered during the last few weeks.  The commission
is focusing its attention on the possible causes for the apparent
rupture in the SRB seals.

Theories include:

1) The low temperatures compromised the ability of the O-rings to seal
   the inter-segment gap properly during the first second of SRB
   firing.  This is the theory backed by the pre-launch warnings of
   several Morton Thiokol engineers.

   NASA experts have challenged this theory, suggesting other possible
   causes for the seal rupture.

2) An article in Aviation Week & Space Technology this week reports that
   the commission has heard evidence that ice might have formed in the
   failed joint before liftoff.  Photographs of the launch reportedly
   show a white puff of steam at the suspect joint, .2 seconds after
   ignition and prior to a plume of black smoke from the joint.
   AW&ST said it is theorized that the steam was evaporating ice that had
   gathered in the lower section of the joint, which is U-shaped and
   theoretically could hold a small amount of water.

   In the 37 days that it sat on the pad, Challenger was exposed to at
   least six inches of rain, and sub-freezing temperatures for several
   hours on the eve of launching.

   NASA officials testified that three years ago, a trace of rain water
   was discovered to have collected in a solid rocket joint. NASA then
   began applying grease to the joints in an attempt to prevent water
   from entering.

3) The commission is also looking into the possibility that the O-rings
   in the suspect joint might have had an undetected defect, or that the
   assembly of the rocket was not properly conducted.  There have been
   reports that the assembly of the section of rocked believed to have
   failed took several hours longer than usual, and these reports
   have raised questions about assembly procedures.  Previous witnesses
   have told the commission that sections of reusable rockets don't
   always fit well when the rockets are reassembled.  Most of the
   rocket segments used on teh Challenger mission had been flown in
   different combinations at least twice before.

------------------------------

Date: 7 Mar 86 01:01:46 GMT
From: hplabs!oliveb!oliven!barb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Barbara Jernigan)
Subject: Re: Morton-Thiokol Engineering Claims
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> I strongly agree with Mr. Spencer's sentiments, but doubt that much will 
> change while engineers can gaze at the ruined careers of those who did
> speak up.
More evidence of the double standard we (Americans) are cudgeled with
from birth.  Our integrity says we should tell the truth.  Our integrity
says we should not fink on our buddies.
It's not right or wrong, it *is*.
In hindsight it's easy to say "I told you so!" -- and to remember you were
at least that exuberant in telling your manager he/she shouldn't go ahead.
But were you?  Really?  Memory's a quirky thing -- as much fiction as
fact (perhaps more of the former) and subject to revision.  I'm not saying
the M.T. engineers weren't as persuasive/insistent and they remember being
-- but that's all under the bridge now.
Challenger was launched -- and died.  Let's move on.  If heads deserve to
roll, believe me, they'll roll (I only pray they're the right ones and not
scapegoats) (see, I'm skeptical, too).
Barb

------------------------------

Date: Fri 7 Mar 86 20:18:01-EST
From: Richard A. Cowan <COWAN@xx.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Do we really need to leave this planet?
To: space@mc.lcs.mit.edu

Gene Ward Smith, discussing Andrew Fine's critical message about
space colonization, said this:

>   I submit that the highly emotional tone of both your original posting
>and this response shows that my analogy does have some degree of appositeness.
>I propose, and am quite serious about this, that there is a kind of hysterical
>quasi-religious cult feeling about some of the postings to this newsgroup (a
>minority, I should hasten to add).
>...
>Your effusions do not seem to me to be well thought out.

I'd like to ask Mr. Smith to explain what he means by a "hysterical
quasi-religious cult."  It is not clear to me. Also, I thought Mr.
Fine's questions were better thought out than most things that appear
on this list.  Finally, what does Gene mean by "emotional"?

Could it be that the influence of vested interests in the national
debate warps the arguments we hear, thereby manipulating our needs?
Just think of all the optimistic articles that appear in
the newspaper and stories that appear on TV glorifying some new
technological development.  Organizations with a large public
relations offices and a financial interest in positive public
perceptions of these technologies constantly vie for media attention.

Is the outcome of this manipulation that a limited range of arguments
or questions are "tacitly sanctioned"?  i.e. Questions or arguments that
stray beyond this range sound "emotional" for they contradict the
assumptions we have been indoctrinated to take for granted.

My advice in general: whenever you see or read something about how a
technology is going to revolutionize some aspect of our civilization,
A BELL SHOULD GO OFF IN YOUR HEAD.  Only if you consider who's making
money off this publicity can you factor out the hype and come up with
an impartial analysis.

rich (cowan@xx)
-------

------------------------------

Date: 6 Mar 86 16:43:20 GMT
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Stanley Friesen)
Subject: Re: nearby supernovas etc.
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <8603020306.AA00249@s1-b.arpa> REM%IMSSS@SU-AI.ARPA (Robert Elton Maas) writes:
>
>I beg to differ. If current theory says we have only 200 million years
>before we roast, and that isn't enough time for fossil fuels to be
>re-supplied, then there's a reasonable chance it's absolutely urgent
>to get into space this time around instead of blowing our chance and
>having to wait for the next round of fossil fuels.
	Well, 200 MY is certainly long enough for a new set of fossil
fuels. There are coal beds less than 70 MY old. Of course they are
generally low grade coal(Lignite), but another few tens of MY would be
enough to convert them to usable coal. Still, I do not think Homo
sapiens will be around that long if we are restricted to the Earth.
There are lots of other factors that could cause extinction. Most
species either become extinct or evolve into something else in about 1
to 5 MY.
-- 
				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)
UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen
ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa

------------------------------

Date: 7 Mar 86 07:12:00 GMT
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!ism780c!ism780!jimb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: will space save us, etc?
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>  And no sci-fi.
>  Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720
Tsk, tsk!  Reality is just a crutch for people who can't handle
science fiction!
      (stolen from somewhere else....)
		 -- from the musings of Jim Brunet
		    ihnp4/ima/ism780B
		    hplabs/hao/ism780B
		    sdcsvax/sdcrdcf/ism780/ism780B

------------------------------

Date: 8 Mar 86 03:41:36 GMT
From: brahms!weemba@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Matthew P. Wiener)
Subject: Re: It could have been worse.
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <702@rti-sel.UUCP> wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly) writes:
>But the thing I find most offensive about this posting is the slam
>against people with liberal arts backgrounds. Perhaps some of the
>semi-literate chemists and physicists I've known can study their
>culture, instead of taking classes on overspecialized topics that tell
>them nothing about why they're narrow-minded, asocial, and incapable 
>of communication. Liberal arts bigotry is as ridiculous and offensive 
>as hard science bigotry, n'est-ce pas? Sheesh.
While it is uncommon to cross the two cultures, it is usually the scientist
who tries/succeeds.
ucbvax!brahms!weemba	Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720

------------------------------

Date: 7 Mar 86 12:06:25 GMT
From: hplabs!qantel!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Tom Keller)
Subject: Re: plutonium
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <8603030411.AA03642@pc.Purdue.EDU>, wdm@PUR-EE.UUCP (Tex) writes:
> In article <860228145732.368978@HI-MULTICS.ARPA> you write:
> >(Please excuse the mild sarcasm :-)
> >
> >Since the scientific proof obviously does not exist to back up my
> >statement, I retract my entire statement.  Plutonium is completely
> >harmless, and there would be no additional danger in having the shuttle
> >carrying the Galileo and Ulysses probes explode over the present
> >explosion.  In fact, a plan has been developed to introduce plutonium
> >into children's breakfast cereal as a replacement for sugar.
> >
> >After all, we've been doing this stuff for years and nobody can prove
> >that anybody has ever died from it.  Therefore, it must not be harmful.
> >
> >Sincerely,
> >
> >Brett Slocum
> 
> Upset that some people refused to jump on the hysteria bandwagon?
   I find it interesting that for *MANY YEARS* scientists and medical doctors
denied any danger in the use of asbestos for insulation, ceiling tiles, etc.
   The fact is that we do *NOT* know how dangerous plutonium is or is not.  I
tend to lean toward the "extremely dangerous" opinion, myself. 
   I find it to be both bad science and bad taste to simply dismiss out of hand
the legitimate fear of plutonium, and the distrust of many citizens of the
assurances of the pro-nuclear faction that this stuff is "virtually harmless".
-- 
====================================
Disclaimer:  I hereby disclaim any and all responsibility for disclaimers.
tom keller
{ihnp4, dual}!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020
(* we may not be big, but we're small! *)

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #193
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA19487; Sat, 8 Mar 86 23:01:15 PST
	id AA19487; Sat, 8 Mar 86 23:01:15 PST
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 86 23:01:15 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8603090701.AA19487@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #194

*** EOOH ***
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 86 23:01:15 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #194

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 194

Today's Topics:
	       Re: absolutely vs. relatively safe level
	  Article IEEE Spectrum 1982 interview about hazards
	   Re: Why does everyone want to leave this planet?
	   Re: Books on the Russian Space Program (was Mir)
		Re: Morton-Thiokol Engineering Claims
			    Re: plutonium
			Re: bizarre religions
			     Clean Rooms
		     Clusters, Clusters, Clusters
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 7 Mar 86 12:19:22 GMT
From: hplabs!qantel!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Tom Keller)
Subject: Re: absolutely vs. relatively safe level
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <8603020307.AA00255@s1-b.arpa>, REM%IMSSS@SU-AI.ARPA (Robert Elton Maas) writes:
> BS> Date: 28 Feb 86 03:16:55 GMT
> BS> From: nike!topaz!harvard!bu-cs!bzs@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Barry Shein)
> BS> There seems to be a lot of agreement among the medical community that
> BS> there is NO SUCH THING as a safe level of exposure.
> 
> There is no such thing as an absolutely safe level of just about
> anything. A single drop of water in the wrong place can short circuit
> a weapon and kill someone. A more reasonable definition of safe level
> than what you seem to be referring to is whatever it takes to offset
> reproduction. When young people are killed off before they can
> reproduce, in such numbers that the ones that remain can't reproduce
> fast enough to make up for the ones that died, then we have a truly
> fatal dose of whatever it is. Anything less than that is just a
> painful way to slow down the population explosion. Yes, I don't want
> lots and lots of that pain, but a teensy teensy bit of it is nothing
> compared to the many other hazards we face today and not worth all
> this absolutist nonsense such as the NO SAFE LEVEL you claim.
   I would like to suggest to you that *YOU* volunteer to be amongst the first
to contribute your death the "slowing of the population explosion".  If you
are unwilling to do so, then **HOW DARE YOU** suggest that it is in any way
acceptable to visit this fate on some unknowing and probably unwilling soul?
   This is simply another case of "I don't care what the risks and costs of my
progress are, so long as *I* don't have to bear them" syndrome...becoming more
and more popular of late.
-- 
====================================
Disclaimer:  I hereby disclaim any and all responsibility for disclaimers.
tom keller
{ihnp4, dual}!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020
(* we may not be big, but we're small! *)

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 7 Mar 86 20:28:53 pst
From: eugene@ames-nas.arpa (Eugene Miya)
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Article IEEE Spectrum 1982 interview about hazards

There will probably be a dozen posting on this, but the March 1986
Issue of IEEE Spectrum is a transcript of a 1982 interview of
worse cases scenarios.  One paragraph is particular is subtle.
It says that "IF ... and the hold-down bolts (my word) fail..."

This is also another little ARPA to USEnet test for me.  See you all
in a week (off to Oregon for a meeting).
Time:
20:28 PST

--eugene miya

------------------------------

Date: 4 Mar 86 03:08:24 GMT
From: ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!akguc!codas!peora!ucf-cs!usfvax2!3b2bame!jc3b21!fgd3  (Fabbian G. Dufoe)
Subject: Re: Why does everyone want to leave this planet?
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

     I am reminded of the story (probably apocryphal) of the man who, in
the 1930s, recognized the imminence of a global war.  A peaceful man, he
wanted no part of it.  After long and careful study he identified a place
of no strategic importance to anyone.  He packed his bags and moved to
Guadalcanal.
     Emigrating to a quiet asteroid won't keep you safe from the next war.
Neither will the emigration to space of the "adventurous" allow those who
remain behind to live in peace.  Given the power of our present weapons we
cannot hope to contain belligerence--we must prevent it.

------------------------------

Date: 5 Mar 86 17:49:06 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-lcc!lll-crg!seismo!harvard!talcott!cfa!mink@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Doug Mink)
Subject: Re: Books on the Russian Space Program (was Mir)
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

I found in my library a book entitled "Survival in Space," by Vladimer
Lebedev(writer and space physician) and Yuri Gagarin (you might remember him).
Published in 1969 by Bantam Books, it purports to tell "how we will live in
space" as the Russians see it.  Thumbing through it, I see a lot of
anecdotes about the early days of the Russian space program, more quotes
from Tsiolkovskii than in an American book, and a few quotes from Marx
and Lenin.  It appears to strongest on cosmonaut training and
psychological reactions to space; I found it quite interesting.
			-Doug Mink, Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory
		 	usenet:  mink@cfa.UUCP
		 	arpanet: mink%cfa.UUCP@harvard.HARVARD.EDU

------------------------------

Date: 7 Mar 86 13:56:48 GMT
From: hplabs!pesnta!peora!jer@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (J. Eric Roskos)
Subject: Re: Morton-Thiokol Engineering Claims
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> If any of them are licensed Professional Engineers, I trust their state
> licensing boards will take notice of this gross dereliction of duty.
Well, I would hope their licensing boards include a number of engineers
working in the real world, and not a lot of armchair speculators on what
they would have done in that situation... unfortunately the process of
engineering in the real world involves many cases in which you firmly
believe something is wrong, but are overruled by your superiors.  There
are not many alternative jobs for people whose specialty is making rocket
engines; you can't resign your job everytime you disagree over a decision
and are overruled, let alone the case in which your job was so difficult
to come by in the first place...
"A commander in chief cannot take as an excuse for his mistakes in warfare
an order given by his minister or his sovereign, when the person giving
the order is absent from the field of operations and is imperfectly aware
or wholly unaware of the latest state of affairs...."
But this wasn't a war, and the engineers had told their superiors, so they
were neither absent nor imperfectly aware...
-- 
UUCP: Ofc:  jer@peora.UUCP  Home: jer@jerpc.CCUR.UUCP  CCUR DNS: peora, pesnta
  US Mail:  MS 795; CONCURRENT Computer Corp. SDC; (A Perkin-Elmer Company)
	    2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642   LOTD(6)=B
----------------------
Amusing error message explaining reason for some returned mail recently:
> 554 xxxxxx.xxxxxx.ATT.UUCP!xxx... Unknown domain address: Not a typewriter
(The above message is true... only the names have been changed...)

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 8 Mar 86 02:32:27 PST
From: mcgeer%ji@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Rick McGeer)
To: hplabs!qantel!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020@ucbvax.berkeley.edu,
        space-incoming@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Re: plutonium

>   I find it interesting that for *MANY YEARS* scientists and medical doctors
>denied any danger in the use of asbestos for insulation, ceiling tiles, etc.
>   The fact is that we do *NOT* know how dangerous plutonium is or is not.  I
>tend to lean toward the "extremely dangerous" opinion, myself. 
>   I find it to be both bad science and bad taste to simply dismiss out of hand
>the legitimate fear of plutonium, and the distrust of many citizens of the
>assurances of the pro-nuclear faction that this stuff is "virtually harmless".

	Well, in the first place, I don't think that anyone has argued that
plutonium is "virtually harmless"; people have argued that the toxicity of
plutonium is roughly comparable to that of arsenic, which is not a harmless
substance.

	But I'm curious: if we don't know how dangerous plutonium is, why do
you think that it's "extremely dangerous"?  Do you have any evidence whatever
to support your contention? So far, all I've seen here or anywhere else is:
(1) Figures which suggest that plutonium is fairly typical of heavy metals for
toxicity; (2) figures which suggest that exposure to nonfatal doses of
plutonium yield an increased risk of cancer -- which risk seems to be fairly
small compared to the risk of smoking cigarettes; and (3) unsupported claims
that plutonium is "the most toxic substance on earth".  I don't know about
taste; I do know that the hallmark of bad science is a claim made without
benefit of evidence.  So.  You've made a claim.  Got a shred of evidence to
back it up?

					-- Rick.

------------------------------

Date: 6 Mar 86 15:35:17 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-lcc!lll-crg!seismo!cmcl2!philabs!ttidca!ttidcb!cushner@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Jeffrey Cushner)
Subject: Re: bizarre religions
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

With reading (scanning) your original article and then being astonished
by your "explanations", I have no recourse but to not continue on an
intellectual level and just end this by calling you an:
		     ASSHOLE!
-- 
==============================================================================
			 Jeff Cushner @
			 Citicorp-TTI
			 Santa Monica CA 90405
			 (213) 450-9111 x2273
	      {randvax,trwrb,vortex,philabs}!ttidca!ttidcb!cushner
    *********************************************************************
    ** The above comments do not necessarily reflect the opinions of   **
    ** Citicorp-TTI and if the corporation wants them to, they'll have **
    ** to pay through the nose for the rights!                         **
    *********************************************************************

------------------------------

Date: 6 Mar 86 02:17:28 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-lcc!lll-crg!seismo!rochester!ritcv!rocksvax!sunybcs!lazarus@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Daniel G. Winkowski)
Subject: Clean Rooms
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

	I am looking for info regarding Clean Rooms (environments which
restrict the entrance and exit of particles). These are used in the
production of computer chips, and I would imagine biological engineering,
and possibly in the space industry.
	Of special interest is the interior construction of such a room,
what technologies are needed (dust absorbing walls, special ceiling and
wall coatings, special filtering), and what other uses such an environment
might have. Both info and references would be appreciated, please reply
directly.
--------------
Dan Winkowski @ SUNY Buffalo Computer Science (716-636-2193)
UUCP:	..![bbncca,decvax,dual,rocksanne,watmath]!sunybcs!lazarus
CSNET:	lazarus@Buffalo.CSNET     ARPA:	lazarus%buffalo@CSNET-RELAY
[=]
Today we live in the future,
Tomorrow we'll live for the moment,
But, pray we never live in the past.

------------------------------

Date: 7 Mar 86 11:41:26 EST
From: JOSH@ibm-sj.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa


Subject:  Clusters, Clusters, Clusters


>Date: Thu,  6 Mar 86 22:37:45 EST
>From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
>Subject: Size of the Galaxy
>  > As an aside, it is interesting to note that in the early part of this
>  > century, an incorrect accounting for interstellar absorption caused many
>  > astronomers to believe our galaxy was a small elliptical one, rather
>  > than the large spiral it really is.
>
>  Actually, I think it was the other way around.  For a while it was
>thought that this galaxy was unusually large.

The determination of the distance to and the distribution of the
globular clusters (I've apparently got lots of cluster problems ;-) by
Harlow Shapley established that the center of the Milky Way star system
was about 10Kpc (kilo parsec) from the solar system.  This substantially
changed the ideas of the location of center of the galaxy from before
Shapely's work.  The exact history of the errors in calibration of the
distance measures is complex and not well known to me.  It may be that
the ideas of the size of the Milky Way were also wrong in the direction
of being too large earlier, but I believe the proximate effect the
discovery of the distribution of globular clusters was to increase the
best idea of the size of the galaxy at that time.  In any event,
Shapley's calibration of the period luminosity relationship of "cluster
variables" was off by some factor (like two? see references in Weinberg's
(see below) sections on "the cosmic distance ladder").

I've received several comments to the effect that indeed clusters can
make a difference in Olbers paradox.  I remain unconvinced, perhaps I
also remain incorrect.  The contention that small scale clustering of
the sort cited by R.E. Mass (a la Cantor ternay set) I think is
inappropriate in this context.

A common example in the context of fractal dimension is the length of
the coast line of Britain.  On many scales, the "jaggedness" of the
coast line appears the same.  Thus the length of the coast line depends
on the length of the "ruler" used to measure it.  This property (the
statistical characteristics of the coast line appear the same on
multiple scales) of self similarity breaks down at both large and small
scales in the case of the coast line of Britain.  On size scales
smaller than a grain of sand, the self similarity breaks down (or
certainly by the size scale of an individual atom) and on size scales
larger than the British Isles the self similarity breaks down (or at
least by the size scale of the whole earth).

For Olbers paradox, we are considering the case of the PHYSICAL
universe.  In this case, the size of stars imposes a lower limit on the
clustering on small scales.  This means that, for example, the filling
factor of a given volume is bounded below by having all the stars in the
volume closely packed in the center of the volume element.  Thus above
some size scale, probably something of order a parsec for the universe
we live in, the clustering of stars BELOW that size scale can be
neglected and each (for example) cubic parsec replaced with a volume
with some expected (non-zero) filling factor.  Therefore, I think
clustering on a small scale is not relevant to the problem in Olbers
paradox.

Basically, the same point is ignored when arriving at the (erroneous)
conclusion that the sky is infinitely bright in the usual Olbers
paradox:  neglecting the finite size of stars.  It is NOT something
peculiar to the clustering argument.  One reasonable reference is the
section on Olbers Paradox in Steven Weinberg's book "Gravitation and
Cosmology:  Principles and Applications of the General Theory of
Relativity" (John Wiley 1972) pp.  611-613.  In particular, he mentions
the apparent divergence in the "classical" Olbers paradox and why it
does not occur.  Weinberg also gives the condition for which a steady
state universe (with expansion) can avoid Olbers paradox, but it already
violates another assumption, of Olbers, namely that the universe is
static.

I am less certain about the question of clustering on large scales.  It
is true that if the self similarity of clustering continues to larger
and larger scales, it may not be possible to define a universal average
density.  However, at any particular size scale, there is a definable
average density (for the Universe inside that size scale).  For larger
and larger scales, the average density may fluctuate around and never
converge to anything, but above some size scale, for example whatever
size it would take to have every line of sight end on a star for a
homogeneous (unclustered) distribution of stars times some suitable
large factor, further clustering is irrelevant since all lines of sight
have already terminated (with high probability).

Obviously Olbers model is not a good one (it is in Weinberg's section on
"naive" cosmologies) but it's the one the paradox goes with.  But I
still don't think clustering fixes it, at least if we leave in stars.

Sorry I can't easily post this to net.astro, where it would probably
be more appropriate.

			Josh Knight
			IBM T.J. Watson Research Center
josh.yktvmh@ibm-sj.arpa, josh@yktvmh.BITNET

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #194
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA21018; Sun, 9 Mar 86 03:01:17 PST
	id AA21018; Sun, 9 Mar 86 03:01:17 PST
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 86 03:01:17 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8603091101.AA21018@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #195

*** EOOH ***
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 86 03:01:17 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #195

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 195

Today's Topics:
		      Re: nearby supernovas etc.
			Re: Size of the Galaxy
		   Re: Scramjets (specific impulse)
		   Re: Scramjets (specific impulse)
		 Re: Results of Poll about Joy Rides
			 Re: perflurocarbons
		    Re: It could have been worse.
		      Destroy SPOT with an ASAT?
	     Re: Do we really need to leave this planet?
	   Re: Why does everyone want to leave this planet?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 7 Mar 86 15:28:39 GMT
From: nike!im4u!ut-sally!utastro!ethan@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Ethan Vishniac)
Subject: Re: nearby supernovas etc.
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <8603061510.AA04282@infinet.UUCP>, barnes@INFINET.UUCP (Jim Barnes) writes:
> In article <8603020306.AA00249@s1-b.arpa> you write:
> >By the way, in latest Sky&Telescope there's a note on Sirius being
> >reddish in recorded history (in fact about 600 AD), because at that
> >time its white-dwarf companion was in the red giant stage.
> 
> I recently (two months ago?) read an article in the Boston Globe
> that said roughly the same thing - Sirius was reddish within recorded
> history.  I posted the same question to net.astro.  The general response
> received was that the redness was due to the time of day when the
> observations were made.
I just read a note in Nature that said that Chinese records indicate that
Sirius was its present color at or around 300 BC.
-- 
"Ma, I've been to another      Ethan Vishniac
 planet!"                      {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan
                               ethan@astro.UTEXAS.EDU
                               Department of Astronomy
                               University of Texas

------------------------------

Date: 7 Mar 86 15:33:04 GMT
From: nike!im4u!ut-sally!utastro!ethan@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Ethan Vishniac)
Subject: Re: Size of the Galaxy
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <[MC.LCS.MIT.EDU].841623.860306.KFL>, KFL@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU ("Keith F. Lynch") writes:
> 
>     From: "Josh Knight"   <JOSH%YKTVMH.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu>
> 
>     As an aside, it is interesting to note that in the early part of this
>     century, an incorrect accounting for interstellar absorption caused many
>     astronomers to believe our galaxy was a small elliptical one, rather
>     than the large spiral it really is.
> 
>   Actually, I think it was the other way around.  For a while it was
> thought that this galaxy was unusually large.
> 								...Keith
Both your statements are literally correct.  A small galaxy was imagined
when interstellar absorption was not understood.  Subsequently the
size of the galaxy was overestimated.
-- 
"Ma, I've been to another      Ethan Vishniac
 planet!"                      {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan
                               ethan@astro.UTEXAS.EDU
                               Department of Astronomy
                               University of Texas

------------------------------

Date: 6 Mar 86 02:14:03 GMT
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!uscvax!oberon!smeagol!jplgodo!ted@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Ted Sweetser x4989 156/224)
Subject: Re: Scramjets (specific impulse)
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <623@smeagol.UUCP>, kwan@smeagol.UUCP (Richard Kwan) writes:
> And in <34@petrus.UUCP>, Phil Karn responded:
> > Specific impulse is often erroneously specified in "seconds"; the correct
> > units should be "meters/sec", i.e., velocity.
> I don't know what got into me.  You are correct.  "Seconds" is the
> accepted units in the English system.
Wait a minute, I don't think Mr. Karn *is* right.  The best definition of 
specific impulse (Isp) is "thrust / (weight of propellent mixture used per 
unit time)".  With this definition the units for Isp are seconds in both the 
metric and English systems and no conversion factor is needed for Isp 
between the two systems.  Furthermore, this definition is needed to make 
the following form of the rocket equation:
    mass ratio = exp(-(delta-V)/(g*Isp))
work in any consistent system of units; if you use a "meter/second" Isp
then you have to use a different form of the rocket equation in the metric
system.
A short history of the term can be found in "Comment on 'Definition of
Specific Impulse'", _J._Spacecraft_, vol.12(1975), no.9, p.576, by 
Alfred Africano, one of the originators of the concept.  Unfortunately, 
textbook writers have been consistently inconsistent on Isp.
			Ted Sweetser (...smeagol!jplgodo!ted)

------------------------------

Date: 6 Mar 86 04:46:45 GMT
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!uscvax!oberon!smeagol!kwan@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Richard Kwan)
Subject: Re: Scramjets (specific impulse)
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <739@jplgodo.UUCP>, ted@jplgodo.UUCP (Ted Sweetser x4989 156/224) writes:
> In article <623@smeagol.UUCP>, kwan@smeagol.UUCP (Richard Kwan) writes:
> > And in <34@petrus.UUCP>, Phil Karn responded:
> > > Specific impulse is often erroneously specified in "seconds"; the correct
> > > units should be "meters/sec", i.e., velocity.
> > I don't know what got into me.  You are correct.  "Seconds" is the
> > accepted units in the English system.
> 
> Wait a minute, I don't think Mr. Karn *is* right.  The best definition of 
> specific impulse (Isp) is "thrust / (weight of propellent mixture used per 
> unit time)".  With this definition the units for Isp are seconds in both the 
> metric and English systems ... Furthermore, this definition is needed to make 
> the following form of the rocket equation:
>     mass ratio = exp(-(delta-V)/(g*Isp))
> work in any consistent system of units; if you use a "meter/second" Isp
> then you have to use a different form of the rocket equation in the metric
> system.
Yes, but not by much.  If you assume that
	exhaust-V = g*Isp
since 'g' is a constant, you get
	mass ratio = exp(-(delta-V)/(exhaust-V))
Now, of my reading from the ancient past, I only recall once seeing this
relationship between Isp and exhaust velocity; so I don't know how widely
accepted this is.  (Furthermore, that was in my decidedly dumber days :-})
-- 
		Rick Kwan
		JPL Spacecraft Data Systems
		sdcrdcf!smeagol!kwan (UUCP)
		ia-sun2!smeagol!kwan@csvax.caltech.EDU (ARPA)

------------------------------

Date: 7 Mar 86 07:54:52 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-lcc!well!micropro!kepler!mojo@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Morris Jones)
Subject: Re: Results of Poll about Joy Rides
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <268@birtch.UUCP> ken@birtch.UUCP (Ken B) writes:
>"The only problem real problem with what you propose is that one word:
>lottery.  The US Government is not in an official position to do
>something like that.
The government had no qualms with having a lottery to choose draft
priorities by birthdate.
-- 
Mojo
... Morris Jones, MicroPro Product Development
{lll-crg,ptsfa,dual,well,pyramid}!micropro!kepler!mojo

------------------------------

Date: 8 Mar 86 02:57:37 GMT
From: voder!kontron!cramer@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: perflurocarbons
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> > This is speculation, not established fact.
> 
> I recall a striking photo in a science magazine that showed a mouse
> submerged in an aquarium of oxygenated perflurocarbons, or a similar
> liquid.  It seemed to be doing fine, and had adjusted somewhat to the
> environment.
> 
> --Brett Slocum <Slocum at HI-MULTICS.ARPA>
I remember reading some years ago about experiments done in the Soviet
Union in which dogs managed to live in a highly oxygenated pool of
water.  (Sorry, I don't remember the source -- it may not be a reputable
one.  Unfortunately, research behind the Iron Curtain tends to be
published in sensationalistic publications -- no reflection on the
Soviets or their scientists -- it's just the "exoticness" of it
all that provokes National Enquirer to tell you about it.)

------------------------------

Date: 8 Mar 86 02:51:42 GMT
From: voder!kontron!cramer@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: It could have been worse.
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> In article <563@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> 
> >...to claim it's the most poisonous substance is more
> >nonsense from the anti-nuclear groups.  (Perhaps some of them can study
> >chemistry and physics one of these days, instead of taking classes in
> >poetics and English literature.)
> 
> I have little respect for many of the neo-Luddites who belong to
> anti-nuclear groups. However, to claim that EVERYONE who has mixed
> feelings about nuclear energy or is flat out against nuclear energy
> knows nothing about chemistry and physics is bilge. There are nuclear
> physicists who are against nuclear energy, for Ghod's sake. Get YOUR
> facts straight, mister.
> 
I'm not sure what you are responding to.  I, too, have mixed feelings
about nuclear power -- it's certainly not the panacea that a lot of
people tried to persuade us it was twenty years ago.  Read the text
at the top -- it is the "anti-nuclear" groups that my comments were
directed at -- not everyone, or even every group that is opposed to
nuclear power.  There are rational and valid arguments against nuclear
power -- but you don't see them from the groups that scream "No Nukes!"
> But the thing I find most offensive about this posting is the slam
> against people with liberal arts backgrounds. Perhaps some of the
> semi-literate chemists and physicists I've known can study their
> culture, instead of taking classes on overspecialized topics that tell
> them nothing about why they're narrow-minded, asocial, and incapable 
> of communication. Liberal arts bigotry is as ridiculous and offensive 
> as hard science bigotry, n'est-ce pas? Sheesh.
> 
>                         -- Cheers, Bill Ingogly
The slam is against people who purport to be knowledgable enough about
a subject to be telling other people what the "truth" is, when in fact
they haven't studied any of the relevant issues in an objective
manner.  Incidentally, my argument isn't with subjects outside of the
hard sciences -- my argument is with narrowness and specialization.
(Of course, that's what we have universities for -- to promote narrowness
and specialization.)

------------------------------

Date: 7 Mar 86 23:53:45 GMT
From: vger!al@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  ( Informatix)
Subject: Destroy SPOT with an ASAT?
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

The French recently orbited the SPOT earth resources satellite with a
minimum resolution of 10 meters.  This resolution is good enough to
be militarily useful in some cases.  RUMOUR has it that there has been
some discussion in the Pentagon about destroying SPOT with an ASAT
should SPOT detect 'sensitive' military information not
normally available to anyone but the US and Soviet armed forces (both
organizations have satellites with far better resolution than SPOT).
My question for the net: under what circumstances should the US destroy
SPOT?
My own opinion: only if Congress has declared war on France.
I will summarize for the net if there is sufficient response.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 8 Mar 86 01:01:19 PST
From: mcgeer%ji@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Rick McGeer)
To: COWAN@xx.lcs.mit.edu, space@mc.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Do we really need to leave this planet?

	What sinister force could have prompted Mr. Cowan to submit his
posting?  Who could possibly make money off it?  Could it be that
the influence of the vested interests in the net debate warps the
arguments we read, and thereby manipulating our needs?  Who's
mainpulating us?  For what sinister purpose?  Inquiring minds want to
know.

	Does that sound silly to you?  Gee, me too.  I'm sick of reading
vague hints about mysterious conspiracies of the government and/or media.
Forget it!  There are tabloids in every supermarket that peddle this crap
between the Johnny Carson and Dynasty stories.  IF you have some hard
evidence that some aspect of some national debate is being manipulated, I'd
be happy to read it.  Until then, save it.

						-- Rick.

------------------------------

Date: 7 Mar 86 21:38:07 GMT
From: hplabs!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Michael McNeil)
Subject: Re: Why does everyone want to leave this planet?
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <172@jc3b21.UUCP> fgd3@jc3b21.UUCP (Fabbian G. Dufoe) writes:
>
>     I am reminded of the story (probably apocryphal) of the man who, in
>the 1930s, recognized the imminence of a global war.  A peaceful man, he
>wanted no part of it.  After long and careful study he identified a place
>of no strategic importance to anyone.  He packed his bags and moved to
>Guadalcanal.
>
>     Emigrating to a quiet asteroid won't keep you safe from the next war.
>Neither will the emigration to space of the "adventurous" allow those who
>remain behind to live in peace.  Given the power of our present weapons we
>cannot hope to contain belligerence--we must prevent it.
I've heard that story too -- it's a good one.  However, the point
is not whether any given *individual* would be absolutely, or even
relatively, safe out in space in the event of general war, but that
it's unlikely that *everyone* would be exterminated by a major war
if people lived dispersed throughout space as well as on Earth.  
I agree that it's highly desirable to "prevent" belligerence -- but
do you have a proposal that's guaranteed to *work*?  If not, you're
simply spouting platitudes.  Sure, preventing belligerence is a fine
idea -- we just have absolutely no idea how to accomplish it.  While
you talk, what's to prevent one of the buttons around the world from
being pushed?  Nothing, that's what.  And research on nuclear winter
indicates we may have inadvertently constructed a doomsday machine!  
If the button is ever pushed, there's a very real danger that *all
life on Earth* would be destroyed in the worldwide conflagration.  
Many people seem to think it would somehow *increase* the chances of
general war if people were living out in space and therefore "safe."  
Apparently -- as I understand this reasoning -- Earth people would be
only too willing to commit suicide themselves if they knew that people
out in space might survive.  I consider this most unlikely.  If Earth
wants to commit suicide, it will do so, regardless of the existence of
space colonies.  For example, it's possible, perhaps even probable,
that Iraq would have used nuclear weapons by now in its war with Iran
if it possessed them.  Is it likely the existence of settlements in
space would have influenced Iraq's decision to use them?  I think not.  
We humans are the caretakers of the results of 4 billion years of
evolutionary history of life on Earth.  The danger to that huge
investment of time and blood -- perhaps the only life in the
universe -- is too great for us to depend on platitudes, and this
extreme danger is likely to persist indefinitely into the future.  
I'd like us to have more baskets to put our eggs in -- rather than
depending on some magical transformation of human nature to occur.  
(Then, and in parallel, let's work on the required transformations!)  
-- 
Michael McNeil
3Com Corporation     "All disclaimers including this one apply"
(415) 960-9367
..!ucbvax!hplabs!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm
	There are two futures, the future of desire and the future of
	fate, and man's reason has never learnt to separate them.  
		J. Desmond Bernal, 1929, *The World, the Flesh
		and the Devil: An Enquiry into the Three Enemies
		of the Rational Soul*

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #195
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA22886; Sun, 9 Mar 86 07:01:14 PST
	id AA22886; Sun, 9 Mar 86 07:01:14 PST
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 86 07:01:14 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8603091501.AA22886@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #196

*** EOOH ***
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 86 07:01:14 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #196

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 196

Today's Topics:
		       Fusion reactors in space
	  Response to Greg Earle's mindless anti-human flame
		       Re: will space save us?
			    SRB engineers
	   Shuttle messages taken to Senator Garn's office
			Re: Size of the Galaxy
			Re: Size of the Galaxy
		 Re: Results of Poll about Joy Rides
			   Plutonium Burns
		Re: Morton-Thiokol Engineering Claims
		Re: Morton-Thiokol Engineering Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat,  8 Mar 86 14:03:00 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@mc.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: Fusion reactors in space
To: attenberger
Cc: KFL@mc.lcs.mit.edu, Space@s1-b.arpa

  One could make a better argument that since all known fusion
reactors are so large, none will ever exist EXCEPT in space.  (They
are called stars).
  Presumably, once someone manages to build a controlled fusion
reactor on Earth, someone will manage to make it smaller and
smaller...  It wasn't that long ago that 'everyone knew' that
computers were too large to be launched into space!
								...Keith

------------------------------

Date: Sat,  8 Mar 86 14:07:12 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@mc.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: Response to Greg Earle's mindless anti-human flame
To: hplabs!sdcrdcf!oberon!smeagol!earle@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Cc: KFL@mc.lcs.mit.edu, Space@s1-b.arpa

    From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!oberon!smeagol!earle@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Greg Earle)

    In article <[MC.LCS.MIT.EDU].835728.860302.KFL>, Keith Lynch writes:
    >   The term 'population explosion' is a pernicious term.  It makes
    > population sound like a bad thing. 
    Do you live in a cave?  It IS a bad thing - most (if not all) of the
    world's ecosystem problems can be directly traced to humankind multiplying
    like flies and devouring all available space!!!!

  I don't think a 2% growth rate is 'multiplying like flies', and I
don't think 10 acres per person is 'devouring all available space'.
This message seems quite hysterical.  Do you hate mankind?  Do you
hate yourself?

    Try coming to East L.A. sometime.  I'll let you see the pregnant women
    pushing toddlers in strollers, while they hold pre-schoolers by the arms,
    with the older kids walking behind.  Then tell me that 'population isn't a
    bad thing'.

  Why don't YOU tell her that population IS a bad thing.  Just go up
to her, and in your usual rabid manner say "Excuse me m'am but I think
the world would be a much better place if you and all your children
were dead."
  If you find the sight of women and children so hateful, why don't
you move out of the big city?

    You are at MIT, right?  You get WGBH?

  I have an account on an MIT computer.  I live in Virginia, near
Washington D.C.

    I shouldn't need to mention the clubbing of baby seals to make coats for
    Fucking Rich Moron women.

  Please don't.  What about the slaughter in slaughterhouses?  Do you
eat meat?  Chicken?  Fish?  What about vegetables, why should plants
suffer?  What about animals that eat animals, are they as evil as
people?

    My idea of the main point in going into space is that an unintended
    offshoot will be to get all the *f____g people* off of the earth, so
    maybe the Planet and the animals (who beat us here by a LONG time) will
    have a slim chance of repairing all the damage that humans have caused to
    the ecosystem.

  Why do you hate mankind so much?
  Another reason for going into space is to bring plants and animals
with us, so that there can be so many more of them over a much wider
area for a much longer time.  In the long run, mankind is the one hope
of all life on Earth.
								...Keith

------------------------------

Date: 7 Mar 86 21:36:47 GMT
From: hplabs!oliveb!felix!peregrine!mike@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Mike Wexler)
Subject: Re: will space save us?
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <525@oliven.UUCP> barb@oliven.UUCP (Barbara Jernigan) writes:
>A lot of flaming has been going back and forth whether or not colonization
>of space means survival of the species -- and using/opposing that argument to 
>justify the manned space program.  Both sides have their point:  eggs are
>safer when they're not in one basket -- long range thinking on the 100 million-
>year scale is a tad silly.
>
>Well, although I agree with the need to fly from the nest of Mother Earth,
>my *REAL* reason for wanting to explore space is (compulsive) CURIOSITY.  That 
>there are financial and species-preservational gains is also nice -- but, it's 
>icing on the (interstellar) cake.
A point I think you are missing here is that this curiousity is what has led us
to discover and invent new things in the past.  That without this curiousity
financial and species-preservational gains are impossible.   Without this
curiousity we would never discover new resources and ways to use existing 
resources more efficiently.
>Those that have heard the Call, understand (though we try to cloak the
>DESIRE in the respectable clothing of justifications).  Those that have not
>label us irresponsible and crazy (and perhaps they're right).
>
>It *is* a cult -- a religion of wanting to KNOW, driving us to push the limits 
>of our experience lest life become too mundane.
>
>Continue to justify -- we need the funding, and funding in this bureaucratic
>world must have "reason."  But know, in our heart-of-hearts, the Truth -- 
>the need to explore new frontiers is part of Who and What we are.
I agree that the reason people explore is not for profit/race preservation,
but those are side benefits that are accomplished only when exploration is
done.
-- 
Mike Wexler
(trwrb|scgvaxd)!felix!peregrine!mike 		(714)855-3923
All of the preceding opinions are solely those of the author and do not
represent the views of any other being, sentient or abstract.

------------------------------

Date: Sat,  8 Mar 86 17:15:11 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@mc.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: SRB engineers
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Cc: KFL@mc.lcs.mit.edu

  An engineer's only responsibility is to his supervisor.  If the MT
managers were warned about the dangers and chose to disregard it, it
is entirely their fault, not the engineers.
  As has already been pointed out, if engineers made it a point to go
over the heads of their managers whenever they disagreed with them,
little would ever get done.
  If anyone's head should roll, it should be the managers.  This is
what responsibility means.  This is why the managers are payed more.

								...Keith

------------------------------

Date: 5 Mar 86 04:41:27 GMT
From: decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!cmcl2!seismo!rlgvax!hadron!klr@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Kurt L. Reisler)
Subject: Shuttle messages taken to Senator Garn's office
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

[	The Dream is, and must remain, alive!	]
	This afternoon, I had my first meeting with Mr. Jeff Bingham,
Senator Garn's Administrative Assistant.  I took with me all of the
messages that I have collected (to date) from net.space and
net.columbia, as well as the messages that were sent to me directly via
mail.  In addition, I brought the messages that have been collected on
my two FIDONET nodes, and the messages that have been sent by other
FIDO SYSOPS and FIDO users.  A little over 1,400 messages in all.
	Mr. Bingham was impressed (perhaps overwelmed is better word)
with both the quantity and the quality of the material contained in
these messages.  The discussions followed the types of questions that
have been asked in Congress, as to the future and direction of the
space program.  He was facinated as to the mechanisms used to gather
these messages.
	What is going to be done with the material?  Senator Garn's
staff is going to be reviewing the messages.  Some of them are going to
be included in the Congressional Record, others will be read in
committee meetings.  Some may be provided in press releases, others
will be sent to the survivers of the shuttle disaster and to the
participants in the space program (both astronauts and engineers).  In
addition, Senator Garn is going to have a response to all you us on
both networks (FIDONET and USENET) who have been contributing
messages.
	I will be meeting with Mr. Bingham and Senator Garn in 3 to 4
weeks to further discuss how to best use these messages.  I will also
be taking any further traffic that I receive, either via mail or culled
from the newsgroups.  For once, we have a chance to influence the
course of events outside of our peer group.  Let's keep the discussions
going, regarding the space program and it's future.  Keep the messages
coming as well.
    The Dream IS still alive, and with our help, it will stay alive!
Kurt Reisler
..!seismo!hadron!klr
SYSOP 	FIDONET 109/74	The Bear's Den	(703) 671-0598 (300/1200/2400)
	FIDONET 109/483	Wash-A-RUG	(703) 359-6549 (300/1200)

------------------------------

Date: 8 Mar 86 03:52:35 GMT
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!umcp-cs!mangoe@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Charley Wingate)
Subject: Re: Size of the Galaxy
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>    As an aside, it is interesting to note that in the early part of this
>    century, an incorrect accounting for interstellar absorption caused many
>    astronomers to believe our galaxy was a small elliptical one, rather
>    than the large spiral it really is.
>  Actually, I think it was the other way around.  For a while it was
>thought that this galaxy was unusually large.
If memory serves me, current numbers list Milky Way as one of the biggest
single galaxies we know of.  Is there an astronomer in the house?
C. Wingate

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 8 Mar 86 18:45:19 PST
From: mcgeer%ji@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Rick McGeer)
To: hplabs!hao!seismo!umcp-cs!mangoe@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Size of the Galaxy
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa

>If memory serves me, current numbers list Milky Way as one of the biggest
>single galaxies we know of.  Is there an astronomer in the house?
>C. Wingate
>

	I'm not an astronomer, but the Milky Way is not an extremely large
galaxy.  It is the second largest galaxy in the Local Group (Andromeda is
far larger).  The Milky Way is big, probably in the upper tenth percentile
of the galaxies in the Universe.  But not "one of the biggest"

							-- Rick.

------------------------------

Date: 8 Mar 86 20:49:45 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-lcc!lll-crg!seismo!cmcl2!lanl!jlg@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Jim Giles)
Subject: Re: Results of Poll about Joy Rides
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <526@kepler.UUCP> mojo@kepler.UUCP (Morris Jones) writes:
>In article <268@birtch.UUCP> ken@birtch.UUCP (Ken B) writes:
>>"The only problem real problem with what you propose is that one word:
>>lottery.  The US Government is not in an official position to do
>>something like that.
>
>The government had no qualms with having a lottery to choose draft
>priorities by birthdate.
The difference is that there are very few available positions as
astronauts and people really want to go into space.  The draft lottery
was employed to eliminate charges of bias in the selection process.
J. Giles
Los Alamos

------------------------------

Date:         Sun, 09 Mar 86 00:59:33 EST
From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
To: space digest <SPACE@s1-b.arpa>
Subject:      Plutonium Burns

> Mr. Pournelle is talking about plutonium OXIDE, the normal form it
>is found in. Metallic plutonium is quite a bit more toxic
>(as are all the heavy metals).

Plutonium spontaneously burns when exposed to air.  Any plutonium you'd
be exposed to would be oxide.  (For bombs, they plate it with a thin
layer of gold to keep it from oxidizing).

                    --Geoffrey A. Landis

Random:  God, I am verily weary unto death about all this flaming about
"Why does everybody want to leave this planet".  If you don't have anything
new to say, please say nothing.   Likewise toxicity of plutonium.  The
facts, please, if you have them.  If you don't, shut up.

Note to Bob:  I got your message, but mail sent to your address from
my address is returned as "host unknown".
                                         --GL

------------------------------

Date: 6 Mar 86 22:28:21 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Morton-Thiokol Engineering Claims
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> It seems agreed by all that the engineers protested and were overruled
> by "management."  Assumption of responsibility is the commodity
> purchased by those big salaries paid to industrial managers...
As the Napoleon quote pointed out (in military terms because that was
Napoleon's profession), "I was just following orders" is not an ethical
excuse for acquiescing to a decision you know is wrong.
> ...It's not so easy if you're the
> engineer and you know that your press conference will cost you not only
> your job but very likely your chances for another job...
The lack of that press conference cost the Challenger crew their lives.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 7 Mar 86 04:57:46 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!utcsri!ray@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Raymond Allen)
Subject: Re: Morton-Thiokol Engineering Claims
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <6474@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
>> ...It's not so easy if you're the
>> engineer and you know that your press conference will cost you not only
>> your job but very likely your chances for another job...
>
>The lack of that press conference cost the Challenger crew their lives.
	I agree, Henry, your point is valid but consider what the probable
outcome of the press conference might have been.  Management would have issued
a statement to the effect that the opinions of the engineers were not the
*official* view of the company and, as such, are invalid (from the point of
view of the management).
	Now obviously anyone who was intelligent enough
to understand that the engineers are the best individuals to judge whether
or not the O-rings might fail would certainly favor aborting the launch, BUT,
the presumption if intelligence is a tenuous one.  After all, even their
own managers (with the exception of one, I gather) did not respect (or, perhaps
*wish* to respect) the opinions of the engineers.
	Who would win the forum if the engineers and management decided
to slug it out in public?  I suspect that the engineers would lose
the argument and their careers.
(Of course the *next* time something like this happens, the engineers
might get a better hearing.)
	The real problem is that "Whistle-Blowing" legislation that would
ensure an employee job security (for whatever its worth) if he/she decided
to go public with regards to a situation such as we have been discussing
should exist everywhere.  Such legislation *does* exist in the state of
Michigan.  Its appearance was motivated, at least in part, by the
discovery that many Ford engineers knew in advance that the Pinto's
gasoline tank was a potential fire hazard in the case of a rear-end
collision.  Unfortunately these engineers also chose job security over
a public statement.  As we all are aware, *that* engineering blunder
killed a lot more than seven people.
-- 
Ray Allen  | "A thing is not necessarily true because a man dies for it."
utcsri!ray | - Oscar Wilde as quoted in "Parachutes & Kisses" by Erica Jong

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #196
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA29340; Sun, 9 Mar 86 23:01:25 PST
	id AA29340; Sun, 9 Mar 86 23:01:25 PST
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 86 23:01:25 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8603100701.AA29340@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #197

*** EOOH ***
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 86 23:01:25 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #197

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 197

Today's Topics:
		   Bronowski and historical fossils
	  STS, scramjets, transoceanic networking, farewell
		    Re: It could have been worse.
		Re: Morton-Thiokol Engineering Claims
		    Re: It could have been worse.
		Re: Morton-Thiokol Engineering Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sunday,  9 Mar 1986 00:38:48-PST
From: redford%jeremy.DEC@decwrl.dec.com  (John Redford)
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Bronowski and historical fossils


J. Giles writes:

>  This last is a (loose) paraphrase of something from Jacob Bronowski's
>"Ascent of Man."
>  "... If we do not take the next step in the ascent of man, it will
>be taken elsewhere, in Africa, in China.  Should I feel that to be
>sad?  No, not in itself.  Humanity has a right to change its colour.
>And yet, wedded as I am to the civilization that nurtured me, I should
>feel it to be infinitely sad.  I, whom England made, whom it taught
>its language and its tolerance and excitement in intellectual
>pursuits, I would feel it a grave sense of loss (as you would) if a
>hundred years from now Shakespeare and Newton are historical fossils
>in the ascent of man, in the way that Homer and Euclid are....
>						- J. Bronowski
>J. Giles
>Los Alamos

Homer and Euclid fossils?  They are studied with respect to this day,
millenia after they and their cultures died. If Western civilization
is remembered the way that the Greeks are we'll have done very well
indeed. 

Everything dies, be it countries, or civilizations, or whole 
species.  I doubt if America will be around in any recognizable form 
in two thousand years, or if homo sapiens will be around in a hundred thousand.
Our species didn't even exist a mere fifty thousand years ago, and 
there are notable anatomical differences between us and the people of 
even twenty thousand years ago.  Why imagine that the process has stopped?
If anything it has accelerated.  Folks on this list have been 
blithely talking about our descendants of 200,000 years from now.  
The chances are that they won't be human.  Human, that is, in the 
sense of being genetically and mentally similar to us.

But who would even want evolution, both 
cultural and biological, to stop?  Heaven knows there are enough 
problems with existing soceities and people.  Trying to freeze a 
culture at its present state would like trying to freeze yourself at 
the age of ten.  It's fine to be ten years old for a year, but to be 
that way forever would be a good approximation of hell.

The most that any culture can hope for, just as the most that any 
person can hope for, is to be remembered with respect and affection 
after they are gone.  That's one reason why I support the space program.
It's one area where America can make a genuine contribution to the 
heritage of humanity.  What do we want to be remembered for?  Mickey Mouse?
Developing the atomic bomb?  Or opening the future to the wide 
expanses of the universe?  This is our chance to make a mark, one 
comparable to Homer's and Euclid's.

John Redford
DEC-Hudson

------------------------------

Date: 8 Mar 86 02:47:48 GMT
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!oberon!smeagol!kwan@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Richard Kwan)
Subject: STS, scramjets, transoceanic networking, farewell
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

This is a one-time potpourri of different topics before I leave the net.

STS USER HANDBOOK: I previously posted a query asking if someone knew of
a user's handbook for potential shuttle users.  In fact, I located a
document from 1977: "Space Transportation System User Handbook", a
one-inch loose-leaf notebook which was put out by NASA JSC.  However,
I do not know if this publication is still in use.  It apparantly gives
an overview of the system, defines terminology, and gives a chart of
other more-in-depth reference materials.

SCRAMJETS:  I didn't mean to put Hank Walker <dmw@UNH.CS.CMU.EDU> on
the spot.  I knew, and assumed that everyone else knew, that variable
geometry scramjets are limited to concept or very simple experiment.

TRANSOCEANIC NETWORKING: I am going off to Taiwan to spread the good
news of (1) UNIX, (2) the Coming One.  Alas, I have found no reliable
connection to the net (including the one thru 'zw-taipei').

Something like Stargate would be nice; however, doing it internationally
has political and financial complications.  (I have already asked Lauren
Weinstein about it.)  Nevertheless, if anyone is interested in setting
up such a connection (and has the clout to pull off a significant part
of it), I'd be interested in hearing about it.

(Greg Earle, the other terror of JPL Spacecraft Data Systems, made me an
offer that I just had to refuse.  "Sure, I'll give you a uucp link, if
you'll poll us." :@)

ON FINDING ME:  I have put Greg on the spot.  Since I have no net
access for a while, I'm relying on him to hold and bundle any
significant messages of interest to me as he sees fit.  Should you
want to offer assistance on the above or berate me for some past sin,
*his* net addresses are:
	sdcrdcf!smeagol!earle (UUCP)
	ia-sun2!smeagol!earle@csvax.caltech.edu (ARPA)

Well, people.  It's been both fun and educational.

		Rick Kwan, leaving
		JPL Spacecraft Data Systems

"I shall return."
		D. MacArthur, on leaving the Phillipines
-- 
		Rick Kwan
		JPL Spacecraft Data Systems
		sdcrdcf!smeagol!kwan (UUCP)
		ia-sun2!smeagol!kwan@csvax.caltech.EDU (ARPA)

------------------------------

Date: 8 Mar 86 23:55:00 GMT
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!ism780c!ism780!jimb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: It could have been worse.
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa



>> But the thing I find most offensive about this posting is the slam
>> against people with liberal arts backgrounds. Perhaps some of the
>> semi-literate chemists and physicists I've known can study their
>> culture, instead of taking classes on overspecialized topics that tell
>> them nothing about why they're narrow-minded, asocial, and incapable
>> of communication. Liberal arts bigotry is as ridiculous and offensive
>> as hard science bigotry, n'est-ce pas? Sheesh.

>  While it is uncommon to cross the two cultures, it is usually the
>  scientist who tries/succeeds.

> =  Bill Ingogly

>> = Matthew P. Weiner

Bullsh*t!  As someone who is more-or-less tri-cultural (hard science, social
science, the arts), I find that tolerance/acceptance/understanding across the
chasms is pretty low all the way around.  But in general, more of the liberal
arts types will admit that they don't understand scientific/technical points
of view and are willing to be educated.  More "techies" either *think* they
have a superior understanding of social sciences/liberal arts or discount it
as meaningless.  (The pure arts people seem to be in their own world; even I
have trouble relating to some of them.)

A side consideration is what society values and labels intelligence.  At this
point in history, math and verbal skills are "in," leaving people with other
kinds of intelligence sucking hind tit.  The "techies" dominate in the
math-oriented skills and the liberal arts types dominate in the verbal,
leading to all sorts of "Tastes great!  Less filling!" confrontations.
Personally, I benefit from this; my abilities are such that I move
among both groups with moderate ease and I earn a very decent living
essentially acting as an intepreter between the two groups.  From a more
distant perspective, though, "Feh!"  Society is the less for the division and
many individuals are poorer for it in terms of unfulfilled potential.

			     -- from the musings of Jim Brunet

			     ima/ihnp4/ism780
			     hplabs/hao/ico/ism780
			     sdcsvax/sdcrdcf/ism780

------------------------------

Date: 7 Mar 86 23:36:15 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!looking!brad@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Brad Templeton)
Subject: Re: Morton-Thiokol Engineering Claims
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> 
> The lack of that press conference cost the Challenger crew their lives.
> -- 
> 				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
> 				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

*** LACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR RHETORIC ***

I would buy yelling at those engineers if I had some evidence that
a management overturned engineering advisory was a rare event.

The fact is that little discussions and negotiations between engineers
and managers go on every day.  The manager's *job* is to know what to
say yes and no to.

Was the O-ring problem something that stuck out like a sore thumb
beforehand, as a source of major disagreement?  I suspect instead that
it was just one of hundreds of possible problems brought up and deemed
not serious enough.  In this case, they were wrong, and everybody pays.

To suggest that every engineer overruled by his or her boss go to the
press is ludicrous.  This should only be done if the engineer knows the
manager's decision is based on something illegal, like fraud.
-- 
Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473

------------------------------

Date: 9 Mar 86 10:29:05 GMT
From: brahms!weemba@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Matthew P. Wiener)
Subject: Re: It could have been worse.
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <60000003@ism780> jimb@ism780 writes:
>
>
>>> But the thing I find most offensive about this posting is the slam
>>> against people with liberal arts backgrounds. Perhaps some of the
>>> semi-literate chemists and physicists I've known can study their
>>> culture, instead of taking classes on overspecialized topics that tell
>>> them nothing about why they're narrow-minded, asocial, and incapable
>>> of communication. Liberal arts bigotry is as ridiculous and offensive
>>> as hard science bigotry, n'est-ce pas? Sheesh.
>
>>  While it is uncommon to cross the two cultures, it is usually the
>>  scientist who tries/succeeds.
>
>> =  Bill Ingogly
>
>>> = Matthew P. Weiner
>
>Bullsh*t!  As someone who is more-or-less tri-cultural (hard science, social
>science, the arts), I find that tolerance/acceptance/understanding across the
>chasms is pretty low all the way around.  But in general, more of the liberal
>arts types will admit that they don't understand scientific/technical points
>of view and are willing to be educated.  More "techies" either *think* they
>have a superior understanding of social sciences/liberal arts or discount it
>as meaningless.  (The pure arts people seem to be in their own world; even I
>have trouble relating to some of them.)
>
>A side consideration is what society values and labels intelligence.  At this
>point in history, math and verbal skills are "in," leaving people with other
>kinds of intelligence sucking hind tit.  The "techies" dominate in the
>math-oriented skills and the liberal arts types dominate in the verbal,
>leading to all sorts of "Tastes great!  Less filling!" confrontations.
>Personally, I benefit from this; my abilities are such that I move
>among both groups with moderate ease and I earn a very decent living
>essentially acting as an intepreter between the two groups.  From a more
>distant perspective, though, "Feh!"  Society is the less for the division and
>many individuals are poorer for it in terms of unfulfilled potential.
>
>			     -- from the musings of Jim Brunet
>
>			     ima/ihnp4/ism780
>			     hplabs/hao/ico/ism780
>			     sdcsvax/sdcrdcf/ism780



ucbvax!brahms!weemba	Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720

------------------------------

Date: 7 Mar 86 16:12:12 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!utcs!wagner@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Michael Wagner)
Subject: Re: Morton-Thiokol Engineering Claims
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa


There is something that is being missed in this discussion, however.
It's been pointed out that engineers have other responsibilities
(careers, family) that would cloud/slow down the decision-making
process (and it seems like there really wasn't all that much time,
perhaps a few hours, when they knew the temperatures that were going
to be 'on' at launch).  But what hasn't been dealt with at all is the
personalities of said engineers.  Most people (UN*X hacks apparently
excepted) are seldom 100% convinced of anything.  And it seems to me
that much of this sort of engineering is new and different, so there are
few 'rules of thumb' to back one up.  Now consider someone who has been
brought up not to make a fuss, even when they know they are right
(pretty common in our (general) society, if not on this network).
Add the fact that they aren't all that sure that they are right.
Add to that the fact that they only had a few hours when they were in
possession of all the facts.  Add the fact that they had already been
overridden by two management groups (their own, and NASA's).

Perhaps I'm stupid, but I think people have been coming down a little
hard on these people.  I certainly don't know what I would do in that
case.  I would like to think that I would come forward, but I'd have to
be d**m sure of my facts (and I, unlike most of my friends, am probably
almost as self-assertive as others here (claim they?) are.)

It's also a lot easier to be a monday-morning quarterback (which is
what we've been doing here).  I'd be interested in hearing opinions from
engineers/etc who have really been in similar situations.  Not the time
that you went three rounds with your boss over the naming convention of
tty ports on your system, but the times when you chose (not) to speak up
in situations of life-threatening design/execution problems.  Seems to me
that the people who have *really* been there are the best qualified to
speak on this matter.

Anyone willing to start?  In order to keep it focused, and not just become
a mod.risks discussion, it would be wise to try to relate the experience
to the Morton-Thiokol situation.

Michael Wagner (wagner@utcs)

------------------------------

Date: 9 Mar 86 01:05:13 EST
From: JOSH@ibm-sj.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

I have this nice booklet of pictures of Jupiter entitled "Voyager
Encounters Jupiter".  The only number I can find on it is on the
back cover:  JPL 400-24 7/79.  Is there going to be a similar booklet
for Uranus?  Was there one for Saturn?  How does one order them?

			Josh Knight
			IBM T.J. Watson Research Center
josh.yktvmh@ibm-sj.arpa, josh@yktvmh.BITNET

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #197
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA01530; Mon, 10 Mar 86 03:01:19 PST
	id AA01530; Mon, 10 Mar 86 03:01:19 PST
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 86 03:01:19 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8603101101.AA01530@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #198

*** EOOH ***
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 86 03:01:19 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #198

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 198

Today's Topics:
		     Re: teleoperators in the lab
		Re: Morton-Thiokol Engineering Claims
		      Re: nearby supernovas etc.
		    Re: Scutle the Space Program?
	       Re: Clumping doesn't fix Olber's paradox
			  Re:Seal hunt/food
		      Specific Impulse (Metric)
		   Challenger II & Science Fiction
		   (1) Fusion  (2) Olber's Paradox
		   (1) Fusion  (2) Olber's Paradox
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: sdcsvax!ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 86 05:47:12 PST
To: ucbvax!space
Subject: Re: teleoperators in the lab
In-Reply-To: your article <8603051028.AA03222@decwrl.DEC.COM>

The astronauts trained for many hours on how to repair Solar Max.
They knew what was wrong with it, and how to fix it.  In the case
of unexpected difficulties, all they could do was prepare backup
plans.  When the astronaut in the MMU failed to hard dock with
Solar Max, they tried the arm and got it.  I think this is another
case where it was cheaper and faster to train humans than to design
specialized gadgets to do it automatically.
				Dave Newkirk, ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn

------------------------------

Date: 9 Mar 86 08:14:50 GMT
From: dual!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Tom Keller)
Subject: Re: Morton-Thiokol Engineering Claims
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <6474@utzoo.UUCP>, henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
> > It seems agreed by all that the engineers protested and were overruled
> > by "management."  Assumption of responsibility is the commodity
> > purchased by those big salaries paid to industrial managers...
> 
> As the Napoleon quote pointed out (in military terms because that was
> Napoleon's profession), "I was just following orders" is not an ethical
> excuse for acquiescing to a decision you know is wrong.

   Oh, come now.  In the first place, no one claimed they were "just following
orders".  Secondly, in the case of the Challenger flight, the dissenting 
engineers had no authority or clear means of preventing the launch, regardless
of their degree of conviction about the dangers.

> 
> > ...It's not so easy if you're the
> > engineer and you know that your press conference will cost you not only
> > your job but very likely your chances for another job...
> 
> The lack of that press conference cost the Challenger crew their lives.
> 				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
> 				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

   Oh really?  What conclusive evidence can you present to us that would
support this seemingly idiotic comment?  There is no gaurantee that such a
press conference would in any way have delayed that launch.  Moreover, 
based on past history, there does seem to be considerable evidence that the
engineers in question would have been immediately fired, and labelled as
"malcontents" or some such silly label.

   The engineers, *IF* they in fact made their fears and reasoning known  to
their superiors, and attempted to stop the launch as claimed, did everything
within their power (short of sabotaging the launch support equipment).  It
seems to me that an awful lot of the comments around here aimed at these 
engineers here are coming from people with a pretty clear case of Ivory Tower 
Syndrome.

   For the sake of argument, let us assume that calling such a press conference
*WOULD* have halted the launch (assuming that the engineers weren't arrested
before they could make their statements!).  What I seem to be hearing here is
that even though the higher-ups chose to ignore their technical experts, and
go ahead with a launch that was likely to be unsafe, we should hold the 
engineers responsible.  It's okay for the fucking bureaucrats to wantonly
ingore facts in favor of politics, but it is criminal for the engineers not
to have taken steps that would have halted the launch, but permanently ruined
their careers.  Amazing.

   Using this logic, it is obvious that since the engineers failed to sabotage
the launch support systems, and thereby stop the launch at *ANY COST*, they
are criminally liable, and ought to be incarcerated immediately!


(to borrow a phrase from Joan Rivers:  grow up!)


-- 

====================================

Disclaimer:  I hereby disclaim any and all responsibility for disclaimers.

tom keller
{ihnp4, dual}!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020

(* we may not be big, but we're small! *)

------------------------------

Date: 6 Mar 86 09:48:00 GMT
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!irwin@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: nearby supernovas etc.
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa


I can't believe any dingbat would waste that much disk space on
all of the net machines on the globe, not to mention the phone
costs down the drain, but then, it takes all kinds. Who let this
one out of his cage?

------------------------------

Date: 7 Mar 86 17:53:44 GMT
From: ihnp4!ihwpt!knudsen@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (mike knudsen)
Subject: Re: Scutle the Space Program?
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> Of course, if we encounter another civilization out there, the
> odds are it won't be anywhere near the level we're at.  Most
> likely, we would encounter an unimaginably more advanced
> civilization.  Earth history suggests we'd be in a lot of
> trouble, whether that other civilization was kindly disposed
> toward us or not.  Cultural interaction has usually been a
> devastating experience.  (I'm thinking of the Spanish
> conquistadores who introduced smallpox to the South American
> natives, sometimes inadvertantly, sometimes deliberately.  Even
> the benign American conquerors of Japan have had enormous impact
> of Japanese culture.)

Yes, running into a more advanced race could be quite a shock.
I believe "2001" 's bureaucrats used that as the excuse to
keep the discoveries and mission secret.
However, it's a chance we'll have to take.  A greater risk
is that the advanced culture may not be so friendly to us.

Incidentally, if we do encounter a friendly race that makes us
look pretty inferior, our mental health may be preserved by
some myths that have been taking a beating  in the net lately.
One is the Star Trek myth that there's something really
instrinsically great about being "human."  Another is the
Western religions.  Finally, our modern ecological sense, that
even a snail-darter is worth preserving for its uniqueness,
will help save our minds if/when we end up looking like
snail darters (a little freshwater fish threatened by US dam
construction, BTW).

Not only did watching Star Trek make me proud to be a human
Earthling, but I recall seeing a stray cat and thinking
"how neat -- a self-contained creature with its own energy
source & intelligence, exploring its environment ... "

Yeah, this is getting off the net.space mainstream,
but it's good mental hygiene to keep our *attitudes* in shape,
and to know some places to get those good ideas from,
no matter how unlikely those sources may seem.
	For space 104%, mike k

------------------------------

Date: 8 Mar 86 04:51:58 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-lcc!lll-crg!seismo!cmcl2!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Frank Adams)
Subject: Re: Clumping doesn't fix Olber's paradox
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <8603041333.AA12454@s1-b.arpa> JOSH@YKTVMH.BITNET ("Josh Knight") writes:
>From "The New Cosmos" by Albrecht Unsold (translated by W.H. McCrea,
>Springer-Verlag 1969, NY), p 328:
>
>     H.W.M Olbers 1826 appears to have been one of the first astronomers
>     to have considered a cosmological problem from an empirical
>     standpoint.  Olber's paradox asserts:  Were the universe infinite
>     in time and space and (more or less) uniformly filled with stars,
>     then - in the absence of absorption - the whole sky would radiate
>     with a brightness that would match the mean surface brightness of
>     the stars, and thus about that of the surface of the sun.
>
>I don't think clumping, no matter what its statistical characteristics
>can avoid the paradox.  Basically, if one extends one's line of sight
>far enough, one finds it ending up on a star, i.e. the entire surface
>is covered with star surface.  At this point it is only surface brightness
>that matters.  Olber's paradox is "why is the night sky dark" not "why
>is the sky not infinitely bright".

The assumption that extending one's line sight always leads to a star
is not correct if the clumping is sufficiently pronounced.  This means
that every time you expand your scale of measurement, you find larger
clumps, with yet larger spaces between them.  This does violate the
stipulation in the article quoted above that the universe be "uniformly
filled with stars".

What is not obvious to me is whether the stars can have a finite density
in the universe as a whole if such clumping is present.  One must add the
requirement that there be a finite upper bound on the density of stars
in any finite region, of course -- a condition which is unlikely to be
violated.

Frank Adams                           ihnp4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
Multimate International    52 Oakland Ave North    E. Hartford, CT 06108

------------------------------

Date:         Sun, 09 Mar 86 12:44:45 EST
From: ST801179%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Reply-To:  ST801179%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA
To: SPACE-INCOMING@s1-b.arpa
Subject:      Re:Seal hunt/food

An earlier message flames that seals were being killed for "F-R-M women."
Someone else then claimed that this was comparable to the slaughterhouse. This
may have been a tounge-in-cheek posting, but the mentality that would claim
a similarity here needs correcting. There is a BIG difference between coats
and protein. WAKE UP!

------------------------------

Date:           Sun, 9 Mar 86 11:40:18 PST
From: Todd Johnson <lcc.todd@locus.ucla.edu>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Subject:        Specific Impulse (Metric)

The metric unit for specific impulse is SECONDS! I know, not only did I 
do all of my engineering degree in a country which has gone metric but I
am currently plowing through: Rocket Propulsion & Spaceflights Dynamics
by Cornelisse et al. Cornelisse is University of Delft, Holland. In any
system specific impulse is defined as:
	
	Isp = F dt / m go

Sorry about the subscripts. The "go" should be the standard acceleration
due to gravity at the equator which is near enought to 9.81 metres per
squared second to make no never mind. F is force in newtons, dt is time
in seconds, m is mass in kilograms. And the whole mess cancels out to 
seconds. 
	Specific impulse is a very useful RELATIVE measure of propellants.
The true use of specific impulse is for Earth oriented activities - e.g.:
getting to Earth orbit or dropping a ballistic missile on your nearest
enemy. It relates the expense of lifting the propellant to the capability
of the propellant to produce lift. 
	Now that we've got that straightened out, why doesn't someone tell
me how the NASA simulations of hypersonic flow through a De Laval nozzle
is progressing. I was given to believe that this fundamental work will
be applied towards figuring out how to sustain a flame at hypersonic 
speeds so that we may have scramjets. It is quite likely, however, that the
best of this information is classified. If it isn't, how about letting us
know?

------------------------------

Date:           Sun, 9 Mar 86 11:58:46 PST
From: Todd Johnson <lcc.todd@locus.ucla.edu>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Subject:        Challenger II & Science Fiction

Bad Seals, cold weather, stupid officials, maybe even Presidential pressure.
Okay? Is that everything? Good, let's get on with it.
	I am personally very much in favor of HOTOL in the form of a 
turbo/ram/scramjet with a rocket final assist as the primary method of 
attaining LEO (Low-Earth Orbit). It will be a while in coming unless the
British beat us to it.
	In the meantime I am very much for the construction of another
shuttle to replace Challenger (and seven more to honor the astronauts).
I was personally in favor of calling the new craft Phoenix but have since
aceded to the notion of Challenger II. I have written congress critters and
NASA (at Washington) to tell them so. I have ONLY received a reply from NASA
(and by God, I hope they wave MY letter at Congress). 
	I urge anyone on this net who supports manned space flight to write
their congress critters if they haven't already and tell them so. We cannot
be the greatest nation on this planet if we don't work for it. Personally, 
I wouldn't be at all surprised if Europe surpasses us. I would be very upset,
however.
	
	There's been a lot of trashing of science fiction on this net. I 
don't like it. Arthur Clarke is a VIP at NASA. So is Robert A. Heinlein,
Larry Niven , Isaac Asimov and who knows else. Why? Because among other
things they explored the possible outcomes of numerous (including some 
as yet unplanned) space missions. That's why Heinlein was required reading
for the Apollo astronauts. The majority of people who write science fiction
KNOW what they're talking about or have contact with people who are more than
willing to supply them with copious detail. For people on this net who
haven't even tried science fiction is suggest "RENDEZVOUS WITH RAMA" by
Arthur C. Clarke.
	"It is scientifically impossible for a heavier than air craft to
	maintain horizontal flight" - Smithsonian Institute (paraphrased)
				      sometime before 1903

------------------------------

Date:         Sun, 09 Mar 86 16:23:55 EST
From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
To: space digest <SPACE@s1-b.arpa>
Subject:      (1) Fusion  (2) Olber's Paradox

    The impression I've gotten from reading magazines such as
Technology Review is that, although scientific breakeven is probably
achievable in the near future, fusion reactors built on the outgrowth
of any of the current technology paths would be huge, expensive,
unwieldy, have extremely low power densities, become rapidly radioactive
due to stray neutron flux, and produce electricity only at exorbitantly
high cost.
     I'd like to believe in fusion, but it doesn't sound good so far.
(On the other hand, there are plenty of recent advances in photovoltaic
power systems...)

Olber's paradox:
I'm getting tired of Olber's paradox.
I just wrote up a discussion of it, explaining in detail how hierarchical
clustering can solve the problem.   It's a bit long to post.
If anybody's interested, send me a note including your bitnet address,
or, if you aren't on bitnet, your arpanet address.

                   --Geoffrey A. Landis, Brown University
                     Reply to: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA

------------------------------

Date:         Sun, 09 Mar 86 16:20:25 EST
From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
To: space digest <SPACE@s1-b.arpa>
Subject:      (1) Fusion  (2) Olber's Paradox

    The impression I've gotten from reading magazines such as
Technology Review is that, although scientific breakeven is probably
achievable in the near future, fusion reactors built on the outgrowth
of any of the current technology paths would be huge, expensive,
unwieldy, have extremely low power densities, become rapidly radioactive
due to stray neutron flux, and produce electricity only at exorbitantly
high cost.
     I'd like to believe in fusion, but it doesn't sound good so far.

Olber's paradox:
I'm getting a bit tired of the discussion of Olber's paradox.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #198
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA00300; Mon, 10 Mar 86 07:03:15 PST
	id AA00300; Mon, 10 Mar 86 07:03:15 PST
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 86 07:03:15 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8603101503.AA00300@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #199

*** EOOH ***
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 86 07:03:15 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #199

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 199

Today's Topics:
	  Response to Keith Lynch's anti-mathematical flame
			    Re: plutonium
		Re: "zillion fatal doses of Plutonium"
		Re: Morton-Thiokol Engineering Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------------

To: kfl@mc.lcs.mit.edu
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Response to Keith Lynch's anti-mathematical flame
Date: Sun, 09 Mar 86 15:07:27 -0800
From: jon@csvax.caltech.edu

>	 From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!oberon!smeagol!earle@ucbvax.berkeley.edu	(Greg Earle)
>	 ...
>	Do you live in a cave?	It IS a bad thing - most (if not all) of the
>	world's ecosystem problems can be directly traced to humankind multiplying
>	like flies and devouring all available space!!!!
>
>     I don't think a 2% growth rate is 'multiplying like flies', and I
>   don't think 10 acres per person is 'devouring all available space'.
>   This message seems quite hysterical.  Do you hate mankind?	Do you
>   hate yourself?

    How long should we keep up this 2% growth rate?

    Area of Earth ~ 2.01062e+08 sq. miles (all land assumed).
    Current population ~ 4*10^9 (actually substantially greater).

    Year    Population	    Area (sq. mi)   Area needed / Area of the Earth
			    needed @
			    10 acres/person
    -----   -------------   --------------- -------------------------------
       0    4e+09	    6.25e+07	    0.310849
     100    2.89786e+10     4.5279e+08	    2.25199
     200    2.0994e+11	    3.28031e+09     16.3149
     300    1.52094e+12     2.37647e+10     118.196
     400    1.10187e+13     1.72167e+11     856.286
     500    7.98263e+13     1.24729e+12     6203.49
     600    5.78313e+14     9.03614e+12     44942.1
     700    4.18967e+15     6.54637e+13     325590
     800    3.03527e+16     4.74261e+14     2.35878e+06
     900    2.19895e+17     3.43585e+15     1.70885e+07
    1000    1.59306e+18     2.48915e+16     1.238e+08

    OK, so I might be off by a constant here or there (the only way  I
could find out how big an acre was in square  miles  was  the  'units'
program). The  end  result  doesn't  matter,  just  wait  a  few  more
centuries.

    The message you were responding to may have been  overstated,  but
no more (if that much). Clearly we CANNOT continue  to	expand	at  an
exponential rate for long (on a historical timescale).	 This  is  not
hysteria but fact supported by your own numbers. Which does not  imply
in any way that we have to start killing people to prevent it  (unless
you think that contraception == killing people, which I doubt most  of
us agree with).

    And no, I neither hate mankind nor	myself.  I  like  both	of  us
enough to want a future in which everyone has resources and energy  to
spare.

    -- Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu)
    __@/

------------------------------

Date: Sun,  9 Mar 86 18:41:11 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@mc.lcs.mit.edu>
To: jon@csvax.caltech.edu
Cc: KFL@mc.lcs.mit.edu, space@s1-b.arpa

    From: jon@csvax.caltech.edu

    How long should we keep up this 2% growth rate?

    Year    Population	    Area (sq. mi)   Area needed / Area of the Earth
			    needed @
    			    10 acres/person
    -----   -------------   --------------- -------------------------------
       0    4e+09	    6.25e+07	    0.310849
     100    2.89786e+10     4.5279e+08	    2.25199
     200    2.0994e+11	    3.28031e+09     16.3149
     300    1.52094e+12     2.37647e+10     118.196
     ...

  If we define the present population density of Hong Kong, 12,000
people per square mile, as the limit, then the world can support about
200 times the population you estimate.  We don't run into trouble for
300 years.  This just shows that we should have many large space
colonies operating by then if we want population to be able to
continue to grow at this rate.
  As for right now, the world is mostly underpopulated.  I agree that
unless birth rates decrease or death rates increase, this will not
remain the case for more than another century or so.
  I don't think the population is going to increase at 2% forever.  It
does tend to be lower in wealthier countries.  It should drop
everywhere once more people in more countries reach a western standard
of wealth.
  I *DO* think it should always remain a matter of personal choice.
If people do not like to live around highly populated areas, why is
it that most people tend to clump into heavily populated cities,
rather than distributing themselves fairly evenly across the world?

								...Keith

------------------------------

To: kfl@mc.lcs.mit.edu
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa
In-Reply-To: Your message of Sun,  9 Mar 86 18:41:11 EST.
	     <[MC.LCS.MIT.EDU].844266.860309.KFL>
Date: Sun, 09 Mar 86 16:22:07 -0800
From: jon@csvax.caltech.edu

> == Keith Lynch (kfl@mc.lcs.mit.edu)

>     If we define the present population density of Hong Kong, 12,000
>   people per square mile, as the limit, then the world can support about
>   200 times the population you estimate.  We don't run into trouble for
>   300 years.	This just shows that we should have many large space
>   colonies operating by then if we want population to be able to
>   continue to grow at this rate.

    Space colonies - even if obtained by  dismantling  all  the  rocky
bodies of the solar system - can only put off the day of reckoning for
so long.  The point is that there is a fixed amount of matter to build
stuff with, while the population keeps increasing. No matter what  the
coefficients involved, sooner or later the curves cross. If population
increase is exponential, it's sooner.
   How much land (for farming, mining, etc.) is  required  to  support
the population of Hong Kong? How much would be required  if  they  all
lived at the US standard of  living?   I  suspect  it's  substantially
more than just the city itself. If  the  entire  world	is  packed  as
densely as Hong Kong, where does food, oil, etc.  come	from?  Where's
the vegetable biomass to balance O2/CO in the  atmosphere?  What  will
the heat balance of the planet be like?
    In addition, how  do  you  propose	to  export  all  the  `excess'
population to space colonies? How many are going to want to go? Are we
to force people to live in  space, or  force  them  to	control  their
breeding? I don't care for either alternative  but  the  second  seems
like less of an imposition.

>     As for right now, the world is mostly underpopulated.  I agree that
>   unless birth rates decrease or death rates increase, this will not
>   remain the case for more than another century or so.

    Is Ethiopia underpopulated? Bangladesh?  These  and  a  number  of
other  countries  seem	to  have  exceeded  their  long-term  carrying
capacity. Densely populated countries like Japan can get away with  it
- by importing most of their energy. But EVERYONE can't import most of
their energy. Or are you referring to such choice underpopulated spots
as the `Empty Quarter' of Arabia and Antarctica? I  doubt  there  will
be enough volunteers to live there  to	balance  the  birth  rate.  Or
should we balance the global population by inviting 200 million  third
world immigrants to the US? After all,	it  would  only  increase  the
population density by a factor of 2 or less...

>     I don't think the population is going to increase at 2% forever.	It

    Your original posting sure sounded like it. The first paragraph  I
quoted above seems to continue to make this claim.

> does tend to be lower in wealthier countries. It should drop
> everywhere once more people in more countries reach a western standard
> of wealth.

    Maybe. The birth rate in the US seems to be on the rise again.  It
will take more than a few  decades  of	affluence  to  establish  this
point. There's no guarantee that most of the world will ever  reach  a
'western standard of wealth' either (even if they want to).

>     I *DO* think it should always remain a matter of personal choice.
>   If people do not like to live around highly populated areas, why is
>   it that most people tend to clump into heavily populated cities,
>   rather than distributing themselves fairly evenly across the world?
>
>								    ...Keith

    Many like it. Many don't have any choice. Poor people in the inner
city are hardly in an economic position to move to the	country  (even
if they were able to find a way to support themselves there).	Others
accept it as a way out of poverty or  boredom,	like  many  people  in
Africa and farm kids in the US.  For that matter, I think Los  Angeles
(Pasadena)  is	an  utterly  disgusting  place	to  live  but  it's  a
worthwhile tradeoff while I'm getting a Caltech education out  of  it.
But when I graduate, I'll be out of this pesthole so fast...
    In addition, heavily populated areas tend to  be  those  that  are
capable of supporting lots of people  -  near  major  waterways,  with
fertile soil nearby, centers of commerce, etc. 10 acres in the	Sahara
will support a lot fewer people than 10 acres in the Corn Belt.

    -- Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu)
    __@/

PS This discussion has diverged  significantly	from  a  space-related
    topic.  Perhaps we should continue it by private mail?

------------------------------

Date: 7 Mar 86 05:33:57 GMT
From: ihnp4!stolaf!mmm!dicome!meccts!mvs@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Michael V. Stein)
Subject: Re: plutonium
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <860225173815.083415@HI-MULTICS.ARPA> you write:
>
>    Plutonium is an extremely dangerous poison; it collects
>    in the bones and interferes with the production of white
>    blood cells.
>
>                     New Columbia Encyclopedia
>
>Just thought you might like some evidence to back up what I said.
>
>Brett Slocum Slocum@HI-MULTICS

During the Manhatten Project, 26 workers absorbed large doses of 
plutonium.  These 26 have subsequently been studied since then to 
determine cancer incidence and longivity.  Los Alamos published their
last update on the study about 6 months ago.  A third man has now died
of heart disease, one had previously died in a car crash and one had
died of a heart attack.  None have as yet developed cancers, and the
number of deaths is less than half of the expected number for men of
that age.

The point here is that plutonium is not magic nor evil.  It is simply
one of many substances that should be handled with care.  All of the 
heavy metals are toxic and some are much more dangerous then
plutonium.  (Radium is about 4 times as dangerous as plutonium.)
-- 

Michael V. Stein
Minnesota Educational Computing Corporation - Technical Services

UUCP	ihnp4!dicomed!meccts!mvs

------------------------------

Date: 7 Mar 86 05:16:52 GMT
From: ihnp4!stolaf!mmm!dicome!meccts!mvs@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Michael V. Stein)
Subject: Re: "zillion fatal doses of Plutonium"
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <221@bu-cs.UUCP> bzs@bu-cs.UUCP (Barry Shein) writes:
>Perhaps, but surely you've seen the several articles on towns near the
>test sites in Nevada where the incidence of leukemia and other cancers
>is alarmingly high and attributed to exposures caused by the early tests.
>They are certainly not all dead, but I am not sure I envy them.
>
>There seems to be a lot of agreement among the medical community that
>there is NO SUCH THING as a safe level of exposure. Why do you flail
>against this 'safe' assumption so? It took us 30+ years to accept that
>(and still not universally.)
>
>	-Barry Shein, Boston University

I would greatly like to read any reputable articles on these cancers.
If they are truely as massive and epidemic as you imply, this should
be publizied more since it is in direct violation of all major 
radiation tests done for about the last 30 years.  

As far as no safe level, the reason scientists use the straight line
linear hypothesis is that it will assume the maximum possible danger.
There has been quite a bit of debate among researchers as to whether 
this is too stringent of a criteria.  Even assuming it is true, the
amount of cosmic radiation hitting people every year (about 44
millirems at sea level) is far greater then the 4 millirems reaching
people from the world's weapon testing fallout.  What are far more
dangerous and common are the high levels of radon gas found in many 
homes.   Depending on the amount of ventilation and geography these
radiation levels sometimes reach many times the level 
allowed as an occupational risk.  I recall seeing a reference 
that up to 10,000 lung cancer deaths a year may be caused by 
indoor radiation.
-- 

Michael V. Stein
Minnesota Educational Computing Corporation - Technical Services

UUCP	ihnp4!dicomed!meccts!mvs

------------------------------

Date: 9 Mar 86 08:34:52 GMT
From: sdcsvax!sdcc6!celerity!sdo@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Steve Oualline)
Subject: Re: Morton-Thiokol Engineering Claims
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

When critising the Morton-Thiokol engineers for not going public you should
consider what would happen if the shuttle did not explode.

Here are the events that I would expect to happen.

1. Morton-Thiokol engineers decide that the engines have a 30% chance of
   blowing up.

2. They go to management with their findings.

3. Management overrules them.  

4. Engineers go to the press and cause a nasty stink.

5. Shuttle goes up and does not explode.

6. Engineers are labeled crack-pots and trouble makers.  They are fired.

7. Since they are known trouble makers, no one else will hire them.


I want to point out that as an engineer the most you can do when 
management overrules you is to document your findings.  This gives 
you protection if something goes wrong and places the blame 
on the managers who overruled you.

You can not go to the press unless the manager's judgement is so bad
that you are sure disaster will occur.  (Not probably occur, WILL occur).

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #199
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA04726; Mon, 10 Mar 86 23:02:11 PST
	id AA04726; Mon, 10 Mar 86 23:02:11 PST
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 86 23:02:11 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8603110702.AA04726@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #200

*** EOOH ***
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 86 23:02:11 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #200

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 200

Today's Topics:
	   Re: Scuttle the Shuttle?(Boskone Panalist, etc.)
		     LA Area:  Space Shuttle Talk
			      Population
		    Re: Scutle the Space Program?
			Re: Population Density
   specific impulse defined in Earth environment, crufty elsewhere
    Humans may save Earth, or may destroy it, only time will tell
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 7 Mar 86 18:11:12 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-lcc!lll-crg!seismo!harvard!think!mit-eddie!cybvax0!frog!john@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (John Woods, Software)
Subject: Re: Scuttle the Shuttle?(Boskone Panalist, etc.)
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> >> 
> >> As one of the panelists (sorry, I've forgotten who) at Boskone this year
> >> observed:
> >> 	"When James van Allen starts using robots instead of graduate
> >> 	students in his own lab, then maybe I'll believe him!"
> >> 				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
> The panelist was none other than Ben Bova, President, National
> Space Society(formerly NSI).
> And a good point it was.  Mr. Dietz, TAKE NOTICE.
> The same point applies equally well for teleoperated devices.

Thanks, I couldn't remember whether it was Bova or Silverberg who said it.

However, when I heard the comment, I remarked to my companion, "But grad
students are FREE!" :-)



--
John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (617) 626-1101
...!decvax!frog!john, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw%mit-ccc@MIT-XX.ARPA

This space dedicated to Challenger and her crew,
Francis R. Scobee, Michael J. Smith, Ellison S. Onizuka, Judith Resnik,
Ronald E. McNair, Gregory B. Jarvis, and Christa McAuliffe.

"...and slipped the surly bonds of Earth to touch the face of God."

------------------------------

Date:  9 Mar 1986 20:25:04 PST
Subject: LA Area:  Space Shuttle Talk
From: Craig Milo Rogers <Rogers@usc-isib.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa, BBoard@usc-isi.arpa, BBoard@usc-ecl.arpa,
        BBoard@aerospace.arpa

	  Mr. Martin MacDonald, of Rockwell International,
     will speak on the current and future Space Shuttle program
     at 7:00 PM on Saturday, March 15, 1986 in Downey.  He will
     answer questions on the recent Challenger disaster and on
     the future of the program.  There will be a full scale
     mock-up of the shuttle available for veiwing.

          Mr. MacDonald is a member of the technical staff
     of the Space Transportation and Systems Group at Rockwell.
     His lecture will be presented in the DEI Room.  Enter at
     Gate 53 on the corner of Bellflower Blvd and Stewart &
     Gray Rd.

          The 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.  For more information about this lecture or
     other OASIS activities call F. Wiley Livermont at
     (818) 700 - 8382, or send a message to Craig Milo Rogers
     <Rogers@USC-ISIB.ARPA>.
-------

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 10 Mar 86 01:16:19 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@mc.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: Population
To: jon@csvax.caltech.edu
Cc: KFL@mc.lcs.mit.edu, Space@s1-b.arpa

    From: jon@csvax.caltech.edu

        Space colonies - even if obtained by  dismantling  all  the  rocky
    bodies of the solar system - can only put off the day of reckoning for
    so long.

  True.  My rough estimate is that the solar system can support ten to
the twentieth people, the galaxy can support ten to the thirtieth, and
the known universe can support ten to the fortieth.  If population
grows at two percent per year, we will have filled the solar system by
the year 3200, the galaxy by the year 4400, and the whole universe
(the part known in the 20th century) by the year 5600.  I don't for a
minute think that it will happen this way, but it shows us what we
have available.
  It is obviously true that population cannot continue to expand
exponentially forever.  Certainly not for more than 4000 years at the
present rate of increase, and the limit may be very much less.
  But the question is, how high should it be?  When there were just a
few dozen people on earth, they could have reasoned this same way and
decided that the population should not grow beyond 100.  They might
have decided that since the Earth's carrying capacity, with their
lifestyle, was (lets say) one per square mile and since Olduvai gorge
was (lets say) 100 square miles, that this should be the permanent
limit.  after all, nobody should be forced to live outside the gorge,
the birhtplace of mankind!  Anyone who brought up an argument about
'eggs in one basket' would be informed that not even the biggest lion
could eat up 100 people.  After all, they would have no comprehension
of any greater disaster.  And if someone had told them that the gorge
was to turn arid and become uninhabitable in a million years, they
would have laughed.  Obviously a million years is much too long to
worry about.  So, had they reasoned the way you do, makind would have
become extinct after that million years, and would have been extinct
for many more millions of years by now.
  I have several points to make:

1) 'Eggs in one basket'.  No, I do not think there will be a nearby
   supernova.  But I don't know that for sure.  Should we risk the
   whole human race?  Many other disasters are possible.  A replay of
   the asteroidal catastrophe that did in the dinosaurs.  Nuclear war.
   Alien attack.  Something we have never thought of.
  
2) For the short term, the more people in space, the fewer are on
   Earth messing up the wildlife.  For the long term, mankind will
   make available for life far more space and time than are available
   on Earth.  Possibly we will set up whole world-sized experimental
   ecologies.

3) The more people there are the more geniuses there will be.  There
   will be more and better inventions, music, literature, software,
   sculpture, paintings, etc.  If with ten to the ninth people we have
   one Newton or Mozart per century, with ten to the twentieth we
   should have several dozen geniuses on a par with them each second.
   I have no idea what this would be like, or what sort of super-
   genius would appear just once per century on the high end of that
   much taller bell curve, but I would like to find out.

4) Widely seperated cultures will be able to try a great variety of
   cultural, political, economic, and religious experimentation.  Let
   the communists have a world of their own.  The libertarians,
   another.  Those who think that everything would be better if
   psychiatrists ran the world would also be free to band together and
   give it a try.

5) Even if nobody ever actually lives in space, we could (with more
   advanced robotics) have all our large factories there.  And our
   mines.  And our farms.  So Earth COULD then support a much higher
   population density, equivalent to downtown Manhattan.  Food, fuel,
   computers, cars, furnished apartemnt buildings and office
   buildings, would parachute down from space to the point where they
   are needed when they are needed.

6) It will increase the economies of scale.  If the world population
   were only 1000, would there be any market for computers?  For CD
   players?  For SF books?  These things are only possible because
   there are so many consumers.  Just think what new things would be
   possible if the population were a million times what it is.  An
   author who would have gotten just 100 dollars royalties because his
   work appealed to so narrow a segment of the population would get
   100 million dollars instead.  Machines that interest only one
   person in a million would be mass produced by the millions and
   would cost just pennies.

7) The more people there are, the more will share your tastes,
   sympathize with your problems, etc.  There could be millions of
   independant countries to live in, millions of seperate religions to
   join, millions of TV channels to watch, billions of seperate
   corporations to work for, billions of different books to read,
   billions of different computer programs to run, trillions of
   special interest clubs and societies to join, and trillions of
   possible friends and lovers.

8) Life is enjoyable.  Else why go on living?  So why not share this
   amazing boon with as many others as we can.  How is it of any
   benefit to anyone for worlds to remain barren of life, resources
   unused, sunlight streaming pointlessly into empty space?

  No, population will not grow exponentially forever, barring
something completely unexpected like travel to other dimensions,
travel to alternate universes, faster than light travel beyond the
redshift horizon, etc.  But that is no reason to halt space
exploration.  That is no reason to halt population growth.  Not when
life would be so much better, and for so many more people, if there
were billions of people for every one alive today.
								...Keith

------------------------------

Date: 9 Mar 86 21:25:42 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-lcc!lll-crg!seismo!cmcl2!lanl!jlg@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Jim Giles)
Subject: Re: Scutle the Space Program?
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <758@ihwpt.UUCP> knudsen@ihwpt.UUCP (mike knudsen) writes:
>Incidentally, if we do encounter a friendly race that makes us
>look pretty inferior, our mental health may be preserved by
>some myths that have been taking a beating  in the net lately.
>One is the Star Trek myth that there's something really
>instrinsically great about being "human."  Another is the
>Western religions.  Finally, our modern ecological sense, that
>even a snail-darter is worth preserving for its uniqueness,
>will help save our minds if/when we end up looking like
>snail darters (a little freshwater fish threatened by US dam
>construction, BTW).

The authors of STAR TREK scripts were in control of the plot and could
make the myth of 'intrinsic human superiority' come out true in the end.
Many modern fundamentalist churches oppose the idea of alien life forms
since it contradicts the idea that man was the chief object of creation.
And if any aliens we encounter don't share our opinion that uniqueness
is valuable - that idea may fall too.  It will be those who don't have
such an egotistical opinion of themselves and of mankind's place in the
universe who will keep their sanity.

J. Giles
Los Alamos

------------------------------

Date: 10 Mar 86 10:07:00 GMT
From: brahms!desj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (David desJardins)
Subject: Re: Population Density
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <[MC.LCS.MIT.EDU].844266.860309.KFL> KFL@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU
("Keith F. Lynch") writes:
>  If we define the present population density of Hong Kong, 12,000
>people per square mile, as the limit, then the world can support about
>200 times the population you estimate.  We don't run into trouble for
>300 years.  This just shows that we should have many large space
>colonies operating by then if we want population to be able to
>continue to grow at this rate.

   Come on.  Hong Kong may have 12000 people per square mile, but
what percentage of its food does it import?  99% or so?  It seems
that people who don't actually produce their own food take it a bit
too much for granted.

>  I *DO* think it should always remain a matter of personal choice.
>If people do not like to live around highly populated areas, why is
>it that most people tend to clump into heavily populated cities,
>rather than distributing themselves fairly evenly across the world?

   In many parts of the world (e.g. Mexico City) the standard of
living is much higher in the city.  (This means malnutrition instead
of starvation!)  But these people are still depending on the surrounding
underpopulated area to provide their food.

   -- David desJardins

------------------------------

Date: 1986 March 10 02:26:09 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@su-ai.arpa>
To: hplabs!sdcrdcf!uscvax!oberon!smeagol!jplgodo!ted@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Cc: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
Subject: specific impulse defined in Earth environment, crufty elsewhere

TS> Date: 6 Mar 86 02:14:03 GMT
TS> From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!uscvax!oberon!smeagol!jplgodo!ted@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
TS> Subject: Re: Scramjets (specific impulse)
TS> Wait a minute, I don't think Mr. Karn *is* right.  The best definition of 
TS> specific impulse (Isp) is "thrust / (weight of propellent mixture used per 
TS> unit time)".

That's exactly the problem. By measuring weight of propellent instead
of mass of propellent, you're making it dependent on ambient
gravitational force rather than a property of the propellent itself.
By your definition, if the spacecraft is in zero gravity, where the
weight is zero, the specific impulse is infinity! I don't like that
definition at all. Normally the definition is in germs of weight in
Earth-normal gravity, rather than just weight period, but that is a
very Earth-chauvinistic definition, as bad as if we measured mass as
fractions of the Earth's mass, time as fractions of the Earth's
revolutional period (sigh, we do!!), temperature as fractions of the
difference between melting and boiling point of Earth's most valuable
resource (water) measured in Earth-normal atmospheric pressure (sigh,
we do in the Centigrade/Celsius scale), ... As we go into space it
would be nice to do away with scales that work on Earth but break down
elsewhere, and start to use more universal scales. Specific impulse of
one second means the rocket could balance itself against Earth-normal
gravity for one second. For vertical-launch vehicles that's a dandy
measure, but for just about everything else it's a silly unit of
measurement. (Opinion of REM; bound to be controversial.)

------------------------------

Date: 1986 March 10 02:47:15 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@su-ai.arpa>
To: KFL@mc.lcs.mit.edu
Cc: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Humans may save Earth, or may destroy it, only time will tell

K> Date: Sat,  8 Mar 86 14:07:12 EST
K> From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@mc.lcs.mit.edu>
K>   I don't think a 2% growth rate is 'multiplying like flies',

2% per year, per month, or per generation? Per generation, it isn't
bad at all. Per month, it's terrible!! Per year, that is 64% per
generation (assuming 25 years), which is a considerable increase, a
doubling every 35 years. If it takes us 100 years before we develop
space habitat, that means instead of 6e9 people we'll have 43e9 people
on Earth. Do we want Earth's human population to be that large??

K> and I don't think 10 acres per person is 'devouring all available space'.
K> This message seems quite hysterical.  Do you hate mankind?  Do you
K> hate yourself?

Are you counting only the land we actually consider our homes, and not
the destruction of the Amazon jungle we're forcing to occur now?

K>   Another reason for going into space is to bring plants and animals
K> with us, so that there can be so many more of them over a much wider
K> area for a much longer time.  In the long run, mankind is the one hope
K> of all life on Earth.

Maybe, and maybe not. Mankind has the possibility of being the one
hope for all life on Earth, if we don't have thermonuclear war before
we bootstrap into space habitat, but also the possiblity of ending all
life on Earth a little bit prematurely. We don't yet know which is the
correct (actual) fate of life on Earth. I think we basically agree,
but you mistakenly used words of fact instead of possibility in your misspeak.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #200
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA06574; Tue, 11 Mar 86 03:01:14 PST
	id AA06574; Tue, 11 Mar 86 03:01:14 PST
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 86 03:01:14 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8603111101.AA06574@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #201

*** EOOH ***
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 86 03:01:14 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #201

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 201

Today's Topics:
accepting one's share of risk, doing one's share to avoid overpopulation
			  sizes of galaxies
		      Was Sirius red after all?
		     Re: Fusion reactors in space
			      Population
	Re:  Response to Keith Lynch's anti-mathematical flame
			    USAF Forecast
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 1986 March 10 01:58:01 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@su-ai.arpa>
To: hplabs!qantel!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Cc: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
Subject: accepting one's share of risk, doing one's share to avoid overpopulation

TK> Date: 7 Mar 86 12:19:22 GMT
TK> From: hplabs!qantel!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Tom Keller)
TK> Subject: Re: absolutely vs. relatively safe level
TK>    I would like to suggest to you that *YOU* volunteer to be
TK> amongst the first to contribute your death the "slowing of the
TK> population explosion".  If you are unwilling to do so, then **HOW DARE
TK> YOU** suggest that it is in any way acceptable to visit this fate on
TK> some unknowing and probably unwilling soul?

I am already in the lottery for death by lung cancer caused by other
people smoking near me (but I protest that as unfair to me), by cancer
and other diseases caused by fumes from automobiles (which I accept
but don't want to get any worse and would like to ameliorate), by
cancer etc. caused by burning coal and fuel oil (which I want to
greatly reduce by using nuclear energy instead), by explosion when
gasoline trucks get in accidents if I happen to be near, by earthquake
and other natural disasters, by poisoning from overturned trucks
containing toxic chemicals (which I want to see better regulated to
reduce chance of accident), etc. etc. -- Note I didn't say I wanted to
name some person out there to die, I was referring to the lottery of
risk from accidents and biosphere contamination. It is not fair for
you to ask me to volunteer to "win" the death lottery when I wasn't
asking anyone else to do that; it is enough that I play the lottery
the same as anyone else. -- Regarding overpopulation, I am already
making the sacrifice; long ago I decided to have only one or two
children, maybe three but probably not, instead of the 5 children our
neighbors in Sylmar had (they're catholic by the way), or the 8 that
are advocated by a certain TV program, or the 20-some-odd that some
couple in the appalachians had. Now if everyone else in the world would
make the same sacrifice I'm making we'd have a lot more time to work
on the problem of resources running out.

TK>    This is simply another case of "I don't care what the risks and
TK> costs of my progress are, so long as *I* don't have to bear them"
TK> syndrome...becoming more and more popular of late.

Nope, I'm bearing down to do my part to alleviate population explosion
on Earth, and if everyone else does likewise this planet will continue
to be tolerable. How about you, how many children do you have already
and how many do you plan to have?

------------------------------

Date: 1986 March 10 03:01:58 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@su-ai.arpa>
To: hplabs!hao!seismo!umcp-cs!mangoe@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Cc: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
Subject: sizes of galaxies

CW> Date: 8 Mar 86 03:52:35 GMT
CW> From: hplabs!hao!seismo!umcp-cs!mangoe@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
CW> Subject: Re: Size of the Galaxy
CW> If memory serves me, current numbers list Milky Way as one of the biggest
CW> single galaxies we know of.  Is there an astronomer in the house?

I have a completely different impression, after reading Sky&Telescope
and other journals for many years. The giant elliptical galaxies such
as the one in the center of the Virgo cluster (is that M85?) are much
larger than the Milky Way. Even our twin the Andromeda galaxy (M31) is
believed to be slightly larger than ours, although scales of distance
aren't accurate enough to be sure. But considering spiral galaxies
only, excluding elliptical galaxies, ours and M31 are typical of
full-sized galaxies, not exceeded greatly by others. (But I'm not sure
of that part; perhaps Diana Hadley or Lynn.es@Xerox will help me out?)
(-: perhaps you were confusing apparent and actual diameter? Milky Way
is viewed from very near, thus appears larger than any others viewed
from afar :-)

------------------------------

Date: 10 Mar 86 03:29:15 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-lcc!lll-crg!seismo!ut-sally!pyramid!pesnta!lsuc!msb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Mark Brader)
Subject: Was Sirius red after all?
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Pardon the long inclusions here, but I'm adding a group to this...

Robert Elton Maas wrote the following as a tangent to another
topic being discussed in net.space (and the corresponding ARPA
mailing list, whatever it's called):

> > By the way, in latest Sky&Telescope there's a note on Sirius being
> > reddish in recorded history (in fact about 600 AD), because at that
> > time its white-dwarf companion was in the red giant stage. It's hard
> > to believe the conversion from red giant to white dwarf could occur so
> > quickly, although with Sirius gobbling most of the loose hydrogen as
> > fast as it is shed, and ionizing & light-pressure-shoving the rest of
> > the emitted hydrogen, I could imagine it within the realm of
> > possibility. Any news since S&T publishing date on that topic that you
> > know of?

Jim Barnes replied:

> I recently (two months ago?) read an article in the Boston Globe
> that said roughly the same thing - Sirius was reddish within recorded
> history.  I posted the same question to net.astro.  The general response
> received was that the redness was due to the time of day when the
> observations were made.  i.e. Sirius sets near the sun during the dog
> days of the summer, hence the reddish color is due to the sunset, not
> the color of the star.  Current theories of stellar evolution do not
> allow for a star to evolve that rapidly.

Well, as one of the people who replied to Jim's previous query in
net.astro, I feel obliged to correct myself.  See, this hypothesis
about Sirius being red has been proposed and put down before, and I
quoted an article a few years old.  (I also said, "Why is this in
the Boston Globe now?", and no one replied.)

The reason it was in the Boston Globe is that there's new evidence.
I don't read Sky & Telescope, but it was in Scientific American in
February.  (Page 59, in the "Science and the Citizen" column).
They quoted a letter in Nature, but did not mention which issue;
presumably the S&T article refers to the same letter.

I will now summarize the Scientific American item in my own words.
(The only reason I didn't do this sooner, by the way, was that I was
sure someone else would cite it!)

   Ancient Babylonian, Greek, and Roman texts were known to consistently
   refer to Sirius as red.  But now there is medieval evidence for this as
   well.  Wolfhard Schlosser and Werner Bergmann of the Ruhr University
   (Bochum, W. Germany) studied an astronomical almanac that was compiled
   by Gregory of Tours about 580 AD.  Only one copy exists.  The almanac
   was written to help monasteries to find the time at night, so it give
   month-by-month lists of rising times for various constellations.
   
   Schlosser and Bergmann examined representations of the 6th century sky
   at a planetarium.  Gregory refers to a star Rubeola or Robeola, which
   had been thought to be Arcturus; but this is impossible and it must
   actually have been Sirius.  But the name means red or rusty.
   The latter to Nature suggested that the explanation is that Sirius B
   was a red giant that recently.
   
   The transition from red giant to white dwarf is supposed to take very
   much longer than 1,500 years, and is generally accompanied by cataclysmic
   explosions.  It is conceivable that the slightly elevated level of metals
   in Sirius A reflects an explosion in Sirius B, though unobserved, but
   the apparent speed of the transition is unexplained.

One thought occurs to me.  The previous explanation could still be
correct, i.e., that Sirius was important to the ancient Egyptians only when
it was rising (when any star appears red), and that the Greek and
Roman references to color are metaphorical.  See, I figure it could
be that the Egyptians started a tradition of calling Sirius reddish,
and that this tradition led to the Greek and Roman metaphorical
references, and that they in turn led to the name Rubeola, and during
all that time nobody cared to look at the actual color of the star.
(How old is the Latin-sounding name Sirius anyway?)

Personally, I find both possibilities hard to believe.  Isn't science fun?

Mark Brader

------------------------------

Posted-Date: Mon 10 Mar 1986 09:14:42 EST
Date: Mon 10 Mar 1986 09:14:42 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Re: Fusion reactors in space
To: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@mc.lcs.mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: "Keith F. Lynch"'s message of Sat,  8 Mar 86 14:03:00 EST
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa

Uses for fusion reactors in space seem limited.  Both fusion and solar
power plants are essentially machines for converting capital into energy
(fuel cost is low); solar-thermal collectors can be simple and
lightweight (and therefore cheap) and don't become radioactive.

Inertial fusion reactors might make good rockets.  Magnetic fusion
reactors won't make good rockets; although they have good Isp their
power/mass ratio is limited by the need to radiate waste heat
deposited in the reactor structure.  In inertial confinement fusion
rockets the exploding pellet debris will carry away much of the heat,
and the reaction chamber can be designed to let most of the neutrons
escape to space.

------------------------------

Date: Mon 10 Mar 86 11:34:07-PST
From: Mary Holstege <HOLSTEGE@su-sushi.arpa>
Subject: Population
To: space@s1-b.arpa


  Sorry to keep up with something not directly relevant to space, but
  Keith is SO misinformed, and I my message to him got bounced.  The
  rest of you will just have to bear with me.

  The human race currently has a doubling time of about 20 years worldwide;
  this has shown no sign of slowing down.  Currently humans consume 
  ** 40 percent ** of the net productivity of the planet.  Multiply it out.
  We're not talking millenia here, nor centuries, but DECADES until we
  have serious problems unless something is done RIGHT NOW.  While
  birth rates have declined where the standard of living has increased,
  we're running against a hard limit on the carrying capacity of the Earth
  here: standards of living are NOT going to improve until there is a
  reduction in the number of human beings in this ecosystem.  The situation
  is made worse by the fact that we are losing arable land at an alarming rate,
  thus reducing the net productivity of the planet.  Going into space may
  well be a long term solution (one reason I'm for it), but we can't sit
  on our hands and wait for that, there just isn't time.  You want to see
  the 21st century?  Take a trip to the Sahel.    -- Mary
-------

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 10 Mar 86 13:11:45 PST
From: mcgeer%ji@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Rick McGeer)
To: jon@csvax.caltech.edu
Subject: Re:  Response to Keith Lynch's anti-mathematical flame
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa

"For food grows like 1,2,3, and man liek 2,4,8..."

Malthus had fun extrapolating exponential growth curves, too.  So did
Forrester and Ehrlich.  Doomsday hasn't hit yet, and it doesn't look any
more likely to me than when Malthus wrote, or Forrester.

Exponential growth curves *always* flatten, for one reason or another.
Populations either get seriously whacked (a plague, war) or get rich and
thus stop breeding.  [True enough -- as Lady Jackson used to point out,
on a national scale the only *sure* method of birth control is national
wealth.  The United States would currently be suffering a population
*decline* if it were not for immigration.  Try that the next time some
character flames away about breeding like flies in East LA!]  For
this reason, space may well be the solution to our future population
problems, not because a significant percentage of humanity will emigrate,
but because space is gonna make us all stinking rich.

					-- Rick.

------------------------------

Date: 10 Mar 86 16:53:30 EST
From: Hans.Moravec@ius2.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: USAF Forecast
To: BBoard.Maintainer@a.cs.cmu.edu


a229  1226  09 Mar 86
AM-Project Forecast, Bjt,0705
TODAY'S FOCUS: Air Force Looking at a High Tech Future
By NORMAN BLACK
AP Military Writer
    WASHINGTON (AP) - Imagine a robot, complete with hands and deployed
in space, that responds automatically to commands from the ground,
allowing its controller to ''feel'' and ''see'' exactly what it does.
    Consider a new type of anti-proton propellant so powerful that a
spacecraft could cut weeks off planetary flight, or a super cockpit
that would literally turn a pilot's visor into a road map, including
displays of enemy forces and essential flight data.
    Scoff you might, but those and other projects now are officially
being imagined by the Air Force following a long-range study dubbed
Project Forecast II.
    Begun last summer, Project Forecast brought together experts from
the Air Force and industry for what turned out to be eight months of
brainstorming. Their charge was to ''break away from conventional
thinking and look at what is technologically possible.''
    ''I think about every 20 years the Air Force needs to do that sort
of exercise,'' says Gen. Lawrence A. Skantze, who oversaw the study
as head of the Air Force Systems Command.
    The first Project Forecast was conducted in 1963. It identified
several new technologies that were considered revolutionary at the
time, but which did become reality. Among them were reusable space
vehicles, extra-large cargo planes, composite materials and
high-bypass jet engines.
    Last month in his State of the Union address, President Reagan drew
attention to one of the predictions from the latest project - a
hypersonic jetliner, dubbed the ''Orient Express,'' that could fly in
low Earth orbit from Washington to Tokyo in two hours.
    The Air Force calls that the National Aerospace Plane. From the
military's standpoint, Skantze says such a plane would offer ''the
speed of response of an intercontinental ballistic missile and the
flexibility and recallability of a bomber.''
    The hypersonic jet, however, is just one of about 70 ''primary
research thrusts'' identified by the forecast group, Skantze says.
Between 12 and 20 of those initiatives have been singled out for
concentrated study and research, he added.
    Starting in fiscal 1988, the four-star general explained recently,
the Air Force hopes to begin setting aside about 10 percent of its $2
billion science and technology budget each year for forecast
projects.
    Skantze outlined some of the predictions during a briefing last
month. Among the technologies now considered possible are:
    -Remotely controlled robots that can work in space or other
dangerous environments. The robot's hands could be moved through
instructions from the ground, Skantze says, ''and the operator of the
hand can actually get the finger-feel of what the robot is doing.
There are indications that this is something that we can feasibly
do.''
    -A super cockpit using computerized artificial intelligence systems
that would make it possible for pilots to control jet fighters much
faster and maneuverable than those of today. The system could include
a three-dimensional visual display that would be projected on the
pilot's helmet visor, simultaneously showing the outside terrain,
enemy threats like missiles and essential airplane operating data.
    -Anti-proton acceleration. In theory, enormous amounts of energy can
be produced by bringing together a positively charged proton from a
hydrogen atom and a negatively charged anti-proton. Such anti-protons
have been produced in European particle accelerators, but scientists
don't know how to collect and store them or control the reaction.
    -The ''swarm.'' Instead of relying on small numbers of highly
capable and expensive satellites for navigation, communications and
surveillance, this concept calls for putting up large numbers of
inexpensive satellites, pyramidal in shape and 12 feet on a side.
Individually, each satellite couldn't do much. But an electronically
connected ''swarm'' would be highly capable in the aggregate and less
vulnerable to enemy attack.
    -Using exotic materials to produce smaller, high-temperature jet
engines. Skantze says it appears possible to build a vertical
take-off jet that could come close to matching the high performance
of conventional jets. Engines are now foreseen that would offer a
thrust-to-weight ratio of 20-to-1 instead of 8-to-1 ''by the end of
the 1990's,'' eliminating the high fuel consumption that now limits
performance, he said.
    
AP-NY-03-09-86 1527EST
***************

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #201
*******************


0,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA08498; Tue, 11 Mar 86 07:01:13 PST
	id AA08498; Tue, 11 Mar 86 07:01:13 PST
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 86 07:01:13 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8603111501.AA08498@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #202

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 202

Today's Topics:
			     Mailing list
		      REMOVAL FROM MAILING LIST
			    Here, here....
			  Plutonium Toxicity
			  Expanding Humanity
			   Vested Interests
			      Re: Safety
		     Seal hunt vs. Slaughterhouse
	     Re: Do we really need to leave this planet?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon 10 Mar 86 17:20:18-EST
From: "J. Noel Chiappa" <JNC@xx.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: Mailing list
To: space@mc.lcs.mit.edu
Cc: JNC@xx.lcs.mit.edu

	I'm pretty tired of flaming about Plutonium lethal doses, the
reasonability of planning for the next 10^9 years, etc. There's too
much junk and flaming on this mailing list. A lot of this seems to
dribble in (often days behind the discussion) from the UUCP side of
things. I understand that the transmission technology in UUCP is not
what we have on the ARPA side; in return, before posting replies to
messages, realize that someone else on the other side of the UUCP
delay might be posting the same messages. Let's keep the postings
interesting and germane, OK?

	Noel
-------

------------------------------

Date:         Mon, 10 Mar 1986 11:52 CST
From: Rob BOWNS  <BOWNSR%UREGINA1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu>
Subject:      REMOVAL FROM MAILING LIST
To: SPACE <SPACE@s1-b.arpa>

Dr. Sirs,
     Please remove my name from the mailing list for the SPACE newsletter.  Thi
s is a terrific newsletter and very informative, but I regret that I never have
 enough time to read it.  Because of the length of the files and the quantity r
eceived each day, i feel it would be best to remove myself from the mailing lis
t and avoid uneccesary network traffic.

                            Thank-you,
                             Rob Bowns
                            (BOWNSR @ UREGINA1)

------------------------------

Date:           Mon, 10 Mar 86 14:01:20 PST
From: Rich Silva <lcc.rich@locus.ucla.edu>
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject:        Here, here....


I second Todd Johnson's suggestion.... let's not name newly discovered
moons after the seven who died in Challenger.... Let's build (at least)
eight more shuttles... One named after Challenger, and seven more, one
named after each of Challenger's crew.
				GO Space exploration...

Rich Silva
Locus Computing Corporation		       lcc!rich@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU
				{ucivax,trwrb}!lcc!rich
 {ihnp4,randvax,sdcrdcf,ucbvax,trwspp}!ucla-cs!lcc!rich

------------------------------

Date:         Mon, 10 Mar 1986 21:17 EST
From: Kenneth Ng  <KEN%NJITCCCC.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu>
Subject:      Plutonium Toxicity
To: Space Digest <SPACE@s1-b.arpa>


Please execuse me if you saw this before, I think I sent this to
the wrong address last time.


About that reference that plutonium is the most dangerous substance
known to mankind.  If that were so we'd have a pretty safe world.
Unfortunately there are many substance far more toxic than plutonium.
Arsenic trioxide, a pesticide often sprayed on food, is about 50 times
as toxic.  Biological toxins such as Botulism and Arrsanax (sp) are
several thousand to a million times as toxic.

The last time I saw a cancer chart of the United States, the highest
cancer rates in the country are the northeast corridor (New Jersey
and New York), and the coasts of Texas and Louisiana.  Since these
areas of the country are heavy petrochemical refineries, I suspect
that petrochemical products are far more cancer causing than radiation.
Utah, Colorado, and Nevada have below the national average.  The
chart I'm looking at was prepared by the National Cancer Institute,
the year is not given unfortunately.

Also, the government has more information on the effects of plutonium
than it does many forms of air pollution.  From the Manhattan Project
we have 17000 workers exposed to plutonium.  Of them, 25 have way
over the permissable level in their lungs.  As of 1973 none of them
have developed cancers. This is from "A 27 Year Study of Selected
Los Alamos Plutonium Workers", Report LA-5148-MS, Los Alamos Sci
Labs, January 1973.

By the way, if the plutonium package was on board the Space Shuttle,
it may have been one of the few objects to survive somewhat intact.
I cannot recall which one, but one of the SNAP nuclear power systems
was tested by blowing up a rocket fully fueled on the launch pad.
This was, of course, in the days when NASA could afford to do such
things!

Finally, some of the material I present may not be entirely correct.
By profession I am not an expert in nuclear energy, or plutonium
toxicity.  I am a computer scientist.  One of my major hobbies is
reading.  I have tried to put references in for those curious, but
there just seems to be too much to remember nowadays.  If anyone is
an expert on these matters and I've misrepresented something, please
enter the correction for us all.  I'd also appreciate some new reading
sources.

------------------------------

Date: Mon 10 Mar 86 21:45:50-EST
From: "Jim McGrath" <MCGRATH%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: Expanding Humanity
To: space@mc.lcs.mit.edu
Cc: MCGRATH%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu
Reply-To: mcgrath%mit-oz@mit-mc.arpa



    From: jon@csvax.caltech.edu
    Space colonies - even if obtained by dismantling all the rocky
    bodies of the solar system - can only put off the day of reckoning
    for so long.  The point is that there is a fixed amount of matter
    to build stuff with, while the population keeps increasing. No
    matter what the coefficients involved, sooner or later the curves
    cross. If population increase is exponential, it's sooner.

Why limit yourself to the solar system?  We are talking about hundreds
of years of uninterrupted scientific and technical growth.  And if you
can cross the solar system frontier, then you may have an unlimited
amount of matter to play with (what, the universe is finite?  Who
says?).

    Are we to force people to live in space, or force them to control
    their breeding? I don't care for either alternative but the second
    seems like less of an imposition.

You could always give them a choice.


Jim
-------

------------------------------

Date: Mon 10 Mar 86 21:47:28-EST
From: "Jim McGrath" <MCGRATH%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: Vested Interests
To: space@mc.lcs.mit.edu
Cc: MCGRATH%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu
Reply-To: mcgrath%mit-oz@mit-mc.arpa



    Could it be that the influence of vested interests in the national
    debate warps the arguments we hear, thereby manipulating our
    needs?  Just think of all the optimistic articles that appear in
    the newspaper and stories that appear on TV glorifying some new
    technological development.  Organizations with a large public
    relations offices and a financial interest in positive public
    perceptions of these technologies constantly vie for media
    attention.

This is a tad bit too conspiratioial for my tastes.  I think that the
major reason why people suspend their disbelief when it comes to
technology is that to most of them it is magic anyway.  Given that
people are very optimistic in general, it is not surprizing to see
them jump on the bandwagon of any movement that promises more (of
anything good).

Witness the general belief in such things as astrology.  There are no
Fortune-500 companies based on this stuff, but it gets good media
play all the same.  Or many religions for that matter (no offenses
intended to any particular faith!).


Jim
-------

------------------------------

Date: Mon 10 Mar 86 21:52:18-EST
From: "Jim McGrath" <MCGRATH%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Safety
To: space@mc.lcs.mit.edu
Cc: MCGRATH%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu
Reply-To: mcgrath%mit-oz@mit-mc.arpa



    From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!oberon!smeagol!earle@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Greg Earle)
    Fishermen in Japan were slaughtering dolphins because they
    *thought* they were the cause of their low fishing yields!

Actually, I was under the impression that the most efficient net
designs had the side effect of catching dolphins as well as the target
fish (such as tuna).  Thus the problem was an economic and
technological, not an educational, one.

    My idea of the main point in going into space is that an
    unintended offshoot will be to get all the *fucking people* off of
    the earth, so maybe the Planet and the animals (who beat us here
    by a LONG time) will have a slim chance of repairing all the
    damage that humans have caused to the ecosystem.

While I agree with your general point about population pressures, I
have to disagree with your prejudice against the human race.  Humans
are part of the ecosystem, which means that they cannot "damage" it any
more than other species.  They can harm other species, sometimes
ultimately harming themselves, but species competition is the way of
life.  Humans can be stupid when they are destructive, but I don't
feel they are somehow fundamentally immoral when competing with other
species.


Jim
-------

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 10 Mar 86 21:55:52 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@mc.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: Seal hunt vs. Slaughterhouse
To: ST801179%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Cc: KFL@mc.lcs.mit.edu, Space@s1-b.arpa

    From: ST801179%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu

    ... the mentality that would claim
    a similarity here needs correcting. There is a BIG difference between coats
    and protein. WAKE UP!

  What difference?  Protein being necessary for life and coats not?
But we can eat vegetable protein.  Beef isn't necessary.
  And in many parts of the world coats ARE necessary for life.

								...Keith

------------------------------

Date: Mon 10 Mar 86 20:28:28-EST
From: Richard A. Cowan <COWAN@xx.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Do we really need to leave this planet?
To: mcgeer%ji@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Cc: space@mc.lcs.mit.edu
In-Reply-To: <8603080901.AA13934@ji.berkeley.edu>

>	What sinister force could have prompted Mr. Cowan to submit his
>posting?  Who could possibly make money off it?  Could it be that
>the influence of the vested interests in the net debate warps the
>arguments we read, and thereby manipulating our needs?  Who's
>mainpulating us?  For what sinister purpose?  Inquiring minds want to
>know.
>	Does that sound silly to you?  Gee, me too.  I'm sick of reading
>vague hints about mysterious conspiracies of the government and/or media.
>Forget it!  There are tabloids in every supermarket that peddle this crap...

There's no "evil conspiracy!"  I have great faith in human beings.  No
person does something they think is evil.  Yet it is obvious that we
are manipulated every day in order to make us buy certain brands of
paper towels or soft drinks, to choose certain phone companies, or
sign up for insurance policies (especially veterans and people aged 65
and over).  Millions of people are employed to perform this
manipulation.  The purpose is, of course, profit.  It's just the way
the system works.  And just because it works that way doesn't mean we
should view it as "evil."

The manipulation of the free press is more complex, I admit.  But
imagine that you are a reporter.  If you're about to charge that some
big corporation is doing something wrong, you'd better damn well make
sure that your points are well substantiated, or your editors will get
a flood of angry letters or phone calls.  So the press is more careful
on sensitive matters.

Simply consider: why hasn't the press mentioned that the "Teacher in
Space" public relations promotion was originally brought up to defuse
the opposition by the teacher's union to Reagan education cuts?  Why
hasn't the press asked for a copy of the State of the Union Address
that would have been delivered if the Shuttle had made it?  You can
certainly bet that that speech was destroyed.

The "sinister force" that prompted my message was just a course
entitled "Media And Public Policy."  Enough on this topic.  If you
want references, please send me a note personally.

rich (cowan@mit-xx)
-------

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #202
*******************


0,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA01093; Tue, 11 Mar 86 23:01:02 PST
	id AA01093; Tue, 11 Mar 86 23:01:02 PST
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 86 23:01:02 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8603120701.AA01093@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #203

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 203

Today's Topics:
			    First Contact
		       Fusion Reactors in Space
				Fusion
			      Plutonium
			      Population
		       Morton-Thiokol Engineers
		   chalanger crew remains examined!
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 10 Mar 86 21:44:14 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@mc.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: First Contact
To: ihnp4!ihwpt!knudsen@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Cc: KFL@mc.lcs.mit.edu, Space@s1-b.arpa

    From: ihnp4!ihwpt!knudsen@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (mike knudsen)

    Yes, running into a more advanced race could be quite a shock.

  It could, but actually I think that the notion of advanced aliens
has pretty much soaked into the popular culture.  It would be
headlines for a while, but wouldn't shake many people's faith to the
core.  It might even cause less emotions than the shuttle disaster or
the Kennedy assassination.
  Certainly such interaction would change us, but are you sure it
wouldn't be for the better?  Ignoring the possibility of warlike
aliens, all interactions would be voluntary.  No goods would be traded
unless we perceived what we were getting to be worth more than what we
were giving.  No information we obtain would have to be used, unless
we decided that using the information is better for us than ignoring
it.  It's the plain old free market principle.  No reason it couldn't
work between alien races, assuming we are similar enough to WANT to
trade anything.
  It is not likely that we will catch any diseases from aliens.  Earth
bacteria and viruses can infect us only because they have had
millions of years of experience infecting mankind (or our close
evolutionary  relatives) and countering our defenses.  I don't think
that alien germs present any threat to humans.
  The notion that cultures are deserving of preservation is commonly
held today, and it is certainly a better attitude than the older
attitude that unfamiliar cultures should be wiped out.  But is it
reasonable in all cases?  Why is it said to be bad for Indians to
leave the reservations or for Blacks to talk like Whites?  My opinion
is that the choice of culture should be entirely up to the inhabitants
of that culture.  Anyone who wants to leave the reservation to join
mainstream society should be welcome to do so.  Anyone in Quebec who
wants to use English should be free to do so (this is actually illegal
for some things!).  Any American who wants to adopt oriental culture
should be free to do so (a friend of mine has often been criticized
for speaking in Korean with Koreans and for eating foods such as dog
and live squid).  And after after the alien contact, anyone who wants
to adopt the habits of the aliens in lieu of their own culture should
be free to do so.  If that ultimately means the end of our own
culture, so be it.  I see nothing wrong with that so long as it is
purely a matter of voluntary choice.  In other words cultures and
ethnic groups have no rights, only individuals (and VOLUNTARY groups)
do.
  As for the possibility of warlike aliens, all we can do is make sure
our defenses are strong and our diplomatic skills good.  This is
precisely what is being done worldwide, for reasons having little to
do with space.  Of course it is quite probable that the alien military
technology is far beyond ours.  In that case, perhaps what we do have
is sufficient to cause them unacceptable losses, as happened to us in
VietNam, and as happened to England during the revolutionary war.
And of course it is possible that the SDI critcs are right and that
even technologies that can travel routinely between the stars would
not be able to defend against our nuclear weapons.

    Incidentally, if we do encounter a friendly race that makes us
    look pretty inferior, our mental health may be preserved by
    some myths ...

  I don't think myths are needed.  We are way beyond the stage of
worshiping what we don't understand.  If aliens with an advanced
technology do show up, people will simply assume that their history is
longer than ours, that we would have had very similar technology after
not too many more decades or centuries ourselves rather than assuming
that they are smarter or otherwise better than us.  Even if they DO
prove to be smarter than us, it is generally believed that human
intelligence enhancement should be possible within a few decades, by
computer implants or whatever.  And of course we can enhance
intelligence even today, simply by improving the schools.
								...Keith

------------------------------

Date: Mon 10 Mar 86 21:55:55-EST
From: "Jim McGrath" <MCGRATH%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: Fusion Reactors in Space
To: MCGRATH%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu, space@mc.lcs.mit.edu
Reply-To: mcgrath%mit-oz@mit-mc.arpa



    Barring a major breakthrough, I don't see fusion being used as a
    power source for a rocket.  But how about as a power plant for an
    orbiting industrial lab?  You would have free vacuum, reduced
    shielding and structure requirements... 

Actually, you could still use fusion for a rocket even if the reactor
was gigantic.  In this case you would have to broadcast the power via
microwaves (or another portion of the EM spectrum) from a large
orbiting reactor to a receiver on the rocket.  Note that this works
best when both are in vacuum.  For launches from earth you could
employ the energy from the fusion reactor more directly (e.g. have it
power lasers for a laser launching system).  For launching from the
moon and such, use it to power a mass driver.


Jim

-------

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 10 Mar 86 22:03:01 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@mc.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: Fusion
To: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Cc: KFL@mc.lcs.mit.edu, Space@s1-b.arpa

    From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu

    The impression I've gotten ... is that ... fusion reactors built on the
    outgrowth of any of the current technology paths would be huge, expensive,
    unwieldy, have extremely low power densities, become rapidly radioactive
    due to stray neutron flux, and produce electricity only at exorbitantly
    high cost.

  A number of things would be different in space.  For thrust, open
ended reactors would be needed.  No research into these has been done
on Earth since air would get in and ruin the reaction.

    (On the other hand, there are plenty of recent advances in photovoltaic
    power systems...)

  This is good, but we need fusion too.  Solar power is not much use
when you need ENROMOUS amounts of energy or when you need it far from
the Sun.  Interstellar spaceships should be fusion powered.
								...Keith

------------------------------

Posted-Date: Mon 10 Mar 1986 21:26:24 EST
Date: Mon 10 Mar 1986 21:26:24 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Plutonium
To: space@s1-b.arpa

Some comments on Pu debate:

(1) The accident that might cause release of plutonium is an explosion
on the pad, or a malfunction in which the shuttle heels over and crashes
a few seconds after liftoff.  Unlike the 51-L explosion, the SRB's and
most of the fuel would explode.  The Pu would end up spread all over the
launch area, which would be decidedly unhealthy for future launch activities.

(2) The Pu in the thermoelectric generators is Pu-238.  It has a
half-life of around 87 years; pound for pound it is about 260 times more
radioactive than Pu-239, and more than an order of magnitude more
radioactive than radium (for alpha particles; it does not emit much gamma
radiation).  I'm not sure how much more radioactive it is than bomb debris,
since fallout contains a mixture of trans-uranium isotopes.  The same
is true for reactor plutonium.

(3) The fuel in the thermoelectric generators is in the oxide form, so
the chemical toxicity of Pu metal is not relevant.

An interesting aside: ionization smoke detectors contain a small
quantity of americium (Am-241, I think), an alpha emitter like
plutonium.  How much americium has been distributed among american
households?

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 10 Mar 86 22:33:34 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@mc.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: Population
To: REM%IMSSS@su-ai.arpa
Cc: KFL@mc.lcs.mit.edu, Space@s1-b.arpa

    From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@SU-AI.ARPA>

    Do we want Earth's human population to be that large??

  Who is 'we'?  You and I?  Why should it be up to us?  Governments?
Why should it be up to any government?  It should be up to the
individuals involved, as it already is in all free countries.

								...Keith

------------------------------

Date: Mon 10 Mar 86 22:02:39-EST
From: "Jim McGrath" <MCGRATH%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: Morton-Thiokol Engineers
To: space@mc.lcs.mit.edu
Cc: MCGRATH%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu
Reply-To: mcgrath%mit-oz@mit-mc.arpa



Apparently the Morton-Thiokol engineers did tests on scale models of
the SRBs for a very wide range of conditions (including those present
at the fatal shuttle launch).  However, they had done full scale
testing for a much narrower range of conditions (most important, only
for temperatures above 50 F).  Previous shuttle launches showed that
real performance had a greater than expected deviation from the
predictions based on the scale model tests.  Thus the cause of their
uncertainty.  (Information from CNN/C-SPAN)

However much we like to bash administrators, the primary fault appears
to lie with the engineers.  The faults in their model were known to
them months before the fatal shuttle launch.  So there was plenty of
time to do the necessary full scale tests.  Only an absolute idiot
would feel comfortable with bad test data for an environment range
(near freezing temperatures) which they KNEW they would shortly
encounter.

If the engineers did not voice strong concerns during the months
before the launch, then I cannot really blame the NASA people for
downgrading the reliability of their warnings.  If there really was a
problem, then the engineers were incompetent for not bringing it up
sooner - in which case you can't really believe their "expert" opinion
when, at the 11th hour, they say that you might have a problem.

The managers (especially those in the company) share blame for not
overseeing their engineers adequately.  But I think they are spared
the lion's share UNLESS the engineers did, during the months before,
forcefully request additional full scale testing and this was denied.
In that case the budget officials (who ultimately decide resource
allocation) are ultimately responsible (anyone know if this
happened?).

This brings up an interesting point.  If funds for testing and
associated activities are in a separate line of the NASA budget, then
Congress shares a lot of the blame.  I can easily see a Congress
fighting a deficit by cutting back a bit too much on those "invisible"
expenses, such as post production testing (they do similar things with
the defense budget all the time).  Alternately, high NASA
administrators may have made the fatal budget decisions.  


Jim
-------

------------------------------

From: crash!bryan%sdcsvax@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 86 15:25:37 PST
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: chalanger crew remains examined!

   Sources Say Pathologists Examined  Remains Of Challenger's Crew     
                 ---
    CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. - Pathologists Monday examined crew remains
recovered from Challenger's shattered cabin, sources reported.
    Meanwhile the ocean search continued for more remains and debris such as
data tapes that might provide clues to the disaster.
    Some remains and cabin wreckage were brought ashore secretly Saturday
night by the salvage ship Preserver.
    In announcing Sunday that the cabin debris and remains had been located,
NASA did not say whether anything had been recovered. 
    The agency said it would respect family wishes and not comment again until
the operation was completed.
    NASA spokesmen said nothing Monday. The Navy said the 213-foot Preserver
was at the scene where the cabin debris was found.
    But the Navy declined to say whether divers were on the ocean floor.
    Recovering cabin wreckage and body remains depends on weather and sea
conditions, NASA said, and could take days. The search area had wind up to 20
mph and 4-to-6-foot waves Monday.
    Private boats and planes were barred from an area two miles around the
search site, which is about 18 miles northeast of the launch pad. Sections of
the cabin were found at a depth of 100 feet.  
    Five men and two women died in the fiery explosion on Jan. 28.
    Data tapes that were in the cabin could shed light on the cause of the
explosion, but it was not known how well the tapes survived.
    The sources did not know if remains of all seven had been located. They
said recovered body parts had been taken to a hospital at Patrick Air Force
Base, 25 miles south of here, where they were examined Monday by forensic
experts from the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology.
    NASA said the announcement was delayed until families were notified.
    Tony Smith, brother of pilot Mike Smith, said his family was told Friday
that searchers had found the crew compartment but that he knew nothing about
remains being found.
    Bruce Jarvis, father of astronaut Gregory Jarvis, said he was relieved
that his son's remains had been found, but expressed frustration at having
learned of it from television.
    NASA said its policy is to only inform the closest kin if there is an
accident, usually the spouses.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #203
*******************


0,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA02169; Wed, 12 Mar 86 03:01:07 PST
	id AA02169; Wed, 12 Mar 86 03:01:07 PST
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 86 03:01:07 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8603121101.AA02169@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #204

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 204

Today's Topics:
		 Re: Bronowski and historical fossils
     Re: Scuttle the Space Program? (Actually Alien Intelligence)
	       Re: Clumping doesn't fix Olber's paradox
		 Re: Bronowski and historical fossils
	   Re: Scuttle the Shuttle?(Boskone Panalist, etc.)
		       Re:  Population Density
		       Re:  Population Density
			     Red Sirius?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 10 Mar 86 19:26:54 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-lcc!lll-crg!topaz!harvard!cmcl2!lanl!jlg@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Jim Giles)
Subject: Re: Bronowski and historical fossils
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <8603090839.AA00847@decwrl.DEC.COM> redford@JEREMY.DEC (John Redford) writes:
>
>J. Giles writes:
>
>>  This last is a (loose) paraphrase of something from Jacob Bronowski's
>>"Ascent of Man."
>>  "... If we do not take the next step in the ascent of man, it will
>>be taken elsewhere, in Africa, in China.  Should I feel that to be
>>sad?  No, not in itself.  Humanity has a right to change its colour.
>>And yet, wedded as I am to the civilization that nurtured me, I should
>>feel it to be infinitely sad.  I, whom England made, whom it taught
>>its language and its tolerance and excitement in intellectual
>>pursuits, I would feel it a grave sense of loss (as you would) if a
>>hundred years from now Shakespeare and Newton are historical fossils
>>in the ascent of man, in the way that Homer and Euclid are....
>>						- J. Bronowski
>
>Homer and Euclid fossils?  They are studied with respect to this day,
>millenia after they and their cultures died.

And yet, it is Newton's "Principia Mathematica" that modern students
learn for it's information content - Euclid's works for historical
interest.  Yes, Homer and Euclid ARE fossils in comparison to Newton
and Shakespeare.  The former are interesting glimpses of a now dead
civilization, the latter are important figures in the development of
our own.

>Everything dies, be it countries, or civilizations, or whole 
>species.  I doubt if America will be around in any recognizable form 
>in two thousand years, or if homo sapiens will be around in a hundred thousand.
>Our species didn't even exist a mere fifty thousand years ago, and 
>there are notable anatomical differences between us and the people of 
>even twenty thousand years ago.  Why imagine that the process has stopped?

I think you missed the point of Bronowski's remarks.  His whole thesis
is that the process of cultural and biological evolution will continue
(that is what he meant by "if we don't take the next step ... , it will
be taken elsewhere...").  The process hasn't stopped, it will (even must)
continue.  But, why imagine (as you seem to) that our culture must die in
order for the process to continue?  Isn't it more satisfying to think
that we MAY just manage to evolve into our OWN future?

Perhaps America won't be around in recognizable form in 2000 years (I
assume you mean the US - America is a set of two continents and is likely
to remain around for a few hundred million more years), but the England of
1066 isn't around in any recognizable form NOW.  And yet, the culture
formed after the Norman invasion didn't die, it evolved into our culture.

J. Giles
Los Alamos

------------------------------

Date: 11 Mar 86 10:07:45 GMT
From: brahms!desj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (David desJardins)
Subject: Re: Scuttle the Space Program? (Actually Alien Intelligence)
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <860305153340.481402@HIS-BILLERICA-MULTICS.ARPA>
Jong@HIS-BILLERICA-MULTICS.ARPA writes:
>
>Of course, if we encounter another civilization out there, the
>odds are it won't be anywhere near the level we're at.  Most
>likely, we would encounter an unimaginably more advanced
>civilization.

   I see this kind of statement a lot, and it really seems pretty
silly to me.  It is both anthropomorphic (assuming that all alien
races would behave in the same way people do) and egocentric (in
its implicit assumption that we know everything about the universe
and how it is put together).
   And besides how can you expect the unimaginable?

   Why not just say, "If we were to encounter an much more advanced
alien civilization...," and avoid all of my flaming.

   -- David desJardins

------------------------------

Date: 11 Mar 86 10:20:04 GMT
From: brahms!desj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (David desJardins)
Subject: Re: Clumping doesn't fix Olber's paradox
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <1189@mmintl.UUCP> franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) writes:
>
>What is not obvious to me is whether the stars can have a finite density
>in the universe as a whole if such clumping is present.  One must add the
>requirement that there be a finite upper bound on the density of stars
>in any finite region, of course -- a condition which is unlikely to be
>violated.

   If by finite you mean nonzero (a common misstatement by physicists),
then I think it is clear that this is impossible.  If the mean density
of stars on arbitrarily large spheres is above a nonzero threshold for
an infinite sequence of radii tending to infinity (which I think is the
appropriate definition of "finite density in the universe as a whole"),
then each of these spheres must block out a fixed fraction of the rays
from the Earth, and so together they will block any given ray with
probability one.

   -- David desJardins

------------------------------

Date: 11 Mar 86 10:58:37 GMT
From: brahms!weemba@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Matthew P. Wiener)
Subject: Re: Bronowski and historical fossils
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <277@lanl.ARPA> jlg@a.UUCP (Jim Giles) writes:
>>Homer and Euclid fossils?  They are studied with respect to this day,
>>millennia after they and their cultures died.
>
>And yet, it is Newton's "Principia Mathematica" that modern students
>learn for it's information content - Euclid's works for historical
>interest.  Yes, Homer and Euclid ARE fossils in comparison to Newton
>and Shakespeare.  The former are interesting glimpses of a now dead
>civilization, the latter are important figures in the development of
>our own.

What IS this nonsense?  Homer, Euclid, Newton, and Shakespeare are
both interesting glimpses of a now dead civilization AND are important
figures in the development of our own.  But fossils?  I can only assume
YOU don't read Euclid or Homer.

Modern students read neither Newton nor Euclid.  I've recently made a
small hobby of reading them both, and in both cases I've been impressed.
Newton, by the way, is much less understandable than Euclid.  He does
calculus and physics using Euclidean reasoning.  As for Euclid, he's
actually a rather good writer, even by today's standards.

Historically, Euclid's _The Elements_ was the ONLY textbook for learning
geometry until the 19th century.  The first calculus/physics texts appeared
within 50 years of _Principia_.  The Euclidean method of doing geometry
was unquestioned until around 1900.  Textbooks used in this country followed
the style of Euclid until around 1960--they left out the hard parts--and
it was Sputnik that inspired the change!  But Newton's style was dropped
IMMEDIATELY from calculus and physics.

1960!!!!  Hardly a fossil.  Nor was it dropped from the curriculum because
it became out of date, mind you.  It was dropped because it was a difficult
approach to geometry, and American high school students have weak minds.

Abraham Lincoln put Euclid at the top of the books he self-educated himself
with.  It taught him how to think and reason clearly.  And we can still
feel the effects of the Euclidean training on Lincoln to this day.

>I think you missed the point of Bronowski's remarks.

I think you missed the point of the posting you're complaining about.

>Perhaps America won't be around in recognizable form in 2000 years (I
>assume you mean the US - America is a set of two continents and is likely
>to remain around for a few hundred million more years), but the England of
>1066 isn't around in any recognizable form NOW.

The England of 1066 IS around in a very recognizable form: our language.
Of course, it is not recognizable as 1066ish unless you make an EFFORT to
learn about it, but etymology is a very fascinating and revealing subject.
If you want to remain ignorant of your own culture, that's your problem.
But don't call everything you're ignorant of "fossils", thereby excusing
yourself of "charges" of "cultural ignorance".  <Shudder>

>                                                 And yet, the culture
>formed after the Norman invasion didn't die, it evolved into our culture.

You got it!

And the same goes for Homer and Euclid!

We're going to get into space some day, and when we do, Homer and Euclid
and 1066 will be taken along, as relevant as ever.  Otherwise, why bother?

ucbvax!brahms!weemba	Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720

------------------------------

Posted-Date: Tue 11 Mar 1986 07:53:06 EST
Date: Tue 11 Mar 1986 07:53:06 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Re: Scuttle the Shuttle?(Boskone Panalist, etc.)
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> >> 	"When James van Allen starts using robots instead of graduate
> >> 	students in his own lab, then maybe I'll believe him!"
> >> 				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
> And a good point it was.  Mr. Dietz, TAKE NOTICE.
> The same point applies equally well for teleoperated devices.

But teleoperated devices have been used in the lab for 40 years, in
nuclear physics.  Using them in the lab in non-life threatening
situations would not make sense.

This quote, while cute and no doubt laugh provoking, is pretty content
free.  People are cheap on the ground (grad students are especially
cheap).  People in space are expensive.  You can't expect the economics
to be identical.

------------------------------

Date:     Tue, 11 Mar 86 9:00:25 EST
From: Leslie R. Eastman <lreastma@crdc-vax2.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Subject:  Re:  Population Density

I guess population density is a matter of taste.  I, for one, think there
are too many people now, even in the United States, not to mention China,
India, Ethiopia, etc,etc.  Big cities are a nice place to visit occasionally
but I wouldn't want to live there.

In addition, the discussion of how many people can live on earth seems to
totally disregard the rights of animals to live in their preferred habitat.
Even if we could get all of our food and energy from space, if there are
(pick your own number) of people on earth, where will the animals live and
what will they eat?

Some people on this net talk like free food, energy and building material
are there in space just waiting to be picked up and beamed back to earth
where it will also be free for the taking by who ever needs it.  The raw
materials may be there, but utilizing them will take alot of money and
energy on our part and I don't think they will be inexpensive in the
forseeable future.  (Remember the claims at the beginning of nuclear power
that electricity would be so cheap you wouldn't even need to meter it.)  So
don't look to space to be the answer to the population problem in the near
future.  The only near term answer is birth control. (I only plan to have
one child.)  And birth control does not mean killing anyone - it just means
stop having babies.  If the population continues to grow, there will be
people (myself included) who will not want to go into space for adventure,
curiosity, or science but just to find a more pleasant place to live.

------------------------------

Date:     Tue, 11 Mar 86 11:38:42 EST
From: Leslie R. Eastman <lreastma@crdc-vax2.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Subject:  Re:  Population Density


I guess population density is a matter of taste.  I, for one, think there
are too many people now, even in the United States, not to mention China,
India, Ethiopia, etc,etc.  Big cities are a nice place to visit occasionally
but I wouldn't want to live there.

In addition, the discussion of how many people can live on earth seems to
totally disregard the rights of animals to live in their preferred habitat.
Even if we could get all of our food and energy from space, if there are
(pick your own number) of people on earth, where will the animals live and
what will they eat?

Some people on this net talk like free food, energy and building material
are there in space just waiting to be picked up and beamed back to earth
where it will also be free for the taking by who ever needs it.  The raw
materials may be there, but utilizing them will take alot of money and
energy on our part and I don't think they will be inexpensive in the
forseeable future.  (Remember the claims at the beginning of nuclear power
that electricity would be so cheap you wouldn't even need to meter it.)  So
don't look to space to be the answer to the population problem in the near
future.  The only near term answer is birth control. (I only plan to have
one child.)  And birth control does not mean killing anyone - it just means
stop having babies.  If the population continues to grow, there will be
people (myself included) who will not want to go into space for adventure,
curiosity, or science but just to find a more pleasant place to live.

------------------------------

Date: Tue 11 Mar 86 10:37:58-EST
From: FIRTH@tl-20b.arpa
Subject: Red Sirius?
To: space@mc.lcs.mit.edu

[sounds like a character from an S&S tale!]

Just thought I'd make a few points

(1) Why did the ancients refer to Sirius as "red"?  The obvious reason
    is that it WAS red, but unfortunately that cannot be relied on.  The
    debate on how the Greeks and Romans saw colours is an old one, and
    there are no good conclusions.  For example, there are several
    examples of Greek sculpture with unnatural colours - green horses
    on the Parthenon freize is one - and we don't believe in green horses.
    As another example, what about Homer's "wine-dark sea"?  I've sailed
    over that same sea, and it isn't wine coloured (nor particularly
    dark).  Moving up to the Arabs, the books say that they called Egypt
    "the black land" because of the colour of the soil - but the soil of
    Egypt isn't black; it's reddish-brown.

(2) Sirius seems red close to the horizon?  It didn't last night, when
    I looked.  To be fair, I can't recall observing Sirius close to its
    heliacal rising, ie near the Sun, but I've often seen Venus in that
    position, and IT never looked red.  The Mesopotamians observed that
    planet for centuries, and if it ever looked red to them, they didn't
    say so.

(3) Sirius looked red because its companion was a red giant?  I doubt it.
    Check the difference in intrinsic magnitude between a red giant and
    a main-sequence blue-white star - the former would be drowned out.  

(4) I endorse the idea that the mediaeval guys might have simply copied
    the alleged fact of Sirius' redness without bothering to look.  After
    all, they copied a lot of other errors that simple observation would
    have shown to be wrong; the most notorious example perhaps being
    Aristotle's assertion that heavier things fall faster.  But that can't
    explain where the notion came from in the first place.

Another trivial pursuit in the history of science...!

Robert Firth
-------

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #204
*******************


0,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA03248; Wed, 12 Mar 86 07:01:11 PST
	id AA03248; Wed, 12 Mar 86 07:01:11 PST
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 86 07:01:11 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8603121501.AA03248@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #205

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 205

Today's Topics:
	     Re: Do we really need to leave this planet?
Re: accepting one's share of risk, doing one's share to avoid overpopulation
		       SRB Seal Failure Detail
	Re: Response to Greg Earle's mindless anti-human flame
		  Challenger crew compartment found?
			     Solar energy
		 Re: Bronowski and historical fossils
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 11 Mar 86 09:44:26 PST
From: mcgeer%ji@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Rick McGeer)
To: COWAN@xx.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Do we really need to leave this planet?
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa

	[The rest of this message was non-space related, so I'm responding
personally to that.  However, this one bit...]

>Simply consider: why hasn't the press mentioned that the "Teacher in
>Space" public relations promotion was originally brought up to defuse
>the opposition by the teacher's union to Reagan education cuts?

Maybe because there's no evidence whatever that it's true?  There are millions
of speculations that we can all make, most of them very ugly indeed.  The press
prints some of them, even when there's no evidence whatever.  To their
credit, they've skipped on this one and (mostly) on the nasty
pressure-from-the-White-House scenario on the Challenger disaster.  We should,
too.  In sum: don't make charges unless you have evidence to back them up.

						-- Rick.

------------------------------

Date: 11 Mar 86 09:49:16 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-lcc!qantel!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Tom Keller)
Subject: Re: accepting one's share of risk, doing one's share to avoid overpopulation
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa


   REM sent me this article as a letter.  I attempted to reply to him twice.
apparently mail only travels in one direction between his site and mine. I
will therefore respond to him here:

In article <8603101133.AA02049@s1-b.arpa>, REM%IMSSS@SU-AI.ARPA (Robert Elton Maas) writes:
> TK> Date: 7 Mar 86 12:19:22 GMT
> TK> From: hplabs!qantel!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Tom Keller)
> TK> Subject: Re: absolutely vs. relatively safe level
> TK>    I would like to suggest to you that *YOU* volunteer to be
> TK> amongst the first to contribute your death the "slowing of the
> TK> population explosion".  If you are unwilling to do so, then **HOW DARE
> TK> YOU** suggest that it is in any way acceptable to visit this fate on
> TK> some unknowing and probably unwilling soul?
> 
> I am already in the lottery for death by lung cancer caused by other
> people smoking near me (but I protest that as unfair to me), by cancer
> and other diseases caused by fumes from automobiles (which I accept
> but don't want to get any worse and would like to ameliorate), by
> cancer etc. caused by burning coal and fuel oil (which I want to
> greatly reduce by using nuclear energy instead), by explosion when
> gasoline trucks get in accidents if I happen to be near, by earthquake
> and other natural disasters, by poisoning from overturned trucks
> containing toxic chemicals (which I want to see better regulated to
> reduce chance of accident), etc. etc. -- Note I didn't say I wanted to
> name some person out there to die, I was referring to the lottery of
> risk from accidents and biosphere contamination. It is not fair for
> you to ask me to volunteer to "win" the death lottery when I wasn't
> asking anyone else to do that; it is enough that I play the lottery
> the same as anyone else. -- Regarding overpopulation, I am already
> making the sacrifice; long ago I decided to have only one or two
> children, maybe three but probably not, instead of the 5 children our
> neighbors in Sylmar had (they're catholic by the way), or the 8 that
> are advocated by a certain TV program, or the 20-some-odd that some
> couple in the appalachians had. Now if everyone else in the world would
> make the same sacrifice I'm making we'd have a lot more time to work
> on the problem of resources running out.
> 

   I reject your disclaimers.  Granted, every one of the problems you mention
is a hazard.  I see this as no excuse for unnecessarily introducing new, even
more dangerous hazards. 

   I repeat here:  the nuclear industry, the govenrment, and the nuclear
supporters have been repeatedly caught in lie after misrepresentation regarding
the safety, health and cost issue surrounding nuclear energy.  They have
invalidated themselves as sources of reliable information on the subject.
I therefore do not see any reason for any thinking person to accept the
protestations of these sources as to the relative safety of plutonium.  I refer
you to the asbestos issue.  The government, the asbestos industry and the
medical establishment insisted for *YEARS* that asbestos was completely safe.
We all know how wrong they were.  There is some evidence to suggest that for
a substantial portion of that time, they were fully aware of the dangers of
asbestos.  Yet they continued to propagandzie the alleged safety of the
substance.  Certainly, the toxicity of plutonium is at *LEAST* as difficult
to evaluate as the dangers of asbestos.  (I do include the radiation hazards
as part of the safety issue, so for the sake of brevity 'toxicity' may be
considered to mean 'safety and toxicity')

   The government and the nuclear industry have far too much to gain, for me
to accept that they simply would not commit such perjury.  I suggest that 
anyone that believes they would not is hopelessly naive, or a complete fool.

> TK>    This is simply another case of "I don't care what the risks and
> TK> costs of my progress are, so long as *I* don't have to bear them"
> TK> syndrome...becoming more and more popular of late.
> 
> Nope, I'm bearing down to do my part to alleviate population explosion
> on Earth, and if everyone else does likewise this planet will continue
> to be tolerable. How about you, how many children do you have already
> and how many do you plan to have?


  I have none.  Nor will, I, as I chose to have a vasectomy at 25.  My
reasoning for this decision was highly personal.  Suffice it to say that I
considered the issues of population, genetic pool purity (not to be confused
with any Aryan or racial philosophies), my own peace of mind (being a highly
nervous and impatient man), and the well-being of any potential children (I
could not bring myself to impose me as a father on some poor, unsuspecting
child).  Obviously, everyone cannot and should take this step.

  The issues of nuclear energy (and materials, including waste) are complex,
and are *NOT* strictly technical.  There is no simple answer.  A mindless
acceptance of th govenrment/nuclear industy's party line on the safety and
desireability of nuclear energy is every bit as stupid and wasteful as the
mindless (anf ignorant) approach many anti-nukers take.  One of the greatest
problems I see in resolving the issues is in finding reliable, believable
information on the technical aspects.  

   The end is not in sight.  Hopefully, those who would push progress ahead at
any cost can be kept under control sufficiently that they will not destroy the
entire ecosystem.  Hopefully, those that blindly oppose *ANY* progress will
be suffiently controlled that the human race does not stangnate.  The really
important issue is to learn to evaluate any and all progress in terms of
human safety,welfare and needs, as well as economics, profitability and
technical feasibility.

  Thank you.

(odd...shouldn't this discussion be taking place in net.politics?)

-- 

====================================

Disclaimer:  I hereby disclaim any and all responsibility for disclaimers.

tom keller
{ihnp4, dual}!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020

(* we may not be big, but we're small! *)

------------------------------

Date:     Tue, 11 Mar 86 15:17:17 CST
From: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI <wmartin@almsa-1.arpa>
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject:  SRB Seal Failure Detail

One point I have not seen answered in the net and TV publicity on the
SRB seal failure:

Was there any reason that the seal failed at the particular point it
did, creating the jet of high-temperature gasses that had the subsequent
effect of melting or weakening the attachment hardware? Or was this
simple bad luck? If the seal was going to fail anyway, could it have
just as readily failed at some other point in the joint's circumference,
maybe jetting out into the air instead of back toward the external tank?

If it had failed in the latter fashion, I get the impression that the
flight could perhaps have continued successfully -- the only ill effect would
have been a minor loss of thrust from the defective SRB, which probably
could have been compensated for with normal procedures. Is this the case?

Or is there something about the configuration of the SRB segment seal that
made it likely or inevitable that, if a seal failure would occur, it would
happen at the point it did, thus having the disastrous effects we saw?

Will Martin

ARPA/MILNET: wmartin@almsa-1.ARPA     USENET: seismo!brl-bmd!wmartin

------------------------------

Date: 11 Mar 86 15:58:18 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-lcc!lll-crg!mordor!ut-sally!ut-ngp!cgeiger@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Charles S. Geiger, Esq.)
Subject: Re: Response to Greg Earle's mindless anti-human flame
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa


>>>In the long run, mankind is the one hope of all life on Earth.

hahahaha....Ha Ha...HAHAHAHAHA!  Is this some kind of joke?
You've got to be kidding.  Oh sure, the sun will supernova in
3 billion years, so only humans can save life in the long run--
SO WHAT?                                             ^^^^

I also don't think you're being fair to Mr. Earle--he never says
that he hates people; he merely suggests that we're screwing our
planet up with too many people.  To equate the two is the equivalent
of Reagan calling those who are against contra aid communist
sympathizers.

------------------------------

Date: 10 Mar 86 12:38:06 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-lcc!lll-crg!seismo!rlgvax!hadron!klr@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Kurt L. Reisler)
Subject: Challenger crew compartment found?
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa


	According to the media reports I am hearing this morning, it
	would appear that the crew compartment, or at least a large
	portion of it, has been located about 16 miles off the Florida
	coast.  According to these reports, the remains of some of the
	crew, as yet unidentified, have been found with the wreckage.
	According to these reports, a portion of the crew compartment
	and remains have been recovered and were transported to Patrick
	AFB ("under cover of darkness") for study.  NASA clims that
	they told the relatives of the Astronauts that the remains had
	been located, but Gregory Jarvis' father says that he was not
	notified, that he found out by listening to the news.  However,
	he has stated that he is "releived that the bodies may have
	been found.  [He] never felt comfortable with the idea that
	[his] son had just been blown to bits."

	So, it starts again.  

	We have had our period of National mourning, the memorial
	services, the ongoing investigations and finger pointing.  We
	now have another national duty to perform, an appropriate
	funeral service.  Should the Challenger Crew be interred at
	Arlington National Cemetary, or at sites chosen by the
	famillies. (Are the crew of the Appolo fire interred at
	Arlington National?)

	Let us pause to remember their courage and sacrifice, then let's
	find out what went wrong and fix it so we can get back into gear
	with the space program.  The guilty parties (if there really are any) 
	will be made to pay the price by society and history.  

	The Dream is, and must remain, alive!

	Kurt Reisler
	..!seismo!hadron!klr

------------------------------

Date:         Wed, 12 Mar 1986 02:38 EST
From: Kenneth Ng  <KEN%NJITCCCC.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu>
Subject:      Solar energy
To: Space Digest <SPACE@s1-b.arpa>

A few tidbits I've picked up on solar energy, taken from "The
Health Hazards of NOT Going Nuclear", by Petr Beckman.
At best, the concentration of solar energy is 1 kilowatt per
square meter.  Current solar technology is about 10% efficient,
theoritical maximum efficiency is 22%.  Allowing a 50% spacing
between solar collectors to allow for repair and shadows, and you
have a solar power plant 50 square miles big to generate 1000
megawatts of power.  I'm quite sure that even if a fusion reactor
needs an Astrodome to fit in, that it will not span 50 square miles.

------------------------------

Date: 12 Mar 86 11:10:40 GMT
From: ucdavis!deneb!cccmm@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Mei Su)
Subject: Re: Bronowski and historical fossils
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

(************  chomp chomp chomp *****************)

> 
> Modern students read neither Newton nor Euclid.  I've recently made a
> small hobby of reading them both, and in both cases I've been impressed.


Speaking as a "Modern student" I would like to say that I have spend
a lot of my time as a modern student reading and studying Newton's
physics and Euclid's geometry.  I do not know what time period you
where referring to, as modern, but in 1986, I have seen many students
study and apply the works of these two scientific giants.

> 
> was unquestioned until around 1900.  Textbooks used in this country followed
> the style of Euclid until around 1960--they left out the hard parts--and
> it was Sputnik that inspired the change!  But Newton's style was dropped
> IMMEDIATELY from calculus and physics.
> 
> 1960!!!!  Hardly a fossil.  Nor was it dropped from the curriculum because
> it became out of date, mind you.  It was dropped because it was a difficult
> approach to geometry, and American high school students have weak minds.
> 

Please, do not throw all high school students into a large pot and
insult them.  Since many of the of the readers must have graduated
from high school, they were once high school students once.  I was a
high school student just 3 years ago, and although I was not vary
good, I would like to think that I do not have a "weak mind".
Perhaps some people had a bad experience in their high school years,
but some of us did not.

> >I think you missed the point of Bronowski's remarks.
> 
> I think you missed the point of the posting you're complaining about.
> 
 I think you missed everything.



> >to remain around for a few hundred million more years), but the England of
> >1066 isn't around in any recognizable form NOW.
> 
> The England of 1066 IS around in a very recognizable form: our language.
> Of course, it is not recognizable as 1066ish unless you make an EFFORT to
> learn about it, but etymology is a very fascinating and revealing subject.
> If you want to remain ignorant of your own culture, that's your problem.
> But don't call everything you're ignorant of "fossils", thereby excusing
> yourself of "charges" of "cultural ignorance".  <Shudder>
> 
> >                                                 And yet, the culture
> >formed after the Norman invasion didn't die, it evolved into our culture.
> 
> You got it!
> 
> And the same goes for Homer and Euclid!
> 
> We're going to get into space some day, and when we do, Homer and Euclid
> and 1066 will be taken along, as relevant as ever.  Otherwise, why bother?
> 
> ucbvax!brahms!weemba	Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720



Maybe all this discussion about history and culture and evolution
would be more appreciated in net.history or net.culture.  
net.space is for discussion of space.


					M. Su

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #205
*******************


0,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA06725; Wed, 12 Mar 86 23:01:06 PST
	id AA06725; Wed, 12 Mar 86 23:01:06 PST
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 86 23:01:06 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8603130701.AA06725@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #206

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 206

Today's Topics:
	   Re: Why does everyone want to leave this planet?
			      Re: Fusion
			   GIOTTO Hotnews.
			     Solar energy
		       SRB Seal Failure Detail
		       Seal failure on the SRB
			   Re: Red Sirius?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 12 Mar 86 00:36:41 GMT
From: hplabs!qantel!ptsfa!ptsfd!djo@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dan'l Oakes)
Subject: Re: Why does everyone want to leave this planet?
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <441@3comvax.UUCP>, michaelm@3comvax.UUCP (Michael McNeil) writes:
> We humans are the caretakers of the results of 4 billion years of
> evolutionary history of life on Earth.  The danger to that huge
> investment of time and blood -- perhaps the only life in the
> universe -- is too great for us to depend on platitudes, and this
> extreme danger is likely to persist indefinitely into the future.  
> I'd like us to have more baskets to put our eggs in -- rather than
> depending on some magical transformation of human nature to occur.  
> (Then, and in parallel, let's work on the required transformations!)  

Very good point!  Only, what makes us humans the sole caretakers?  I think
evolution, as long as we're characterizing it as a nonrandom force (as you
implicitly do in your article -- otherwise "4 billion years of evolutionary
history" is no more intrinisically valuable than empty space), would prefer
to have more baskets than just humankind into which to put its eggs.  If
evolution == survivability has any intrinsic value, then one must question 
the value of saving the only self-exterminating species on the planet at the 
cost of every other product of evolution to date!

Sorry to those who want messages on the shuttle program, but this kind of
reasoning is so close to valid it requires some response.  

And lest there be doubt as to which side I'm on...I'd go, in a MINUTE!!

(if they'd let me...)

Dan'l Danehy-Oakes

"We'll have nothing to do with the PLAIN-bellied sort!"

------------------------------

Date: 12 Mar 86 03:09:46 GMT
From: hplabs!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Michael McNeil)
Subject: Re: Fusion
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <[MC.LCS.MIT.EDU].846118.860310.KFL> KFL@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU
("Keith F. Lynch") writes:
>
>Interstellar spaceships should be fusion powered.

Actually, unless the "ramscoop" principle is used for acquiring
fuel for fusion, I'd think that interstellar spaceships should
be anti-matter powered -- it is vastly more efficient.  Where
do you get the anti-matter fuel, you might well ask.  Answer:  
you make it on Earth -- or, better yet, in space -- perhaps
using fusion to power the synthesis.  Then store the anti-matter
fuel on board ship -- carefully segregated from normal matter.  

-- 

Michael McNeil
3Com Corporation     "All disclaimers including this one apply"
(415) 960-9367
..!ucbvax!hplabs!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm

	"What matters it how far we go?" his scaly friend replied,
	"There is another shore, you know, upon the other side.  
	The farther off from England, the nearer is to France;
	Then turn not pale, beloved snail, but come and
		join the dance."  
			Lewis Carroll, *The Lobster Quadrille*

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 12 Mar 86 16:51:04 cet
To: SPACE-INCOMING@s1-b.arpa
From: WMORTENS%ESTEC.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: GIOTTO Hotnews.

From: Uffe K. Mortensen, ESA. (The European Space Agency)
To: Space friends on ARPA.
Latest news and schedule for the GIOTTO/Halley encounter :
(all hours are in GMT+1 )

13mar 22:55  Giotto traverses the bow-shock of Halley
14mar  0:15    -    enter the Halley tail.
       0:30  First dust particle impacts expected ( at 70 km/sec )
       0:40  Entry outer atmosphere of Halley
      01:02  Distance from nucleus 1500km.
      01:02  Distance  from nucleus 540 km.
      01:15  End of first mission (Halley)
 ca   04:00  Checkout and start of first hibernation maneuver.

The last orbital maneuver for this mission took place 11march, and
was based on ESA data and data from VEGA-1 and VEGA-2.
The three sets of orbital data were consistant, leading to an
estimated encounter distance of 540km, with a sigma of 40km.
Any dust particle with a mass greater than .1 g is expected to
traverse the spacecraft. Depending on the where it hits, loss of
attitude might also occur. (That is why GIOTTO is spinning, by the way)
At attitude deviations greater than 1 degr, ground links will be lost
there is thus a significant risk of dammage or loss of link involved.

--- Uffe.

------------------------------

Posted-Date: Wed 12 Mar 1986 11:38:14 EST
Date: Wed 12 Mar 1986 11:38:14 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Solar energy
To: Kenneth Ng <KEN%NJITCCCC.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu>
In-Reply-To: Kenneth Ng's message of Wed, 12 Mar 1986 02:38 EST
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa

> A few tidbits I've picked up on solar energy, taken from "The
> Health Hazards of NOT Going Nuclear", by Petr Beckman.
> At best, the concentration of solar energy is 1 kilowatt per
> square meter.  Current solar technology is about 10% efficient,
> theoritical maximum efficiency is 22%.  Allowing a 50% spacing
> between solar collectors to allow for repair and shadows, and you
> have a solar power plant 50 square miles big to generate 1000
> megawatts of power.  I'm quite sure that even if a fusion reactor
> needs an Astrodome to fit in, that it will not span 50 square miles.

Some corrections:

(1) One kilowatt per square meter is for *ground based* solar power
(at noon). Power satellites would transmit microwaves that could be
converted to electricity much more efficiently, so less land would be
used (and the rectifying antennas would be made of mesh so crops or
animals could be grown/grazed underneath).  Even without powersats,
ground based light collectors can be made more effective with orbital
mirrors (but the spot size of the reflection is large, so this doesn't
work on a small scale).

(2) The best current solar cells are much better than 10% efficient (but
are expensive), and solar-thermal systems (in which concentrated sunlight
heats a fluid that drives a heat engine) can be as efficient as
conventional power plants.  The 22% efficiency is for silicon cells, I
think; GaAs cells can be more efficient.

The problem with nuclear power now seems to be the extra capital investment
needed to build a nuclear plant offsets the savings in fuel costs, and
the complexity of nuclear plants makes them unreliable.

------------------------------

Posted-Date: Wed 12 Mar 1986 12:30:41 EST
Date: Wed 12 Mar 1986 12:30:41 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: SRB Seal Failure Detail
To: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI <wmartin@almsa-1.arpa>
In-Reply-To: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI's message of Tue, 11 Mar 86 15:17:17 CST
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa

>Was there any reason that the seal failed at the particular point it
>did, creating the jet of high-temperature gasses that had the subsequent
>effect of melting or weakening the attachment hardware? Or was this
>simple bad luck? If the seal was going to fail anyway, could it have
>just as readily failed at some other point in the joint's circumference,
>maybe jetting out into the air instead of back toward the external tank?

The flame quickly spread around the joint.  At the time of the explosion
flame was coming out along an arc of ~ 315 degrees.  It's amazing the
steel retaining pins in the SRB joint held.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 12 Mar 86 11:12 PST
From: Dave Platt <Dave-Platt%LADC@cisl-service-multics.arpa>
To: Space <Space@s1-b.arpa>
Subject: Seal failure on the SRB
Randomness: Those who talk don't know.  Those who don't talk, know.

According to what I've heard, the original failure of the SRB seal may
very well have occurred on the outside of the SRB, away from the
side facing the fuel tank.  I believe that the photos of the puff of
steam and smoke during the first second of burn indicate that the
burnthrough was pointed away from the ET.  Unfortunately, once the seal
was breached at one spot, the flow of hot gasses would (and apparently
did) lead to further erosion of the seal, and the width of the
leak increased over time.  Eventually the leak burned far enough around
the seal to (possibly) begin burning away the SRB-to-ET support
structure, permitting the SRB to break loose and collide with the ET.

Take a look at the latest issue of "Discover" for one possible
reconstruction of the accident, based on sensor data available to date.

Disclaimer:  the accuracy of this reconstruction (and any other) is
subject to LOTS of debate... until the SRB is recovered and analyzed,
we won't really know just how badly the seal burned.

------------------------------

Date: 12 Mar 86 11:19:54 PST (Wednesday)
From: Lynn.ES@xerox.com
Subject: Re: Red Sirius?
In-Reply-To: all those messages prompted by Barnes's message
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Cc: Lynn.es@xerox.com

Why don't people go out and look at Sirius instead of arguing in a
vacuum?  It turns out I often do (I mean look; the fact that I often
argue is not the point :-), not to prove the "Red Sirius" theory, but
because I like the stars.  Sirius almost always looks blue-white to me,
but it has on occasion looked as red as a stop light.  It has also
looked quite green, in fact within minutes of looking red.  These funny
colors occurred when Sirius was low in the sky and the air was fairly
turbulent.

While I must commend Firth for looking rather than blindly arguing, his
observation of Venus instead of Sirius is probably irrelevant, because
the finite size of planets (roughly a minute of arc for Venus) makes
them behave differently than stars with regard to atmospheric effects;
for example, planets twinkle decidedly less than stars.

After seeing Sirius quite red from atmospheric effects, I have to
believe it simply got into the literature as red from such a viewing,
and has been perpetuated in print.

/Don Lynn

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #206
*******************


0,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA01428; Thu, 13 Mar 86 03:01:14 PST
	id AA01428; Thu, 13 Mar 86 03:01:14 PST
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 86 03:01:14 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8603131101.AA01428@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #207

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 207

Today's Topics:
		     re-send, eggs in one basket
			     Solar energy
			 The Challenger Crew
			 Manned space program
	  Remains of Apollo 1 Crew.  Where are they buried?
			 SPACE Digest V6 #201
			 SPACE Digest V6 #201
			 SPACE Digest V6 #203
			 SPACE Digest V6 #203
			      Re: Fusion
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 1986 March 11 02:07:12 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@su-ai.arpa>
To: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
Subject: re-send, eggs in one basket

(Following message failed because "ulysses!..." was too long, in fact
 so long I failed to notice it didn't have a hostname specified; resending)

Date: 1986 March 10 02:04:47 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@SU-AI.ARPA>
To:ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!akguc!codas!peora!ucf-cs!usfvax2
!3b2bame!jc3b21!fgd3
CC:SPACE@Angband
Subject:eggs in many baskets for survival

FGD> Date: 4 Mar 86 03:08:24 GMT
FGD> From: ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!akguc!codas!peora!ucf-cs

!usfvax2!3b2bame!jc3b21!fgd3  (Fabbian G. Dufoe)
FGD> Subject: Re: Why does everyone want to leave this planet?
FGD>      I am reminded of the story (probably apocryphal) of the man who, in
FGD> the 1930s, recognized the imminence of a global war.  A peaceful man, he
FGD> wanted no part of it.  After long and careful study he identified a place
FGD> of no strategic importance to anyone.  He packed his bags and moved to
FGD> Guadalcanal.

That shows the folly of thinking one single place, no matter how safe
looking, will escape random disaster. We need to put our eggs in many
baskets, not just one. If that man had been part of a survival club,
and if that club had distributed its members in many different places
to escape the upcoming war, a few would be unlucky but the rest would
have survived nicely.

FGD>      Emigrating to a quiet asteroid won't keep you safe from the next war.
FGD> Neither will the emigration to space of the "adventurous" allow those who
FGD> remain behind to live in peace.

Right, but if we emigrate to lots of asteroids and other places far
apart, it's very difficult for the big war to get them all. Human life
on Earth and on twenty asteroids may be obliterated, but human life on
the remaining thirty asteroids will flourish (assuming they aren't
dependent on Earth). <<"twenty" and "thirty" purely illustrative; no
claim is made as to the actual numbers>>

------- End undelivered message -------

------------------------------

Date:         Wed, 12 Mar 86 15:01:47 EST
From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
To: space digest <SPACE@s1-b.arpa>
Subject:      Solar energy

     A recent posting from Kenneth Ng quoted some obsolete figures for
solar power efficiencies.  This happens to be something I know something
about, so I present a more complete (and up to date) set of figures here.

> from "The Health Hazards of NOT Going Nuclear", by Petr Beckman.
> At best, the concentration of solar energy is 1 kilowatt per
> square meter.
  Correct.  This is at the earth's surface, at noon, on a panel
oriented perpendicular to the incident sunlight, on a clear day.
(In space, the energy density is about 1350 kw/m2)
Panels that do not track the sun average somewhat less, by a factor
of cos theta averaged from -90 to 90 degrees, or 2/pi.  If you then
add in night, the actual amount of incoming sunlight on a (non-tracking)
panel is 1/pi times this, or about 320 watts/meter2.  (If you track
the sun, the cos correction goes away, but the panels have to be
separated from each other to avoid shadowing, so the land area
needed increases)

> theoretical maximum efficiency is 22%.
     I don't have any idea where he gets this idea.  This is flat-out
WRONG.  In fact, existing solar cells beat this figure.
Maybe he means theoretical max efficiency for a single crystal, single
junction, unconcentrated silicon solar cell made using 1970 technology.
That IS about 22%.  The best figure I have for single crystal, single
junction, unconcentrated silicon using current technology is 27-29%.
(M.B. Spitzer, PhD thesis, Brown University, 1981; Tiedje et. al.,
IEEE Trans on Electron Dev., May 1984).
Theoretical limit for multibandgap cells is 40-75 percent, depending
on how many layers you want to make.

> Current solar technology is about 10% efficient.
This book must be using data from 1962.
Correct data (1985) is:
  Technology   Best efficiency
               Lab:    on sale:
  Single Cry.
   Silicon      19%       14%
  Amorph Si.    11%        5%
  GaAs          21%
  Conc. GaAs    26%

For reference, single crystal Si is what's mostly currently used
in terrestrial arrays.  Amorphous Si is used mostly in consumer
goods, like calculators; most people think some sort of amorphous
technology (not necessarily a-Si) will replace single
crystal for terrestrial arrays in a few years, when the efficiency
reaches 15 percent or so.  GaAs is not currently used for terrestrial
applications; I think some recent satellites have used it.

> Allowing a 50% spacing between solar collectors to allow for repair
> and shadows
     Seems a little high to me (unless you're talking tracking, in
which case it seems a little low), but I'll accept it.
>you have a solar power plant 50 square miles big to generate 1000
>megawatts of power.
 50 square miles/(0.6**2 sq.km per sq.mi)*1000000 m2/km2 = 1.4E8 m2
Even at your assumed efficiency of 10% * 1Kw/m2 *.67 packing fraction,
this is 9000 MW.  You made an arithmetic error.
     More to the point, the average home needs about 2 kW (ave) of
electricity.  Assume 15% efficiency, 1kW/m2, and include the 1/pi
correction, this means 21 square meters of area per home, or an area
15 feet by 15 feet.  This will fit on the roof.

The big problem for photovoltaics currently is price.  Cost for large
purchases is currently (1986) $6.00 per peak watt.   Installation, BOS,
etc.  pretty much doubles this cost to $12/watt.  Include the 1/pi
correction to get average watts from peak watts, and you get $38/watt.
Nuclear reactors are currently being built for about $6 per watt, and
run about 90% uptime, so the (capital cost) is about $7/watt.  (on the
other hand, there are fuel and operating costs for nuclear plants which
don't exist for photovoltaic arrays.  But I think (I don't know) that
these costs are small compared to the capital cost.)
   Many people think that photovoltaics will get down to about $0.80/watt
within a decade; in this case it looks very competitive.  I'm not sure I
believe all of the claims people make, however.
     On the other hand, photovoltaics is competitive NOW in third world
countries.  This is because these countries have not made the huge
investments needed to set up an electric grid--eg, a set of copper wires
connecting any point in the country to any other.   Current costs
(in the US) of extending the grid are about $10,000 per mile.  This is
just out of the reach of third world countries, and it is thus
economically worthwhile to generate electrically directly on site.

     I'm not sure what conclusion you can draw from these facts, except
that it is, at the current time, not at all clear which of many
technologies will win out in the next couple of decades (except to
say that oil will definitely lose out, sooner or later.)

                   --Geoffrey A. Landis, Brown University
                     Reply to: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA

------------------------------

Date:           Wed, 12 Mar 86 11:14:26 PST
From: Todd Johnson <lcc.todd@locus.ucla.edu>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Subject:        The Challenger Crew

In a perfect world I think it would be found fitting if we were to erect
an eternal flame outside of the Johnson Space Center with a plague to 
commemorate all those who have died in spacecraft above which would be the
pledge:
	"We shall always persevere"

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 12 Mar 86 18:17:45 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu>
Subject: Manned space program
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Cc: kfl@mc.lcs.mit.edu

  Many SF authors as early as the 1930s predicted that the first trip
to the Moon would occur around 1970.  Generally they predicted that by
1986 that we would have colonies on the Moon and Mars, and passenger
space liners in regular service.

  It seems to me that our manned space program is running backwards.
In 1969 we had people exploring the Moon.  In 1973 we had a space
station in low Earth orbit.  In 1975 we were able to link up with a
Soviet spacecraft.  In 1981 we were able to launch people into low
Earth orbit.  In 1986 we have no space station and cannot do any of
these things.

  Where did we go wrong?
								...Keith

------------------------------

Return-Path: <taw@strange>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 86 12:35:29 pst
From: Tom Wadlow <spar!taw@decwrl.dec.com>
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Remains of Apollo 1 Crew.  Where are they buried?

I believe that Grissom and Chaffee are buried at Arlington.  Ed White
was a West Point graduate and is buried there.  My source for this
information is "Carrying the Fire" by Michael Collins (Apollo 11 and
a West Point classmate of White).  Highly recommended.  Especially in
light of recent events involving John Young, Collins' partner on
Gemini 10.  --Tom

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 12 Mar 1986  23:08 EST
From: MINSKY%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Cc: Space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #201
In-Reply-To: Msg of 11 Mar 1986  06:27-EST from Ted Anderson <ota at s1-b.arpa>

The legend that our galaxy is unusually large came from the early work of
Harlow Shapley, I believe, because of some theoretical constants that
were later changed.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 12 Mar 1986  23:08 EST
From: MINSKY%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Cc: Space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #201
In-Reply-To: Msg of 11 Mar 1986  06:27-EST from Ted Anderson <ota at s1-b.arpa>

The legend that our galaxy is unusually large came from the early work of
Harlow Shapley, I believe, because of some theoretical constants that
were later changed.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 12 Mar 1986  23:31 EST
From: MINSKY%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Cc: Space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #203
In-Reply-To: Msg of 12 Mar 1986  02:20-EST from Ted Anderson <ota at s1-b.arpa>

I don't understand all the fuss about the seals and why it should take long to fix.  Evidently, O-rings were a bad idea in this case.  When they've decided that this was the trouble, surely it should take only a few weeks to
invent a suitable band-aid to fix the problem for the next year or two of flights, while a better method can be perfected.  The pressures and temperatures seem quite modest, until the seal breaks.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 12 Mar 1986  23:31 EST
From: MINSKY%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Cc: Space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #203
In-Reply-To: Msg of 12 Mar 1986  02:20-EST from Ted Anderson <ota at s1-b.arpa>

I don't understand all the fuss about the seals and why it should take long to fix.  Evidently, O-rings were a bad idea in this case.  When they've decided that this was the trouble, surely it should take only a few weeks to
invent a suitable band-aid to fix the problem for the next year or two of flights, while a better method can be perfected.  The pressures and temperatures seem quite modest, until the seal breaks.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 12 Mar 86 21:17:13 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@mc.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Fusion
To: ulysses!ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Cc: KFL@mc.lcs.mit.edu, Space@s1-b.arpa

    From: ulysses!ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu

    I think it's likely that fusion engines will soon be surpassed by
    antimatter engines.

  One problem with antimatter is where does one get it?  Hydrogen (the
fuel for fusion) is very common, but antimatter is not known to occur
naturally anywhere.
  Antimatter can be manufactured, but only by the use of the same
amount of energy as you can get out of it later.  Much more energy,
actually, because of the low efficiencies of manufacture.
  The only known way to store antimatter is as ions circling around in
a large circular vacuum chamber.  The ions keep giving off synchrotron
radiation and slowing down as they change direction, so a constant
input of energy is needed to maintain the storage.  Less energy is
needed for this in a larger ring, but rings are already many miles
around.  And not much antimatter can be stored in one, since the ions
all tend to repel eachother.
  Cold storage, as solid pellets, also has severe problems.  The
pellet must never touch the walls of its container.  Not even one
stray gas atom must touch the pellet.  If one did, it would make a
tiny explosion that would free millions of anti-atoms from the pellet,
most of which would collide with the walls of the container causing
millions of tiny explosions that would free trillions of atoms from
the walls of the container, many of which would collide with the
pellet ... rapidly escalating into a full scale annihilation explosion
with the force of trillions of H-bombs.  Such antimatter pellets
should be allowed to exist only millions of miles from Earth, lest all
life on one side of Earth be incinerated by an explosion within a few
thousand miles of Earth.
  Even if you had a way to store antimatter, you still have to find a
way to remove it from storage in a smooth flow, react it with matter
in a controlled manner, cause it to make thrust rather than heat, and
keep the deadly gamma rays away from the crew and the electronics and
the antimatter storage (gamma rays can cause atoms and anti-atoms to
suddenly go flying off in random directions, like into eachother).
  This sounds like a technology that is much further in the future
than controlled fusion.  If possible at all.

  One theory says that antimatter is identical to matter only switched
left to right.  This theory says that if Alice had stepped into the
looking glass, she would have annihilated most of England.  If this
theory is true, then all we have to do is somehow put a half twist on
a small section of space, sort of like making an H shaped cut in a
piece of paper and then taping the ends back together after giving
each one a quarter twist in opposite directions, only in three
dimensions.  Then, any matter put through the twist would come through
the other side as antimatter.  This would allow total conversion of
any sort of matter into energy, and would avoid the storage problems I
mentioned since no antimatter is ever stored, it is generated when it
is needed.
  According to relativity, space is curved.  The curvature can be
changed by rearranging masses.  So, while I see no way to put a half
twist into space, it is by no means theoretically impossible or
unthinkable.  The consequences of such a technology falling into the
wrong hands may be unthinkable, however.  At least I don't want to
think about it.
								...Keith

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #207
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA03802; Thu, 13 Mar 86 23:01:05 PST
	id AA03802; Thu, 13 Mar 86 23:01:05 PST
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 86 23:01:05 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8603140701.AA03802@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #208

*** EOOH ***
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 86 23:01:05 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #208

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 208

Today's Topics:
			      Red Sirius
			 Re: perflurocarbons
		 Re: Bronowski and historical fossils
		   Re: fossil fuels, space station
		    Steven Dourson, where are you?
			 Re: perflurocarbons
	Re: Response to Greg Earle's mindless anti-human flame
		    Re: It could have been worse.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:         Thu, 13 Mar 86 13:20:16 EST
From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
To: space digest <SPACE@s1-b.arpa>
Subject:      Red Sirius

    Around '76 or so, when the Archaeoastromomy subject first came
around, I went to a lecture about it by Ken Brecher (then at MIT).   He
said that (1) The Egyptians were very interested in Sirius, because they
timed the floods of the Nile by it.  It seems unlikely that they would
make a mistake on its color.  (2)  Sirius gets quite high above the
horizon.  It seems unlikely that they would happen to observe it, and it
only, at the horizon.  (3) Alpha Centauri, which never gets very high
above the horizon, is not described as red.
     The point of the recently discovered record of Sirius' color is that
this is a observation independent of the Egyptian observations, and it
still calls the star red.
     Brecher calculated that if Sirius B were a red giant, the observed
color of the system would indeed be reddish.  The problem is that if it
were a red giant only 2000 years or so ago, according to the best
present model of stellar evolution, it would not have had time to
cool off to the present temperature.   Brecher argued that this is a
reason to revise the present model.

                                --Geoffrey Landis

------------------------------

Date: 10 Mar 86 02:08:00 GMT
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!aglew@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: perflurocarbons
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa


About breathing liquids:

A long time ago I did a science fair project on aqualungs and the like.
I could swear that one of my sources was a Scientific American article
about lungfishes; possibly in the same article some researcher described
flooding the lungs with oxygen rich and salt balanced water. I even think
that he did it to himself.

------------------------------

Date: 13 Mar 86 02:01:12 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-lcc!lll-crg!topaz!harvard!cmcl2!lanl!jlg@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Jim Giles)
Subject: Re: Bronowski and historical fossils
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <12332@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> weemba@brahms.UUCP (Matthew P. Wiener) writes:
>What IS this nonsense?  Homer, Euclid, Newton, and Shakespeare are
>both interesting glimpses of a now dead civilization AND are important
>figures in the development of our own.  But fossils?  I can only assume
>YOU don't read Euclid or Homer.

I am one of the VERY FEW people I know who has read much of either.  The
difference between the Greek world of Homer and Euclid on the one hand and
the English world of Newton and Shakespeare on the other is similar to the
difference between Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon.  One lead to us, and the
other (with the exception of a few RARE cross-breeds) didn't.

>Historically, Euclid's _The Elements_ was the ONLY textbook for learning
>geometry until the 19th century.

Not true.  Euclid was 'rediscovered' during the Renaissance when western
culture was again growing.  Fortunately, the Arabs managed to keep some of
the old learning (or, at least, refrained from destroying it).  Unlike
Ptolemy, Euclid was not an official church priority, so we lost track of it
for a while.  That's why they're fossils: they're not part of the
mainstream.  We only know about them because 'Classical' culture became
fashionable and some enthusiastic scholars translated a bunch of the stuff
just in time for printing to get invented.

This brings me to the point I keep trying to make: when a civilization
DIES, things are LOST - sometimes it's not forever, but they are lost.  The
Greek civilization DIED - there is a lack of continuity between the ancient
Greek civilization and our own.  There is NO such lack between Newton and
us - we didn't have to rediscover it after it was unknown or obscure for
centuries.  (There was an ancient Greek called Democratus (I think) who
discovered that the Sun was the center of the solar system, and the planets -
including Earth went around it.  He even had the distances about right.
Why don't we know this theory as the 'Democratian System'?  Because his
civilization DIED and Copernicus had to do the work all over again.)

The point of Bronowski's remarks is that if our civilization DIES, those
that follow will have to go through a painful period of time before they
rediscover things we already know.  If they rediscover it through some
of our works that survive or if they independently discover it is not
relevant, it would be a sad thing to put our descendents through.

>...                              The Euclidean method of doing geometry
>was unquestioned until around 1900.  Textbooks used in this country followed
>the style of Euclid until around 1960--they left out the hard parts--and
>it was Sputnik that inspired the change!

I learned geometry from such a book.  But look closer!  The only thing
Euclidean are the first four postulates!  And they introduce Cartesian
coordinates in the first chapter!  (It must have been that ancient Greek
called Descartes instead of the one I'm familiar with. :-)

> But Newton's style was dropped
>IMMEDIATELY from calculus and physics.

My first calculus text used dots above the variables and called them
'fluxions'.  That every bit as similar to Newton as my geometry text is
similar to Euclid.

>The England of 1066 IS around in a very recognizable form: our language.

Which language?  Old english (which I can read, but not speak - the
original Beowulf was really poetry, unlike the translations)?  Old French
(of which I admit total ignorance)?  Modern English didn't settle to its
present form (even approximately) until about the time of Chaucer - about
the time printing was invented.

But, of course, my remark was directed at culture, not language.  And
an Englishman from 1066 would not find much that is familiar about our
culture. (I can't remember the last time I thought of a stirrup as the
'latest thing' in modern warfare.  I'm not the least bit afraid of
traveling through Wales for fear that Druids may capture me for sacrifice.
etc. :-)

>> And yet, the culture
>>formed after the Norman invasion didn't die, it evolved into our culture.
>
>You got it!

I GOT IT??!?  When did I lose it?  That is very much the same as what
Bronowski said to begin with: that is, it would be sad for our culture to
DIE rather than evolve into its own future.

Sorry for all this flaming.  It just irks me when someone seems to be
misunderstanding something deliberately.

J. Giles
Los Alamos

------------------------------

Date: 12 Mar 86 03:25:32 GMT
From: dual!apple!ems@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Mike Smith)
Subject: Re: fossil fuels, space station
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

I don't know how to break this to you, but incorporation into plants (of CO2)
would not result in an atmosphere devoid of O2.  Seems that the plants have
this habit of spitting out the O2 and puting the C into storage ... Does 
take water though, with consumption of its H2 and O.  Might be a problem in
a few million years, but by then it would be oil again ...

E. Michael Smith  ...!sun!apple!ems

'If you can dream it, you can do it'  Walt Disney

This is the obligatory disclaimer of everything. (Including but
not limited to: typos, spelling, diction, logic, and nuclear war)

------------------------------

Date: 12 Mar 86 17:07:45 GMT
From: hplabs!cygnet!oliven!barb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Barbara Jernigan)
Subject: Steven Dourson, where are you?
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Sorry, folks, but after six tries at email --

Steve, I have a response to your note on colonies.  Could you
write me again (I guess the daemons have been eating addresses again)
and add your US Mail address (just in case)?

Thanks!

Barb

------------------------------

Date: 9 Mar 86 04:36:00 GMT
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiucdcsb!carroll@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: perflurocarbons
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa


I think I recall that, but if my memory chips are not getting parity
errors, I believe that while the rats survived inside the liquid, none
survived re-entering a gas atmosphere.

------------------------------

Date: 10 Mar 86 19:41:39 GMT
From: ihnp4!cuae2!ltuxa!we53!wucs!wucec2!ph@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Response to Greg Earle's mindless anti-human flame
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <[MC.LCS.MIT.EDU].843289.860308.KFL> Keith Lynch writes:
>    					   . . . most (if not all) of the
>    world's ecosystem problems can be directly traced to humankind multiplying
>    like flies and devouring all available space!!!!
>
>  I don't think a 2% growth rate is 'multiplying like flies', and I
>don't think 10 acres per person is 'devouring all available space'.
>This message seems quite hysterical.  Do you hate mankind?  Do you
>hate yourself?

	    I fail to see the point to these rhetorical (I hope)
	questions.  I do not hate myself, nor do I hate mankind, but I
	do consider some of the things human beings have done to Earth's
	ecosystem because of population pressure and greed to be--well,
	let's try not to get too incendiary here--regrettable.

>    Try coming to East L.A. sometime.  I'll let you see the pregnant women
>    pushing toddlers in strollers, while they hold pre-schoolers by the arms,
>    with the older kids walking behind.  Then tell me that 'population isn't a
>    bad thing'.
>
>  Why don't YOU tell her that population IS a bad thing.  Just go up
>to her, and in your usual rabid manner say "Excuse me m'am but I think
>the world would be a much better place if you and all your children
>were dead."
>  If you find the sight of women and children so hateful, why don't
>you move out of the big city?

	    While I can think of some people of whom I would make
	statements like the above, she would not be one of them.  But
	you still have not addressed the fact that the world WOULD be a
	much better place if there were not so many people in it that we
	have to destroy so much of the life around us and fight among
	ourselves for food to eat, space to live, safe water to drink,
	clean air to breathe, etc.

>    I shouldn't need to mention the clubbing of baby seals to make coats for
>    Fucking Rich Moron women.
>
>  Please don't.  What about the slaughter in slaughterhouses?  Do you
>eat meat?  Chicken?  Fish?  What about vegetables, why should plants
>suffer?  What about animals that eat animals, are they as evil as
>people?

	    I do not eat meat.  While the destruction of any life is
	undesirable, I consider it less wrong to kill plants than
	animals.  (And because I do not "hate mankind", I do not propose
	that we starve ourselves to death rather than kill things in
	order to eat them.)  Carnivorous animals are less reprehensible
	than carnivorous people because they have less capacity for
	moral choice.  I do NOT intend to get into a debate about this
	in net.space; check net.veg archives for more discussion on this
	subject.

>    My idea of the main point in going into space is that an unintended
>    offshoot will be to get all the *f____g people* off of the earth, so
>    maybe the Planet and the animals (who beat us here by a LONG time) will
>    have a slim chance of repairing all the damage that humans have caused to
>    the ecosystem.
>
>  Why do you hate mankind so much?

	    "Please stop torturing that cat to death."
	    "Why do you hate me?"

>  Another reason for going into space is to bring plants and animals
>with us, so that there can be so many more of them over a much wider
>area for a much longer time.  In the long run, mankind is the one hope
>of all life on Earth.

	    In the LONG run, yes--just as in the long run going into
	space is the only thing that will save us from Sol's red giant
	stage.  But on a much shorter time scale we are a grave threat
	to much of the life on Earth.  Look at the number of species
	human beings have managed to extinguish, endanger, threaten,
	etc. in the time we've had, which compared to the time until
	it's time for us to save them is quite short.  How many will be
	left by then?
	    BTW, please note that I am NOT Greg Earle.  (I wouldn't
	concern myself about most of you, but Keith's apparent capacity
	for reasoning got me worried.)  I just stepped into this
	argument because Keith's article was so silly I couldn't resist.

						--pH
/*
 *	    "Oh, yeah?  Well, why don't YOU just try having a honeymoon
 *	on a goddamned mattress out in the middle of that goddamned
 *	hall?"
 */

------------------------------

Date: 10 Mar 86 15:39:31 GMT
From: ihnp4!houxm!mtuxo!mtgzz!jis1@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (j.mukerji)
Subject: Re: It could have been worse.
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>>of communication. Liberal arts bigotry is as ridiculous and offensive 
>>as hard science bigotry, n'est-ce pas? Sheesh.
>
>While it is uncommon to cross the two cultures, it is usually the scientist
>                                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>who tries/succeeds.
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>ucbvax!brahms!weemba	Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720

I doubt very much that there is any evidence to suggest that the scientists
try/succeed any more than liberal arts majors do. Of course, some 
"scientists" like to believe that that is the case for the edification of
their collective ego or whatever other strange reason!:-)

Jishnu Mukerji
AT&T Information Systems
Middletown NJ
mtgzz!jis1

The usual disclaimers....

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #208
*******************


0,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA04777; Fri, 14 Mar 86 03:01:15 PST
	id AA04777; Fri, 14 Mar 86 03:01:15 PST
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 86 03:01:15 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8603141101.AA04777@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #209

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 209

Today's Topics:
	      Re: Re: Morton-Thiokol Engineering Claims
			Survival by Migration
		 Re: Bronowski and historical fossils
			  Re: First Contact
			      correction
			    Re: Antimatter
				Colors
			 SPACE Digest V6 #203
				Aliens
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 11 Mar 86 23:12:46 GMT
From: ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!hropus!riccb!rjnoe@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Re: Morton-Thiokol Engineering Claims
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> I want to point out that as an engineer the most you can do when 
> management overrules you is to document your findings.  This gives 
> you protection if something goes wrong and places the blame 
> on the managers who overruled you.
> 
> You can not go to the press unless the manager's judgement is so bad
> that you are sure disaster will occur.  (Not probably occur, WILL occur).

As a professional engineer, I think this is rather irresponsible and
unethical.  If a professional has grave misgivings about a company project
that could significantly endanger the public safety or welfare, then the
professional is morally obligated to go outside the company if she has
exhausted all internal means of having herself heard.  This includes (but
is not limited to) contacting the press and law enforcement agencies.
Note that the engineer does not need to be publicly identified; newspapers
and television stations will happily accept any information of this type
"without attribution".  Moreover, such organizations will zealously try to
prevent release of such information under First Amendment principles.
--
Roger Noe			ihnp4!riccb!rjnoe

------------------------------

Date: 12 Mar 86 13:50:48 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-lcc!lll-crg!seismo!ut-sally!pyramid!pesnta!peora!jer@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (J. Eric Roskos)
Subject: Survival by Migration
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

[The poster references a science fiction writer as saying that when a
people migrates over great distances, the "smarter, more survivable types"
migrate first, and cites the Europeans colonizing the New World as an
example.]

Consider what happened when these "smarter" types left Europe for America.
Many left Europe because they had heard exaggerated stories of a wonderful
new world.  They came to America and found hostile natives, an absence of
the amenities to which they were accustomed, and a need to devote the rest
of their lives to simple survival.

I have some difficulty in seeing how that is "smarter".  Furthermore, I
think that a society in which all the "smarter" people went off to
colonize such inhospitable environments would experience a long lag in the
advancement of their knowledge.  Consider that, aside from people building
Industrial Age machinery, a lot of the more learned people did not come to
America until they were driven there by wars in their own countries.

Rather, I think that the desire to go to other environments is indeed
inspired perhaps by a dissatisfaction with the current environment (as the
poster suggested), but more by a desire to control your own direction than
a simple "I don't like it here and I'm a smart guy so I'm leaving"
attitude.  Given the thematic trends of most popular fiction on the
subject, I also tend to feel that a desire for "action" and "conquest" is
involved, since many of the popular Science Fiction stories are little
different from stories of Conan the Barbarian set in a high-tech
environment.

[Since I don't see what this has to do with singles, followups will go to
net.space (unless you change it), which I think is where the discussion
probably leaked from (since it's also leaking into net.columbia).]
-- 
	   eora.UUCP  Home:    \   /    jer@jerpc.CCUR
      795; CONCURRENT Comp    -- O --    ter Corp. SDC; (A Pe
		  Lake Road,   /   \    Orlando, FL

(The vanishing .signature line.)

------------------------------

Date: 13 Mar 86 03:21:11 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-lcc!lll-crg!topaz!harvard!cmcl2!lanl!jlg@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Jim Giles)
Subject: Re: Bronowski and historical fossils
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <389@lanl.ARPA> jlg@a.UUCP (Jim Giles) writes:
>      ...   (There was an ancient Greek called Democratus (I think) who
>discovered that the Sun was the center of the solar system, and the planets -
>including Earth went around it.  He even had the distances about right.
>Why don't we know this theory as the 'Democratian System'?  Because his
>civilization DIED and Copernicus had to do the work all over again.)

I was afraid I'd get this wrong.  The man's mane was Aristarchus of Samos.
Unfortunately, most of his books were destroyed with the library of
Alexandria.  His ideas are known only because some of the surviving books
made references to his.  This is also the type of thing that happens when a
culture dies, the 'invading hordes' destroy what's left out of spite or
fear or ignorance. (I can see it now: the chinese invaders get hold of a
treatice on cosmology - "It's one of those American things, all about fast
food restaurants and other worthless junk.  We don't need to bother with it
- just throw it in the fire!")

J. Giles
Los Alamos

------------------------------

Date: 12 Mar 86 19:34:55 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-lcc!well!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Tom Keller)
Subject: Re: First Contact
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <[MC.LCS.MIT.EDU].846042.860310.KFL>, KFL@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU ("Keith F. Lynch") writes:
>>     Incidentally, if we do encounter a friendly race that makes us
>>     look pretty inferior, our mental health may be preserved by
>>     some myths ...
> 
>   I don't think myths are needed.  We are way beyond the stage of
> worshiping what we don't understand.  If aliens with an advanced
> technology do show up, people will simply assume that their history is
> longer than ours, that we would have had very similar technology after
> not too many more decades or centuries ourselves rather than assuming
> that they are smarter or otherwise better than us.  Even if they DO
> prove to be smarter than us, it is generally believed that human
> intelligence enhancement should be possible within a few decades, by
> computer implants or whatever.  And of course we can enhance
> intelligence even today, simply by improving the schools.
> 								...Keith

   Oh, really?  We are beyond the stage of worshiping what we don't 
understand, are we?  I know one hell of a lot of people who worship "God",
"Buddah", "Allah", or whomever.  The *BELIEVE*, they have *FAITH*, many of
them mistakenly claim to *KNOW* that their godhead is truth.  But none of
them, to my knowledge, understand, or claim to understand, their god(s).


   You also made claims to the effect that there would be no reason to be 
paranoid of aliens, and that therefore we wouldn't.  Come now.  Probably the
single greatest factor in international politics on this planet is paranoia.
If we can't even learn to trust our neighbors on this planet, do you actually
expect us to believe that we'll trust aliens from another?


   I know that I would very much like to meet some aliens.  I doubt that I
ever will (not because I don't think they're out there, but because I have
rotten luck).  I would like to think that I would be calm and rationaly, if
presented with an alien lifeform.  I cannot, however, state categorically
that this is so, as I have never experieinced anything even remotely 
similar, and therefore have no idea what my reaction would actually be.

====================================

Disclaimer:  I hereby disclaim any and all responsibility for disclaimers.

tom keller
{ihnp4, dual}!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020

(* we may not be big, but we're small! *)

------------------------------

Date:         Thu, 13 Mar 86 17:32:21 EST
From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
To: space digest <SPACE@s1-b.arpa>
Subject:      correction

    In Space Digest V3#207, I posted that the solar intensity in space
is 1350 kw/m2.  I meant 1350 WATTS/m2, which is 1.35 kw/m2, of course.
                                            --GL

------------------------------

Posted-Date: Thu 13 Mar 1986 18:18:25 EST
Date: Thu 13 Mar 1986 18:18:25 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Re: Antimatter
To: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@mc.lcs.mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: "Keith F. Lynch"'s message of Wed, 12 Mar 86 21:17:13 EST
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa

Storing frozen antihydrogen:  surround the antihydrogen ball with a
spherical shell cooled to near 0 K.  A gas atom emitted from the wall
will travel in a random direction until it strikes another wall or
the pellet.  The chance it hits the pellet instead of another wall
can be reduced arbitrarily far by increasing the radius of the shell.
If the mechanism by which gas atoms are liberated is radiation
bombardment from the antimatter then for sufficiently large shell
radii the chain reaction dies out.  By the way, an explosion with
the force of "trillions of H bombs" would require the annihillation
of tens of millions of tons of antimatter.  Might we make it in
gram quantities first?

Getting antihydrogen:  we can currently make antiprotons at miserably
low efficiency (~10**-6).  Techniques have been developed and tested
for cooling the antiprotons (reducing their velocity dispersion) and
for decelerating them.  Positrons are easy to produce by pair production.
Recently techniques have been developed for slowing atoms by interactions
with laser light; sodium atoms have been slowed to a few meters/second by
this mechanism.  The same techniques should work with antihydrogen.
The atoms could then be plated out (slowly!) on antihydrogen pellets.

Using antimatter:  Even at current prices, antimatter might be useful
for triggering "clean" fusion weapons.  Reduce the cost by two or
three orders of magnitude and it could be useful for rocket fuel.
It would be used to heat much larger quantities of (say) hydrogen.
To guide antihydrogen into a rocket engine would be tricky but not
obviously impossible.  A small quantity would be vaporized by laser;
the resulting gas ionized with ultraviolet light and the resulting
plasma guided by magnetic fields.  Alternately, charged antihydrogen
pellets might be manipulated intact by electrostatic fields.

Antimatter and fusion are both terribly speculative.  I personally
like beam powered spacecraft; they seem much more practical.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 12 Mar 86 22:55:05 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@mc.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: Colors
To: FIRTH@tl-20b.arpa
Cc: KFL@mc.lcs.mit.edu, Space@s1-b.arpa

    From: FIRTH@tl-20b.arpa

    As another example, what about Homer's "wine-dark sea"?  I've sailed
    over that same sea, and it isn't wine coloured (nor particularly
    dark).

 Well, Homer was blind, you know.
								...Keith

------------------------------

Posted-Date: Thu 13 Mar 1986 17:04:00 EST
Date: Thu 13 Mar 1986 17:04:00 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #203
To: MINSKY%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu
In-Reply-To: MINSKY%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU's message of Wed, 12 Mar 1986  23:31 EST
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa

>I don't understand all the fuss about the seals and why it should take
>long to fix.  Evidently, O-rings were a bad idea in this case.  When
>they've decided that this was the trouble, surely it should take only a
>few weeks to invent a suitable band-aid to fix the problem for the next
>year or two of flights, while a better method can be perfected.  The
>pressures and temperatures seem quite modest, until the seal breaks.

First, they have to identify why the seal failed  -- lots of tests will
have to be done.  They have to identify all the other hidden flaws
in the shuttle system (there are likely to be a lot of them, as Young's memo
shows).  They have to redesign the problem areas in a way that will avoid
the problems.  Then they have to verify the fixes actually work, and refix
the ones that don't.  I estimate three years until the next flight.  Another
explosion soon would likely ground the shuttles permanently, and NASA won't
risk that.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 12 Mar 86 23:41:09 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@mc.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: Aliens
To: brahms!desj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Cc: KFL@mc.lcs.mit.edu, Space@s1-b.arpa

    From: brahms!desj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (David desJardins)

    Jong@HIS-BILLERICA-MULTICS.ARPA writes:
    >... Most likely, we would encounter an unimaginably more advanced
    >civilization.

       I see this kind of statement a lot, and it really seems pretty
    silly to me.

  Our civilization is very new compared to the lifetime of Earth.  A
species from a planet where life started a few percent sooner or
evolved a few percent faster might have invented computers and
starships while dinosaurs were the most advanced thing on Earth.
  Where would such a civilzation be today?
  Lets say we were to pick up a radio signal from aliens at some
distant star.  Assuming the average civilization capable of sending
such a signal lasts for the lifetime of their star, which is around
ten to the tenth years, what are the chances that we will have caught
them within a century of the beginning of that civilization?
  If the average civilization lasts ten to the tenth years and
broadcasts a message from the time they are first able to build
equipment to do so (equivalent to 1940s Earth technology) until their
sun goes nova after ten to the tenth years, then the probabilty that a
signal is from some civilzation less than or equally advanced as ours
is only 4 in a billion.
  If we were to go exploring, the odds are somewhat better, since we
can contact a stone age culture by going there, but not by listening
to the radio.  But, assuming mankind is one million years old, and
that that is a typical pre-technical duration for a species, chances
of finding such a stone age culture rather than a culture far in
advance of ours is still only one in ten thousand.
  It is quite mind boggling to me.  I think about all the technical
progress that has been made in the last hundred years, or even in the
last ten years, and try to project ahead.  I can think of all sorts of
things that might exist in a century, but I really can't imagine what
might be around in a thousand years, any more than the average person
of the year 1000 could have imagined ARPAnet or even USEnet.
  Of course it is possible that there are no other technical
civilizations, or that they are but they always blow themselves up
within a century, or that there is no other life, or that they are
maintaining 'radio silence', or that...   Who can say?  I hope I live
to find out.
								...Keith

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #209
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA05934; Fri, 14 Mar 86 07:01:18 PST
	id AA05934; Fri, 14 Mar 86 07:01:18 PST
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 86 07:01:18 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8603141501.AA05934@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #210

*** EOOH ***
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 86 07:01:18 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #210

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 210

Today's Topics:
		      Free goods from free space
			      "Fossils"
			Re: Fusion for Rockets
		    Re: Was Sirius red after all?
		 Re: Challenger II & Science Fiction
		   LA Area:  Shuttle Talk Cancelled
		 Re: Bronowski and historical fossils
		 Re: Bronowski and historical fossils
	   Re: Why does everyone want to leave this planet?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 13 Mar 86 00:15:28 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@mc.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: Free goods from free space
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Cc: KFL@mc.lcs.mit.edu

    From: Leslie R. Eastman <lreastma@crdc-vax2.arpa>

    Some people on this net talk like free food, energy and building material
    are there in space just waiting to be picked up and beamed back to earth
    where it will also be free for the taking by who ever needs it.

  Pretty much, yes.  All that is needed is practical robotics and a
modicum of AI.  Then you can send robot probes into space that
reproduce themselves and that mine asteroids, moonlets, and comets,
that get energy from sunlight or perhaps from uranium in the
asteroids, and that manufacture various goods from apples to cars,
from oranges to computers, from gasoline to buildings, from toys to
T-bone steaks.  These can be parachuted to Earth for use there, or can
be used by people colonizing space.
  What's more, these robots could build space colonies for us.  Fully
furnished, where the phones are clean and you can get a good haircut
(apologies to Douglas Adams).  Anyone who wanted to would be able to
board a space-robot-manufactured safe shuttle at the nearest airport,
and go live for free in a giant O'Neill type colony, complete with
forests and streams and (small) mountains and fully furnished houses
with central heating and air conditioning.  (This should answer those
people who asked how we would 'force' people to move to space.)

								...Keith

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 12 Mar 86 23:43:52 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@mc.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: "Fossils"
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Cc: KFL@mc.lcs.mit.edu

  "Fossil" isn't the right word.  But it is clear what Bronowski (are
you sure it wasn't Sagan?) means.
  If we were to colonize space, the working language would be English
and they would fly the U.S. flag.  Even if they eventually had a
revolution, they would still speak the same language and think the
same sorts of thoughts and have a constitution and free elections and
private enterprise and they would eat potato chips and ice cream.
  We owe a lot to Homer and Euclid.  But their culture is long gone.
The last vestige fell in 1453 with the sack of Constantinople.  Our
civilization, and that of the Soviet Union and of Japan are much more
the inheritors of Euclid than anyone in Greece today.  Greece has no
space program and will not have any space colonies.  Neither will
Troy, Egypt, Ghana, Babylon, Tyre, Carthage, or Rome.  The fact that
in some cases there are still countries or cities with these names has
nothing to do with it.  The fact that they are remembered by us and
helped inspire us has nothing to do with it.  They are gone.
  Lets not let the same thing happen to us.  Lets not leave space to
the other nations.
								...Keith

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 12 Mar 86 21:42:57 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@mc.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Fusion for Rockets
To: dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
Cc: KFL@mc.lcs.mit.edu, Space@s1-b.arpa


    Power can be supplied to all points in the solar
    system by kilometer-size lasers.

  Since it takes hours for a signal to travel to or from the outer
solar system, any such laser would have to know just where the target
will be.  This would make any sort of interplanetary travel except
prearranged computer controlled travel quite difficult.  This is the
trolley-car approach.  Perhaps this is the way to go, but it has a lot
of restrictions.

    Interstellar ships could be beam powered (laser sails) ...

  Perhaps a laser could be used to vaporize the reaction mass, as I
assume you meant in the previous paragraph, but as for laser sails,
how would the starship decelerate as it approaches its destination?

    Fusion limits you to about 10% of the speed of light.

  The starship could pick up fuel, i.e. interstellar hydrogen, en
route.  As such, it can get a close to the speed of light as you like.

								...Keith

------------------------------

Date: 14 Mar 86 05:43:20 GMT
From: brahms!gsmith@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Gene Ward Smith)
Subject: Re: Was Sirius red after all?
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <1146@lsuc.UUCP> msb@lsuc.UUCP (Mark Brader) writes:

>> > By the way, in latest Sky&Telescope there's a note on Sirius being
>> > reddish in recorded history (in fact about 600 AD), because at that
>> > time its white-dwarf companion was in the red giant stage. It's hard

>> I recently (two months ago?) read an article in the Boston Globe
>> that said roughly the same thing - Sirius was reddish within recorded
>> history.  I posted the same question to net.astro.  The general response

>   Ancient Babylonian, Greek, and Roman texts were known to consistently
>   refer to Sirius as red.  But now there is medieval evidence for this as
>   well.  Wolfhard Schlosser and Werner Bergmann of the Ruhr University

    One other problem with the Sirius B as red giant theory: Sirius B has 
about the same temperature as Sirius A: about 12000 K if I remember right.
This is *much cooler* than some other white dwarves, and seems to indicate
a considerable cooling-off period. Also, where is there any sign of a left-
over planetary nebula?

ucbvax!brahms!gsmith    Gene Ward Smith/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720
          "There are no differences but differences of degree 
            between degrees of difference and no difference"

------------------------------

Date: 14 Mar 86 05:58:05 GMT
From: brahms!gsmith@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Gene Ward Smith)
Subject: Re: Challenger II & Science Fiction
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <8603092000.AA25082@s1-b.arpa> lcc.todd@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU (Todd Johnson) writes:

>	There's been a lot of trashing of science fiction on this net. I 
>don't like it. Arthur Clarke is a VIP at NASA. So is Robert A. Heinlein,
>Larry Niven , Isaac Asimov and who knows else. Why? Because among other
>things they explored the possible outcomes of numerous (including some 
>as yet unplanned) space missions. That's why Heinlein was required reading
>for the Apollo astronauts. The majority of people who write science fiction
>KNOW what they're talking about or have contact with people who are more than
>willing to supply them with copious detail. For people on this net who
>haven't even tried science fiction is suggest "RENDEZVOUS WITH RAMA" by
>Arthur C. Clarke.

    Speaking as one who has been reading sci-fi since starting on Lucky Starr
at a very tender age, I have to say that the vast majority of sci-fi authors
*do not* know what they are talking about. The four authors quoted are better
than most (and Clarke sometimes even writes well) but Heinlein & Niven have
plenty of BS, and most sci-fi authors much more. I *like* sci-fi a lot, but
I refuse to fool myself into thinking that it is much good either as science
or as literature. Sometimes the science is pretty good (Rama or Black Cloud)
sometimes the literature is good but the science awful (C.S. Lewis). Often
both are bad; sometimes the literary merit is less than nil but the science
purports to be good, and isn't (R.L. Forward: read my review in net.sf-lovers/
net.math). 

ucbvax!brahms!gsmith    Gene Ward Smith/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720
          "There are no differences but differences of degree 
            between degrees of difference and no difference"

------------------------------

Date: 13 Mar 1986 22:39:29 PST
Subject: LA Area:  Shuttle Talk Cancelled
From: Craig Milo Rogers <Rogers@usc-isib.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Cc: BBoard@usc-isib.arpa, BBoard@usc-ecl.arpa
Reply-To: Rogers@USC-ISIB.ARPA

          The Organization for the Advancement of Space
     Industrialization and Settlement's planned talk at
     Rockwell International on the future of the Shuttle
     has been cancelled at the direction of Rockwell
     management.  The talk was originally scheduled for
     7:00 PM on Saturday, March 15, 1986 in Downey.

          As we are unable to arrange for a replacement
     facility, our monthly meeting is cancelled.  We
     apologize for any inconvenience this may cause.

          For more information about future lectures or
     other OASIS activities call F. Wiley Livermont at
     (818) 700 - 8382, or send a message to Craig Milo
     Rogers <Rogers@USC-ISIB.ARPA>.  OASIS is the Greater
     Los Angeles chapter of the L5 Society.
-------

------------------------------

Date: 14 Mar 86 07:37:32 GMT
From: brahms!weemba@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Matthew P. Wiener)
Subject: Re: Bronowski and historical fossils
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <391@lanl.ARPA> jlg@a.UUCP (Jim Giles) writes:
>In article <389@lanl.ARPA> jlg@a.UUCP (Jim Giles) writes:
>>      ...   (There was an ancient Greek called Democratus (I think) who
>>discovered that the Sun was the center of the solar system, and the planets -
>>including Earth went around it.  He even had the distances about right.
>>Why don't we know this theory as the 'Democratian System'?  Because his
>>civilization DIED and Copernicus had to do the work all over again.)
>
>I was afraid I'd get this wrong.  The man's mane was Aristarchus of Samos.

Things get named historically for all sorts of reasons.  Being the logically
correct name is only sometimes the reason.  Aristarchus's suggestion was
mere conjecture then.  Ptolemy rejected it on the experimental grounds that
parallax was not seen.  If your explanation were correct then nothing would
have ever be named after Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, etc.  Besides, Coper-
nicus did NOT do the work all over again.  A discussion of non-geocentric
systems is included in Ptolemy, so that he can then reject them.

ucbvax!brahms!weemba	Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720

------------------------------

Date: 14 Mar 86 08:26:26 GMT
From: brahms!weemba@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Matthew P. Wiener)
Subject: Re: Bronowski and historical fossils
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

I'm redirecting followups to net.sci to give this discussion a better home.

In article <389@lanl.ARPA> jlg@a.UUCP (Jim Giles) writes:
>In article <12332@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> weemba@brahms.UUCP (Matthew P. Wiener) writes:
>>What IS this nonsense?  Homer, Euclid, Newton, and Shakespeare are
>>both interesting glimpses of a now dead civilization AND are important
>>figures in the development of our own.  But fossils?  I can only assume
>>YOU don't read Euclid or Homer.
>
>I am one of the VERY FEW people I know who has read much of either.  The
>difference between the Greek world of Homer and Euclid on the one hand and
>the English world of Newton and Shakespeare on the other is similar to the
>difference between Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon.  One lead to us, and the
>other (with the exception of a few RARE cross-breeds) didn't.

It is similar?  Care to explain?  Both lead to us.  What does the phrase
'Western culture' mean?

>>Historically, Euclid's _The Elements_ was the ONLY textbook for learning
>>geometry until the 19th century.
>
>Not true.  Euclid was 'rediscovered' during the Renaissance when western
>culture was again growing.

What other geometry textbook did you have in mind?  The first translation
of _The Elements_ into Latin was in 1142 by Adelard of Bath.  Rediscovery
of Greek learning occurred BEFORE, not during, the Renaissance.

>                            Fortunately, the Arabs managed to keep some of
>the old learning (or, at least, refrained from destroying it).  Unlike
>Ptolemy, Euclid was not an official church priority, so we lost track of it
>for a while.

Ptolemy was as lost as Euclid in the West, and was preserved through Arabic
translation.  Ptolemy became an "official church priority" ONLY because he
was challenged.  The development of non-Euclidean geometry in Galileo's time
would have met just as strong official resistance.

>              That's why they're fossils: they're not part of the
>mainstream.  We only know about them because 'Classical' culture became
>fashionable and some enthusiastic scholars translated a bunch of the stuff
>just in time for printing to get invented.

They ARE part of the mainstream of our culture because they are GOOD, not
because some 'enthusiastic scholars translated a bunch of the stuff just in
time for printing to get invented'.

>This brings me to the point I keep trying to make: when a civilization
>DIES, things are LOST - sometimes it's not forever, but they are lost.  The
>Greek civilization DIED - there is a lack of continuity between the ancient
>Greek civilization and our own.  There is NO such lack between Newton and
>us - we didn't have to rediscover it after it was unknown or obscure for
>centuries.  [Incorrect summary of Aristarchus refuted elsewhere]

Greek civilization was lost ONLY from the European point of view.  From the
point of view of continuity, their tradition kept going strong in the Arab
world and only then re-entered Europe.

>[Bronowski's point not under dispute.]

Your point would be better taken if you get the history correct.

>>...                              The Euclidean method of doing geometry
>>was unquestioned until around 1900.  Textbooks used in this country followed
>>the style of Euclid until around 1960--they left out the hard parts--and
>>it was Sputnik that inspired the change!
>
>I learned geometry from such a book.  But look closer!  The only thing
>Euclidean are the first four postulates!  And they introduce Cartesian
>coordinates in the first chapter!  (It must have been that ancient Greek
>called Descartes instead of the one I'm familiar with. :-)

I make a hobby of collecting old high school and college texts.  I have
a dozen different high school geometries from 1920-1960, and they are all
watered-down Euclidean style geometry.
 
>> But Newton's style was dropped
>>IMMEDIATELY from calculus and physics.
>
>My first calculus text used dots above the variables and called them
>'fluxions'.  That every bit as similar to Newton as my geometry text is
>similar to Euclid.

Newton's *style*, not his notation.

ucbvax!brahms!weemba	Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720

------------------------------

Date: 13 Mar 86 18:41:01 GMT
From: uwvax!hagens@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Rob Hagens)
Subject: Re: Why does everyone want to leave this planet?
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

I want to get away from the apes (when they take over)...

Rob Hagens
-- 
Rob Hagens @ wisconsin
...!{allegra,heurikon,ihnp4,seismo,sfwin,ucbvax,uwm-evax}!uwvax!hagens
hagens@wisc-rsch.arpa

Weekend: A time between work and more work.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #210
*******************


0,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA01268; Fri, 14 Mar 86 23:01:01 PST
	id AA01268; Fri, 14 Mar 86 23:01:01 PST
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 86 23:01:01 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8603150701.AA01268@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #211

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 211

Today's Topics:
			    Re: plutonium
		Re: Morton-Thiokol Engineering Claims
		Re: Morton-Thiokol Engineering Claims
		Photographing geostationary satellites
		Re: Morton-Thiokol Engineering Claims
				Aliens
		Re: Morton-Thiokol Engineering Claims
		     Re:  SRB Seal Failure Detail
			 Heliocentric Theory
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 10 Mar 86 14:41:04 GMT
From: ihnp4!mmm!allen@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Kurt Allen)
Subject: Re: plutonium
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa


	Aviation Week and Space Tech. had an interesting note about the
	plutonium canisters that are used in the space program. They are
	very well armoured. An unidentified source said that one missle
	launched from Vanderburg exploded and dropped a canister of this
	type loaded with plutonium into the ocean. The canister was recovered
	unbroken and launched on a subsequent missle.

	Also if I remember right the apollo astronauts were using plutonium
	in the LEM. I believe that they manually loaded the plutonium into
	the reactor after the LEM landed. They were issued a pair of gloves
	to do this.
-- 
	Kurt W. Allen
	3M Center
	ihnp4!mmm!allen

------------------------------

Date: 10 Mar 86 15:23:41 GMT
From: ihnp4!mmm!mrgofor@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (MKR)
Subject: Re: Morton-Thiokol Engineering Claims
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <6442@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
>> This seems unfair to the MT engineers...
>> If it didn't explode, they would probably lose their jobs.
>
>The way they've been presenting it so far, they said "don't launch", argued
>with management, management said "launch", at which point the engineers
>quietly gave in.  They decided that it was not worth risking their jobs in
>an attempt to avert [what they now claim was obviously] a major risk of
>loss of a shuttle.
>
>If any of them are licensed Professional Engineers, I trust their state
>licensing boards will take notice of this gross dereliction of duty.
>

	As Sally Ride pointed out, the engineers *did* hang tough, and fought
the launch as far as they could within the framework of the organization. The
original poster suggested that they should have gone directly to the media
and voiced their opinions publicly, and I still believe that is an unfair
risk to ask the engineers to take. Remember, these guys are *rocket* engineers.
If they got their butts fired for insubordination and every other charge that
their management would certainly come up with, where are they going to go
to find work in their field? There aren't a whole lot of jobs out there, 
especially for hot-headed troublemakers who can't work within the system.
Imagine the best-case scenario: they went to the media, and such an outcry
was raised that the launch was postponed for a couple days and finally launched
without problems. What do you think those management types (who are *still*
arguing that the decision to launch was sound - even though it quite obviously
was not) would do to the renegade engineers? That's right - their careers would
be over. It's not just losing a job - it's losing their entire careers so they
would have to start over in another field. I think that's too much to expect
of the engineers. I think they behaved honorably - it was those handful of
management types who blew it, and it's *their* asses that should get toasted,
the engineers were the *good* guys.


>"A commander in chief cannot take as an excuse for his mistakes in warfare
>an order given by his minister or his sovereign, when the person giving
>the order is absent from the field of operations and is imperfectly aware
>or wholly unaware of the latest state of affairs.  It follows that any
>commander in chief who undertakes to carry out a plan which he considers
>defective is at fault; he must put forward his reasons, insist on the plan
>being changed, and finally TENDER HIS RESIGNATION rather than be the
>instrument of his army's downfall."	- Napoleon [emphasis added]
>-- 
>				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
>				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

	Napolean is not a particularly good role model in moral affairs.
Besides, note the words "commander in chief" in your quote. I'll agree with
the concept as stated. In this case, however, it was the commanders-in-chief
who undertook to carry out a plan which they did not consider effective. The
engineers were not commanders - they were soldiers. I doubt that Napolean
would consider soldiers to have the same obligations to weigh the soundness
of the campaign - that's the generals' job, and that's why they get paid the
big bucks. It's also why they get their butts kicked when the other army
wins.

-- 
					--MKR

If Man were meant to use the metric system, Jesus would have had
10 disciples.

------------------------------

Date: 8 Mar 86 21:26:52 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-lcc!lll-crg!seismo!harvard!cmcl2!philabs!polaris!herbie@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Herb Chong)
Subject: Re: Morton-Thiokol Engineering Claims
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <1439@brl-smoke.ARPA> abc@brl-smoke.UUCP (Brint Cooper (SECAD/CSMB) <abc>) writes:
>In article <6442@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
>>
>>If any of them are licensed Professional Engineers, I trust their state
>>licensing boards will take notice of this gross dereliction of duty.
>
>First, in most states, licensing boards have no authority over engineers
>working on government (defense, space) contracts.

does this mean that engineers who work for the government are exempt from
the social responsibility clauses in most of the state licensing
boards' charters?

Herb Chong...

I'm still user-friendly -- I don't byte, I nybble....

VNET,BITNET,NETNORTH,EARN: HERBIE AT YKTVMH
UUCP:  {allegra|cbosgd|cmcl2|decvax|ihnp4|seismo}!philabs!polaris!herbie
CSNET: herbie.yktvmh@ibm-sj.csnet
ARPA:  herbie.yktvmh.ibm-sj.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa, herbie%yktvmh.bitnet@wiscvm
========================================================================
DISCLAIMER:  what you just read was produced by pouring lukewarm
tea for 42 seconds onto 9 people chained to 6 Ouiji boards.

------------------------------

Date: 12 Mar 86 23:52:23 GMT
From: bellcore!petrus!karn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Phil R. Karn)
Subject: Photographing geostationary satellites
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

I wonder if anyone else out there was also fascinated by the photo on page
73 of the March 3, 1986 Aviation Week. It shows a group of domestic US
communications satellites remaining stationary against a moving
background of stars.  A friend spoke with the NASA contractor employee who
took that picture and learned the following:

The picture was taken with an ordinary 35 mm camera, a 200 mm lens, and ASA
1000 color film (presumably Kodak VR-1000). The exposure was 5 minutes (I
guessed 4 from the lengths of the star trails and the stated spacing of the
satellites). The satellites themselves aren't so dim that lightgathering
is much of a problem; apparently the biggest problem is finding a location
that is truly free from light pollution.

This raises the interesting possibility of amateurs doing a full optical
survey of the geostationary orbit, identifying and cataloguing each object.
I wonder how bright the various Rhyolite electronic-intelligence satellites
and their successors mentioned in The Puzzle Palace are. Considering that
they have very large antennas which are probably fairly reflective due to
thermal coatings, I suspect they are even easier to see than the Hughes
HS-376 class spacecraft shown in Av Week, which are mostly dark solar
arrays.  The best time to make these photos would be at local midnight,
when the lit side of the spacecraft fully faces the earth. Of course,
you'd have to avoid the spring and fall eclipse seasons.

Phil Karn

------------------------------

Date: 11 Mar 86 19:16:42 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Morton-Thiokol Engineering Claims
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> You can not go to the press unless the manager's judgement is so bad
> that you are sure disaster will occur.  (Not probably occur, WILL occur).

The M-T engineers are certainly doing a good imitation of being sure, in
retrospect.  The reports I've seen make them out that way, anyway.  In
practice they probably weren't sure, but then they should stop claiming so.
Either they weren't sure, in which case some of the more hysterical finger-
pointing at management is out of order, or they were, in which case they
take a large share of the blame.  They can't have it neither way.

Incidentally, it is possible to resign without holding a press conference.
If management overrules you on something important, and you know damn well
that you know the score and they don't, how can you ethically stay with
that management?  Why were there no quiet resignations at M-T?
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Posted-Date: Fri 14 Mar 1986 07:30:21 EST
Date: Fri 14 Mar 1986 07:30:21 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Aliens
To: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@mc.lcs.mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: "Keith F. Lynch"'s message of Wed, 12 Mar 86 23:41:09 EST
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa

>  Our civilization is very new compared to the lifetime of Earth.  A
>species from a planet where life started a few percent sooner or
>evolved a few percent faster might have invented computers and
>starships while dinosaurs were the most advanced thing on Earth.
>  Where would such a civilzation be today?

Right here, if they evolved in or near our galaxy and colonized.
I suspect the only ET's we'll ever detect by radio will be
extragalactic, and they will have colonized multiple galaxies.

------------------------------

Date: 13 Mar 86 17:23:30 GMT
From: sdcsvax!noscvax!rupp@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (William L. Rupp)
Subject: Re: Morton-Thiokol Engineering Claims
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <6486@utzoo.UUCP>, henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
> > You can not go to the press unless the manager's judgement is so bad
> > that you are sure disaster will occur.  (Not probably occur, WILL occur).
> 
> Either they weren't sure, in which case some of the more hysterical finger-
> pointing at management is out of order, or they were, in which case they
> take a large share of the blame.  They can't have it neither way.
> 
> Incidentally, it is possible to resign without holding a press conference.
> If management overrules you on something important, and you know damn well
> that you know the score and they don't, how can you ethically stay with
> that management?  Why were there no quiet resignations at M-T?
> -- 
> 				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology

I tend to agree with those who feel that the engineers did about all they
could to protest the dangerous decision of management, considering their
status in the organization.  It is certainly easy to say after the fact that
they should have done thus and so.  Regarding Mr. Spencer's idea that they
should have resigned quietly, is that realistic considering the time frame
involved?  Was there really time to resign, quietly or
otherwise?  I do believe that in a situation drawn out over many days or
weeks, the quiet resignation option could be appropriate.

------------------------------

Date:     Fri, 14 Mar 86 9:36:19 CST
From: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI <wmartin@almsa-1.arpa>
To: Jerry Bakin <Bakin@hi-multics.arpa>
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject:  Re:  SRB Seal Failure Detail

Thanks to all who responded, including those I can't mail back to direct!

I've gathered that the cause of the leak location was a combination of
the hot gassess, once they reached the O-ring, following its channel
around the cicumference of the SRB, thus creating a wide-spread leak,
plus the chilling effect being greater at certain locations. 

Regards, Will

------------------------------

Date: Fri 14 Mar 86 11:01:08-EST
From: FIRTH@tl-20b.arpa
Subject: Heliocentric Theory
To: space@mc.lcs.mit.edu

I don't think Aristarkhos' theory was "mere conjecture".  There is quite
a lot of evidence for it.

(1) The planets Mercury and Venus remain close to the Sun.  This is
    good evidence that they are associated with that body, rather
    than with the Earth.  In fact, I believe even Ptolemy was ready
    to concede that the "inner" planets revolved about the Sun

(2) Similarly, the perceived brightness of Venus varies greatly
    as it moves.  We know this to be due to a combination of
    distance and phase, but even if you don't know that, it is
    hard to accept that Venus rotates about the Earth in a circular
    orbit.

(3) But more significant is the variation in the brightness of
    MARS.  This is the best evidence that the "outer" planets,
    also, don't move in geocentric orbits.

(4) Finally, the Sun is much bigger than the Earth, and it is more
    reasonable that the smaller body should move about the larger.
    The ancients knew this: they had measured the distance of the
    Moon by triangulation.  They then measured the relative distances
    of Sun and Moon by finding the Sun-Earth-Moon angle when half the
    lunar disc was lit.  They got a very poor answer, of course - that
    the Sun was about 30 times as far away as the Moon - but even at
    that under estimate the Sun is more than 4 times as big (linear) as
    the Earth.

The one killer argument against the heliocentric theory is the absence
of a perceived stellar parallax, as has been mentioned.  The only counter
argument is that "the stars must be too far away", and that is both a
bad argument and pretty unbelievable.  That it happens to be true is
rather unfair.  On the basis of the evidence as available, the best
theory is the "Tychonic" - that the Sun moves round the Earth, but all
the (other) planets move round the Sun.  First proposed, I believe, by
Hipparkhos of Nicea.

[For a good overview of the whole matter, see Koestler: The Sleepwalkers.
 This also discusses the question of the "death" of Classical thought]

Robert Firth
-------

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #211
*******************


0,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA02048; Sat, 15 Mar 86 03:00:54 PST
	id AA02048; Sat, 15 Mar 86 03:00:54 PST
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 86 03:00:54 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8603151100.AA02048@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #212

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 212

Today's Topics:
			Re: sizes of galaxies
		      Where is Dourson, anyway?
		     Yale Catalog of Bright Stars
			      Re: Aliens
		   LA Area: Meeting but No Shuttle
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 14 Mar 86 13:03:44 PST (Friday)
From: Lynn.ES@xerox.com
Subject: Re: sizes of galaxies
In-Reply-To: ..!mangoe's message of 8 Mar 86
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Cc: Lynn.es@xerox.com

Message from ...!mangoe of 8 Mar 86:
>If memory serves me, current numbers list Milky Way as one of the
biggest 
>single galaxies we know of.  Is there an astronomer in the house?

I am not a real astronomer, but I own lots of books on the subject.
Besides, REM thinks I can answer this, so why not?

The first counter-example I thought of is the Andromeda galaxy (M31).
It is a spiral and is usually given as about 180,000 light years in
diameter to the dimmest ends of the arms that we can detect (other
measurements to the brighter parts of the arms or to the surrounding
globulars give smaller or larger numbers.  Also very old figures give
vastly different sizes, but astronomers think they know its distance,
and therefore its size, fairly accurately now).  The Milky Way cannot be
measured the same way, since we are on the inside, but the best number
seems to be 100,000 ly across the arms, so the Andromeda is much larger.
Burnham's book says that the Andromeda is one of the largest and one of
the most luminous galaxies known, and that most spirals are in the
50,000 ly area.  So the Milky Way is big as spirals go, but not among
the biggest.  

The recent discoveries that there is some matter way outside the arms of
the Milky Way doesn't really make it suddenly larger than all the other
galaxies.  It just means there is likely a halo of junk too difficult to
detect around many galaxies; so for comparing galaxy sizes we will have
to stick with the visible arms.

M87 always seems to be referred to as a "giant elliptical" galaxy.
Burnham's says it is one of the largest ellipticals of the Virgo
cluster, a group of thousands of galaxies that are near enough, in
cosmic terms, to be well surveyed.  However, diameters of ellipticals
are smaller than spirals.  So a giant elliptical is lucky to be the
diameter of an average spiral.  M87 is probably 35,000 ly across, though
certain reputable astronomers have put the whole Virgo cluster much
farther than the most accepted distance (of 40 million ly), so M87 could
possibly be up to 60,000 ly across.

M87 is, however, about twice as massive as Andromeda (which is probably
twice as massive as the Milky Way), and is yet more luminous than the
bright Andromeda.  I couldn't find any figures for luminosity of the
Milky Way, probably because that is hard to figure when you are inside
the dust lanes of it.  We can guess that it is proportionately dimmer
than the Andromeda.  So the Milky Way does not qualify as one of the
largest by mass, and probably not by luminosity.

Summary: the Milky Way is a good galaxy, but not a great galaxy.  :-)

/Don Lynn

------------------------------

Date:     Fri, 14 Mar 86 14:50 EST
From: Steve Dourson - Delco <dourson%gmr.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa
Subject:  Where is Dourson, anyway?

SENT TO:  decwrl!glacier!oliveb!barb%ucbvax.berkeley.edu@CSNET-RELAY

>From: hplabs!cygnet!oliven!barb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Barbara Jernigan)
>Subject: Steven Dourson, where are you?
>Sorry, folks, but after six tries at email --
>Steve, I have a response to your note on colonies.  Could you
>write me again (I guess the daemons have been eating addresses again)
>snd add your US Mail address (just in case)?
>Thanks!  Barb

People do seem to have trouble contacting me.  I don't know how to 
solve the problem.  My net addresses are:
	dourson%gmr.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA	(by ARPANET)
	dourson@gmr				(by CSNET)

If you have trouble with these, then try US Mail:
	Stephen Dourson
	Mail Code 408
	2000 Forrer Blvd
	Kettering Ohio 45420

Thanks.  Stephen Dourson	 14-MAR-1986 14:43:30

------------------------------

Date: Fri 14 Mar 86 15:27:17-PST
From: Chris Demke <DEMKE@usc-eclb.arpa>
Subject: Yale Catalog of Bright Stars
To: space@s1-b.arpa


	  I am looking for the Yale Catalog of Bright Stars.  I am
	sure it has to be online somewhere around here.  Can anyone
	point me in the right direction?

		Chris Demke
		Demke@Usc-eclb.arpa
-------

------------------------------

Date: 14 Mar 86 23:57:49 GMT
From: brahms!desj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (David desJardins)
Subject: Re: Aliens
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <[MC.LCS.MIT.EDU].848884.860312.KFL> KFL@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU ("Keith F. Lynch") writes:
>..........
>  It is quite mind boggling to me.  I think about all the technical
>progress that has been made in the last hundred years, or even in the
>last ten years, and try to project ahead.  I can think of all sorts of
>things that might exist in a century, but I really can't imagine what
>might be around in a thousand years, any more than the average person
>of the year 1000 could have imagined ARPAnet or even USEnet.
>  Of course it is possible that there are no other technical
>civilizations, or that they are but they always blow themselves up
>within a century, or that there is no other life, or that they are
>maintaining 'radio silence', or that...   Who can say?  I hope I live
>to find out.

   Yes.  This is my point.  Not only is it possible, but we have no way
to estimate the probability.  So it seems illogical to "expect" anything.
(Although I admit that I "expect" that there is no other intelligent life
in this universe, in a rare (for me :-)) defiance of logic).

   -- David desJardins

------------------------------

Date: 14 Mar 1986 19:12:49 PST
Subject: LA Area: Meeting but No Shuttle
From: Craig Milo Rogers  <ROGERS@usc-isib.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa, BBoard@usc-isib.arpa, BBoard@usc-ecl.arpa

	Rockwell International decided to allow OASIS to meet in their
facility at the time and location previously announced.  The topic will
*not* involve the Shuttle.
-------

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #212
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA00751; Sat, 15 Mar 86 23:01:03 PST
	id AA00751; Sat, 15 Mar 86 23:01:03 PST
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 86 23:01:03 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8603160701.AA00751@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #213

*** EOOH ***
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 86 23:01:03 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #213

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 213

Today's Topics:
		 Overpopulation, Resources and Space
			     Resignations
			   Science Fiction
		      Re: nearby supernovas etc.
	       Re: Destroy SPOT with an ASAT?  (what!?)
			    Re: Population
			    Re: Antimatter
	       Re: Destroy SPOT with an ASAT?  (what!?)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted-Date: Sat 15 Mar 1986 11:14:13 EST
Date: Sat 15 Mar 1986 11:14:13 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Overpopulation, Resources and Space
To: space@s1-b.arpa

Let me add my two cents worth on the "population explosion" debate:

The fact that exponential growth will (ubchecked) lead to disaster
is true, but not immediately relevant.  The important questions are:
(a) how close are we to the ultimate limits?  (b) when the ultimate
limits are reached, will they be approached smoothly or will a
overshoot/crash occur?

We are nowhere near the ultimate limits, even restricted to this
planet.  With the possible exception of phosphorus, all other mineral
resources are either abundant or can be substituted for.
Johan W. Brinck, directorate-general for Energy and Euratom Safeguards
for the Commission of the European Communities, estimates the earth
holds in its top 2.5 kilometers some 10**-3 to 10**-4 of its total
mineral content workable at no more than twice current prices.  This
comes to about 10**9 tons of uranium (!), enough to supply the entire
world's current energy consumption for 250,000 years if used in breeder
reactors.  The ultimate limit on energy consumption is set by global
heating; at 50x current consumption the earth will be warmed by about
0.2 degrees C (this is from waste heat, not the greenhouse effect).

Experts have argued that, in principle, world food production
can be increased by a factor of ten.  For this to occur desalinated
water must be used; at current costs the energy for desalination would
cost about $2/person/day using conventional agricultural techniques.
These techniques are wasteful, however; it is possible to grow crops
with 1/10 the water (as has been demonstrated in Israel), using 100
gallons to grow 2500 calories of food.  Additional energy inputs
(fertilizer, fuel for tractors, etc.) adds another 50%, so the
energy cost is around $0.30/person/day, or $110/person/year.

Will the transition to lower growth rates be smooth?  It has been
in the industrialized countries.  Unlike a "tragedy of the commons",
child rearing incurs a cost on the parents, and in western countries
this has suppressed the birth rate.  One might argue that eventually
natural selection will favor those parents that sacrifice and have many
children, but it's unclear whether this behavior is under genetic
control and whether evolution would act in less than millenia.

Space:  current world air traffic (I think it's around 400 million
person-flights per year) exceeds the world population growth rate.
Assuming travel to space becomes as easy as jet travel today the world
could be depopulated quickly (in decades).  Space can't solve any
near term population problem, but it doesn't have to.  We don't
*need* space resources right away either, although I'm sure profitable
uses for lunar and asteroidal materials will be found.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 15 Mar 86 14:07:07 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@mc.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: Resignations
To: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Cc: KFL@mc.lcs.mit.edu, Space@s1-b.arpa

    From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
    (Henry Spencer)

    If management overrules you on something important, and you know damn well
    that you know the score and they don't, how can you ethically stay with
    that management?  Why were there no quiet resignations at M-T?

  I don't think this a fair or reasonable attitude.  It is ethical to
work for a company or a client whether or not one agrees with the
position of the company or the client.  For instance the company I
work for does a lot of SDI ("Star Wars") research.  Most of the senior
scientists and engineers I have talked to about it believe that SDI is
not feasible.  But they feel that refusing to use one's talents as
best one can on this project is usurping the authority of the elected
officials.  They decide what is to be done.  We do it if it is humanly
do-able.  If we didn't do it, someone else would.  Probably someone
who wouldn't be able to do it as well as we would.

Disclaimer: Nothing in this message should be interpreted as an
opinion about the feasability of SDI.  Any opinions expressed are mine
alone and not necessarily those of my employer or its clients.
								...Keith

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 15 Mar 86 14:33:59 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@mc.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: Science Fiction
To: brahms!gsmith@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Cc: KFL@mc.lcs.mit.edu, Space@s1-b.arpa

    From: brahms!gsmith@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Gene Ward Smith)

    ... I have to say that the vast majority of sci-fi authors
    *do not* know what they are talking about. ... Heinlein & Niven have
    plenty of BS, and most sci-fi authors much more. ... I refuse to fool
    myself into thinking that it is much good either as science or as
    literature.

  Your ignorance is obvious from your calling SF by that despicable
term.  No other comment is necessary.
								...Keith

------------------------------

Date: 8 Mar 86 05:31:50 GMT
From: decvax!dartvax!chuck@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Chuck Simmons)
Subject: Re: nearby supernovas etc.
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> Still, I do not think Homo
> sapiens will be around that long if we are restricted to the Earth.
> There are lots of other factors that could cause extinction. Most
> species either become extinct or evolve into something else in about 1
> to 5 MY.
>				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)

Most species have not had the advantage of our intelligence.

Chuck Simmons     chuck@dartvax

------------------------------

Date: 13 Mar 86 02:46:29 GMT
From: sdcsvax!ncr-sd!ncrcae!ncsu!uvacs!rwl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Ray Lubinsky)
Subject: Re: Destroy SPOT with an ASAT?  (what!?)
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> The French recently orbited the SPOT earth resources satellite with a
> minimum resolution of 10 meters.  This resolution is good enough to
> be militarily useful in some cases.  RUMOUR has it that there has been
> some discussion in the Pentagon about destroying SPOT with an ASAT
> should SPOT detect 'sensitive' military information not
> normally available to anyone but the US and Soviet armed forces (both
> organizations have satellites with far better resolution than SPOT).
> 
> My question for the net: under what circumstances should the US destroy
> SPOT?
> 
> My own opinion: only if Congress has declared war on France.
> 
> I will summarize for the net if there is sufficient response.

If this is a joke, it's not particularly funny.  Otherwise, this is an
extremely irresponsible posting on a network which is read around the
free world.  Regardless of the reliability of your rumor source, there is no
reason to believe that our government would infringe on the rights of another
nation -- particularly an ally.

How do you think the European sites feel when reading a posting which so
casually discusses the idea of the US smacking a smaller country on the nose
for daring to stand toe-to-toe with the ``superpowers''?   I don't know about
you, but I'd feel pretty pissed off.

It seems like this newsgroup in particular should be a forum which harbors a
sense of global community on Spaceship Earth rather than crass parochialism.
I'm sorry to find that that's not necessarily the case.
-- 

Ray Lubinsky	University of Virginia, Dept. of Computer Science
		UUCP: ...!cbosgd!uvacs!rwl or ...!decvax!mcnc!ncsu!uvacs!rwl

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 15 Mar 86 16:52:58 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@mc.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Population
To: chuck%dartmouth.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
Cc: KFL@mc.lcs.mit.edu, Space@s1-b.arpa

    From: Chuck Simmons <chuck%dartmouth.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>

    If the population stays the same size, but each
    person's disposable income increases by a factor of a million, they would
    buy enough goods to justify all sorts of economies of scale.

  Not true.  No matter how rich I was, I wouldn't buy two copies of
the same book.  I wouldn't buy more food than I could eat.  I wouldn't
buy more clothes than I could wear in a week.  I wouldn't buy two
copies of the same CD.  I wouldn't buy more computer power than I
could use.  I wouldn't buy more than one calculator.
  There is a BIG difference between a trillion people with $100,000
each and a billion people with $100,000,000 each.
  Once we colonize space and make extensive use of the resources of
the solar system, we won't have to choose.  We will be able to have a
trillion trillionaires.

    Secondly, you are assuming that economies of scale will continue to exist.
    I believe it may be possible that this is not the case.  As an example, it
    used to be that it would have been cheaper for a car maker to make 1
    million cars that were each painted black.  These days, it costs nearly the
    same amount of money to make cars in lots of different colors.

  Not a good example.  It is still true that building a million cars
is nowehere near a million times as expensive as building one car.
Building a trillion cars would probably be even cheaper, per car.
  There are only a few things where economy of scale does not apply.
Anything requiring personal service, of course.  Electric power, since
the main cost now is fuel rather than plant.  Land, for obvious
reasons.
  Given robotics to do most of the boring and dangerous jobs, enormous
amounts of power and materials from space, and a much higher
population, I forsee an economy where the major occupations are
writer, programmer, philosopher, scientist, architect, artist,
entertainer, musician, etc..  All of these have nearly constant cost
regardless of audience.  It doesn't cost any more to write a book if
there will be more readers.  It is no harder to compose a symphony 
if there will be more listeners.  Discovering a new law of science is
no more difficult if it will be used by more people.

    ... During the current industrial
    revolution, we are learning techniques for producing many similar but
    unique items on a large scale.

  I doesn't really matter whether everybody's space habitat is
absolutely identical or slightly different.  Since these will be made
by robotics, the cost of food, shelter, air, water, and clothing will
be negligible.
								...Keith

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 15 Mar 86 16:58:39 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@mc.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Antimatter
To: dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
Cc: KFL@mc.lcs.mit.edu, Space@s1-b.arpa

    From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>

    By the way, an explosion with
    the force of "trillions of H bombs" would require the annihillation
    of tens of millions of tons of antimatter.  Might we make it in
    gram quantities first?

  Not if you want to take a reasonable mass (1000 people plus all
resources needed to start a colony) to the stars in a reasonable time
(less than a century).

    Even at current prices, antimatter might be useful
    for triggering "clean" fusion weapons.

  Just what we need.  (Talk about hair trigger!)
								...Keith

------------------------------

Date: 16 Mar 86 01:23:40 GMT
From: brahms!desj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (David desJardins)
Subject: Re: Destroy SPOT with an ASAT?  (what!?)
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <261@uvacs.UUCP> rwl@uvacs.UUCP (Ray Lubinsky) writes:
>> The French recently orbited the SPOT earth resources satellite with a
>> minimum resolution of 10 meters.  This resolution is good enough to
>> be militarily useful in some cases.  RUMOUR has it that there has been
>> some discussion in the Pentagon about destroying SPOT with an ASAT
>> should SPOT detect 'sensitive' military information not
>> normally available to anyone but the US and Soviet armed forces (both
>> organizations have satellites with far better resolution than SPOT).
>
>If this is a joke, it's not particularly funny.  Otherwise, this is an
>extremely irresponsible posting on a network which is read around the
>free world.  Regardless of the reliability of your rumor source, there is no
>reason to believe that our government would infringe on the rights of another
>nation -- particularly an ally.

   This is certainly an oxymoron; if the source is reliable is that not
a "reason to believe"?  (Not that I don't agree that the idea is absurd,
just that your statement is equally so.)
   And what does "irresponsible" mean in this context?  Is even discussing
any topic which might be offensive to any individual "irresponsible"?  Is
it better to bury our heads in the sand?

>How do you think the European sites feel when reading a posting which so
>casually discusses the idea of the US smacking a smaller country on the nose
>for daring to stand toe-to-toe with the ``superpowers''?   I don't know about
>you, but I'd feel pretty pissed off.

   What is casual about the posting?  It practically equates the destruction
with an act of war.  Hardly a casual tone.

>It seems like this newsgroup in particular should be a forum which harbors a
>sense of global community on Spaceship Earth rather than crass parochialism.
>I'm sorry to find that that's not necessarily the case.

   In other words, we should all ignore reality and pretend that the whole
world is one big happy family?  Would it be better to ignore the possibility
and then when it actually happens say, "Well, we knew it was coming but we
thought it would be rude to warn you."?

   After finally getting the censorship discussion out of net.columbia, it
looks like it is going to reappear here.  You seem to be saying (please
correct me if this paraphrase is inaccurate), "Certain topics should not
be discussed, because some might find them offensive."  This is called
censorship when practiced by those with the actual power to control what
is said.

   -- David desJardins

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #213
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA01652; Sun, 16 Mar 86 03:01:04 PST
	id AA01652; Sun, 16 Mar 86 03:01:04 PST
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 86 03:01:04 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8603161101.AA01652@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #214

*** EOOH ***
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 86 03:01:04 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #214

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 214

Today's Topics:
	       Re: Destroy SPOT with an ASAT?  (what!?)
			      Re: Fusion
			      Re: Safety
		Re: Morton-Thiokol Engineering Claims
		    Re: It could have been worse.
		  Re: absolutely vs. relatively safe
		       Random Fandom Panjandrum
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 16 Mar 86 01:53:39 GMT
From: brahms!weemba@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Matthew P. Wiener)
Subject: Re: Destroy SPOT with an ASAT?  (what!?)
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <261@uvacs.UUCP> rwl@uvacs.UUCP (Ray Lubinsky) writes:
>If this is a joke, it's not particularly funny.  Otherwise, this is an
>extremely irresponsible posting on a network which is read around the
>free world.  Regardless of the reliability of your rumor source, there is no
>reason to believe that our government would infringe on the rights of another
>nation -- particularly an ally.

Except possibly for Lichtenstein, Andorra, San Marino, and Luxemborg, and
most of the Pacific island countries, I cannot think of one government in
the world which has existed longer than one month that has NOT infringed
on the rights of another nation--allied or not.  Try reading newspapers
now and then.  The United States props up right wing dictators as long as
they say the magic words "anti-Communist", bombs Cambodia without asking
anyone's permission, mines the harbors of Nicaragua, refuses to do anything
about acid rain in Canada until even more study is done, actively overthrew
Chile's election winner Allende, tries to force New Zealand to be a nuclear
target, etc etc.  The military with Reagan's blessing has announced on more
than one occasion they will ignore our own Congress.  Refusing to negotiate
with the Soviet's on arms reductions--by making the "defensive" SDI program
as unbudgeable--violates every single human being's rights to anything.

Perhaps this last part is somewhat exaggerated on my part, but your statement
"no reason to believe" above is complete nonsense.

ucbvax!brahms!weemba	Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720

------------------------------

Date: 12 Mar 86 19:17:36 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Fusion
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>   This is good, but we need fusion too.  Solar power is not much use
> when you need ENROMOUS amounts of energy or when you need it far from
> the Sun.  Interstellar spaceships should be fusion powered.

Actually, they should be antimatter-powered... and probably will be.
We are not that far from practical (although costly) antimatter rockets.
The technology won't be very useful for power plants, since antimatter
production is horrendously inefficient.  But for applications where
the energy/mass ratio is critical, i.e. starships, fusion isn't even close.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 6 Mar 86 10:59:19 GMT
From: decvax!dartvax!chuck@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Chuck Simmons)
Subject: Re: Safety
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>   The term 'population explosion' is a pernicious term.  It makes
> population sound like a bad thing.  

The consensus in the economic and historical communities seems to be that
too much population is indeed a bad thing.  The word "explosion" in the
phrase "population explosion" implies that there is too much population.

> Remember that if the pouplation
> were to be less, many people alive today either would be dead or would
> never would have been born.  

So what?  Those people that were alive would probably be better off.  If I
had never been born I certainly wouldn't be able to regret it.

> Instead of imagining 'our little brown
> brothers' or other third world peoples to be the subjects (victims) of
> population reduction measures (i.e. final solution), try imagining
> your parents, your wife or girlfriend, the people on the net, or
> yourself, as being one of the 'reduced'.  It puts things in a whole
> new light, doesn't it?

I have no objections to population reduction measures in this country.  In
China, small families are encouraged by giving couples with a single child
a tax break.  If they have more than one child, the tax break goes away.
If vasectomies were cheap and easy to come by, I'd go out and get one 
tomorrow.  Population reduction measures do not need to be very drastic.
Most of the countries in the norther hemisphere have population growth rates
close to zero percent.  The population reduction measures that take place
in these countries are an increased standard of living and education.

>   The main point in going into space is to be able to support a much
> higher population.  MUCH higher.  And every person a billionaire, by
> todays standards.

Where do you get such a ridiculous idea?  The reasons we are going out
into space are to increase our supply of raw materials, satisfy our sense
of adventure, increase our knowledge of the universe, and possibly to make
various manufacturing processes less expensive.  If you let the population
grow too fast, there is no way every person will be a billionaire by today's
standards.
     I do not like living in a world with 5 billion or so people.  The
competition for food, clean water, a place to live, and a job are way too
high.  Or maybe you don't care that large portions of the world population
don't have these four items that you and I take so much for granted.

>   I consider myself a fairly cautious person.  I don't smoke, drink,
> or take drugs (not even aspirin (or tylenol!)).  I don't stay around
> people who are smoking, even if it means I lose my job.  I drive a car
> as seldom and as slowly as possible, and always wear a seatbelt.  I
> eat little meat and eggs, and no pork.  I don't have sex with
> strangers.  I test the battery in my smoke detector every two weeks.

Sounds like loads of fun...

> 								...Keith

Chuck Simmons     chuck@dartvax

------------------------------

Date: 12 Mar 86 20:55:33 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Morton-Thiokol Engineering Claims
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> ...In the first place, no one claimed they were "just following orders".

"We told them it was dangerous, our management said it wasn't, so we shut
up and went back to work."  Sure sounds like "just following orders" to me.

> Secondly, in the case of the Challenger flight, the dissenting engineers
> had no authority or clear means of preventing the launch, regardless
> of their degree of conviction about the dangers.

Their protestations of innocence would ring a lot truer if they had *tried*,
once they realized that they were being overruled for "political" reasons
with lives at stake.  Or at least resigned, to dissociate themselves from
the possible results.

> > The lack of that press conference cost the Challenger crew their lives.
> 
>    Oh really?  What conclusive evidence can you present to us that would
> support this seemingly idiotic comment?  There is no gaurantee that such a
> press conference would in any way have delayed that launch...

But it might have.  However slender the chances of getting the desired
result with a press conference, *without* the press conference there was
*no* chance.

> Moreover, 
> based on past history, there does seem to be considerable evidence that the
> engineers in question would have been immediately fired, and labelled as
> "malcontents" or some such silly label.

I'm sure the crew of Challenger would appreciate how painful this would
be for the engineers.  Too bad we can't ask them.

>    The engineers, *IF* they in fact made their fears and reasoning known  to
> their superiors, and attempted to stop the launch as claimed, did everything
> within their power (short of sabotaging the launch support equipment)...

The Morton-Thiokol engineers who will participate in redesign of the SRB
seals should be told that one of them will be randomly selected to be a
passenger on the first test flight.  THEN we'd see what's within their
powers; I suspect it would be considerably more than you suggest.

> For the sake of argument, let us assume that calling such a press conference
> *WOULD* have halted the launch (assuming that the engineers weren't arrested
> before they could make their statements!)...

Arrested?  On what charge?  Actually, getting themselves arrested (in public)
might be the most effective thing to do under such conditions, if it could
be done.  Then there *would* be a press conference.

> ... It's okay for the fucking bureaucrats to wantonly ingore facts in 
> favor of politics...

Please point out to me where I said that.  I didn't.  The bureaucrats bear
a large share of the blame; my point is that the engineers can't duck their
share by claiming that they were "just following orders".

> ...but it is criminal for the engineers not
> to have taken steps that would have halted the launch, but permanently ruined
> their careers.  Amazing.

You don't consider the Challenger crew's careers permanently ruined?  Amazing.

> Using this logic, it is obvious that since the engineers failed to sabotage
> the launch support systems, and thereby stop the launch at *ANY COST*, they
> are criminally liable, and ought to be incarcerated immediately!

I'm not sure I would go as far as advocating sabotage, but *they* didn't
need to go that far either!  As for criminal liability, if it truly turns
out that they did *nothing* after their management told them to shut up, a
charge of "accessory before the fact to negligent homicide" would not
be totally unjustified.  Excessive, perhaps, but not ridiculous.

Has even one of those engineers even resigned?  I'm not asking about press
conferences, just about whether they are willing to stay with a company
which has innocent blood on its hands.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 13 Mar 86 04:11:00 GMT
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiucdcsb!carroll@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: It could have been worse.
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa


	Not to fan the flames of moderation or anything, but my experience
in dealing with techies and humanists is that while the techies think LAS
stuff is worthless, they usually don't have the disdain (active dislike)
for it that the humanists have for technological things. Most engineers don't
mind LAS as long as they don't have to deal with it, while the large scale
techno-phobic movements in the country today speak volumes of the often
out-right hatred of non-technicals for math/science/technology.

------------------------------

Date: 13 Mar 86 04:20:00 GMT
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiucdcsb!carroll@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: absolutely vs. relatively safe
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa


Regardless of that, the fact remains that no matter what course of action
is taken. The goal is to minimize the suffering caused. Any "absolutes"
are clearly ridiculous and unrealistic. I would probably be willing to
concede that any level of radiation might cause deaths, but when it is
1. much less than other sources that could be fixed with less effort or
2. avoiding the radation causes more hazard than living with it, then
the fact that it is "unsafe" is not terribly important; what matters is
whether it is more or less "unsafe" than whatever else you'd have to do
to avoid it.

------------------------------

Date: 16 Mar 86 03:24:57 GMT
From: brahms!gsmith@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Gene Ward Smith)
Subject: Random Fandom Panjandrum
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <12365@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> gsmith@brahms.UUCP (Gene Ward Smith) writes:

>In article <8603092000.AA25082@s1-b.arpa> lcc.todd@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU (Todd Johnson) writes:

>>	There's been a lot of trashing of science fiction on this net. I 
>>don't like it. Arthur Clarke is a VIP at NASA. So is Robert A. Heinlein,
>>Larry Niven , Isaac Asimov and who knows else. Why? Because among other
>>things they explored the possible outcomes of numerous (including some 
>>as yet unplanned) space missions. That's why Heinlein was required reading
>>for the Apollo astronauts. The majority of people who write science fiction
>>KNOW what they're talking about or have contact with people who are more than
>>willing to supply them with copious detail. For people on this net who
>>haven't even tried science fiction is suggest "RENDEZVOUS WITH RAMA" by
>>Arthur C. Clarke.

>    Speaking as one who has been reading sci-fi since starting on Lucky Starr
>at a very tender age, I have to say that the vast majority of sci-fi authors
>*do not* know what they are talking about. The four authors quoted are better
>than most (and Clarke sometimes even writes well) but Heinlein & Niven have
>plenty of BS, and most sci-fi authors much more. I *like* sci-fi a lot, but
>I refuse to fool myself into thinking that it is much good either as science
>or as literature. Sometimes the science is pretty good (Rama or Black Cloud)
>sometimes the literature is good but the science awful (C.S. Lewis). Often
>both are bad; sometimes the literary merit is less than nil but the science
>purports to be good, and isn't (R.L. Forward: read my review in net.sf-lovers/
>net.math). 

In article <[MC.LCS.MIT.EDU].851856.860315.KFL> KFL@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU ("Keith F. Lynch") writes:


>  Your [i.e., my] ignorance is obvious from your calling SF by that despicable
>term. ["sci-fi"]  No other comment is necessary.

    Your ignorance of both literary criticism and the most elementary
standards of logic and argument is shown by your remark that "No other
comment is necessary".

    For your information, I have been reading SF (at your insistence) for
30 years. I have met a number of SF authors. (Berkeley is a good place to
do that; I don't need to go to conferences or belong to Chowder societies).
A famous SF author once took me to dinner, since she thought I might be a
useful character study for her next book. A film director famous for his
SF films (among others) was once a pretty close friend. We had many long
talks about SF, films, and SF in films. I have some knowledge of the SF
cult, and in particular am aware that people object strongly to certain
terms. Since I think this is stupid, I don't pay much attention. Tough
noogie. What are YOUR oh-so-wonderful credentials? Every time I post
to this newsgroup, someone thinks I am an ignoramus. The case has yet
to be proven, either about astronomy or SF.

    First you criticize my knowledge of SF, then you write your own:

In article <[MC.LCS.MIT.EDU].851959.860315.KFL> KFL@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU ("Keith F. Lynch") writes:

>  Once we colonize space and make extensive use of the resources of
>the solar system, we won't have to choose.  We will be able to have a
>trillion trillionaires.

>population, I forsee an economy where the major occupations are
>writer, programmer, philosopher, scientist, architect, artist,
>entertainer, musician, etc..  All of these have nearly constant cost

    And I will continue to call SF sci-fi whenever I feel like it.

ucbvax!brahms!gsmith    Gene Ward Smith/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720
Imagine what the world would be like if football was a worthy ritual performed
in stadiums but mathematics was a misunderstood activity ignored by almost all.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #214
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA02816; Sun, 16 Mar 86 07:01:06 PST
	id AA02816; Sun, 16 Mar 86 07:01:06 PST
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 86 07:01:06 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8603161501.AA02816@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #215

*** EOOH ***
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 86 07:01:06 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #215

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 215

Today's Topics:
		     seas and swells...hmmmm....
		      Open Apology to Paul Dietz
			    Re: Population
	       Re: Destroy SPOT with an ASAT?  (what!?)
		Re: Morton-Thiokol Engineering Claims
	   Re: Why does everyone want to leave this planet?
		       Re: The Challenger Crew
		Re: Morton-Thiokol Engineering Claims
			    Re: Population
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 13 Mar 86 21:39:04 GMT
From: tektronix!uw-beaver!uw-june!entropy!dataio!pilchuck!ingrid@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (the Real Swede)
Subject: seas and swells...hmmmm....
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

I heard this morning on the news that the search for 
the Challenger's crew compartment is being halted 
because of "seas of xx feet, and swells of up to
yy feet." (I don't remember the exact numbers.)
could someone please explain the difference between
"seas" and "swells". Thank you, in advance.

ingrid
(..uw-beaver!entropy!dataio!pilchuck!ingrid)

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 15 Mar 86 21:58:38 pst
From: eugene@ames-nas.arpa (Eugene Miya)
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Open Apology to Paul Dietz

Please excuse the late reply, but I've been at a conference in Oregon.

I would like to openly apologize for the black humor I sent to
Mr. Dietz.  I just saw his posting.  I had a similar discussion
with REM for a while about some satire I mailed him.  I was wondering
if any of my mail ever go thru to him. Now I know.

By way of open explanation permit me to say on the net that I
am fairly familiar with the procedures done with super-oxygenating
flurocarbons.  It was done (for the ad BTW) by General Electric.
Yes, the Cray-2's cooling is a bit different, but the point I was
trying to make was that we should not propose such radical
experimentation without considering some of the possible consquences.
This was certainly pretty radical.  This is also why WE hire
test pilots, to do things to them like this.  But even before
we would do something like this to a pilot, we would probably do
it to ourselves (the experimenters).  Henry Spencer made a good
point about our choke reflex.  I would never personally propose
an experiment on humans which I would not do to myself.  I think
people who are familiar with my avocational interests (climbing,
flying) would back this up.

--eugene miya

------------------------------

Date: 16 Mar 86 07:48:07 GMT
From: brahms!weemba@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Matthew P. Wiener)
Subject: Re: Population
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <[MC.LCS.MIT.EDU].851959.860315.KFL> KFL@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU ("Keith F. Lynch") writes:
>  Once we colonize space and make extensive use of the resources of
>the solar system, we won't have to choose.  We will be able to have a
>trillion trillionaires.

But we will end up with a thousand sextillionaires instead.  Or do you have
some sort of inside information that the rest of us don't know about?

>    Secondly, you are assuming that economies of scale will continue to exist.
>    I believe it may be possible that this is not the case.  As an example, it
>    used to be that it would have been cheaper for a car maker to make 1
>    million cars that were each painted black.  These days, it costs nearly the
>    same amount of money to make cars in lots of different colors.
>
>  Not a good example.  It is still true that building a million cars
>is nowehere near a million times as expensive as building one car.
>Building a trillion cars would probably be even cheaper, per car.

Oh really?  You are blithely ignoring transportation costs of getting cars
from space factories to planet surfaces, increased pollution costs, etc.  If
you want to make straightforward linear sci-fi extrapolations, you can then
conclude anything you want.  But I think the actual story is going to be a
lot more complicated (and expensive) than you or I or anyone else can even
guess at the moment.

It could be cheaper, or it could be the same, or it could be more expensive.
That's about as accurate a statement as anyone can make about the future.

And where the hell are you going to park all those cars?  :-)

>  Given robotics to do most of the boring and dangerous jobs, enormous
>amounts of power and materials from space, and a much higher
>population, I forsee an economy where the major occupations are
>writer, programmer, philosopher, scientist, architect, artist,
>entertainer, musician, etc.

With your view of a trillion trillionaires, I was expecting you to say the
major occupation will be spoiled brat/bum.  Why do I suspect all of the up
and coming poets you are predicting in this glorious tomorrow are going to
write at the level of Rod McKuen, if we are even that lucky?  Do we really
want to inflict that sort of mental blight on society?

>                                             Since these will be made
>by robotics, the cost of food, shelter, air, water, and clothing will
>be negligible.

No.  Only the labor will be negligible.  The capital costs will still
remain.  And part of that capital will be software/hardware the likes
we have never seen.  Cheaper?  More expensive?  I don't know.

ucbvax!brahms!weemba	Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720

------------------------------

Date: Sun 16 Mar 86 01:25:31-PST
From: Roger Crew <Crew@su-sushi.arpa>
Subject: Re: Destroy SPOT with an ASAT?  (what!?)
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
In-Reply-To: <8603160709.AA00891@s1-b.arpa>

> From: Ray Lubinsky
>    ...
> There is no reason to believe that our government would infringe on the
> rights of another nation -- particularly an ally....

WHAT???? ? ? ! ! ! !  
Try telling that to the Cambodians.

        -Roger Crew@SU-SUSHI.ARPA (Stanford Computer Science Dept.)
-------

------------------------------

Date: 14 Mar 86 20:28:31 GMT
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Stanley Friesen)
Subject: Re: Morton-Thiokol Engineering Claims
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <504@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes:
> 
>Was the O-ring problem something that stuck out like a sore thumb
>beforehand, as a source of major disagreement?  I suspect instead that
>it was just one of hundreds of possible problems brought up and deemed
>not serious enough.  In this case, they were wrong, and everybody pays.
>
	I think this is a very important point. In *hind-sight* it
seems obvious that the problem was significant. BUT, how do you tell
*ahead* of time which of the hundreds of niggling little doubts and
concerns are *really* important and which are not?  It is impossible
to make sure *everything* is *exactly* right before launching, if we
did that we would *never* launch. In fact if we used that criterion we
would never do anything significant.
	Unfortunately the media must have a scandal to sell newpapers
and catch viewers, so *someone* must be at fault. I have *never* seen
a news story which concluded that everything was normal and that there
was no cause for concern. They *thrive* on problems. Unfortunately, in
this case they may get innocent people ruined in the search for
scapegoats.
-- 

				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)

UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen
ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa

------------------------------

Date: 15 Mar 86 01:57:59 GMT
From: hplabs!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Michael McNeil)
Subject: Re: Why does everyone want to leave this planet?
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <707@uwvax.UUCP> hagens@uwvax.UUCP (Rob Hagens) writes:
>I want to get away from the apes (when they take over)...
>			Rob Hagens

Now that an Ameslan-trained chimp (Lucy) has been released into the
wild to spread language among the wild chimps, I figure we've got
maybe fifty years until they get organized.  (By the way, :-) .)

-- 

Michael McNeil
3Com Corporation     "All disclaimers including this one apply"
(415) 960-9367
..!ucbvax!hplabs!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm

	Crazy, but not crazy enough to be true.  
		Niels Bohr

------------------------------

Date: 14 Mar 86 21:21:54 GMT
From: tektronix!teklds!dadla!tekla!robertv@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Robert Vetter)
Subject: Re: The Challenger Crew
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> In a perfect world I think it would be found fitting if we were to erect
> an eternal flame outside of the Johnson Space Center with a plague to 
> commemorate all those who have died in spacecraft above which would be the
> pledge:
> 	"We shall always persevere"

Huh ???  Where is the plaque for the original Apollo astronauts who
died on the launch pad ???  They got into the rocket BEFORE there was
a regular high success/launch ratio.  I understand the sentiment, but
let's use our energies to go FORWARD rather than to remember the past.

Rob Vetter
(503) 629-1291
[ihnp4, ucbvax, decvax, uw-beaver]!tektronix!tekla!robertv

"Waste is a terrible thing to mind" - NRC
  (Well, they COULD have said it)

------------------------------

Date: 14 Mar 86 20:05:55 GMT
From: hplabs!hao!noao!terak!doug@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Doug Pardee)
Subject: Re: Morton-Thiokol Engineering Claims
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> Note that the engineer does not need to be publicly identified; newspapers
> and television stations will happily accept any information of this type
> "without attribution".  Moreover, such organizations will zealously try to
> prevent release of such information under First Amendment principles.

Hmmmm.  Here in the Phoenix area, 30 managers working at the Palo Verde
Nuclear Power Plant are being forced by their employer to take polygraph
tests to determine which one gave an anonymous tip to the local newsrag.
The paper isn't revealing its sources, but the tipster is gonna get axed
anyway (anyone who refuses the test is automatically fired).  And maybe
some innocent folks as well.

The Arizona Corporation Commission (which regulates our utilities) has
indicated that the information which was leaked should have been public
knowledge, should definitely have been provided to the ACC, and was
instead covered up.  The ACC is grateful to the "squealer", but its
hands are tied when it comes to protecting the guy's job.
-- 
Doug Pardee -- CalComp -- {elrond,savax,seismo,decvax,ihnp4}!terak!doug

------------------------------

Date: 13 Mar 86 21:44:40 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!utcsri!ubc-vision!alberta!cadomin!andrew@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Andrew Folkins)
Subject: Re: Population
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

I agree with most of your points, and just want to add a couple of comments :
 
In article <[MC.LCS.MIT.EDU].844652.860310.KFL> KFL@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU ("Keith F. Lynch") writes:
>  
>2) For the short term, the more people in space, the fewer are on
>   Earth messing up the wildlife.  For the long term, mankind will
>   make available for life far more space and time than are available
>   on Earth.  Possibly we will set up whole world-sized experimental
>   ecologies.
>
    In quite a few notes lately, the implication seems to be that Earth
will become less populated by emmigration to outer space.  I don't dislike
with the concept (I'd like to go myself), but it is not *practical*.
There is no way to ship people off this planet fast enough to decrease
the population (growing at how many *millions* per day?). The way to
avoid the "Limits to Growth" scenario is to establish an extraterrestrial
economy which can return enough wealth to this planet so that *everyone*
becomes rich, especially the Third world countries where most of the growth
is projected to occur.
   My point is that we cannot solve the Earth's population problems
by exporting people to space, but one way we can slow the growth
is to exploit (oh no! Exploitation!) the materials and power out
there and increase the worldwide standard of living.  Whoever does 
it will drag the rest of us along the road to prosperity along with him. 

>
>5) Even if nobody ever actually lives in space, we could (with more
>   advanced robotics) have all our large factories there.  And our
>   mines.  And our farms.  >>> So Earth COULD then support a much higher
>   population density, equivalent to downtown Manhattan. <<< Food, fuel,
>   computers, cars, furnished apartemnt buildings and office
>   buildings, would parachute down from space to the point where they
>   are needed when they are needed.
>
    I hope not.  Could you image downtown Manhattan *everywhere* you
went?  There is too much beauty on this planet to plaster it all over
with buildings (unless, of course, we rename the planet "Trantor").
 
>
>7) The more people there are, the more will share your tastes,
>   sympathize with your problems, etc.  There could be millions of
>   independant countries to live in, millions of seperate religions to
>   join, millions of TV channels to watch, billions of seperate
                                            ^^^^^^^^
>   corporations to work for, billions of different books to read,
                              ^^^^^^^^
>   billions of different computer programs to run, trillions of
    ^^^^^^^^
>   special interest clubs and societies to join, and trillions of
>   possible friends and lovers.
>
    You're not related to Carl Sagan by any chance, are you?
 
>8) Life is enjoyable.  Else why go on living?  So why not share this
>   amazing boon with as many others as we can.  How is it of any
>   benefit to anyone for worlds to remain barren of life, resources
>   unused, sunlight streaming pointlessly into empty space?
>
   Enter dream state : pictures of solar power satellites beaming millions
of dollars of electrical power back to Earth.  Asteroid smelters producing
billions of dollars of metals and volitiles for the habitats in Earth
orbit and the asteriod belt . . .
   I've said it before and I'll say it again : someone is going to become
*very* rich when an extraterrestrial economy gets going.  Of course, his
problem then is how to prevent the habitats from gaining independance
and nationalizing everything.



-- 
Andrew Folkins        ...ihnp4!alberta!andrew    
 
"We humans think of ourselves as being rather good at reasoning, but at
best we perform about a hundred logical inferences a second.  We're
talking about future expert systems that will be doing ten million
inferences a second.  What will it be like to put a hundred years thought
in every decision?  Knowledge is power."  - Edward A. Feigenbaum

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #215
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA00332; Mon, 17 Mar 86 07:31:38 PST
	id AA00332; Mon, 17 Mar 86 07:31:38 PST
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 86 07:31:38 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8603171531.AA00332@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #216

*** EOOH ***
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 86 07:31:38 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #216

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 216

Today's Topics:
			  Antimatter drive?
		Re: Challenger crew compartment found?
		  Re: Re: Was Sirius red after all?
		     Re: Fusion reactors in space
			 plea for moderation
			  Re: SRB engineers
			Re: Seas and Swells...
		Re: Morton-Thiokol Engineering Claims
			    Re: Population
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 14 Mar 86 21:25:14 GMT
From: unmvax!mcdermot@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (John McDermott)
Subject: Antimatter drive?
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Question:  I heard on the (local) radio yesterday that Kirtland
Air Force Base (actually some unit there) was due to get funding
to *continue* research on an "ant-proton" rocket drive which would
revolutionize space travel.  The implication was that this drive system
was somewhat working.  Is this real or :-) ?

Shades of the Enterprize?

------------------------------

Date: 15 Mar 86 19:36:38 GMT
From: ucla-cs!scw@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department
Subject: Re: Challenger crew compartment found?
References: <286@hadron.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <286@hadron.UUCP> klr@hadron.UUCP (Kurt L. Reisler) writes:
>	  Should the Challenger Crew be interred at
>	Arlington National Cemetary, or at sites chosen by the
>	famillies. (Are the crew of the Appolo fire interred at
>	Arlington National?)
White and Chaffey (spelling?) are both interred at West Point.

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: 15 Mar 86 22:37:06 GMT
From: tektronix!reed!clyde@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Clyde Bryja)
Organization: Reed College, Portland, Oregon
Subject: Re: Re: Was Sirius red after all?
References: <8603061510.AA04282@infinet.UUCP>, <1146@lsuc.UUCP>, <12364@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> In article <1146@lsuc.UUCP> msb@lsuc.UUCP (Mark Brader) writes:
> 
> 
> >   Ancient Babylonian, Greek, and Roman texts were known to consistently
> >   refer to Sirius as red.  But now there is medieval evidence for this as
> >   well.  Wolfhard Schlosser and Werner Bergmann of the Ruhr University
> 
>     One other problem with the Sirius B as red giant theory: Sirius B has 
> about the same temperature as Sirius A: about 12000 K if I remember right.
> This is *much cooler* than some other white dwarves, and seems to indicate
> a considerable cooling-off period. Also, where is there any sign of a left-
> over planetary nebula?
> 
> ucbvax!brahms!gsmith    Gene Ward Smith/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720

	Recent measurements of the *effective* temperature of Sirius B
yield a value in the range of 25 to 28 thousand kelvins.  The
effective temperature of a star is the surface temperature that the
star would have if it were a perfect blackbody radiating with the same
luminosity.  For main sequence stars, the effective temperature and
the actual surface temperature are of nearly the same value.  Not so
white dwarf stars.  I don't know what the actual surface temperature
of Sirius B is, but I'm sure it's a lot less than the effective
temperature.  The point of typing all this is to say that Sirius B
radiates a lot of energy per unit surface area (much more energy than
would be implied by considering the actual surface temperature as a
measuring stick).  Incidently, the effective temperature of Sirius A
is about 10,000 K.
	The high radiative power of Sirius B (and it is high compared
to most white dwarves, though lower than a few) would imply that it
contracted relatively recently.  I still feel 2000 years to be much
too recent, though.

"For Easter Day is Christmas time,		Clyde Bryja
 And far away is near,				Box 21, Reed College
 And two and two is more than four,		Portland, OR	97202
 And over there is here."

------------------------------

Date: 15 Mar 86 06:21:11 GMT
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!harvard!bu-cs!bzs@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: Fusion reactors in space
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa


>Inertial fusion reactors might make good rockets.  Magnetic fusion
>reactors won't make good rockets; although they have good Isp their
>power/mass ratio is limited by the need to radiate waste heat
>deposited in the reactor structure.  In inertial confinement fusion
>rockets the exploding pellet debris will carry away much of the heat,
>and the reaction chamber can be designed to let most of the neutrons
>escape to space.

Being as I was the one who brought up using fusion instead of fission
in space I thought I would clarify that what I had in mind was an
onboard power source, not a rocket propellant, although this turn of
the discussion is interesting.

	-Barry Shein, Boston University

------------------------------

Date: 16-Mar-1986 1724
From: redford%jeremy.DEC@decwrl.dec.com  (John Redford)
To: space@s1-b.arpa, redford%jeremy.DEC@decwrl.dec.com
Subject: plea for moderation


Lately I have been receiving several SPACE digests a day.  The volume 
of mail has become quite remarkable, especially since it was 
relatively light before the Challenger disaster.  Unfortunately, the 
volume has expanded without the content keeping pace.  Most messages
seem to be extended replies to questions that are really quite far 
from the subject of space.  I'm as guilty of this as anyone; I never 
should have gotten into the discussion of the cultural importance of 
Homer and Euclid.  

So this is a plea for moderation.  Much as I would like to spend all
my time on the network, I do have other things to do. Please, please,
please, let's keep it to the point. If you want to comment on someone
else's message, then paraphrase and summarize it rather than quoting
it in full.  If there have already been 50 messages on the
responsibility of the Morton-Thiokol's engineers, then don't add
another.  If you want to talk about science fiction, or the importance
of Euclid, or the damaging effects of population growth, then do it on
other lists or with other individuals.  And finally, the level of
personal abuse that we've seen in the last few weeks is shocking.
Language that would provoke fights if used face-to-face seems to be a
regular debating tactic.  Tone it down, folks!  Insults only lead to
counter-insults, giving us still more megabytes to wade through. 

John Redford
DEC-Hudson

PS If you don't like this message, send the reply to me and not to 
the world.

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 16 Mar 86 13:18:07 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@mc.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: SRB engineers
To: aurora!eugene@riacs.arpa
Cc: KFL@mc.lcs.mit.edu, Space@s1-b.arpa

    From: aurora!eugene@RIACS.ARPA (Eugene miya)

    I wish it were that simple.  Don't forget that most of these
    managers ARE engineers.

  It doesn't matter who does or doesn't have an engineering degree.
My point was that only the managers had the responsibilty for the
decision.  That is what responsibility means, that if the decision was
bad that they are responsible.

    How easy it is to divide the world into two groups.

  In this case it is appropriate.  Those that had the responsibility
for the decision and those that didn't.

    Not everyone can afford to hire MBAs.

  No reason they should.  In technical fields engineers usually make
better managers.
								...Keith

------------------------------

Date: 0  0 00:00:00 EST
From: "Maarten Nederlof" <maarten@wharton-10.arpa>
Subject: Re: Seas and Swells...
To: "space" <space@s1-b.arpa>
Cc: tektronix!uw-beaver!uw-june!entropy!dataio!pilchuck!ingrid@ucbvax.berkeley.edu,
        maarten
Reply-To: "Maarten Nederlof" <maarten@wharton.ARPA>

On the off chance that this was a serious question, when you have
"seas of 200  feet and swells of 30 feet", the actual depth if there
were no waves or swells,  could be measured to be 200 feet, from
surface to ocean floor.  The swells are  the actual plus-or-minus
deviation from that 200 ft point due to waves, thus  the actual depth
varied (over the period of 10-15 seconds from 170 feet to 230  feet.

As a wreck diver, I can only tell you that when you are working at the
depths  they are probably working at, (the above are only
hypothetical) much heavy  equipment is necessary.  Bathyspheres, or
whatever version of submersible the  Navy is using, are universally
tethered to the recovery ship.  They often even  dangle from a line
from such a ship, and if that ship is bobbing around, that
submersible will not be much good for anything.

They are not always tethered, depending upon depth....I'm not familiar
with the  location of the Challenger's crew compartment, so I'm not
sure what types of  depths they are talking about.  Either way, it's
very difficult to work at all  in waters where there are significant
swells.

Maarten Nederlof
University of Pennsylvania
ARPA: Maarten@Wharton-10.Arpa
CSNET: Maarten%Wharton-10@CSNET-RELAY.CSNET

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 16 Mar 86 15:34:45 PST
From: mcgeer%ji@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Rick McGeer)
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa,
        ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Morton-Thiokol Engineering Claims

>
>Has even one of those engineers even resigned?  I'm not asking about press
>conferences, just about whether they are willing to stay with a company
>which has innocent blood on its hands.
>-- 

	Allan MacDonald, the senior Thiokol engineer at the launch
site and the man who refused to sign off on the launch, resigned the
week of the disaster.  Whether he was morally obligated to talk to the
press before the launch is, I suppose, debatable.  I'm pretty sure,
though, that a Canadian engineering licensing board would *not* strip
him of accreditation, given that he refused to approve the launch.

						-- Rick.

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 16 Mar 86 18:36:18 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@mc.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Population
To: c45103%d1%dartmouth.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
Cc: KFL@mc.lcs.mit.edu, REM%IMSSS@su-score.arpa, Space@s1-b.arpa

    From: Chuck Simmons <c45103%d1%dartmouth.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>

    In your counterexample, I see that you have proposed increasing the
    population by a factor of 1000 as well as increasing the disposable income
    by a factor of 1000.

  Umm, it is not so much that I am proposing doing anything.  My main
point is that it should be up to the people involved to decide how
many children they should have, whether to live in space or on Earth,
how hard they want to work for the incremental dollar, etc.  Nobody
should have the right to decide those things for others.  I am not
saying that I should sit in a control room somewhere and set the
population and median income to some figure.  I don't think that I or
any government has the power to do anything of the sort.  And if
anyone did have such a power, they shouldn't.  There is no point in
colonizing space, or even on living on Earth, unless we can be free.

    My thesis is that increased population is a bad idea
    unless you take steps to increase the standard of living of the current
    population as well as take steps to maintain an acceptably high standard of
    living for whatever future sized population you are encouraging.

  How do you propose increasing the standard of living of the present
population in the short term?  There is only so much wealth, and it
isn't going to increase by fiat.  Only by long hard work by a lot of
people over a long period.  And it cannot increase by more than a
factor of ten or so (very rough estimate) without considerable use of
space resources.
  If you are saying we should not colonize space or do anything which
might make the people of the U.S. wealthier until we bring the rest of
the world up to our standards, all I can say is it isn't going to
happen, there isn't enough wealth to go around.  What if Columbus was
not allowed to sail so long as there remained a slum in Europe?

    Increasing the disposable income by a factor of 1000 would be an acceptable
    increase in the standard of living as far as I am concerned.
    Also notice that in your comparison of 1G people with 100M dollars that
    each person could buy the equivalent of a Cray.

  Well, I think that the whole nature of the economy would be so
different that this sort of linear comparison isn't really very
meaningful.  Yes, I know I have been the main offender here.  But what
is meant by the processing power of a Cray?  Don't many of us already
have the processing power of a supercomputer of 20 years ago?  Don't
you think it is likely that the micro of 20 years from now will exceed
the power of the Cray in many ways?
  Twenty years ago, who would have believed that the average person
could ever afford to purchase ten million of anything? (i.e. on-chip
transistors in an average high-end micro.)
  We run into the same sort of trouble when trying to compare the
current value of the dollar with its past value.  Even over a period
of one year.  There is a lot of dispute about what the current
inflation rate is, for instance.  I believe it is around 8%.  The
government is saying it is less than 1%.  As for just how rich in
today's terms John Rockefeller (first dollar billionaire, around 1910)
was.  At the time you could buy a good meal in a good restraunt for
ten cents.  But you couldn't buy the processing power of an APPLE II
for any price.  And central air conditioning would have cost hundreds
of thousands.  And how much was Judas payed in terms of today's
currency?
  In this future economy, I expect that food, clothing, water, and
shelter would be quite inexpensive.  Air would be inexpensive but not
free as it is on Earth.  Most kinds of hardware would be fairly
inexpensive, except those which had some risk associated with them.
Risky things (cars, spacecraft, power tools) would have a cost that
mostly subsidizes lawsuits against the manufacturers.  Anything that
had to be custom designed or manufactured would be fairly expensive.
For instance a special piece of software, a unique building, a piece
of music composed just for you.  Medical costs would probably be
fairly expensive, and people probably wouldn't live much longer than
they do today, though a smaller proportion of people should die young.
Taxes would probably be fairly high, and would mostly be for defense.
Most healthy people would save most of their salary.  Few people would
borrow.  As a result, interest rates would be quite low, and there
would be plenty of capital for investing in new enterprises.
  In this economy nobody would starve, but a poor person might get
bored if he has tastes that cannot be satisfied by such things as
public libraries and evenings with friends.
  Forty years ago, who would have guessed that so much of so many
people's leisure time would be spent watching television?  Or doing
just one thing, whatever that one thing is?
  Remember that not so long ago, the great majority of the population
had just one vocation (farming) but many avocations.  Today, it is
reversed.  People have many vocations, but the majority have just one
avocation (watching TV).  Is it possible that it will change again?
That perhaps someday the great majority of all people will be
programmers?  Or artists?  (If there is any difference between the two
then!)
  Probably many of the people on the net(s), especially those that
read and write to a lot of lists, think that computers will be very
central in the world of the future.  Not just that there will be one
in every appliance and that most people will use one every day (we are
close to that point now!) but that the majority of people will spend
most of their working hours and leisure hours hunched over a keyboard
and screen.  Is this realistic?

    Personally, I do not think a Cray would provide more computer power than I
    could use (given sufficiently good software).

  Same here.  If nothing else, one can compose synthetic movies using
ray-tracing software.  I read that a Cray can produce one high
resolution ray-traced image in a half hour.  So to do this at 24
frames per second (standard movie rate) would require about 400,000
times the processing power of a Cray.  Other applications include
deeper-lookahead chess programs, and AI.
  Note that this future economy presupposes really good robotics and
computer science.  This can be regarded as AI, I suppose.  But I am
not really assuming that we will have true AI, that is, computers
which can do everything humans can.  I am not sure that that is
possible, and I am pretty sure that it is not necessary to get
computers and robots to do useful and independant things.  Current
computer visions algorithms could be used to make robots much smarter
at dealing with an unstructured environment.  The only problem is that
the algorithms are too slow.  Faster hardware will cure this, even if
vision researchers never come up with better algorithms.

    My objection to your original posting was that you were implying that an
    increased population in and of itself would be a good idea.  I am hoping to
    get you to modify this approach to:  "an increased population is a good
    idea if we can maintain a sufficiently high standard of living".

  Not exactly.  I am convinced that the average person produces more
than he consumes, and thus makes the world (er, solar system) a
wealthier place.  The only hole in this argument is that he does
consume certain limited resources, and as such reduces the net wealth
in a way that he cannot offset in the same way.  This is the very crux
of my argument for space.  In space, all such limited resources are
much less limited.

    It may be the case that "a sufficiently high standard of living" 
    constraints on the number of people we are willing to place within a cubic
    kilometer of one another.

  Well, once again I disagree with the way you are saying it.  You say
"we are willing to place" when you should be saying "are willing to
place themselves".
  Note that there are over ten to the 26 cubic kilometers in the inner
solar system alone.  If everyone requires a volume equal to that of my
apartment, you can fit three million people into each cubic
kilometer.  This would allow a total population of the inner solar
system of over ten to the 32.  I don't think the solar system can
support a population anywhere near that high, ten to the 20th seems
more likely.  Sheer volume is not a problem.
								...Keith

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #216
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA02995; Mon, 17 Mar 86 23:01:02 PST
	id AA02995; Mon, 17 Mar 86 23:01:02 PST
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 86 23:01:02 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8603180701.AA02995@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #217

*** EOOH ***
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 86 23:01:02 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #217

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 217

Today's Topics:
			 Congratulations ESA
	       (teleoperators)(Boskone Panalist, etc.)
	     Re:  (teleoperators)(Boskone Panalist, etc.)
		Re: Resignations (engineering ethics)
	       Re: Destroy SPOT with an ASAT?  (what!?)
		Re: Resignations (engineering ethics)
		Re: Morton-Thiokol Engineering Claims
	   Re: Scuttle the Shuttle?(Boskone Panalist, etc.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 14 Mar 86 13:28:56 GMT
From: ihnp4!inuxc!inuxe!fred@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Fred Mendenhall)
Subject: Congratulations ESA
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

To our friends across the Atlantic and to everyone that supported
ESA directly or indirectly:

	CONGRATULATIONS ON A STUNNING GIOTTO MISSION!!
	
Your daring and hard work has enriched mankind. 

Outstanding job, simply outstanding!

				
				Fred Mendenhall
				Indianapolis, Indiana
				USA

------------------------------

Date: 14 Mar 86 23:01:12 GMT
From: ihnp4!houxm!mtuxo!mtgzz!dls@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (d.l.skran)
Subject: (teleoperators)(Boskone Panalist, etc.)
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

1)humans ones on the ground are cheap - agreed
2)humans in space are expensive       - agreed

Now - what about
3)robots/teleoperated systems on the ground - competitive for
  some applications, but not free, and not anywhere near full
  human capability
4)robots/teloperated systems in space are
	-functionally non-existant in the sense that MAJOR development
	 is required
	-not FREE either. 
	-lacking in the capability to substitute for humans doing 
	 spacelab type work. 

The point that is being made over and over, but that some people 
don't seem to hear is this:

Yes, robots and teleoperated systems have a vital role to play in space.
Yes, as time goes on, they will be used more and more.
Yes, any lunar mines or solar power satellite factories will be crewed
     mainly by robots or teleoperators

But right now, they simply will not do the jobs we need to have done.

Further, at all stages of our advance into space, some humans(and
some here is more than one or two) will be required to control
things and deal with unforseen circumstances.

The current development effort in computers and robotics dwarfs that
in things like spacecraft design by a very large factor. It seems
entirely appropriate for NASA to focus on what others are NOT DOING -
finding out how to live and work in space. In 20 years they can 
buy the robots off the shelf and ship them up to the space station -
IF THERE IS A SPACE STATION. IF THERE IS A SHUTTLE/TAV. If there isn't,
we'll have to wait another ten years while one is built - or more.

It is absolutely irrelevant what a great thing teleoperated devices
might be in 20 years. The question is what do we need to do NOW
so that in 20 years we will be ready to build the lunar mines
and solar power satellites. The Japanese will build the robots
regardless. The space station - the shuttle - these things won't 
just happen.

Dale

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 16 Mar 86 16:18:11 PST
From: mcgeer%ji@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Rick McGeer)
To: ihnp4!houxm!mtuxo!mtgzz!dls@ucbvax.berkeley.edu, space-incoming@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Re:  (teleoperators)(Boskone Panalist, etc.)

	It is absolutely irrelevant what a great thing teleoperated devices
	might be in 20 years. The question is what do we need to do NOW
	so that in 20 years we will be ready to build the lunar mines
	and solar power satellites. The Japanese will build the robots
	regardless. The space station - the shuttle - these things won't 
	just happen.

I think Paul's point is that none of these things will be economically
viable in 20 years anyway, Shuttle, Space Station, or TAV
notwithstanding.  I don't agree with him, but *I can't prove it*;
certainly most of the major studies that I've seen up to now support
his position.  We can argue that the SPS study, for example, left out
some crucial stuff -- it didn't count the environmental cost of coal,
for example (just as the anti-nukes don't; but any Canadian will give
you an earful about the environmental costs of coal, since Canada
bears the burden of acid rain).  But we can't prove that anything done
in space will prove competitive with earth-based technologies.  I'm
sure Paul would agree that IF there were any construction in space
worth doing RIGHT NOW, that humans would be the answer.  But his point
is, given that you're going to wait 25-50 years anyway, why not do a
Manhattan project in robotics right now, as opposed to launching
essentially uneconomic Shuttles?

					-- Rick.

------------------------------

Date: 16 Mar 1986 20:38-EST 
From: Karl.Kluge@g.cs.cmu.edu
To: KFL@mc.lcs.mit.edu
Cc: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Re: Resignations (engineering ethics)

> From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@mc.lcs.mit.edu>
> 
>     From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
>     (Henry Spencer)
> 
>     If management overrules you on something important, and you know damn well
>     that you know the score and they don't, how can you ethically stay with
>     that management?  Why were there no quiet resignations at M-T?
> 
>   I don't think this a fair or reasonable attitude.  It is ethical to
> work for a company or a client whether or not one agrees with the
> position of the company or the client.  For instance the company I
> work for does a lot of SDI ("Star Wars") research.  Most of the senior
> scientists and engineers I have talked to about it believe that SDI is
> not feasible.  But they feel that refusing to use one's talents as
> best one can on this project is usurping the authority of the elected
> officials.  They decide what is to be done.  We do it if it is humanly
> do-able.  If we didn't do it, someone else would.  Probably someone
> who wouldn't be able to do it as well as we would.

I don't think this is a fair or reasonable attitude. No law, no congress, no
plurality can absolve someone of the moral responsibility for the
consequences of her/his actions. If you do a piece of research knowing
fully well what the sponsors of the research plan to do with the work,
then you bear full moral and ethical responsibility for the end results.
Were the engineers who built the concentration camps for the Holocaust
acting ethically because Hitler (who, after all, was elected by the German 
people) decided they should be built, and after all, if they hadn't built
the camps, someone else would have, and probably less well?

NO ONE HAS THE AUTHORITY TO ABSOLVE YOU THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE 
CONSEQUENCES OF YOUR ACTIONS. NO ONE HAS THE AUTHORITY TO FORCE YOU 
TO ENGAGE IN WHAT YOU CONSIDER AN UNETHICAL ACTION (though they may 
well have the power to punish you for not doing so).

Now, companies (and governments and other large organizations) do many
things, and as long as you feel happy that the things you do as part
of that are ethical, then there is no problem. If you feel that the
fruits of your labor are being used in an irresponsible manner, then
you have an ethical obligation to do something about it (at the very
least, to refuse to contribute further).

The "If we didn't do it, someone else would" defense is completely
invalid.  The fact that someone else may engage in an unethical act if
you refuse to do so in no way magically makes the act ethical. Others
will shoplift regardless of whether or not I do it, but that does not
make it ethical for me to shoplift.

Notice, however, that in no way does acting ethically protect you from
being fired, arrested for breaking the law, etc. There is a myth in
this country that those who do the right thing are always rewarded in
the end. This doesn't always happen in reality.

Karl Kluge
(kck@cmu.cs.g)

Standard disclaimer: The above views are mine, and may not be those of
the nice people who pay my stipend (although I can hope).

------------------------------

Date: 15 Mar 86 22:51:20 GMT
From: nike!topaz!bentley!kwh@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (KW Heuer)
Subject: Re: Destroy SPOT with an ASAT?  (what!?)
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <261@uvacs.UUCP> uvacs!rwl (Ray Lubinsky) writes:
>> My question for the net: under what circumstances should the US destroy
>> SPOT?
>> 
>> My own opinion: only if Congress has declared war on France.
>Regardless of the reliability of your rumor source, there is no
>reason to believe that our government would infringe on the rights of another
>nation -- particularly an ally.

He did say "only if Congress has declared war on France." (for his own
opinion).  Assuming such a condition, France would no longer be an ally;
and I think there is every reason to believe that the USA would "infringe
on the rights of another nation" that we are at war with at the time.

Aha, I bet you are interpreting the original poster as suggesting that
we declare war on France _because_ of SPOT, whereas I was assuming
such a war already in existence which would _justify_ shooting down
SPOT.  I certainly don't think the existence of SPOT justifies a
declaration of war, especially since (as noted in the original
posting) the USSR already has better resolution, and we are not at war
with them.

Personally, I have no grudge against France, and have no objections to
any country launching a high-resolution satellite.  It might keep the
superpowers more honest.

Karl W. Z. Heuer (ihnp4!bentley!kwh), The Walking Lint

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 16 Mar 86 23:48:22 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@mc.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Resignations (engineering ethics)
To: Karl.Kluge@g.cs.cmu.edu
Cc: KFL@mc.lcs.mit.edu, Space@s1-b.arpa

  You misunderstand my position.  I do not think it is ethical to do
anything illegal or immoral.  But the SRB engineers were not asked to.
  There is an enormous difference between being asked to build a
concentration camp and disgreeing with one's manager on the safety of
something.
  I don't think, in general, that it is reasonable for an employee of
any company to tell the news media that the company's product is
unsafe.  Not only is he likely to be fired, he is apt to be sued for
libel.  And rightly so.  Unless he has good evidence that his employer
is engaged in a criminal conspiracy.  I don't think there is any
evidence that M-T was.  It appears that they are guilty only of poor
judgement.
								...Keith

------------------------------

Date: 14 Mar 86 19:36:13 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Morton-Thiokol Engineering Claims
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> ... In this case, however, it was the commanders-in-chief
> who undertook to carry out a plan which they did not consider effective. The
> engineers were not commanders - they were soldiers...

Note that the quote makes it clear that the "commander-in-chief" that
Napoleon is referring to has at least two levels of superiors above him
who might be actively (if unwisely) involved in the decision.  I think
the analogy holds.

And as for soldiers' obligation to weigh the soundness of the campaign,
Nuremberg and later such courts established very clearly that it *is*
the soldiers' obligation to weigh the *legality* of their orders.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 14 Mar 86 22:10:53 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Scuttle the Shuttle?(Boskone Panalist, etc.)
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> But teleoperated devices have been used in the lab for 40 years, in
> nuclear physics.  

And very crude and primitive they are, too.  Nothing that would be at
all useful in space, for the most part.  Why do you think the Surveyors
and the Vikings carried only the simplest remote-controlled scoops?

> Using them in the lab in non-life threatening
> situations would not make sense.

Bova was exaggerating a bit, but only a bit.  There are many jobs on
Earth where teleoperators would be the preferred technology if they
were capable and reliable.  As for non-life-threatening situations,
the life expectancy of chemists is noticeably shorter than that of other
laboratory-based professionals.  Not a lot, but some.  Is this a
life-threatening situation?  If not, why not?

(I still remember our instructor in third-year organic showing us how
to clean spectrophotometer cells.  Using benzene.  >>>GAK<<<  If I'd
known then what I know now, I'd have walked out of that lab and dropped
the course at once.)

> ...People are cheap on the ground...

Have you tried pricing them in a university environment lately?  For
positions requiring serious skill, not just warm bodies?

> ...People in space are expensive...

Have you priced space-mission teleoperator development projects lately?
They aren't cheap either.

> You can't expect the economics to be identical.

No, but I can expect to draw some limited conclusions from the observation
that teleoperators see very little use on Earth, and most of the ones that
do see use are for situations where human presence is not just expensive
and dangerous but utterly impossible.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #217
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA03674; Tue, 18 Mar 86 03:01:00 PST
	id AA03674; Tue, 18 Mar 86 03:01:00 PST
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 86 03:01:00 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8603181101.AA03674@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #218

*** EOOH ***
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 86 03:01:00 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #218

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 218

Today's Topics:
	    Re: Re: Re: Resignations (engineering ethics)
	   Polygraphs [was Re: Morton-Thiokol Eng. Claims]
			    Re: "Fossils"
		 USENET costs--who's paying for what?
			      Re: Colors
			  Plutonium hysteria
			The Shuttle Aftermath
			   Re:Destroy SPOT?
				Error
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 17 Mar 1986 00:18-EST 
From: Karl.Kluge@g.cs.cmu.edu
To: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@mc.lcs.mit.edu>
Cc: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Resignations (engineering ethics)

>   You misunderstand my position.  I do not think it is ethical to do
> anything illegal or immoral.  But the SRB engineers were not asked to.
>   There is an enormous difference between being asked to build a
> concentration camp and disgreeing with one's manager on the safety of
> something.

I did not say that the M-T engineers were ethically equivalent to the people 
who built the concentration camps, or that they had been asked to do anything
illegal or immoral.

What I said was that using the logic you gave regarding SDI work it 
would be impossible to morally condemn the people who built and operated 
the concentration camps. I also tried to point out what I felt were the
flaws in that logic. I never even mentioned M-T.

It's quite possible that you disagree with the logic you gave, as you
said it represented the views of others where you work, in which case
we probably don't have much to disagree on.

>   I don't think, in general, that it is reasonable for an employee of
> any company to tell the news media that the company's product is
> unsafe.  Not only is he likely to be fired, he is apt to be sued for
> libel.  And rightly so.  Unless he has good evidence that his employer
> is engaged in a criminal conspiracy.  

1) If the employee has sound technical data which he can prove the
company has ignored, I would think the company would have a hard time
proving either malice or falsehood, two preconditions for libel.

2) As for being fired, hey, no one ever said behaving ethically is a
bed of roses. If the M-T engineers had gone outside of channels and
succeeded in halting the launch, they would probably be unemployed and
branded as "troublemakers". But seven people would be alive, the
shuttle would be in one piece, and the publicity would have forced NASA
to deal with the seal problem before lives were lost, not after.

3) It is my firm belief (naive though it is, as I haven't had to deal
with the job market) that if you are convinced that the product you work 
on poses an unreasonable risk to the safety of others and that the company 
is not going to do anything about the situation, and yet continue to work 
on it, then you bear moral responsibility for any injuries or deaths that 
result. 

That's not to say that there isn't room for genuine disagreements stemming 
from ambiguous technical data, which don't call for press conferences 
and resignations. After all, people in management are supposedly there 
because they are older and wiser than the people under them.

In the case of M-T, the dust from everyone running to cover their
buttocks makes it rather hard to divine where the truth lies. I suspect
that the engineers were not as positive about the risk as they make 
themselves out to have been, nor the management as careless and "political" in
their decision making as they have been made out to be.

Karl

Usual disclaimer...
(And remember...if we make "blowing the whistle" illegal...
...only outlaws will own whistles :-))

------------------------------

Date: 16 Mar 86 05:43:16 GMT
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!umcp-cs!chris@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Chris Torek)
Subject: Polygraphs [was Re: Morton-Thiokol Eng. Claims]
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <1092@terak.UUCP> doug@terak.UUCP writes:

[in reference to the claims that M-T engineers should have raised a
fuss, and to the counterclaims, presents the following case:]

>Here in the Phoenix area, 30 managers working at the Palo Verde
>Nuclear Power Plant are being forced by their employer to take
>polygraph tests to determine which one gave an anonymous tip to
>the local newsrag.  The paper isn't revealing its sources, but the
>tipster is gonna get axed anyway (anyone who refuses the test is
>automatically fired).  And maybe some innocent folks as well.

Polygraphs are notoriously unreliable.  Perhaps the local newsrag
should run a story on fooling them.
-- 
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 1415)
UUCP:	seismo!umcp-cs!chris
CSNet:	chris@umcp-cs		ARPA:	chris@mimsy.umd.edu

------------------------------

Date: 15 Mar 86 23:59:13 GMT
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!cmcl2!lanl!jlg@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Jim Giles)
Subject: Re: "Fossils"
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <[MC.LCS.MIT.EDU].848897.860312.KFL> KFL@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU ("Keith F. Lynch") writes:
>
>  "Fossil" isn't the right word.  But it is clear what Bronowski (are
>you sure it wasn't Sagan?) means.

Yes, I'm pretty sure it wasn't Sagan.  The reference is "The Ascent of
Man", J. Bronowski, 1973, Little, Brown and Co., ISBN 0-316-10930-4,
pp. 437-438.

J. Giles
Los Alamos

------------------------------

Date: 16 Mar 86 08:53:09 GMT
From: hplabs!glacier!reid@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Brian Reid)
Subject: USENET costs--who's paying for what?
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa


I've been taking readership data for USENET lately. This data consists of
summaries from 100 sites about the number of readers of various newsgroups.
I then collect it all back at glacier, add the traffic data, and produce
this result. I'm not proposing to do anything with this information, but other
people might.

TOP 40 NEWSGROUPS IN ORDER BY PER-READER COST

    +-- estimated total number of people who read this group, worldwide
    |       +-- approximate $US per reader per month spent sending
    |       |   this group, worldwide.
    |       |        +-- (rating) percentage of the total user population
    |       |        |   who read this group
    |       |        |        +-- (share) percentage of newsreaders who read
    |       |        |        |   this group.
    V       V        V        V
  1403   $33.84     0.66     2.44  net.religion.christian
  1348    24.15     0.63     2.34  net.philosophy
  2505    21.65     1.17     4.35  net.politics
  1789    18.51     0.84     3.11  net.religion
  1211    16.98     0.57     2.10  net.abortion
  3716    13.10     1.74     6.46  net.space
  4982    11.91     2.33     8.66  net.singles
  2807    11.51     1.32     4.88  mod.techreports
  5326    10.94     2.50     9.25  net.women
  4308    10.30     2.02     7.48  net.music
  4087     9.55     1.91     7.10  net.micro.amiga
  4569     9.51     2.14     7.94  net.sources.mac
 12649     9.31     5.92    21.98  net.sources
  6799     8.83     3.18    11.81  net.sources.games
  1624     8.62     0.76     2.82  net.comics
  1665     8.36     0.78     2.89  net.sport.hoops
  2918     7.41     1.37     5.07  net.cse
 10171     7.33     4.76    17.67  mod.sources
  2505     7.15     1.17     4.35  net.startrek
  3317     6.72     1.55     5.76  net.sf-lovers
  4005     6.46     1.88     6.96  net.auto
   867     6.36     0.41     1.51  net.sport.hockey
  2518     5.33     1.18     4.38  net.kids
  2463     5.28     1.15     4.28  mod.computers.vax
  1486     5.28     0.70     2.58  net.ham-radio
  2188     5.24     1.03     3.80  net.motss
  1500     5.11     0.70     2.61  net.tv.drwho
  1541     4.93     0.72     2.68  net.games.pbm
  3124     4.87     1.46     5.43  net.micro.apple
  5767     4.86     2.70    10.02  net.micro.pc
  4858     4.74     2.28     8.44  net.movies
  1803     4.71     0.84     3.13  net.nlang.india
  1403     4.63     0.66     2.44  net.cycle
  6083     4.62     2.85    10.57  net.micro.mac
  2766     4.49     1.30     4.81  net.music.classical
  6331     4.19     2.97    11.00  net.arch
  2408     4.08     1.13     4.18  net.nlang
  2064     4.05     0.97     3.59  net.aviation
  4143     4.03     1.94     7.20  net.news.group
  5574     3.95     2.61     9.68  net.audio
-- 
	Brian Reid	decwrl!glacier!reid
	Stanford	reid@SU-Glacier.ARPA

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 16 Mar 86 18:34:19 PST
From: space-request@s1-b.arpa
Apparently-To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

------------------------------

Date: 17 Mar 86 01:42:23 GMT
From: ucsfcgl!arnold@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Ken Arnold%CGL)
Subject: Re: Colors
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

KFL@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU ("Keith F. Lynch") writes:
>    As another example, what about Homer's "wine-dark sea"?  I've sailed
>    over that same sea, and it isn't wine coloured (nor particularly
>    dark).
>
> Well, Homer was blind, you know.

Well, the latest theory on this (I have a few classicist friends)
claims that the kind of water used to dilute the wine (almost all
wine was drunk diluted in those days) did create a color similar to
the sea in that area.  People who tried the experiment said that the
comparison was pretty apt.

Just passin' it on ...

		Ken Arnold

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 17 Mar 86 00:25:09 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@mc.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: Plutonium hysteria
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Cc: KFL@mc.lcs.mit.edu

  I have borrowed the March 15th copy of THE NATION.  This is a left
wing pulp magazine.  In a front page headline it says "PLUTONIUM
COVERUP"  The article under it is equally hysterical.
  "...no bigger than the baseball once thought to represent the size
of an A-bomb's core ... stumbled upon NASA's plans to launch the next
vehicle with a payload containing 46.7 pounds of plutonium-238, the
most toxic subsance in this universe. ... so far, the agencies
involved have been stalling, if not stonewalling.  ... Galileo
explosion could release about 57,000 curies of plutonium radiation -
theoretically enough to give 5 billion people lung or bone cancer ..."
  I can hardly believe they publish such stuff.  Of course they have
the right to publish whatever rubish comes into their heads.  But they
ought to feel some sort of responsibility to get their facts straight,
even if it means asking someone who took science in high school.
Galileo was not to have been on the next shuttle flight, as they
state.  Discovering the plutonium was hardly a milestone of
investigative journalism as they imply, it has been publically known
sisnce the first proposals for Galileo.  And most importantly, it
would not harm anyone if it was destroyed.  That amount of plutonium
cannot possibly cause 5 billion cancers, even if you were careful to
put all of it in people's lungs and none at all into the ocean.  I do
not know if it is really 57,000 curies, but if it is, that would come
to 11 microcuries per person.  The air in most houses is more
radioactive than that.
  I don't know what they hope to gain from this yellow journalism.
How do they say we should power Galileo?  Jupiter is too far for solar
cells, not to mention the fact that Galileo will often be in Jupiter's
shadow.  Batteries wouldn't last long enough.  All I can assume is
they don't want any sort of probe sent to Jupiter.  They would prefer
that people remain in ignorance about conditions there.  Ignorance is
at least consistent with their attitude about almost everything else.
  Several Soviet satellites containing far more plutonium have burned
up in the atmosphere or have crashed into the ground, spewing
plutonium into the environment.  They don't have anything to say about
that.  Which isn't surprising, since they never have anything negative
to say about the Soviets.  Not that these reentries have caused any
harm to anyone as far as I know.
  Despite many TONS of plutonium having been spread through the
atmosphere during the nuclear tests of the 1950s and 1960s, most of it
over land, the major source of radiation exposure to the average
citizen is tobacco smoke, with natural radon a close second, and
cosmic rays a distant third.  Manmade plutonium isn't even in the
running.
								...Keith

------------------------------

Date: Mon 17 Mar 86 18:56:27-PST
From: Matt Heffron <BEC.HEFFRON@usc-ecl.arpa>
Subject: The Shuttle Aftermath
To: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
Address: Beckman Instruments, 2500 Harbor X-11
Address: Fullerton, CA. 92634
Phone: (714) 961-3728

The following is from a letter to the editor, Riverside, CA Press-Enterprise.

  My children shall never forget January 28, as they sat in their classroom
and watched the coverage of the tragic shuttle explosion.  My 6-year-old was
particularly affected.
  You see, he has great appreciations of being a pilot, then on to become an
astronaut.
  His comment the other night is one I shall never forget!
  He asked: "Mom, when I'm an astronaut and go up to space will I die quick
too?"  I hope my response was reassuring for his young mind.
  Time will tell, time will heal.
				-- KRIS McCLINTOCK

I wonder how many hundreds (thousands?) of kids are thinking the same thing?
I hope time heals.

Matt Heffron
-------

------------------------------

Date:         Mon, 17 Mar 86 22:34:30 EST
From: Garrett Fitzgerald
  <ST801179%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu>
Reply-To:  ST801179%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA
To: SPACE-INCOMING@s1-b.arpa
Subject:      Re:Destroy SPOT?

If I read the original posting correctly, Ray was reporting a rumour. He
then went on to say that he only thought SPOT should be destroyed in the case
of a declared war on France. He did NOT say that we should, he said someone
else thought  we should. I am sure that someone else has already said
essentially this, but just in case....

------------------------------

Date:         Mon, 17 Mar 86 22:47:43 EST
From: <ST801179%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu>
Reply-To:  ST801179%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA
To: SPACE-INCOMING@s1-b.arpa
Subject:      Error

Ray Lubinsky was not the person who said that, he was the one who started the
stupid comments about it. Whoever said it also capitalized the word RUMOUR.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #218
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA04528; Tue, 18 Mar 86 07:00:59 PST
	id AA04528; Tue, 18 Mar 86 07:00:59 PST
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 86 07:00:59 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8603181500.AA04528@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #219

*** EOOH ***
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 86 07:00:59 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #219

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 219

Today's Topics:
		     More flames from Mr. Smith.
	       Re: Destroy SPOT with an ASAT?  (what!?)
		   Tough decisions, jobs & careers
		   Re: More flames from Mr. Smith.
		 Re: Challenger II & Science Fiction
	     Re: (teleoperators)(Boskone Panalist, etc.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

To: ucbvax!flamevax!gsmith@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Cc: space@mc.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: More flames from Mr. Smith.
Date: 17 Mar 86 23:04:02 PST (Mon)
From: jef@lbl-rtsg.arpa

I saw your message in SF-LOVERS on "Flight of the Dragonfly".
I thought it was a flame, but of course I'm biased about this
particular book, so I showed it to a friend.  He said, "This is
a flame."

No one to my knowlege has accused you of being an ignoramus.
Many people have accused you of being a flamer.  I don't see
how you can expect to be treated like the intelligent adult
you seem to be, while you continue to spout content-free flames.

Please civilize yourself, Mr. Smith.
---
Jef

------------------------------

Date: 18 Mar 86 02:59:15 GMT
From: vger!al@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  ( Informatix)
Subject: Re: Destroy SPOT with an ASAT?  (what!?)
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <639@bentley.UUCP>, kwh@bentley.UUCP (KW Heuer) writes:
> In article <261@uvacs.UUCP> uvacs!rwl (Ray Lubinsky) writes:
> >> My question for the net: under what circumstances should the US destroy
> >> SPOT?
> >>
> >> My own opinion: only if Congress has declared war on France.

> >Regardless of the reliability of your rumor source, there is no
> >reason to believe that our government would infringe on the rights of another
> >nation -- particularly an ally.

Our government regularly infringes on the rights of many nations.
E.g., multiple invasions of Mexico and Central America over the
last century, U2 flights over Russia (until they shot Gary Powers down),
covert involvement of the overthrow of South Vietnamese and Chilean
governments, invasion of Cuba (bay of pigs), extermination of the
American Indian nations, invasion of Canada (War of 1812), mining of
Nicaraguan harbors, etc.

Of course, most (perhaps all) powerful governments do this, 
many to a greater extent than Uncle Sam.

------------------------------

Date: 15 Mar 86 21:31:00 GMT
From: hplabs!hpfcdc!hpfcla!hpfcmp!rjn@hpfcmp@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Tough decisions, jobs & careers
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

re:  Between a rock and a hard place?  How did you get there?

There has been some discussion in this group [net.space] about whether the
Morton Thiokol engineers ought to have gone to the press with their
opposition to the Challenger launch.  The postings so far have concentrated
on issues like:
  * Would whistle blowing cost them their jobs and/or careers [probably].
  * Do their professional ethics or statute law require them to go public
    [not necessarily].
  * How much proof or certainty do you need before going public [look in
    the mirror].
  * How to blow the whistle anonymously.


The position in which these engineers found themselves probably did not have
an easy or "right" solution.  I contend that what they "should have done"
was to prepare for this crisis better.  Is this "20-20 hindsight"?  Sure.
But consider the following:

* Whenever you are involved in a business (or personal) relationship with
  other people, there is risk of getting out of agreement on any number of
  issues.  If you cannot negotiate a satisfactory solution, your only
  choices may be to capitulate, terminate the relationship, or act without
  agreement (which may terminate the relationship anyway).

* Although it may be unpleasant to plan for this, you need to anticipate the
  possibility when you enter a relationship.  If you don't do this, each
  conflict can easily become a crisis in which you find yourself compelled
  to make serious decisions in an uncomfortably short period of time.

* Most people don't consider this when they choose a job.  In addition, they
  often adopt the most affluent lifestyle their salary permits.  And, they
  sometimes massively compound the problem by choosing a career in an
  industry dominated by a single organization (.e.g.  air traffic control).

* Being "at the mercy of" a job does not encourage dealing with issues when
  they arise.  The tendency is likely to be the opposite, hoping that the
  problem will go away, and procrastinating until there is a dramatic
  eleventh-hour confrontation.


This article is not really about the M.T. engineers.  It is too late for
them.  They made their choices and now confront the consequences, whatever
they may be.  This is about you.  What will YOU do if presented with a
similar dilemma?  Are you in a position to do what you consider to be the
most responsible thing?

The discussion about the M.T. engineers has made me aware of what has been
for me a largely unconscious policy.  These are the principles I seem to
have adopted:

* Choose a career in an industry which has diverse and highly competitive
  participants, such that if you resign or get fired, you have alternatives.
  Granted, there will be costs.  If working somewhere else were more
  attractive, you'd already be there.

* Choose an employer that has corporate or institutional objectives that you
  can support, and appears to have people willing to live by them.  Such
  organizations are usually more attractive in general, so this may mean
  accepting a lower starting salary.

* If the kind of results you want to create in the world are only available
  in a "monopolized" industry (e.g.  astronaut), acknowledge that.  Be at
  least psychologically prepared to start a new career.

* Head off crisis.  Take responsibility for making/keeping your organization
  the kind of place at which you are proud to work.  Anticipate and consider
  likely scenarios that would put you out of agreement with your employer.
  Do whatever is required to make the issues visible.  A slow-growing or
  chronic problem actually has the benefit that it gives you both time to
  influence it and/or time to prepare to move on.

* This does not mean being a crusader who attacks every decision with
  righteous hostility and moral indignation.  My experience is that
  condemnations and other negative value judgements do not create positive
  results.  What does work is supporting integrity in others and focusing on
  impartial presentations of actions vs consequences.

* Keep your "parachute" packed.  My definition of affluence is "living below
  your means".  Should a conflict occur, having a reasonably liquid nest egg
  and a low debt load simplifies the considerations.

* Check out "drop zones" from time to time.  Once a year or so, update your
  relationship to the job market.  Have some idea of what you're worth, and
  to whom.

There's no need to even advertise this as your policy (too late for me, I
guess :-).  What it should do is merely give you the confidence that, no
matter what the situation, you have the maximum freedom to act with
integrity.

Is this posting just pious B.S.?  Not really.  I was NOT in the above
position on the one occasion that I resigned a job over an ethical issue.
I'd rather not confront a situation like that again.  Yes, I could arrange
my affairs so that a future decision would be equally difficult.  And yes,
I could get to feel very sanctimonious about it after making the "right"
choice.  But that's not the objective.  I just like life to proceed simply,
with a minimum of unnecessary drama.

Are there any "O-rings" on your horizon?

Regards,                                              Hewlett-Packard
Bob Niland                                            3404 East Harmony Road
[ihnp4|hplabs]!hpfcla!rjn                             Fort Collins CO  80525

This article does not represent the official position,  if any,  of the
Hewlett-Packard Company.

------------------------------

Date: 18 Mar 86 11:02:45 GMT
From: brahms!weemba@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Matthew P. Wiener)
Subject: Re: More flames from Mr. Smith.
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <37378.511513442@lbl-rtsg.arpa> jef@LBL-RTSG.ARPA writes:
>I saw your message in SF-LOVERS on "Flight of the Dragonfly".
>I thought it was a flame, but of course I'm biased about this
>particular book, so I showed it to a friend.  He said, "This is
>a flame."
>
>No one to my knowlege has accused you of being an ignoramus.
>Many people have accused you of being a flamer.  I don't see
>how you can expect to be treated like the intelligent adult
>you seem to be, while you continue to spout content-free flames.
>
>Please civilize yourself, Mr. Smith.

As one of the co-authors of the review in question, I would like to
inform you that it was not content-free.  We are both mathematicians,
and our analysis from a mathematical point of view happens to be dead
ACCURATE.  If you don't believe me, then go ahead, ACTUALLY learn
something about abelian varieties, the continuum hypothesis, the three
body problem etc. and THEN tell us that our review was content-free.
Why do you think we cross-posted to net.math?

At the very least, go check out George Gamow.

If you want sci-fi with some iota of mathematical accuracy, read Rudy
Rucker.  I can't for reasons of style--he makes me sick--but RR does
know his mathematics.

Gene is damn familiar with sci-fi, and I am not, if that makes any
difference.  He read the whole book, and I just read the good parts.
We read the passages to our mathematical friends, and their reaction
also was one of complete derision.

If stating an opinion on the net is by definition a flame, then Gene and
I will continue to flame forever.  If you happen to be a member of the
cult who gets annoyed at the phrase "sci-fi", that's just too bad.  And
if Robert Forward happens to be one of your idols, that's just too bad.
WE don't worship idols, and WE don't believe most sci-fi writers know
beans vis-a-vis science.

We could review other authors if we wanted to, but Forward seems to
have this unearned reputation for knowing what he's talking about, so
that's why HIS book was singled out.

For your information, his physics is pretty weak too.

ucbvax!brahms!weemba	Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720

------------------------------

Date: 16 Mar 86 18:55:00 GMT
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!ism780c!ism780!jimb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Challenger II & Science Fiction
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa



>    Speaking as one who has been reading sci-fi since starting on Lucky
> Starr at a very tender age, I have to say that the vast majority of sci-fi
> authors *do not* know what they are talking about. The four authors quoted
> are better than most (and Clarke sometimes even writes well) but Heinlein &
> Niven have plenty of BS, and most sci-fi authors much more. I *like*
> sci-fi a lot, but I refuse to fool myself into thinking that it is much
> good either as science or as literature. Sometimes the science is pretty
> good (Rama or Black Cloud) sometimes the literature is good but the science
> awful (C.S. Lewis).  Often both are bad; sometimes the literary merit is
> less than nil but the science purports to be good, and isn't (R.L. Forward:
> read my review in net.sf-lovers/ net.math).
>
> ucbvax!brahms!gsmith    Gene Ward Smith/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720

There are all sorts of aims and intentions in writing SF; these vary with the
author and with the individual work.  As a novice sf writer (two miniscule
sales), I don't care about getting the science correct to N decimal places.
Many writers who have tried get hooked anyway when new data/theories comes
along in 10 to 20 years.  Some of the stories written about Mars/Venus in the
early sixties were written very quickly because the authors KNEW that probe
data was going to make their interpretations of the setting obsolete.
Beyond the need to support one's self and make a buck, why did they write
them?

A sense of vision.  The *details* of colonies in space, alien contact,
human/computer interfaces, -- your plot here --, may be incorrect at points,
but the important aspect of sf *for me* is to present the broad brushstrokes
of the implications of --- the plot of your choice ---.  To write hard sf, as
opposed to psychosocial sf or fantasy (which I also write), requires a fair
technical literacy.  The pace of scientific development is so fast today that
you almost have to be a working scientist to stay current, otherwise details
are going to slip by.  On the other hand, very few scientists can write worth
a damn.  This explains why Greg Benford and David Brin are two of the better
sf writers today -- they are both working scientists and they can write.
Rare counterexample:  Greg Bear who researches the hell out of his stories;
so it can be done.  He's also one of the rare individuals that writes sf full
time.  Most of us have to hold down other jobs to pay the rent, buy
groceries, etc.

So for many of us, scientific detail will not be completely accurate.  SO
WHAT?  (Ah, to speak heresy on the net.)  I don't think the purpose of SF is
to give a scientific education.  There are textbooks aplenty for that.
If you find a flaw, or a means of correcting a flaw presented in the story,
kudos.  On the other hand, of all the readers who have absorbed a
macro-vision of possibilities and potentials, and happen to have been
entertained as well, their money, time, and intellect has been well spent.

Now I am NOT arguing for the Bradbury-esque anything-goes approach to sf,
though that, too, has its place -- as fantasy.

Final question:  How many of today's techies and scientists who *are* making
the science correct were initially attracted to their fields because of the
visions of sf?

P.S.  One of the reasons that I read net.space is general research, both
      on technical points and on personalities.


			     -- from the musings of Jim Brunet
				ima/ihnp4/ism780
				hplabs/hao/ico/ism780
				sdcsvax/sdcrdcf/ism780C/ism780

------------------------------

Posted-Date: Tue 18 Mar 1986 06:36:01 EST
Date: Tue 18 Mar 1986 06:36:01 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Re: (teleoperators)(Boskone Panalist, etc.)
To: "d.l.skran" <ihnp4!houxm!mtuxo!mtgzz!dls@ucbvax.berkeley.edu>
In-Reply-To: ihnp4!houxm!mtuxo!mtgzz!dls's message of 14 Mar 86 23:01:12 GMT
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa

I agree that teleoperators in space are currently nonexistent.  I was
just pointing out that showing that people are more economical than
teleoperators/robots on the ground in an application proves NOTHING
about what the economics will be in space, so Bova's comment about
Van Allen's grad students is a cheap shot.

I agree that a cheap launcher is the number one priority.  The space
station has to be taken on faith; the justifications that have been
given are weak.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #219
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA07453; Tue, 18 Mar 86 23:01:00 PST
	id AA07453; Tue, 18 Mar 86 23:01:00 PST
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 86 23:01:00 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8603190701.AA07453@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #220

*** EOOH ***
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 86 23:01:00 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #220

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 220

Today's Topics:
		     SPOT and Imaging Satellites
		Re: Morton-Thiokol Engineering Claims
	     Re:  (teleoperators)(Boskone Panalist, etc.)
			    Re: Population
	     more than one copy of book per person? yes!
	     Why the Shuttle Flies Upside Down (Surpise!)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted-Date: Tue 18 Mar 1986 06:51:22 EST
Date: Tue 18 Mar 1986 06:51:22 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: SPOT and Imaging Satellites
To: space@s1-b.arpa

The interesting question is: what will the US government do when the *TV
networks* start orbiting high resolution cameras?

------------------------------

Date: 17 Mar 86 22:27:30 GMT
From: sdcsvax!noscvax!rupp@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (William L. Rupp)
Subject: Re: Morton-Thiokol Engineering Claims
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <6494@utzoo.UUCP>, henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
> 
> I'm not sure I would go as far as advocating sabotage, but *they* didn't
> need to go that far either!  As for criminal liability, if it truly turns
> out that they did *nothing* after their management told them to shut up, a
> charge of "accessory before the fact to negligent homicide" would not
> be totally unjustified.  Excessive, perhaps, but not ridiculous.
> 
> Has even one of those engineers even resigned?  I'm not asking about press
> conferences, just about whether they are willing to stay with a company
> which has innocent blood on its hands.

Yes, it is ridiculous, for a number of technical and legal reasons.  I think
it is time for us to stop knocking the MT engineers, who were about the only
ones who actually did anything to try to prevent the unwise launch of
Challenger.  I really do not think you have any idea what it is like to oppose
a VERY big and powerful organization, especially when that opposition might
cause you to lose your career.  Consider that engineers are members of a highly
organized team-effort profession.  They are not, like radical chic students
during the 1960's, encouraged to question authority and do it "their way".  I 
wonder what you would have done in the same circumstances.

I like to think I would have protested more, and maybe I would have.  Perhaps
I would have even resigned, although I don't think there was time for the kind
of sober reflection that must precede such a momentous decision.  In any case,
I doubt I would have gone public.  And what if the engineers had done so?  You
ask on what grounds the government could have stopped them.  That's easy.  The
shuttle program has very important national security aspects.  I would not
want a situation where two or three engineers could ground the shuttle at any
time.  Such as during an international crisis when the shuttle might be needed
to launch recon satellites to replace those knocked out by a hostile nation.  
If the Feds wanted to keep those engineers from making a statment on TV, they
could find many nice, legal ways to do it.  

Fantastic?  Alarmist?  Not necessarily. 

There are two main points to keep in mind.  First, the engineers were far down
the line of command; NASA bears the final responsibility for the launch and its
consequences.  Point two, the engineers  might or might not have able
to do more to prevent the launch.  Personally, I think their chances
of succeeding would have been very slim.  NASA could always have brought out
the old "malcontents" charge, etc. and gone ahead anyway.  We will never know
how much more the engineers could have done, and for that reason is
it ridiculous to talk about criminal charges.

As for how much more they should have done, the engineers will have to answer
that question according to their individual consciences.

------------------------------

Posted-Date: Tue 18 Mar 1986 07:10:57 EST
Date: Tue 18 Mar 1986 07:10:57 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Re:  (teleoperators)(Boskone Panalist, etc.)
To: Rick McGeer <mcgeer%ji@ucbvax.berkeley.edu>
In-Reply-To: mcgeer%ji's message of Sun, 16 Mar 86 16:18:11 PST
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa

>> The question is what do we need to do NOW
>> so that in 20 years we will be ready to build the lunar mines
>> and solar power satellites.

>I think Paul's point is that none of these things will be economically
>viable in 20 years anyway, Shuttle, Space Station, or TAV
>notwithstanding. ...   But his point
>is, given that you're going to wait 25-50 years anyway, why not do a
>Manhattan project in robotics right now, as opposed to launching
>essentially uneconomic Shuttles?

I think my point was that given reasonable projections for launch costs
extensive lunar mines/powersat construction in 20 years will not be
feasible without extreme use of teleoperators manufactured primarily
from lunar material.  A lunar base in 20 years seems more feasible
(and would probably be necessary even with teleoperators) if launch
costs can be brought down by a factor of (say) 10.  In 20 years we
can reasonably expect some sort of TAV/HOTOL or second generation shuttle
and a range of unmanned launch vehicles.  If a lunar base is built
it would certainly use some lunar materials, and it could pay to extract
lunar oxygen on a small scale for rocket fuel.

We probably don't need a Manhattan project in robotics -- the goal is
too ill-defined and, besides, NASA's contribution would be small
compared to the amount already being spent on earth-based robotics.
I think what we need now is to get NASA out of the trucking business
and into the long-term R&D business.  Launchings and space operations
should be done by private firms, and their feedback should help guide
NASA in what technologies it develops.

> We can argue that the SPS study, for example, left out
>some crucial stuff -- it didn't count the environmental cost of coal,
>for example (just as the anti-nukes don't; but any Canadian will give
>you an earful about the environmental costs of coal, since Canada
>bears the burden of acid rain).

I'll wager that the acid rain problem will be solved within 20 years.
There are a lot of technologies being explored to clean coal before
it is burned, to burn it more cleanly (fluidized bed combustion or
integrated gas combined cycle) or to scrub the exhaust.  Current power
plants are not near their thermodynamic efficiency limits, and cogeneration
can be profitable.  The CO2 problem won't go away, but it doesn't make
sense for the US to sacrifice on that score if no one else does.

------------------------------

Date: 16 Mar 86 17:47:57 GMT
From: decvax!dartvax!chuck@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Chuck Simmons)
Subject: Re: Population
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>   But the question is, how [many people should there be]?

>   I have several points to make:
> 
> 3) The more people there are the more geniuses there will be.  There
>    will be more and better inventions, music, literature, software,
>    sculpture, paintings, etc.  If with ten to the ninth people we have
>    one Newton or Mozart per century, with ten to the twentieth we
>    should have several dozen geniuses on a par with them each second.
>    I have no idea what this would be like, or what sort of super-
>    genius would appear just once per century on the high end of that
>    much taller bell curve, but I would like to find out.

It took me a while to figure out the fallacy in this argument.  Having a few
dozen geniuses around each second is useless if they must spend all their
time finding enough food to stay alive, or if they die before they are, say,
five years old.  Newton was not only a genius, but he was also relatively
rich.  He had enough money to spend some time thinking about the way the
universe works.  Also, there appears to be a strong correlation between
intelligence and upbringing.  Upperclass families tend to have more
intelligent offspring because the offspring are subjected to a more
intellectually stimulating environment during their early years, and they
get enough to eat.

> 6) It will increase the economies of scale.  If the world population
>    were only 1000, would there be any market for computers?  For CD
>    players?  For SF books?  These things are only possible because
>    there are so many consumers.  Just think what new things would be
>    possible if the population were a million times what it is.  An
>    author who would have gotten just 100 dollars royalties because his
>    work appealed to so narrow a segment of the population would get
>    100 million dollars instead.  Machines that interest only one
>    person in a million would be mass produced by the millions and
>    would cost just pennies.

If we were capable of supporting a million times as many people, we would be
capable of supporting the current population with a standard of living a
million times what it currently is.  We could sell Amigas to every person
living in Ethiopia.  An author who would currently get 100 dollars in
royalties would get 1 million dollars instead because more people would be
able to afford his book, and more people would be capable of reading it.

> 8) Life is enjoyable.  Else why go on living?  So why not share this
>    amazing boon with as many others as we can.  

This is a good point.  Is life enjoyable when you are starving?  I would
suggest that if governments and people want to encourage increased
populations then they should first be able to guarantee that life will be
enjoyable.  They should guarantee that new people will be fed, clothed,
housed, provided with medical care, given an education, and given a job.  If
these conditions cannot be met, then it is the moral responsibility of
people everywhere to discourage increases in population.

Chuck Simmons     chuck@dartvax

------------------------------

Date: 1986 March 18 08:00:32 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@su-ai.arpa>
To: KFL@mc.lcs.mit.edu
Cc: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
Subject: more than one copy of book per person? yes!

C> From: Chuck Simmons <chuck%dartmouth.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
C> If the population stays the same size, but each
C> person's disposable income increases by a factor of a million,
C> they would buy enough goods to justify all sorts of economies of scale.

K> Date: Sat, 15 Mar 86 16:52:58 EST
K> From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@mc.lcs.mit.edu>
K>   Not true.  No matter how rich I was, I wouldn't buy two copies of
K> the same book.

Why not? (1) Instead of having to carry it around, you could have a
copy at each place you were likely to read it, saving energy of
carrying it around and avoid being without it because you happened to
forget it. For once-read paperbacks this trades off with having to
memorize the page number you are currently reading. For reference
books I think many people already have two sets of Knuth AOCP, one in
office and one at home, and if books were incredibly cheap I'd have
multiple copies of all my reference books myself (with microfiche I'm
heading in that direction already; I already have 3 copies each of my
diary and most PCNET and Arpanet documentation and most of my personal
files, one for home, one to carry around, and one for safe deposit
box).  (2) Religious zealots buy hundreds of bibles and put them in
hotel rooms etc. You could do the same with your favorite books. I
knew a fellow at Four Phase where I worked in 1974 who used to give
away copies of "Velvet Monkeywrench", and for much the same reason as
people who give away bibles (great belief in the book and desire to
promulgate the ideas therein). If books were cheap enough I'd probably
give away "The Selfish Gene" to everyone I met who didn't already have
it, as well as Mandelbrot's fractal-nature book and Roget's
International Thesaurus, and maybe even "Third Wave" and "Goedel
Escher & Bach".

K> I wouldn't buy more food than I could eat.

(:- I know some fatties who already violate that, not to mention
people with anorexia/bolemia disorder. :-) I agree on that point.

K> I wouldn't buy more clothes than I could wear in a week.

(:- What about the wife of Fernanend Marcos?? :-)

K> I wouldn't buy two copies of the same CD.

I assume you mean Compact Disk (alternative to optical disk). Same
argument as books, and also for backup if you don't have a copier.

K> I wouldn't buy more than one calculator.

I carry mine on my wrist, but it's just a 4-function because that's
all I can get on my wrist, and it's too inconvenient to remember to
pack and unpack a non-wrist one.  If powerful calculators (HP/41c or
better) were cheap enough I'd have one at home and one at office and
one in my backpack for using on the bus.

And I'm relatively conservative in terms of spending. I don't even
have a color TV yet. I know people who spend like money were going out
of style. I bet they'd have three of just about everything if they
could afford it, one for home, one for office, and one in their
limosine, plus one more for each kid they have. (Stops a lot of
fighting if each kid has a copy of a book, even if only one really
wants to read it; if one has it the others try to grab it away even if
they didn't want to read it in the first place.)

K> There is a BIG difference between a trillion people with $100,000
K> each and a billion people with $100,000,000 each.

But on the whole I agree with your point, just wanted to offer
contrary opinion to some of your evidence.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 18 Mar 86 09:07:10 pst
From: eugene@ames-nas.arpa (Eugene Miya)
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Why the Shuttle Flies Upside Down (Surpise!)

I spoke to Terry White at NASA JSC.  For all of our explanations,
Henry's first explanation about the need for line of sight communications
was correct!  I thought the Center of Mass explanation was the one as
several others suggested.  A secondary reason was to give the crew a
real horizon to view.  The antenna are flush on the nose of the craft
just forward of the main windows, BTW.

--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #220
*******************


0,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA08161; Wed, 19 Mar 86 03:00:59 PST
	id AA08161; Wed, 19 Mar 86 03:00:59 PST
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 86 03:00:59 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8603191100.AA08161@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #221

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 221

Today's Topics:
			       So long
		       antimatter -> black hole
		   Re: SPOT and Imaging Satellites
		      detecting alien spacecraft
			   Re: Red Sirius?
			   Re: Solar energy
		 Re: "zillion fatal doses of Plutoni
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 18 Mar 86 09:07:52 pst
From: eugene@ames-nas.arpa (Eugene Miya)
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa
Subject: So long

I composed the following over the last three weeks. Recent comments
posted seem to indicate some similar sentiments (see below):

About us (NASA):
NASA people are human.  We have the same fallibilities as other net readers.
We worry about the cost of living, we fall asleep in the same kinds of boring
meetings other readers would fall asleep, and we bleed (our insurance is no
different than the Challenger chew).  Last week a young gentleman from
Lockheed died here at Ames from N2.  [They're investigating the circumstances].
Many of you have to learn the lessons about Rashomon (A Kurosawa film)
and about Whorf.  It's too easy to divide the world into twos: managers
and not-managers, engineers and not engineers.  NASA cannot afford many
MBAs, most of the managers are scientists and engineers, and I suspect
many of MT's people are, too.

Network memory: NASA PIO would be answering many questions
over and over again.  I've thought about showing you people
to some astronaut or Sagan but have thought against it.
You guys (generic) need a 1/4 time PR person!  I'm not a PR
person, I've got my research to do.  Many of the ideas put forward
on the net were thought about in the later 1970s, but perhaps,
one of you will think about something they didn't think about back then.

We have very few pure computer people.  We are mostly engineers
(AEs, MEs, a few EEs), some scientists (physicists, chemists, even
a few meteorologists and geologists) and lots of technicians and contractors.
NASA is not completely in the electronic age, so if you have
good ideas, questions, comments: write us: you know, hardcopy.
I wonder which of you will be the next Seymour Crays of space
and which of you will be armchair space travellers.

We have a changing political climate.  A friend who used to work
on Galileo and now works at a large to go unnamed weapons lab (not on weapons)
pointed out that the Space Agency when from a cost is no object
world into a lowest cost mode.  Hope Keith Lynch is reading this.
Another friend who used to work at GSFC and now works for DARPA
left because his ideas for using AI (self-reproducing machines)
were thought by many as "science-fiction."  It takes so long to
get some projects designed, tested, going,...  the thing you really
learn about NASA is patience.  I can only hope we have not lost too
much imagination.

I did a survey of over 200 network readers (Usenet and some ARPA).
I've polled several people who read everything posted to net.space
or space-digest.  This took a few hours and the assistance of a few
net people.  Annoyance of personalities: some NASA people don't
read articles based by some net people.
The writership of space had an annoying tendency to stray (even more than
I do). Some of our people have begun to wonder what some of you guys (and gals)
do on the net [they get the impression all you can do during the course of
a day is read news.] I've had the pleasure of meeting several people
beyond the net.  I think it is approaching the time when the net
should consider moderating itself [horrors!], but that's for you
to decide.

The Net:
NASA thinks you guys for the most part are okay.
You are a bit verbose (look at me), a tad egotistical,
in need of a few moments away from computers
[BTW: these are not my opinions, but a conglomeration of
several dozen people I've spoken to regarding the net].
BUT GENERALLY YOU ARE A GOOD WELL-meaning collection of people.
You are certainly not representative and probably better educated
in many ways: a recent LA Times Poll of 2K people had 75%
supporting the Shuttle program, but 55% were against funding a
new orbiter, and the number of people who would ride into space
decreased a bit.  I wonder more about that part of the population
who want their MTV, General Hospital, and would call and complain
to a TV network, whereas you guys vent between yourself (rather
than say write to NASA).

There is a problem with the people on the USENET side of net.space:
you have to reduce your propensity to cross-reference to other
newsgroups as well as remove newsgroups on follow ups.
Some people would call this common sense, but I don't believe in common
sense, so I mention this.  The USEnet also has a big problem with
its asynchrony.  One thing surprising to me is that you all get your
news from the same media sources, and it bounces around so much that the
net takes so seriously so much of the time [it's wrong occasionally].
I suggest we all sit and calmly wait and let those at the front
line do their work (sure suggest things: to the Public Affairs Office,
not to your friends on the net and expect it to get transmitted [much
too haphazard]).


0,,
From me personally:
I was asked by several people about my personal ambitions and goals
for NASA.  I really didn't know until (after several weeks) I remembered
something I posted two years ago.  I would like it if in my lifetime,
we would make contact with an intelligent extraterrestrial civilization.
Not necessarily like Close Encounters or ET.  Perhaps just a signal
for SETI.  It would really change the way we think ourselves (perspective).
Lacombe (played by F. Tuffaut) is one of my ideals as a scientist.
This is especially important when we are on the verge of destroying
ourselves.

I'm going to unsubscribe.  Bye bye. The shear mass of net.columbia and net.space
is taking too much of my time.  Perhaps, I will sample stuff in a year,
and I will certainly repost something for summer of 1987 if Gramm-Rudman
does not cut us back further.  I've also promised some descriptions
about why the shuttle flies upside down and what we would do about
meeting or communicating with ETs.  This ends what was `official'
involvement on the net as approved by my management (ironically,
on the computers of two different Divisions neither of them mine).

Lastly, if people expect to go into deep space where you think there is
lots of room, I think the Universe would ask that we control certain
highly emotional tendencies as humans (reword this section).
If we cannot live together in some degree of peace on earth, then
we will not do so in space.  We cannot expect the volume of space
to make up for this (Murphy's law).  Just imagine being pen up in a
confined space of long periods of time with various people on this net.

When I receive this note on my "normal" machine, I will `ug'
from reading net.space and net.columbia [no sabotage please].
So long.  It's been interesting.

--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center [the smallest of the Centers until the Station]
  eugene@ames-nas.ARPA

------------------------------

Date: 1986 March 18 06:00:25 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@su-ai.arpa>
To: SPACE@mc.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: antimatter -> black hole

Although fusion isn't very efficient (compared to antimatter/matter
anihilation), and antimatter/matter anihilation may be very difficult
to engineer, dropping matter into a black hole is both efficient and
relatively safe/simple once you have a black hole handy.

Unfortunately the more matter you drop the more massive the hole gets.
Fortunately the only part of the matter that ends up really in the
hole is the part not converted to energy, so the more efficient you
can engineer the system the slower the hole gets massive, so with
close to 100% efficiency the hole lasts close to forever.

What is current expert opinion on the existance of small black holes
in the centers of asteroids, which you can discover by shoving the
asteroid away suddenly leaving the hole in approximately its original
orbit? What is current expert opinion on making black holes from
scratch by some kind of microscopic implosion followed by feeding it
some additional mass to bring its blackbody radiation temperature down
to room temperature so it will be stable during storage before
spaceship launch?

------------------------------

Date: 18 Mar 86 20:44:16 GMT
From: hplabs!qantel!lynx@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (D.N. Lynx Crowe@ex2207)
Subject: Re: SPOT and Imaging Satellites
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa


Regarding the tv networks and high resolution orbiting cameras:

This might be amusing.  We could then actually watch history in
the making.  It might actually be worth buying a satellite dish
at that point, assuming they didn't scramble the video too badly.

As to the government's response:  somehow I don't think they'd
like it too much.  No government seems to like the idea that its
activities are open to inspection by the public.

Even more important is the question:  what happens to one's right
to privacy in such a case?  Example:  nude sunbathing in one's own
backyard, etc.

D.N. Lynx Crowe

"Government is an organized crime."

------------------------------

Date: 14 Mar 86 22:44:24 GMT
From: hplabs!qantel!lll-lcc!lll-crg!mordor!ut-sally!utastro!ethan@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Ethan Vishniac)
Subject: detecting alien spacecraft
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

[Suddenly a bug rang out!!]

   I have in my hand a preprint from someone in my own department (Michael
Harris).  On the assumption that he would like the publicity and because
it might start a good discussion in the group I am posting the abstract
of the paper and a brief synopsis of its contents.

       On the Detectability of Antimatter Propulsion Spacecraft

     It is shown that the NASA Gamma Ray Observatory will be able
to detect large interstellar spacecraft at distances up to 300pc by
the gamma ray emission from the propulsion system alone.  The distance
limit is set by the possibility of  recognizing such objects by their proper
motions.

In this paper Michael Harris points out that alien spacecraft using an
antimatter drive will have large proper motions and be quite conspicuous.
Assuming that the velocity is close to the speed of light and that GRO
will have a lifetime of 10 years then the two instruments with the
best angular resolution can see motion at distances of 100 pc (EGRET)
and 300 pc (BATSE).  This assume purely tangential velocity.  
Stellar motions are not in excess of 10 arc seconds per year or 2 arc minutes
over the lifetime of the GRO.  In contrast the angular resolution of the
instruments is 1.6 degrees and 0.5 degrees.  We see that we are angular
resolution limited and that a 15 fold increase in distance might be possible
before confusion sets in.  Moreover the large proper motions are due to
nearby stars and they are not effective sources of gamma rays.  The luminosity
of a given spacecraft is obviously a matter of conjecture.  However, reasonable
numbers would make them easily detectable.

-- 
"Ma, I've been to another      Ethan Vishniac
 planet!"                      {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan
                               ethan@astro.UTEXAS.EDU
                               Department of Astronomy
                               University of Texas

------------------------------

Date: 14 Mar 86 21:35:00 GMT
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiucdcsb!carroll@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Red Sirius?
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa


	Looking at the stars from "Deep in the heart of Texas", in and around
Big Bend national park (where there is not much light polution), my
brothers and I observed 3 stars, all within about 30 degrees of the horizon,
all blinking red, blue and white. This effect was so pronounced that it was
only after a hour or more of observation that we decided they were stars nd
not airplanes. Checking my star maps (and if I remember correctly), the
stars were Sirius, Procyon, and Mirzam. Any one else ever seen this?

------------------------------

Date: 14 Mar 86 21:46:00 GMT
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiucdcsb!carroll@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Solar energy
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa


	What about weather? It happens, a lot. And where I live (Central
Illinois; please, no corn jokes) it's cloudy a LOT. (over half the time). And
in the winter, when it's quite cold and there isn't much sun because 1.
the sunlight is not coming in vertically (that's why it's winter in the
first place), and 2. it's cloudy more than usual, is just when I need more
power (for heating); a LOT more than 2KW. Why, my 1.5KW space heater keeps
a few rooms warm, but that doesn't even count central heating. We keep our
house at 65 (day; 60 night) during the winter. So solar probably wouldn't
cut it for me. Not to mention clearing the ice off it during the middle of
winter with ice all over the roof. That's REAL safe.

------------------------------

Date: 14 Mar 86 16:36:53 GMT
From: ihnp4!mmm!mrgofor@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (MKR)
Subject: Re: "zillion fatal doses of Plutoni
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <15700058@uiucdcsb> carroll@uiucdcsb.CS.UIUC.EDU writes:
>
>	Perhaps it is true that any radiation is dangerous, but people who
>scream about a possible 0.5 REM/year exposure, but live in Denver or 
>equivalent (where they get about 30 extra REM/year compared to a sea level
>local) confuse the **** out of me. If the .5 is so bad that we need to
>shut it all down, why is the extra 30 ok? Also, try to avoid sleeping with
>anyone; they're radioactive too ya know.

	I remember reading somewhere that Grand Central station gives off more
radioactivity because of its granite than is present at a functioning
nuclear power station (outside the containment building, of course).

-- 
					--MKR

Sometimes even the President of the United States must have to 
stand naked.    - Dylan

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #221
*******************


0,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA09033; Wed, 19 Mar 86 07:00:51 PST
	id AA09033; Wed, 19 Mar 86 07:00:51 PST
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 86 07:00:51 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8603191500.AA09033@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #222

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 222

Today's Topics:
	     Why the Shuttle Flies Upside Down (Surpise!)
	   Re: Why does everyone want to leave this planet?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted-Date: Wed 19 Mar 1986 08:09:58 EST
Date: Wed 19 Mar 1986 08:09:58 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Why the Shuttle Flies Upside Down (Surpise!)
To: Eugene Miya <eugene@ames-nas.arpa>
In-Reply-To: eugene's message of Tue, 18 Mar 86 09:07:10 pst
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa

I read in Aviation Week that the new filament wound SRB's for Vandenburg
launches may never fly because of reliability concerns.   This may make
the shuttles unable to launch large spy satellites into polar orbits.
One possible fix the article mentioned was to make the shuttle fly
right-side-up for the first part of the flight; this is supposed to
add 4000 pounds of payload capacity to polar orbit, but would require
slightly more SRB thrust in the very beginning of the flight.

------------------------------

Date: 9 Mar 86 22:31:27 GMT
From: sun!saber!qubix!wjvax!fai!ronc@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Why does everyone want to leave this planet?
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>....After long and careful study he identified a place
>of no strategic importance to anyone.  He packed his bags and moved to
>Guadalcanal.
>     Emigrating to a quiet asteroid won't keep you safe from the next war.
****

This is true if you still depend on Earth for supplies, but a self sufficient
colony is quite a different matter.  People don't realize just how big the
rest of the universe is.  Your comment above is like saying 'leaving the bar
won't keep you safe from the barfight'.  Nonsense.

>Neither will the emigration to space of the "adventurous" allow those who
>remain behind to live in peace.  Given the power of our present weapons we
>cannot hope to contain belligerence--we must prevent it.
****

You seem to be saying that it's our responsibility to stay and work
it out rather than move on to better conditions.  I think it depends
on how bad things get.  Look at what's happening in our current worldly
hot spots, and ask yourself:  If you lived there, would you risk everything
to stay, or would you leave at the first opportunity?

Maybe we *can* live on Earth and somehow talk the 'powers that be' into
not blowing it up or poisoning it, but there's *still* sufficient reason
to try to establish colonies elsewhere.


				Ron
-- 
--
		Ronald O. Christian (Fujitsu America Inc., San Jose, Calif.)
		ihnp4!pesnta!fai!ronc

Oliver's law of assumed responsibility:
	"If you are seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it."

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #222
*******************


0,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA12687; Wed, 19 Mar 86 23:02:15 PST
	id AA12687; Wed, 19 Mar 86 23:02:15 PST
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 86 23:02:15 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8603200702.AA12687@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #223

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 223

Today's Topics:
		Re: Morton-Thiokol Engineering Claims
			    Re: Population
		      Re: antimatter stardrives
		Re: Morton-Thiokol Engineering Claims
			   Gone too far...
		 Re: Why does everyone want to leave
			    Re: plutonium
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 18 Mar 86 20:15:59 GMT
From: hplabs!hao!noao!terak!doug@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Doug Pardee)
Subject: Re: Morton-Thiokol Engineering Claims
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> Nuremberg and later such courts established very clearly that it *is*
> the soldiers' obligation to weigh the *legality* of their orders.

My feeble memory suggests that the soldiers' orders were "legal".  Not
moral, but still in full accordance with the laws of their land.

This is something that I've found interesting, since "pop" psychology
suggests that the majority of adults have "fifth-level" ethics, and so
differentiate right vs. wrong by reference to "the law".  The war crimes
trials punished people for not having at least "sixth-level" ethics in
which right vs. wrong is arbitrated by a self-determined sense of what
is in the best interest of society as a whole.
-- 
Doug Pardee -- CalComp -- {elrond,savax,seismo,decvax,ihnp4}!terak!doug

------------------------------

Date: 18 Mar 86 20:33:10 GMT
From: hplabs!hao!noao!terak!doug@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Doug Pardee)
Subject: Re: Population
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

My apologies to net.space folk... I don't know how to route mail
from Usenet to mc.lcs.mit.edu...

> Nobody
> should have the right to decide those things for others.  I am not
> saying that I should sit in a control room somewhere and set the
> population and median income to some figure.  I don't think that I or
> any government has the power to do anything of the sort.  And if
> anyone did have such a power, they shouldn't.  There is no point in
> colonizing space, or even on living on Earth, unless we can be free.

What we have here is a fundamental opposition between "freedoms".  On
the one hand, the freedom to have as many children as you please; on
the other, the freedom to live in conditions better than overcrowded
starving squalor.

This kind of dilemma can be seen in microcosm in the smokers vs. anti-
smokers debate.  Perhaps whatever truce is worked out in that conflict
will provide guidance on the question of population control.
-- 
Doug Pardee -- CalComp -- {elrond,savax,seismo,decvax,ihnp4}!terak!doug

------------------------------

Date: 17 Mar 86 19:56:00 GMT
From: hplabs!hpfcdc!hpfcla!ajs@hpfcla@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: antimatter stardrives
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> ...  antimatter pellets should be allowed to exist only millions of
> miles from Earth, lest all life on one side of Earth be incinerated by
> an explosion...

An underlying concept seems to be:  it takes brute force (energy) for
long-distance space travel.  This discussion on antimatter is about just
how to get the "ultimate" brute force.  The more energy you concentrate
or manipulate, the greater the risks.  You can play engineering games,
but that basic truth seems undeniable.

> ...all we have to do is somehow put a half twist on a small section of
> space...  any matter put through the twist would come through the other
> side as antimatter.

Now here is an example of using "finesse" rather than "brute force".  I
suspect (and hope) that if we ever achieve Universe-spanning means of
travel, it will be by use of finesse, not brute force.  The latter tends
to be more expensive, dangerous, and "polluting".

If you can twist space to produce antimatter, why can't you twist it to
wormhole from hither to yon, and forget the stardrive?

Alan Silverstein, Hewlett-Packard Fort Collins Systems Division, Colorado
{ihnp4 | hplabs}!hpfcla!ajs, 303-226-3800 x3053, N 40 31'31" W 105 00'43"

------------------------------

Date: 19 Mar 86 22:02:18 GMT
From: ucsfcgl!arnold@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Ken Arnold%CGL)
Subject: Re: Morton-Thiokol Engineering Claims
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <270@noscvax.UUCP> rupp@noscvax.UUCP (William L. Rupp) writes:
>I like to think I would have protested more, and maybe I would have
>...  In any case, I doubt I would have gone public.  And what if the
>engineers had done so?  You ask on what grounds the government could
>have stopped them.  That's easy.  The shuttle program has very
>important national security aspects.  I would not want a situation
>where two or three engineers could ground the shuttle at any time.
>Such as during an international crisis when the shuttle might be
>needed to launch recon satellites to replace those knocked out by a
>hostile nation.  If the Feds wanted to keep those engineers from
>making a statment on TV, they could find many nice, legal ways to do
>it.

There are no nice, legal ways to stop a person from calling a reporter,
nor are there any nice, legal ways to stop publication of material
prior to publication (although there are some messy legal ways to
accomplish that).  The only way to stop someone from talking to the
press is to hold them incommunicado, which is highly illegal unless
there is real reason to suspect that a crime has already been
committed.  Note that even if it was illegal to talk to the press, you
could only stop them *once the crime was committed*.  We have not yet
degenerated to the point where you can arrest someone *before* they
commit a crime.  (We have some "conspiracy" laws which look a bit like
that, but are quite different.)

Two or three engineers could never ground the shuttle over the
objection of the President, so let's be a little real here.  In the
case of a crisis where the shuttle was vital, the President would do
so.  Of course, in any such case the Shuttle is probably a sitting duck
for any surface-to-air or air-to-air missle, since it can hardly take
evasive action, but that is neither here nor there.

Any further discussion of the legal ability of the gov't to prevent
people from talking to the press, or to get prior restraint on
publication of material, should be taken up in net.legal, where I have
forwarded followup discussion.

		Ken Arnold

P.S.  By the way, just to prevent somebody from misinterpreting what I
say, when I use the term "stop" above, as in "legal ways to stop", I
mean "prevent by legal action".  It is usually legal to convince
someone not to publish something of their own free will.

------------------------------

Date:     Wed, 19 Mar 86 19:20 ???
From: Sonny Crockett <WELTYC%rpicie.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa
Subject:  Gone too far...


	This newslist is really getting out of hand.  THe entire 
purpose, or idea behind these lists is the useful exchange of information.
Somehow most of us have forgotten that and have reduced it to a forum for 
name calling and political/moral/non-space-related arguments.  What really
bothers me is the constant finger pointing.  Most of us are not qualified
to accuse, and the current news media (by this I mean TV/radio/newpapers)
is not reliable enough to base our accusations on.  ANyway, my point is
not to question anyone's qualifactions, certainly I'm not qualified to do
that.   
        Many users on the system I run (who were initially very
excited about receiving this newlist) have requested removal, usually
saying things like "why do all these people think they know so much, when
they end up making themselves look even more stupid by displayinog their
ignorance to the whole world?"  I think it's time we took a look at the kind
of messages we've been writing.  Private arguments should not be posted, but
sent directly to the people arguing.  THINK a little before posting something.
"Does this belong here?", "Am I going to offend people I really don't intend
to offend, who are then going to offend me?"  Many topics are quite obviously
touchy.  
	Personally, I have remained on the list, ignoring 90% of what is posted
in the hopes of finding that 10% that is interesting.  Even though I tried to
ignore it (the 90%), it was getting annoying.  But that's not what prompted me
to say something.  The worst result, to me, of the plethora of useless/boring/
not-space-related arguments, and especially the constant finger-pointing,
is that now Mr. Eugene Miya has withdrawn from the group.  He represented one
of the few truly knowledgeable people in the group, and one of the few people
at NASA who bothered to answer questions.  I have found many of his comments
quite enlightening, and he has personally answered a couple of my questions
about the space program that I posted.  
	Although some may disagree, I think we all suffer from the loss of
his input, and should really put a halt to the garbage and emotionalism before
we lose some more valuable contributors.

						-Christopher A. Welty
						 RPI/CIE Systems Mgr

------------------------------

Date: 17 Mar 86 00:17:00 GMT
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiucdcsb!carroll@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Why does everyone want to leave
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa


You mean they haven't yet? Maybe I should move there first, before I pack my
bags for Luna.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 19 Mar 86 19:04:19 PST
From: space-request@s1-b.arpa
Apparently-To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

------------------------------

Date: 14 Mar 86 02:45:05 GMT
From: ihnp4!stolaf!mmm!umn-cs!meccts!mvs@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Michael V. Stein)
Subject: Re: plutonium
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <860303165814.950167@HI-MULTICS.ARPA> Slocum@HI-MULTICS.ARPA (Brett Slocum) writes:
>In regards to the plutonium question, I should have stated that plutonium
>is a rather poisonous substance, not the most poisonous.  Since few
>studies have been done since the 50's due to lack of government interest
>and money and volunteers, it is difficult to exactly determine 
>the toxicity.  I tend to take potential risks seriously, unlike the
>NASA and MT management (and some readers of this forum) appear to. 

As has been pointed out numerous studies have been done examining the
danger of plutonium.  


>As far as the death of thousands, I'm not talking about dying instantly
>or even in a month from the accident. I'm talking ten years down the road.
>Cancer works that way. 

Oh please.  Scientists have been studying the health effects of
radiation from the days that X-rays were discovered.  More is known
today about the health effects of radiation then about almost any
chemical or biological toxin.   If you can show that the research for
the last 80 years has grossly underestimated the health risks of 
radiation - please do so.

>In reference to hysteria, I find the negative responses to my original posting
>to show a remarkable level of propaganda in the opposite direction. They
>seem to be saying "No experts believe plutonium to be exceptionally
>dangerous", "No additional deaths would occur", "Nobody has ever died
>from atmospheric releases of plutonium", "It's safe to dump it in the
>ocean", etc. with as little to back them up as I did.  They sound like
>spokespersons for Kerr-McGee or the rest of the nuclear power industry or
>the U.S. government.

NOBODY said "No experts believe plutonium to be exceptionally
dangerous", etc.  If you can't disprove your opponents, is the 
only answer to misrepresent what they said?  Insinuating your opponents
all have a financial stake in a particular position, or are paid off 
by the government is simply a cheap shot.

>P.S. My reference was not the National Enquirer, but The Nation, which
>is respected, but somewhat anti-nuclear.

Yes, the Nation is more respected then the National Enquirer.  I don't
think though, I would use it as a reference source for examining the
biological effects of ionizing radiation.
-- 

Michael V. Stein
Minnesota Educational Computing Corporation - Technical Services

UUCP	ihnp4!dicomed!meccts!mvs

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #223
*******************


0,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA13575; Thu, 20 Mar 86 03:00:53 PST
	id AA13575; Thu, 20 Mar 86 03:00:53 PST
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 86 03:00:53 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8603201100.AA13575@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #224

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 224

Today's Topics:
		     Re: antimatter -> black hole
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 20 Mar 86 10:12:30 GMT
From: brahms!desj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (David desJardins)
Subject: Re: antimatter -> black hole
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <8603181749.AA05299@s1-b.arpa> REM%IMSSS@SU-AI.ARPA
(Robert Elton Maas) writes:
>... dropping matter into a black hole is both efficient and
>relatively safe/simple once you have a black hole handy.
>
>Fortunately the only part of the matter that ends up really in the
>hole is the part not converted to energy, so the more efficient you
>can engineer the system the slower the hole gets massive, so with
>close to 100% efficiency the hole lasts close to forever.

   I give up.  I don't have a clue what you are talking about.  How
is dropping things into black holes supposed to create energy (at
"close to 100% efficiency")??

   -- David desJardins

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #224
*******************


0,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA02658; Fri, 21 Mar 86 03:00:54 PST
	id AA02658; Fri, 21 Mar 86 03:00:54 PST
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 86 03:00:54 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8603211100.AA02658@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #225

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 225

Today's Topics:
			 Re: Gone too far...
			ONLY FOLLOWING ORDERS
			Re: Black holes...huh?
			    Space reactors
	       Re: Clumping doesn't fix Olber's paradox
			   Murder on pad 34
		    where are the aliens headed??
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu 20 Mar 86 12:40:01-EST
From: "J. Noel Chiappa" <JNC@xx.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Gone too far...
To: WELTYC%rpicie.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa, space-incoming@s1-b.arpa
Cc: JNC@xx.lcs.mit.edu

	I agree completely with your comments. I made the same complaint
a while back, although stated nowhere near as well. I would suggest that
the list consider being moderated; the readership figures provided by
Brian lead me to beleive that there will be a pool of people who need
some guidance. I understand that the maintainer is very busy, but perhaps
we can get someone else to volunteer. I too am disappointed in the
departure of Mr Miya, who seemed to provide as much useful info as everyone
else put together.

	Noel

------------------------------

Date: Thu 20 Mar 86 13:38:59-EST
From: RKIERAN@bbng.arpa
Subject: ONLY FOLLOWING ORDERS
To: SPACE-INCOMING@s1-b.arpa
Cc: RKIERAN@bbng.arpa

>From: hplabs!hao!noao!terak!doug@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Doug Pardee)
>> Nuremberg and later such courts established very clearly that it *is*
>> the soldiers' obligation to weigh the *legality* of their orders.

>My feeble memory suggests that the soldiers' orders were "legal".  Not
>moral, but still in full accordance with the laws of their land.

   The soldier's orders were not legal under the existing German
military codes. The laws in existence clearly forbade the murder of
innocent civilians and provided the appropriate punishment for
violators. The fact that these laws were in effect PREVENTED the
military authorities from court-martialing those who refused to carry
out such orders on the following grounds: in order to convict a
soldier of refusing to carry out orders, the court would have to prove
that the order was a legal one. Since the order was in violation of
the existing code of military justice, this could not be done.
  While those who refused such orders were not court-martialed, they
were often subjected to other forms of punishment: permanent
assignment to hazardous tasks such as point man, mine clearance, bomb
disposal, etc.
  The point is that those who followed their conscience paid a price,
as did those who "only followed orders". Each individual must decide
for himself what he will do when he is presented with such a decision,
and pay the price.
                                 Bob Kieran

------------------------------

Date:     Thu, 20 Mar 86 12:49 ???
From: Sonny Crockett <WELTYC%rpicie.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa
Subject:  Re: Black holes...huh?


	I have not really been following the theory/conjecture about
black holes recently (in the world of astrophysics, i mean, not the
net).  Weren't they proven to be impossible to achieve, due to the
relativistic shift from gravitational energy, ie, they are
theoretically possible, but could not form in our frame of reference
because as the  gravitational energy increases, they move into slower
and slower frames of reference as far as time is concerned.  That
sounds confusing...  I'm trying to say, that supposedly (I remember
being shown this in Astrophysics three years ago - or maybe even four)
as a potential  black hole collapses, it may take a certain number of
seconds for this collapse to complete from the reference frame of the
star.  But from our reference frame, as it collapses, it's
gravitational energy increases, and it seems (to us) to slow down more
and more.  SO what may seem 7 seconds to the collapsing star is a
couple billion years or so to us.  By this then, it would be
impossible to manufacture black holes, even if a method were found to
initiate the process on tiny particles (?????).  Am I right, or does
this really sound as ridiculous as it looks?  It was a plausible
theory at the time, anyone know what the current trends of thought in
the Astrophysics world are concerning black holes?

						-Christopher A. Welty

------------------------------

Date:         Wed, 19 Mar 86 15:35:04 EST
From: Garrett Fitzgerald
  <ST801179%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu>
Reply-To:  ST801179%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa
Subject:      Space reactors

Yesterday's N.Y. Times carried a big story about how Galileo could, in
a worst-condition case, release enough radioactivity to "contaminate
up to 386 square miles of land and cause 43 additional cancer deaths
over a 50-year period. Is this consistent with what was decided
earlier here? I thought that someone said that it would be very hard
to cause the reactors to rupture.

------------------------------

Date: 17 Mar 86 04:42:56 GMT
From: ihnp4!aicchi!dbb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Burch)
Subject: Re: Clumping doesn't fix Olber's paradox
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa


If one makes the correct assumptions about the Hubble Constant, or the age
of the universe, or the shape of spacetime, you can assume an infinite
universe full of stars and stuff. If the Hubble constant is high (?) enough,
We cannot see them because the rate of expansion is so high that the light
from these sources NEVER reaches us, or for a lower value, has not had time
to reach us since the universe formed stars.  If one assumes a wierd sort
of structure for spacetime, one can explain that the light is dropped down
some hole eventually, and never gets out. One must mistrust mind experiments;
They often make some unsupportable assumptions...

 


-- 
-David B. (Ben) Burch
 Analyst's International Corp.
 Chicago Branch (ihnp4!aicchi!dbb)

"Argue for your limitations, and they are yours"

------------------------------

From: crash!bryan@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 86 16:04:19 PST
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Murder on pad 34

I was unable to reply directly to an inquiry fro WHITE.SWW>Symbolics.COM!Reader
for the author of the book "Murder on pad 34"  so I'm posting it here.
My apologies to those who could care less.

The book "Murder on pad 34" was written by Erik Bergaust (c) 1968

Worth looking into. (For those of you who do care.)

		Bryan R. Walker
		crash!bryan@ucsd
		{ihnp4, cbosgd, sdcsvax}!crash!bryan

------------------------------

Date: 1986 March 21 00:15:39 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@su-ai.arpa>
To: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
Subject: where are the aliens headed??

EV> Date: 14 Mar 86 22:44:24 GMT
EV> From: hplabs!qantel!lll-lcc!lll-crg!mordor!ut-sally!utastro!ethan@ucbvax.ber
keley.edu  (Ethan Vishniac)
 (I would send this to the author, but the UUCP path is so damn long...)
EV> Subject: detecting alien spacecraft
EV>        On the Detectability of Antimatter Propulsion Spacecraft
 (Detecting alian antimatter propulsion by NASA Gamma-Ray Observatory)
EV> In this paper Michael Harris points out that alien spacecraft using an
EV> antimatter drive will have large proper motions and be quite conspicuous.

You are omitting something very important. Hint: In military, if you
see an artillery shell with zero proper motion? Answer, run like hell
in any direction. Do I have to spell it out? (The proposed method will
fail to detect any alien craft that is headed directly for Earth, such
as an invading force, on its way to stamp out the society responsible
for Howdy Doody and the McCarthy hearings as well as everybody
involved in World War 2 on both sides.)

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #225
*******************


0,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA06777; Fri, 21 Mar 86 23:01:06 PST
	id AA06777; Fri, 21 Mar 86 23:01:06 PST
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 86 23:01:06 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8603220701.AA06777@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #226

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 226

Today's Topics:
		 NASA ELV Plans and Shuttle Schedule
			    Re: plutonium
		     Re: antimatter -> black hole
		  Re: where are the aliens headed??
	       Re: Destroy SPOT with an ASAT?  (what!?)
			 RTG Explosion Danger
		    You can fool all the people...
		      Re: The Shuttle Aftermath
			   re: Black Holes
		      Re: antimatter stardrives
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 19 Mar 86 17:46:34 GMT
From: hplabs!hao!noao!astrovax!elt@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Ed Turner)
Subject: NASA ELV Plans and Shuttle Schedule
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

I have seen reports in the news (but not on the net surprisingly!) that
NASA has announced plans to procure a new expendable launch vehicle (ELV)
to temporarily replace and permanently complement the STS.  This is hardly
a surprising development; only pride and/or chaos inside NASA could have
delayed such an obvious step for so long.  A question though:  Is anything
known yet about this new ELV?  When will it be available?  How much will it
cost?  What will its LEO payload be? Etc.

In a perhaps related issue, some of my well placed space scientist colleagues
say that the quiet word from NASA is to expect something between 1 and 3
years to pass before the next shuttle launch and for operations to be
resumed with a much longer turn around time (to allow for more thorough
testing and refurbishment between flights?).

The Space Telescope Science Institute (STScI) has announced (with written
approval from NASA) a 5.5 month delay in the deadline for ST observing
proposals and plans to allow revision of said proposals (to keep them
scientifically up to date) up until approximately one year before ST launch.
ST has been declared the highest priority shuttle scientific payload for
launch after resumption of operations.


Ed Turner
astrovax!elt

------------------------------

Date: 19 Mar 86 15:19:40 GMT
From: nike!im4u!ut-sally!utastro!ethan@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Ethan Vishniac)
Subject: Re: plutonium
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

[]
The New York Times has now reported that the estimated deaths
from a shuttle accident that released all the plutonium in the Galileo
power plant would be approximately 43.  This estimate includes deaths
by cancer many years down the road.  In fact, all these deaths would be
expected to arise in this manner.
   As has been pointed out before, it would be very difficult to rupture
the plutonium package.  However, if the shuttle explosion caused the
Centaur booster to explode then there is some possibility of this happening
since the two are packed together in the cargo bay.
   No flames please on the reliability of such estimates.  They are based
on our extensive experience with the effects of fallout.  I am aware that
there are some residual uncertainties.

-- 
"Ma, I've been to another      Ethan Vishniac
 planet!"                      {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan
                               ethan@astro.UTEXAS.EDU
                               Department of Astronomy
                               University of Texas

------------------------------

Date: 19 Mar 86 14:56:28 GMT
From: nike!im4u!ut-sally!utastro!ethan@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Ethan Vishniac)
Subject: Re: antimatter -> black hole
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <8603181749.AA05299@s1-b.arpa>, REM%IMSSS@SU-AI.ARPA (Robert Elton Maas) writes:
> What is current expert opinion on the existance of small black holes
> in the centers of asteroids, which you can discover by shoving the
> asteroid away suddenly leaving the hole in approximately its original
> orbit? What is current expert opinion on making black holes from
> scratch by some kind of microscopic implosion followed by feeding it
> some additional mass to bring its blackbody radiation temperature down
> to room temperature so it will be stable during storage before
> spaceship launch?

Black holes formed after the first few minutes in the history of the universe
are generally expected to have a mass at least comparable to the sun, perhaps
much greater.  This is just because the only natural process that seems to have
much chance of making one is the collapse of a massive star.

The odds of forming "mini" black holes in the early universe are difficult to
evaluate.  It depends on sources for inhomogeneity in the early universe,
an unsettled issue.  However, any black hole with a mass less than about
10^15 grams is expected to have evaporated by now.  The lifetime of a black
hole is estimated as 10^-43 * (M/10^-5)^3 where the mass is measured in grams
and the lifetime in seconds.  The temperature of a black hole is approximately
10^32 * (10^-5/M) so a room temperature black hole is going to be about
10^25 grams.

In other words, I suspect that a primordial black hole, if such exist, would
eat any asteroid that contained it.  However, a black hole need not be anywhere
near room temperature to be relatively stable.  Instead you should ask yourself
how great a source of local radiation you can tolerate.

Note that I haven't said anything about the possibility of making mini black
holes in the lab.  It is so far beyond anything we can do, and so dangerous
(since a small black hole will leave a large crater as it decays) that it is
difficult to imagine this as a plausible scheme for interstellar travel.

Also, schemes for containing black holes usually involve giving them a charge
and holding them with electromagnetic fields.  Problem is that charged black 
holes tend to spontaneously emit their charge.  This could present some
embarassing problems.
-- 
"Ma, I've been to another      Ethan Vishniac
 planet!"                      {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan
                               ethan@astro.UTEXAS.EDU
                               Department of Astronomy
                               University of Texas

------------------------------

Date: 21 Mar 86 10:20:24 GMT
From: brahms!weemba@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Matthew P. Wiener)
Subject: Re: where are the aliens headed??
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <8603210822.AA02367@s1-b.arpa> REM%IMSSS@SU-AI.ARPA (Robert Elton Maas) writes:
>EV> In this paper Michael Harris points out that alien spacecraft using an
>EV> antimatter drive will have large proper motions and be quite conspicuous.
>
>You are omitting something very important. Hint: In military, if you
>see an artillery shell with zero proper motion? Answer, run like hell
>in any direction. Do I have to spell it out?

Oh.  Is THIS why we need to continue the shuttle program?  Understood.

>                                             (The proposed method will
>fail to detect any alien craft that is headed directly for Earth, such
>as an invading force, on its way to stamp out the society responsible
>for Howdy Doody and the McCarthy hearings as well as everybody
>involved in World War 2 on both sides.)

It will also fail to detect any alien craft LEAVING Earth, while trying to
maximize their distance between us and them.  You don't think it's anything
we said, do you?

ucbvax!brahms!weemba	Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720

------------------------------

Date: 18 Mar 86 12:39:25 GMT
From: bellcore!petrus!karn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Phil R. Karn)
Subject: Re: Destroy SPOT with an ASAT?  (what!?)
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

I for one welcome the existence of SPOT, and congratulate ESA (not just
France) on their efforts.  It is good to see that there is now another route
into polar orbit.

I would very much like to someday see a group of independent, neutral
nations fly a fleet of low earth orbiting observation satellites, making ALL
results public. As someone else here commented, it would do a lot to keep
both superpowers honest. I am tired of the US administration's habit of
"selectively declassifying" spy photos whenever it will sway public opinion
in favor of its policies.

Phil

------------------------------

Posted-Date: Fri 21 Mar 1986 08:17:06 EST
Date: Fri 21 Mar 1986 08:17:06 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: RTG Explosion Danger
To: ST801179%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
In-Reply-To: ST801179%BROWNVM.BITNET's message of Wed, 19 Mar 86 15:35:04 EST
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa

The next (?) issue of AWST gave some additional information on the
RTG's.  It seems the Challenger explosion generated pressures of 200-400
psi, not the 10-100 as previously reported.  Also, shrapnel may
be the most important cause of RTG rupture.  A test done in the
Southwest with a very large conventional explosion included a RTG
mockup.  The overpressure was not measured due to the destruction of the
pressure measuring device, but the RTG mockup was reportedly blown to
pieces and only 70% of it was recovered.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 21 Mar 86 06:44:06 PST
From: space-request@s1-b.arpa
Apparently-To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

------------------------------

Date: 17 Mar 86 16:16:40 GMT
From: sdcsvax!ncr-sd!ncrcae!ncsu!uvacs!jlm@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Jerry Marco)
Subject: You can fool all the people...
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> [stuff about exponential population growth inevitably slowing down]
> 
> For
> this reason, space may well be the solution to our future population
> problems, not because a significant percentage of humanity will emigrate,
> but because space is gonna make us all stinking rich.
> 
> 					-- Rick.

Yeah.  And nuclear power will be so cheap to produce we won't be billed
for it.  And Esperanto will be the universal language, and put an end
to war.  And smart computers will mean that people don't have to do
any work unless they want to.  And if farmers borrow money to upgrade
their equipment their financial worries will be over.  Gimme a break.
-- 

--
Jerry Marco         University of Virginia, Dept. of Computer Science
                    UUCP: ..cbosgd!uvacs!jlm  or
                          ..decvax!mcnc!ncsu!uvacs!jlm
                    CSNET: jlm@virginia

------------------------------

Date: 20 Mar 86 00:53:11 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-lcc!lll-crg!seismo!rlgvax!hadron!netexa!elw@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (E. L. Wiles)
Subject: Re: The Shuttle Aftermath
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> The following is from a letter to the editor, Riverside, CA Press-Enterprise.
> 
>   My children shall never forget January 28, as they sat in their classroom
> and watched the coverage of the tragic shuttle explosion.  My 6-year-old was
> particularly affected.
>   You see, he has great appreciations of being a pilot, then on to become an
> astronaut.
>   His comment the other night is one I shall never forget!
>   He asked: "Mom, when I'm an astronaut and go up to space will I die quick
> too?"  I hope my response was reassuring for his young mind.
>   Time will tell, time will heal.
> 				-- KRIS McCLINTOCK
> 
> I wonder how many hundreds (thousands?) of kids are thinking the same thing?
> I hope time heals.
> 
> Matt Heffron
> -------

I've a young neice who intends to be an astronaut, when her mother heard that
the shuttle had blown up, she turned to the child and said, "Your never going
up in one of those!".  The child replied, "By the time I can go, they will
have all the problems fixed!".  Both mother and child remain adamant. :-)

			E. L. Wiles @ NetExpress, Inc. Virginia

------------------------------

Date:         Fri, 21 Mar 86 11:07:00 EST
From: Garrett Fitzgerald
  <ST801179%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu>
Reply-To:  ST801179%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa
Subject:      re: Black Holes

If you want to know about black holes and other strange kinds of stuff, I
recommend the book FROZEN STAR, by Greenstein. It is at a level that can be
fairly easily understood by people with no large Astronomical background (like
me). In response to the earlier question about collapsing black holes, you were
quite right. Stars cannot collapse all the way, because of time dilation.
When one collapses, however, the gravity affects the light almost as much as
a black hole would. In addition, the time dilation slows down the emission of
photons and red-shifts the frequency (I think). So, you cannot see a "frozen
star" any more than you can see a black hole. There is,according to Greenstein,
an easy way to form a black hole from a frozen star, though. Jump into it.

------------------------------

Date: 21 Mar 86 21:25:12 GMT
From: nike!topaz!bentley!kwh@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (KW Heuer)
Subject: Re: antimatter stardrives
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <22000015@hpfcla> ajs@hpfcla (Alan Silverstein) writes:
>Now here is an example of using "finesse" rather than "brute force".  I
>suspect (and hope) that if we ever achieve Universe-spanning means of
>travel, it will be by use of finesse, not brute force.  The latter tends
>to be more expensive, dangerous, and "polluting".
>
>If you can twist space to produce antimatter, why can't you twist it to
>wormhole from hither to yon, and forget the stardrive?

Also, it is often assumed that it is intrinsically expensive to lift a mass
from Earth's surface to orbit and beyond.  Here, the finesse solution is to
schedule flights so that whenever one is departing, another of equal mass is
arriving; either a space-elevator or an orbiting bolo could be run with
minimal energy requirements.

I don't know about the feasibility of twisting spacetime (I do suspect that
a wormhole could only take you to a point in your future lightcone, so no
"instantaneous" teleportation), but A. Offutt & R. Lyon described a finesse
interstellar train in _Rails Across the Galaxy_, which appeared as a serial
in _Analog_ beginning August, 1982.  The engineering difficulties present a
problem, but no new laws of physics are needed.

Karl W. Z. Heuer (ihnp4!bentley!kwh), The Walking Lint

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #226
*******************


0,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA07808; Sat, 22 Mar 86 03:00:54 PST
	id AA07808; Sat, 22 Mar 86 03:00:54 PST
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 86 03:00:54 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8603221100.AA07808@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #227

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 227

Today's Topics:
     converting gravitational potential energy into useful energy
   Re: converting gravitational potential energy into useful energy
	       Re: USENET costs--who's paying for what?
	      Re: Re: Resignations (engineering ethics)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 1986 March 21 01:03:05 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@su-ai.arpa>
To: brahms!desj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Cc: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
Subject: converting gravitational potential energy into useful energy

REM>... dropping matter into a black hole is both efficient and
REM>relatively safe/simple once you have a black hole handy.

D> Date: 20 Mar 86 10:12:30 GMT
D> From: brahms!desj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (David desJardins)
D> Subject: Re: antimatter -> black hole
D>    I give up.  I don't have a clue what you are talking about.  How
D> is dropping things into black holes supposed to create energy (at
D> "close to 100% efficiency")??

To put it simply, one doesn't create energy, one converts
gravitational potential energy into knetic or other form of energy.
It's the same as letting rain water fall through a turbine. "How does
letting water fall create energy?" It doesn't, it transforms it from
potential to knetic. One of the paradoxes of classical theory is that
two point masses have an infinite amount of gravitational potential
energy, because each's gravitational well is infinitely deep (force is
R**(-2), potential is integral of that which is (R**(-1))/(-1) so as R
approaches zero the potential approaches minus infinity). But the
event horizon around point masses limits this to a finite value; you
can draw useful energy from a falling object only as long as you can
hold onto it so the potential energy is transferred from the falling
object to your apparatus for collecting the energy. If you just let
the object fall into a black hole, all the knetic energy is lost in
the hole. But if you tie it to a rope and wrap the other end of the
rope around a shaft that drives a generator or somesuch, you can
convert the fall of potential into useful energy up to when the rope
breaks or the falling object reaches the event horizon, whichever
happens first.

So it's obvious you can get energy by lowering something into a black
hole, providing you don't just let it freefall, you have it's falling
do useful work on some mechanical contraption. The hard part is
computing how much energy you get for a given mass being lowered
almost all the way to the event horizon before the rope breaks. I
haven't done the calculations myself, but I read in some journal that
the answer is you get exactly E=M*C**2 out of it, i.e. 100%
mass-to-energy conversion as per Einstein's equation. (Would Gene
Salamin or Hans Moravec or some other expert on physics & relativity &
quantum mechanics who has actually done the calculation please confirm
or correct the answer I quoted? (I wish Hawking were on this list,
he's the real expert on black holes!!))

------------------------------

Date: 22 Mar 86 03:59:16 GMT
From: brahms!weemba@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Matthew P. Wiener)
Subject: Re: converting gravitational potential energy into useful energy
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <8603220245.AA06331@s1-b.arpa> REM%IMSSS@SU-AI.ARPA (Robert Elton Maas) writes:
>So it's obvious you can get energy by lowering something into a black
>hole, providing you don't just let it freefall, you have it's falling
>do useful work on some mechanical contraption. The hard part is
>computing how much energy you get for a given mass being lowered
>almost all the way to the event horizon before the rope breaks. I
>haven't done the calculations myself, but I read in some journal that
>the answer is you get exactly E=M*C**2 out of it, i.e. 100%
>mass-to-energy conversion as per Einstein's equation. (Would Gene
>Salamin or Hans Moravec or some other expert on physics & relativity &
>quantum mechanics who has actually done the calculation please confirm
>or correct the answer I quoted? (I wish Hawking were on this list,
>he's the real expert on black holes!!))

The calculation is rather simple.  Assuming a 100% conversion rate of
the infinitesimal gain in potential energy to photons emitted back,
and then accounting for the gravitational red shift on the way back
to the starting height, and then integrating from initial height to
the Schwarzchild radius, one gets that M*c**2 is the energy received
at the top.  Of course, there is an infinite delay at the end, but
never mind that.

ucbvax!brahms!weemba	Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720

------------------------------

Date: 18 Mar 86 17:32:54 GMT
From: ihnp4!gargoyle!oddjob!apak@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Adrian Kent)
Subject: Re: USENET costs--who's paying for what?
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <5382@glacier.ARPA> reid@glacier.UUCP writes:
>
>I've been taking readership data for USENET lately. This data consists of
>summaries from 100 sites about the number of readers of various newsgroups.
>I then collect it all back at glacier, add the traffic data, and produce
>this result. I'm not proposing to do anything with this information, but other
>people might.
>TOP 40 NEWSGROUPS IN ORDER BY PER-READER COST
   lots of figures follow.
>	Brian Reid	decwrl!glacier!reid
>	Stanford	reid@SU-Glacier.ARPA
      Sorry for posting to all the groups the original went to. I just want to
point out two things:
(1) the figures quoted in this list are spuriously accurate (estimated world
audience to the nearest person, cost per person to the nearest cent.) In fact,
there's no indication how either the readership or the cost were estimated,
and so no reason to place any faith at all in the numbers.
(2) newsgroups have, in the past, been abolished for completely spurious 
reasons: history has been rewritten, 'votes' have been taken on the basis of
one pro-abolitionist's claim about the contents of his private mail - end of
group. 
                       adrian

------------------------------

Date: 18 Mar 86 23:23:51 GMT
From: ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!hropus!riccb!rjnoe@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Roger J. Noe)
Subject: Re: Re: Resignations (engineering ethics)
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>   I don't think, in general, that it is reasonable for an employee of
> any company to tell the news media that the company's product is
> unsafe.  Not only is he likely to be fired, he is apt to be sued for
> libel.  And rightly so.  Unless he has good evidence that his employer
> is engaged in a criminal conspiracy.
> 								...Keith

Suppose there's a chemical engineer out there somewhere who works for a
major pharmaceutical company.  Suppose the engineer knows that the company
is allowing amounts of certain harmful substances into one of its products
in excess of what the FDA has identified as "safe".  Suppose this is a
product taken daily by thousands of people, maybe even you.  If you knew
of these things, would you want the engineer to tell anyone?  If not the
FDA, what's wrong with media?

Sure, he could be fired and sued by his employer for slander.  But they'd
lose the suit because the engineer (1) acted without malice toward anyone,
since he was concerned for the public safety, (2) he acted believing that
his knowledge was correct, and (3) he did not display a reckless disregard
for the truth.  The employer would need to show that these three items were
opposite than what I have described to win a slander suit.  And it is very
likely they would lose heavily in court if they fired him for speaking out.
Not only is that violating freedom of speech principles, but it would be an
unlawful termination of an employment contract.  Employers are losing these
termination-at-will suits all over, and losing BIG.  If they don't have a
very good reason to back up their decision, they could end up in VERY hot
water.  And they'd take a real beating in the public image department, too.

If the engineer first makes his concerns known to his management and he is
reassured by managers and executives (who are not experts like he is) that
they know of the situation and "It's all OK, don't worry about it" then there
IS a conspiracy to withhold the information.  Whether or not the conspiracy
is criminal or not depends on whether or not the act they're keeping secret
is criminal.  But an act doesn't have to be criminal to be unethical.  It
doesn't even have to be illegal to be unethical.  Any lawyer will tell you
that law and ethics have almost nothing to do with each other. :-)
--
Roger Noe			ihnp4!riccb!rjnoe

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #227
*******************


0,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA11751; Sun, 23 Mar 86 03:01:11 PST
	id AA11751; Sun, 23 Mar 86 03:01:11 PST
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 86 03:01:11 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8603231101.AA11751@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #228

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 228

Today's Topics:
		     Re: antimatter -> black hole
		      Re: The Shuttle Aftermath
		Re: Resignations (engineering ethics)
		    Re: Destroy SPOT with an ASAT?
	  Response to Greg Earle's mindless anti-human flame
		Re: Morton-Thiokol Engineering Claims
		    Re: detecting alien spacecraft
		   Shuttle and expendable boosters
		       Energy from a black hole
			    Re: Population
	       Re: Destroy SPOT with an ASAT?  (what!?)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 19 Mar 86 17:46:49 GMT
From: decvax!dartvax!chuck@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Chuck Simmons)
Subject: Re: antimatter -> black hole
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> Unfortunately the more matter you drop the more massive the hole gets.
> Fortunately the only part of the matter that ends up really in the
> hole is the part not converted to energy, so the more efficient you
> can engineer the system the slower the hole gets massive, so with
> close to 100% efficiency the hole lasts close to forever.
>
> What is current expert opinion on the existance of small black holes
> ... [quote taken out of context]

The last I heard, experts were of the opinion that black holes (especially 
small black holes) have a tendency to evaporate.  Thus most of the small
black holes that may have been created in the Big Bang are no longer with
us, and if we do learn how to construct small black holes, they will tend to
evaporate quickly.

On the other hand, if we learn how to care for and feed a black hole so that
it can be used as an energy source, we won't have to worry about it growing
too large.  Every now and then we can simply stop feeding it and wait for it
to evaporate a little.  (By having lots of little black holes and only
feeding one at a time, we can even keep up a continuous supply of energy.)

Chuck Simmons     chuck@dartvax

------------------------------

Date: 19 Mar 86 17:49:35 GMT
From: ihnp4!houxm!mtuxo!mtgzy!ecl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (e.c.leeper)
Subject: Re: The Shuttle Aftermath
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>   He asked: "Mom, when I'm an astronaut and go up to space will I die quick
> too?"  I hope my response was reassuring for his young mind.

There's hope for the dream.  Note this 6-six-old didn't give up his idea of
being an astronaut--he said "when", not "if"!

					Evelyn C. Leeper
					...ihnp4!mtgzz!ecl
					(or ihnp4!mtgzy!ecl)

------------------------------

Date: 19 Mar 86 18:22:52 GMT
From: ihnp4!iham1!spock@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Ed Weiss)
Subject: Re: Resignations (engineering ethics)
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <649@riccb.UUCP>, rjnoe@riccb.UUCP (Roger J. Noe) writes:
...
> doesn't even have to be illegal to be unethical.  Any lawyer will tell you
> that law and ethics have almost nothing to do with each other. :-)
> --
> Roger Noe			ihnp4!riccb!rjnoe

I don't see the need for the :-).
-- 

					Ed Weiss
					ihnp4!iham1!spock

"Don't hurry, don't worry.  You're only here for a short visit.
So be sure to stop and smell the flowers."    - Walter C. Hagen

------------------------------

Date: 17 Mar 86 16:29:19 GMT
From: ihnp4!mmm!allen@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Kurt Allen)
Subject: Re: Destroy SPOT with an ASAT?
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <364@vger.UUCP> al@vger.UUCP ( Informatix) writes:
>The French recently orbited the SPOT earth resources satellite with a
> ...
>RUMOUR has it that there has been
>some discussion in the Pentagon about destroying SPOT with an ASAT
>should SPOT detect 'sensitive' military information ...

I hope people will read the 'RUMOUR' disclaimer. Could I ask where
you heard this ? Please don't interpret this as sarcasm, but as this
rumour is somewhat scandalous, I would like to know if there is any
evidence to substantiate it, or if it is purely rumour/conjecture.

------------------------------

Date: 17 Mar 86 16:35:19 GMT
From: ihnp4!mmm!allen@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Kurt Allen)
Subject: Response to Greg Earle's mindless anti-human flame
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> I shouldn't need to mention the clubbing of baby seals to make coats for
> F*****g Rich Moron women.
>
	I think that the net would be a better place if people used
	the same communication discipline in posting articles to the net
	as they are required to use over any other public communication
	system. I.E. CB, TV, Radio, etc. Please don't express yourself
	in ways that are degrading, abusive, and rude.

------------------------------

Date: 19 Mar 86 14:51:55 GMT
From: ihnp4!mmm!mrgofor@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (MKR)
Subject: Re: Morton-Thiokol Engineering Claims
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <6512@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
>> ... In this case, however, it was the commanders-in-chief
>> who undertook to carry out a plan which they did not consider effective. The
>> engineers were not commanders - they were soldiers...
>
>Note that the quote makes it clear that the "commander-in-chief" that
>Napoleon is referring to has at least two levels of superiors above him
>who might be actively (if unwisely) involved in the decision.  I think
>the analogy holds.
>
>And as for soldiers' obligation to weigh the soundness of the campaign,
>Nuremberg and later such courts established very clearly that it *is*
>the soldiers' obligation to weigh the *legality* of their orders.
>-- 
>				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
>				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

	Are you suggesting that the engineers' actions were in some way
	illegal?


-- 
					--MKR

"The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The 
 terror of their tyranny, however, is alleviated by their lack of consistency."
						- Albert Einstein

------------------------------

Date: 18 Mar 86 23:05:38 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!utcs!mnetor!genat!phoenix@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (phoenix)
Subject: Re: detecting alien spacecraft
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <512@utastro.UUCP> ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) writes:
>
>   I have in my hand a preprint from someone in my own department (Michael
>Harris).  On the assumption that he would like the publicity and because
>it might start a good discussion in the group I am posting the abstract
>of the paper and a brief synopsis of its contents.
>
> 
 
 >     On the Detectability of Antimatter Propulsion Spacecraft



What about alien starships using a non-anti-matter drive?  (There are most
probably other types of star-drive as well...:-))
-- 
					The Phoenix
					(Neither Bright, Dark, nor Young)


---"A man should live forever...or die trying."
---"There is no substitute for good manners...except fast reflexes."

------------------------------

Date: 19 Mar 86 19:58:58 GMT
From: ihnp4!mmm!allen@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Kurt Allen)
Subject: Shuttle and expendable boosters
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Why did'nt NASA create a shuttle that would ride on top of expendable
boosters ala Hermes/Ariane and the Soviet shuttle (both under development).
It seams to me that this probably would have had the following effects

1. Cheaper. NASA could have kept the Saturn production lines open,
and used only proven boosters, eliminating the R&D dollars used to develop
the shuttle boosters. The earlier work done on Dyna-Soar, which was to have
flown on expendable boosters, could have formed the basis of the shuttle.

2. Allowed development of a smaller shuttle, that would not have to
do everything the current shuttle does. Large payloads could have been lofted
by a Saturn IB or Saturn 5. The development of a smaller shuttle would have
been cheaper and safer, utilizing more proven technology.

3. Have speeded up development of the shuttle. That period of time in
which the US of A did'nt have any manned space systems because we were
waiting for the shuttle would'nt have occured. Skylab might be the nucleas
of an permanently manned american space station, rather than a smear across
Australia.

4. Have allowed backup systems to the shuttle so that grounding of the shuttle
would'nt have caused a hold on the whole american space program.

5. Kept in existance an unmanned system to use for lofting very dangerous
payloads. I.E. interplanetary probes carrying large amounts of explosive fuel.

Where would we be now if we had made a less advanced shuttle of the above
type ?

------------------------------

Date: 21 Mar 86 14:57:56 GMT
From: decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-star!fisher@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Burns Fisher ZKO1-1/D42 DTN 381-1466)
Subject: Energy from a black hole
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

I somehow missed the beginning of the black hole discussion, but
I just want to point out that one of the (probably many) problems
in using a black hole for transportation energy is that you have to
haul it along with you.  Black holes are MASSIVE!  Now if you are
talking about using the hole as a stationary source of energy to
do something like power a laser to hit a light sail, that is a different
question.

Burns

...decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-star!fisher

------------------------------

Date: 20 Mar 86 19:47:29 GMT
From: ihnp4!mmm!mrgofor@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (MKR)
Subject: Re: Population
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <[MC.LCS.MIT.EDU].851959.860315.KFL> KFL@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU ("Keith F. Lynch") writes:
>
>    From: Chuck Simmons <chuck%dartmouth.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
>
>    If the population stays the same size, but each
>    person's disposable income increases by a factor of a million, they would
>    buy enough goods to justify all sorts of economies of scale.
>
>  Not true.  No matter how rich I was, I wouldn't buy two copies of
>the same book.  I wouldn't buy more food than I could eat.  I wouldn't
>buy more clothes than I could wear in a week.  I wouldn't buy two
>copies of the same CD.  I wouldn't buy more computer power than I
>could use.  I wouldn't buy more than one calculator.

	I own two copies of several books, and because others have
become damaged or lost, I have bought multiple copies of many books. I often
throw away un-eaten food that has spoiled or is cluttering up the fridge
("who is going to eat this okra your mother brought over? :-)). I own a lot
more clothes than I can wear in a week, and I'm not a clothes-hound by
any means - I *hate* shopping and will only do it when my shirts start to
disintegrate. Besides, how many thousands of pairs of shoes did Imelda Marcos
have? If I could afford it, I would definitely buy multiple copies of CD's
(one for the office on my D5 portable, one for the living room stereo, and
one for the bedroom stereo - and maybe another for each car). I think the 
vast majority of computer owners have computer power that they don't use -
if all they do is run Wordstar, there is a lot going to waste. I own quite
a few calculators - as do a great many people.

	Maybe you could come up with some better examples?


-- 
					--MKR

"The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The 
 terror of their tyranny, however, is alleviated by their lack of consistency."
						- Albert Einstein

------------------------------

Date: 20 Mar 86 23:46:02 GMT
From: ihnp4!ihwpt!knudsen@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (mike knudsen)
Subject: Re: Destroy SPOT with an ASAT?  (what!?)
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> I for one welcome the existence of SPOT, and congratulate ESA (not just
> France) on their efforts.  It is good to see that there is now another route
> into polar orbit.
> 
> I would very much like to someday see a group of independent, neutral
> nations fly a fleet of low earth orbiting observation satellites, making ALL
> results public. As someone else here commented, it would do a lot to keep
> both superpowers honest. I am tired of the US administration's habit of
> "selectively declassifying" spy photos whenever it will sway public opinion
> in favor of its policies.
> 
> Phil



References: <261@uvacs.UUCP> <639@bentley.UUCP> <376@vger.UUCP>, <56@petrus.UUCP>

Good idea, Phil.  It would also make it harder for one small
(or large) country to mount a massive sneak attack on another.
If say, Nicaraguan troops were massing along the Honduran border,
the independent satellite would spill the beans.

Since nations could count on advance warning of major attacks,
they could all maintain smaller armies and be less paranoid
in general.



	mike k
	
PS: In fact, if everyone knew where everyone else's armies were
all the time, wars could become rather unpractical!
Can't wait for the Scaninavians to get up there and do this!

This may be mangled; my terminal is sick!

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #228
*******************


0,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA11840; Sun, 23 Mar 86 03:06:04 PST
	id AA11840; Sun, 23 Mar 86 03:06:04 PST
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 86 03:06:04 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8603231106.AA11840@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #229

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 229

Today's Topics:
		  History of Skylab #1 - Apollo food
	       Re: USENET costs--who's paying for what?
		       Re: The Challenger Crew
	Re: Fusion for Rockets (actually, Lasers for Rockets)
		       Re: The Challenger Crew
		    Black Holes and Useful Energy
		   Halley Sighting & Mystery object
		     Survivability of astronauts
		      Re: The Shuttle Aftermath
		 Re: Bronowski and historical fossils
			  Re: First Contact
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 20 Mar 86 15:17:11 GMT
From: ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dave Newkirk)
Subject: History of Skylab #1 - Apollo food
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Nothing gave the workshop developers more trouble than the human
digestive tract - and the experimenters whose main concerns were
with what went into and what came out of it.  Food management and
waste management would have been complicated enough as independent
systems, but the imposition of stringent medical requirements made
things much worse.  The waste management system produced major design
problems down to a few months before launch; the food system was
brought under control by the end of 1971.
...
The first three manned Apollo flights in 1968 and 1969 brought
complaints about the food.  This was somewhat surprising, because
the food was much the same as in Gemini, and some of the same
astronauts had found it quite acceptable.  Seeking an outside opinion,
MSC nutritionists persuaded Donald D. Arabian, chief of MSC's Test
Division, to evaluate Apollo rations.  Although he admitted to being
`something of a human garbage can,' Arabian found the experience one
he did not care for.  He had agreed to subsist on Apollo food for
four days, but the prospect quickly became unappealing.  The sausage
patties in his first breakfast resembled `coarse granulated rubber with
a sausage flavor,' which left a sickening aftertaste that persisted for
an hour.  At the end of the first day, Arabian noted a marked loss of
appetite; by the third day, eating was a real chore.  Meal preparation
offered no pleasant anticipation; there were no aromas to stimulate the
appetite and no textural variety to provide satisfaction.  Those items
that most closely resembled off-the-shelf foods were excellent, but those
prepared especially for spaceflight could only be called bad.  Arabian
could not understand why such common items as peanuts and chocolate had
to be ground up and converted into bite-size cubes, which stuck to the
teeth.

(Excerpt from "Living and Working in Space - A History of Skylab", NASA
SP-4208, for sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Gov't Printing
Office, Washington, D.C. 20402)
-- 
				Dave Newkirk, ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn

------------------------------

Date: 21 Mar 86 02:56:46 GMT
From: decwrl!glacier!reid@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Brian Reid)
Subject: Re: USENET costs--who's paying for what?
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <1241@oddjob.UUCP> apak@oddjob.UUCP (Adrian Kent) writes:
> (various blah blah woof woof about my data)

The discussion of the methodology, its accuracy, and its meaning is taking
place in net.news.group (where it belongs).
-- 
	Brian Reid	decwrl!glacier!reid
	Stanford	reid@SU-Glacier.ARPA

------------------------------

Date: 18 Mar 86 02:34:21 GMT
From: hplabs!qantel!lll-lcc!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!seismo!rlgvax!hadron!netexa!elw@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: The Challenger Crew
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> In a perfect world I think it would be found fitting if we were to erect
> an eternal flame outside of the Johnson Space Center with a plague to 
> commemorate all those who have died in spacecraft above which would be the
> pledge:
> 	"We shall always persevere"

I like the idea, see if you can get it rolling.

			E. L. Wiles @ NetExpress, Inc. Virginia

------------------------------

Date: 21 Mar 86 05:57:21 GMT
From: hplabs!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Michael McNeil)
Subject: Re: Fusion for Rockets (actually, Lasers for Rockets)
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <[MC.LCS.MIT.EDU].848824.860312.KFL> KFL@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU
("Keith F. Lynch") writes:
>
>>Interstellar ships could be beam powered (laser sails) ...
>
>  Perhaps a laser could be used to vaporize the reaction mass, as I
>assume you meant in the previous paragraph, but as for laser sails,
>how would the starship decelerate as it approaches its destination?

I've heard of a proposal (sorry, I don't recall the reference) by
which a stationary-laser-powered sailship would extrude a long wire as
it entered interstellar space, then use a particle emitter to build up
an electric charge.  The ship would then interact with the galactic
magnetic field, and swing around in a very large circle.  Eventually,
it would approach the destination star *from the other direction*.  
At the appointed moment, Earth would turn on its lasers again, and
decelerate the ship as it enters the target system.  (Of course,
civilization better not have fallen in the meantime! :-) )

-- 

Michael McNeil
3Com Corporation     "All disclaimers including this one apply"
(415) 960-9367
..!ucbvax!hplabs!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm

	What a wonderful and amazing Scheme have we here of the
	magnificent Vastness of the Universe!  So many Suns, so
	many Earths ... !  
		Christianus Huygens, *New Conjectures Concerning the
		Planetary Worlds, Their Inhabitants and Productions*,
		c. 1670

------------------------------

Date: 18 Mar 86 02:49:26 GMT
From: hplabs!qantel!lll-lcc!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!seismo!rlgvax!hadron!netexa!elw@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: The Challenger Crew
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> > In a perfect world I think it would be found fitting if we were to erect
> > an eternal flame outside of the Johnson Space Center with a plague to 
> > commemorate all those who have died in spacecraft above which would be the
> > pledge:
> > 	"We shall always persevere"
> 
> Huh ???  Where is the plaque for the original Apollo astronauts who
> died on the launch pad ???  They got into the rocket BEFORE there was
> a regular high success/launch ratio.  I understand the sentiment, but
> let's use our energies to go FORWARD rather than to remember the past.
> 
> Rob Vetter

Rob, The suggestion clearly states that ALL those who have died would be
included.  Read before you flame...please?  And, those who do not remember
the past, have no future.  We need to remember our failures most of all, since
it is by failure that we learn.

			E. L. Wiles @ NetExpress, Inc. Virginia

------------------------------

Date: Sat 22 Mar 86 15:44:45-PST
From: Jim McGrath <J.JPM@[36.21.0.13]>
Subject: Black Holes and Useful Energy
To: space@mc.lcs.mit.edu
Reply-To: mcgrath%mit-oz@mit-mc.arpa


All the literature I have read always concentrated on recovering the
energy stored by the black hole as spin (afterall, it has the angular
momentum of the original star), not gravitational energy per se.
Apparently this approach has fewer engineering difficulties :-).


Jim



-------

------------------------------

Date: 21 Mar 86 20:55:17 GMT
From: decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!ncr-sd!steves@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Steve Schlesinger)
Subject: Halley Sighting & Mystery object
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa


I had a nice view of Halley at about 4:20 PST from about
35 miles N of San Diego, CA.
Tail clearly visible thru 7x50's.
The sky was not as black as it was when I saw it in November (was this
too early for pre-dawn twilight?)

While I was looking at Halley I saw an object move by the
general vicinity from south to east.
It was moving at a steady, relatively slow rate.
It might have been a plane, but I don't think so since it appeared to be
much higher than planes go (also there was only a single light).  
It wasn't a falling star since it was too slow and persosted
for some time.  
I'm not experienced at estimating magnitudes, but if Halley
was a 4 I'd guess this thing wasn't higher than a 6.

Does anyone know if this was satellite?  If so which one.


Steve Schlesinger
(ihnp4, ucbvax!sdcsvax)!ncr-sd!steves

------------------------------

Date: 21 Mar 86 18:00:03 GMT
From: decvax!linus!axiom!paul@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Paul O`Shaughnessy)
Subject: Survivability of astronauts
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Now that the crew compartment has been recovered in a far less damaged state
than had been expected (at least publicly) by NASA, I'd like to again ask the 
question that was discussed soon after the explosion - how survivable can the
shuttle be made, within reason?  I have read the accounts of how the crew 
compartment may have survived the explosion relatively intact.  The lower
deck appears to have been seriously damaged but the upper deck left intact.
This tells me that the compartment is ruggedly built.  I have also read that
the compartment is attached to the shuttle hull in only a few places, much 
as an engine is mounted in a car.  Would it be possible to eject the entire
compartment from the top of the shuttle in the event of a similar catastrophe?
I'm sure that the g forces involved would be wild, but perhaps survivable.
Critical real-time information would also have to be available to the pilots.
The entire capsule could deploy parachutes to land in the water.  I don't
know what sort of deceleration the capsule would experience upon ejection,
so perhaps someone in the know could comment.

Is this fantasy?  What would be the cost in dollars and weight?  What is the 
probability of ejection at the wrong time (in orbit or reentry) and would 
this outweigh the advantage?  Could humans survive such a sequence? 
Knowlegable comment supported by some facts and calculation would be 
very interesting.  Thanks in advance.

------------------------------

Date: 21 Mar 86 18:31:45 GMT
From: decvax!linus!axiom!paul@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Paul O`Shaughnessy)
Subject: Re: The Shuttle Aftermath
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

I know that the shuttle tragedy was traumatic for the children watching,
and I was upset for days afterward.  However, I'd like to offer this 
counterpoint to all the talk of children being scarred for life by this
event.  I have friends who teach at the Concord NH school where Christa
McCauliffe taught.  Apart from eyewitness news creeps trying to get camera
shots of children crying, they were descended upon by flocks of social
workers and psychologists reminding each and every child that they *will*
remember this event and they *will* be scarred for life and space flight 
*really* isn't that dangerous.  J.C. Almighty!  The kids are going to be
more screwed up by the efforts to "cure" them than by anything else!
Space flight is dangerous, NASA is fallible, several greatly admired 
personal heros were killed, and that's that!  These children will be no
more scarred by this than I am by President Kennedy's assasination.
Unless, of course, the psychologists are interested in job security.

My profound apologies to social workers and psychologists in general,
but what I have been told about this school borders on the absurd.

------------------------------

Date: 10 Mar 86 20:24:00 GMT
From: decvax!ima!inmet!janw@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Bronowski and historical fossils
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa


[John Redford DEC-Hudson]
>Everything dies, be it  countries,  or  civilizations,  or  whole
>species.  I  doubt  if America will be around in any recognizable
>form in two thousand years, or if homo sapiens will be around  in
>a  hundred  thousand.  Our species didn't even exist a mere fifty
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>thousand years ago, and there are notable anatomical  differences
>between  us and the people of even twenty thousand years ago. Why
>imagine that the process has stopped?  If  anything  it  has  ac-
>celerated.  Folks  on  this list have been blithely talking about
>our descendants of 200,000 years from now. The chances  are  that
>they won't be human. Human, that is, in the sense of being genet-
>ically and mentally similar to us.

A hundred thousand ? Make it *one* thousand, because  of  genetic
research  and  possibilities  of artificial evolution. One way or
another, we are likely to be among the last generations  of  this
species.  This  makes  space  expansion even more urgent: to make
sure that among the many branches of this  evolution,  some  turn
out successful.

		Jan Wasilewsky

------------------------------

Date: 18 Mar 86 20:37:20 GMT
From: voder!kontron!cramer@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: First Contact
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> In article <[MC.LCS.MIT.EDU].846042.860310.KFL>, KFL@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU ("Keith F. Lynch") writes:
> >>     Incidentally, if we do encounter a friendly race that makes us
> >>     look pretty inferior, our mental health may be preserved by
> >>     some myths ...
> > 
> >   I don't think myths are needed.  We are way beyond the stage of
> > worshiping what we don't understand.  If aliens with an advanced
> > technology do show up, people will simply assume that their history is
> > longer than ours, that we would have had very similar technology after
> > not too many more decades or centuries ourselves rather than assuming
> > that they are smarter or otherwise better than us.  Even if they DO
> > prove to be smarter than us, it is generally believed that human
> > intelligence enhancement should be possible within a few decades, by
> > computer implants or whatever.  And of course we can enhance
> > intelligence even today, simply by improving the schools.
> > 								...Keith
> 
>    You also made claims to the effect that there would be no reason to be 
> paranoid of aliens, and that therefore we wouldn't.  Come now.  Probably the
> single greatest factor in international politics on this planet is paranoia.
> If we can't even learn to trust our neighbors on this planet, do you actually
> expect us to believe that we'll trust aliens from another?
> 
If you mean fear of other nations, you are right -- that is the single
greatest factor in international relations.  And with good reason.  War
is a very large part of human activity, and always has been.  The fears
that the Soviet Union and the United States have of each other are rational
fears.  It would be nice to ascribe these fears to "paranoia", but they
aren't.  Tom, go read some history -- "all hacking and no humanities makes
Tom a dull boy."

> tom keller

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #229
*******************


0,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA17191; Mon, 24 Mar 86 03:00:56 PST
	id AA17191; Mon, 24 Mar 86 03:00:56 PST
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 86 03:00:56 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8603241100.AA17191@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #230

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 230

Today's Topics:
			   Re: Red Sirius?
			      Re: Fusion
	 Re: Shuttle messages taken to Senator Garn's office
		   Strange fuel and other fantasies
			Eggs in one basket...
			 AW&ST subscriptions
			Re: Antimatter drive?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 18 Mar 86 20:46:34 GMT
From: voder!kontron!cramer@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: Red Sirius?
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> Why don't people go out and look at Sirius instead of arguing in a
> vacuum?  It turns out I often do (I mean look; the fact that I often
> argue is not the point :-), not to prove the "Red Sirius" theory, but
> because I like the stars.  Sirius almost always looks blue-white to me,
> but it has on occasion looked as red as a stop light.  It has also
> looked quite green, in fact within minutes of looking red.  These funny
> colors occurred when Sirius was low in the sky and the air was fairly
> turbulent.
> 
> While I must commend Firth for looking rather than blindly arguing, his
> observation of Venus instead of Sirius is probably irrelevant, because
> the finite size of planets (roughly a minute of arc for Venus) makes
> them behave differently than stars with regard to atmospheric effects;
> for example, planets twinkle decidedly less than stars.
> 
> After seeing Sirius quite red from atmospheric effects, I have to
> believe it simply got into the literature as red from such a viewing,
> and has been perpetuated in print.
> 
> /Don Lynn

But the ancients were quite knowledgeable naked eye astronomers.  They
would know that Sirius was, when low to the horizon, occasionally
red and other colors, for short periods of time.  Hard to believe that
they would call it "red" unless it was so quite consistently.

Also, the color distortions are because Sirius is low in the sky when
viewed from northern latitudes.  In the latitude of Egypt, it isn't
low in the sky.

------------------------------

Date: 22 Mar 86 03:19:39 GMT
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!ism780c!tim@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: Fusion
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In an article KFL@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU ("Keith F. Lynch") writes:
>
>  Cold storage, as solid pellets, also has severe problems.  The
>pellet must never touch the walls of its container.  Not even one
>stray gas atom must touch the pellet.  If one did, it would make a
>tiny explosion that would free millions of anti-atoms from the pellet,
>most of which would collide with the walls of the container causing
>millions of tiny explosions that would free trillions of atoms from
>the walls of the container, many of which would collide with the
>pellet ... rapidly escalating into a full scale annihilation explosion
>with the force of trillions of H-bombs.  Such antimatter pellets
>should be allowed to exist only millions of miles from Earth, lest all
>life on one side of Earth be incinerated by an explosion within a few
>thousand miles of Earth.

Gosh!

>  One theory says that antimatter is identical to matter only switched
>left to right.  This theory says that if Alice had stepped into the
>looking glass, she would have annihilated most of England.  If this
>theory is true, then all we have to do is somehow put a half twist on
>a small section of space, sort of like making an H shaped cut in a
>piece of paper and then taping the ends back together after giving
>each one a quarter twist in opposite directions, only in three
>dimensions.  Then, any matter put through the twist would come through
>the other side as antimatter.  This would allow total conversion of
>any sort of matter into energy, and would avoid the storage problems I
>mentioned since no antimatter is ever stored, it is generated when it
>is needed.
>  According to relativity, space is curved.  The curvature can be
>changed by rearranging masses.  So, while I see no way to put a half
>twist into space, it is by no means theoretically impossible or
>unthinkable.  The consequences of such a technology falling into the
>wrong hands may be unthinkable, however.  At least I don't want to
>think about it.
>								...Keith

Hey, you could have a lot of fun with these little half-twist matter
anti-matter flippers.  You could make a neat 3d maze, with a big prize
in the center.  There would be several paths to the prize, but only one
that flips you an even number of times.  You start out with the same
orientation as the prize...
					:-)

-- 
Tim Smith       sdcrdcf!ism780c!tim || ima!ism780!tim || ihnp4!cithep!tim

------------------------------

Date: 22 Mar 86 23:38:35 GMT
From: hplabs!qantel!cpro!asgard@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (J. R. Stoner)
Subject: Re: Shuttle messages taken to Senator Garn's office
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <280@hadron.UUCP> klr@hadron.UUCP (Kurt L. Reisler) writes:
>
>	This afternoon, I had my first meeting with Mr. Jeff Bingham,
>Senator Garn's Administrative Assistant.  I took with me all of the
>messages that I have collected (to date) from net.space and
>net.columbia, as well as the messages that were sent to me directly via
>mail.  In addition, I brought the messages that have been collected on
>my two FIDONET nodes, and the messages that have been sent by other
>FIDO SYSOPS and FIDO users.  A little over 1,400 messages in all.
>
>	Mr. Bingham was impressed (perhaps overwelmed is better word)
>with both the quantity and the quality of the material contained in
>these messages.  The discussions followed the types of questions that
>have been asked in Congress, as to the future and direction of the
>space program.  He was facinated as to the mechanisms used to gather
>these messages.
>
>	What is going to be done with the material? 
>...
>	I will be meeting with Mr. Bingham and Senator Garn in 3 to 4
>weeks to further discuss how to best use these messages.
>
>...
>
>    The Dream IS still alive, and with our help, it will stay alive!

[Flame mode on]

Now would be the apropropriate time to take up a collection among we space
lovers to buy Senator Garn an AT so he can get USENET directly in his office
(the other congressional Luddites might get some use out of it too) instead
of generating *more* paper to be buried with that of other "interests".

Talk of influencing our legislators is cheap.  Now we can pull those fools
into the current century.

[Flame mode off]

Seriously, that *would* be a nice way to get a senator's attention and
get some more direct input into the process, so the congress will no longer
under-fund NASA (the tragedy of the age in process).


-- 
May the farce be with you.
J.R. Stoner, Esq. CompuPro/VIASYN Corporation, Hayward, CA
UUCP:     ...{hplabs,apple,dual}!qantel!cpro!asgard
USnail:   26538 Danti Ct.  Hayward, CA  94545

------------------------------

Posted-Date: Sun 23 Mar 1986 13:23:07 EST
Date: Sun 23 Mar 1986 13:23:07 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Strange fuel and other fantasies
To: space@s1-b.arpa

Another (very speculative) possibility for starship propulsion is to use
"nucleonic fusion".  It has recently been speculated that a bag of 3n
quarks, with up, down and strange quarks in roughly equal proportions
can have a lower energy than a collection of n nucleons.  Adding a
neutron (or proton) to a lump of this "strange matter" would liberate
energy, perhaps around 50 MeV worth.  The specific energy of nucleonic
fuel would be perhaps an order of magnitude greater than D/T fusion
fuel, and would have no confinement problems like antimatter.

Another possibility for powering a starship is monopole catalyzed
nucleon decay.  While there are no confirmed monopole sightings, some
grand unified theories predict the existence of massive monopoles that
catalyze baryon number changing reactions.  This would make ordinary
matter as potent a fuel as matter/antimatter mix.

It might be possible to transfer momentum to "cosmic strings", long,
one dimensional structures left over from the big bang.  Again, highly
speculative; how about an interstellar railroad on these things?  They
could be very massive, so one could conceivably push against them and
accelerate with high efficiency.  This assumes a string is in the
neighborhood, which may not be the case; however, recent radio pictures of
linear structures near the center of the galaxy have been interpreted
by some as cosmic strings, so they may indeed exist.

No one around here will be building a starship for a century or so, so
there's a chance the physics it will use hasn't been discovered yet.

------------------------------

Posted-Date: Sun 23 Mar 1986 14:20:38 EST
Date: Sun 23 Mar 1986 14:20:38 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Eggs in one basket...
To: space@s1-b.arpa

I've seen some comments about interstellar war being impossible due to
the distances involved.  These comments strike me a optimistic.  Indeed,
the technology needed for making starships can be adapted without
difficulty to build interstellar weapons.

For example, very large lasers have been proposed for propelling light
sails.  A laser several tens of thousands of kilometers across could
focus intense light on a target at interstellar distances (assuming you
know where the target will be in a few years).

Starships themselves can be adapted as weapons.  A 1000 ton starship
travelling at 1/2 the speed of light has the energy of several teratons
of high explosive.  An unmanned "bus" with a large tracking telescope
could carry hundreds of thousands of kilogram-sized submunitions to
a target star system.  Several light weeks out it would aquire targets
in the star system (perhaps optically, or by detecting radio emission)
and release the submunitions, which would be tracked with high precision
and guided onto trajectories intersecting likely targets.  Before
impact each submunition would disperse into a cloud of dust and gas.
Each 1 milligram dust particle would hit with the force of a several ton
bonb; the gas molecules would simulate a pulse from a neutral particle beam
accelerator.  Such a weapon might be easier to build than a starship,
since it needn't slow down upon arrival.

------------------------------

Date: 19 Mar 86 20:34:54 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: AW&ST subscriptions
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

At the suggestion of a friend, here's the information needed if you
want to subscribe to Aviation Week and Space Technology (which carries,
among other things, the best coverage of the 51L aftermath):

	Aviation Week & Space Technology
	PO Box 1505
	Neptune, NJ 07754-1505  USA

	US: $51/yr  Canada: C$81/yr  Western Europe: US$55/yr

And then there's the fine print at the bottom:  "Basic rates apply to
managers, engineers, and scientists in aviation, aerospace and related
technologies; military officers and government officials.  Rates for
all others are slightly higher."  What this means is that you should
probably write and ask for a subscription-qualification card (or just
find a friend or a library that gets AW&ST and use one of the cards
from a recent issue) so you can try for the "qualified subscriber"
rates.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 20 Mar 86 22:47:28 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Antimatter drive?
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> Question:  I heard on the (local) radio yesterday that Kirtland
> Air Force Base (actually some unit there) was due to get funding
> to *continue* research on an "ant-proton" rocket drive which would
> revolutionize space travel.  The implication was that this drive system
> was somewhat working.  Is this real or :-) ?

This is the antimatter-rocket scheme that has been mentioned on the net
of late.  The Air Force takes the idea very seriously, especially since
the studies done so far have showed no insurmountable obstacles or major
breakthroughs needed.  It's a long way from being "somewhat working",
unless you count antiproton production in research accelerators, but it
looks promising enough to justify further R&D work.

As I recall the last time I heard Robert Forward talk about it -- he's
a USAF consultant part-time -- he indicated that the biggest obstacle,
apart from the need to increase the efficiency of antiproton production,
was getting rid of the latent heat of freezing when condensing the
antihydrogen gas to solid antihydrogen.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #230
*******************


0,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA00653; Tue, 25 Mar 86 03:01:00 PST
	id AA00653; Tue, 25 Mar 86 03:01:00 PST
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 86 03:01:00 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8603251101.AA00653@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #231

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 231

Today's Topics:
			      antimatter
	   Re: more than one copy of book per person? yes!
			    Re: Idiot Test
			 SPACE Digest V6 #230
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:         Mon, 24 Mar 86 11:50:45 EST
From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
To: space digest <SPACE@s1-b.arpa>
Subject:      antimatter

In an article KFL@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU ("Keith F. Lynch") writes:
>
>  One theory says that antimatter is identical to matter only switched
>left to right...
     No theory I'm familiar with says that.  The operation of
changing a particle into its antiparticle is known as charge conjugation
(ie., reversal), refered to as the operator "C".  There is a general
theorem that Charge, Parity (left/right reversal), and Time
conjugation together (CPT) will return a particle to an indistinguishable
state.  (indistinguishable to itself:  That is, if a system is CPT
conjugated, there is no way to discover it within the system.)
   The tough part is going to be reversing time...
>  According to relativity, space is curved.  The curvature can be
>changed by rearranging masses.  So, while I see no way to put a half
>twist into space, it is by no means theoretically impossible or
>unthinkable.
    Unfortunately, a continuous parity transformation would requite
the TOPOLOGY of space to be changed.  Just moving masses around may
change the curvature, but the topology remains the same.  (eg., you
can distort a pancake into a bowl, but not into a coffee cup.  Or a
Moebus strip.)  (however, space which includes singularities
(eg., black holes) already has a distorted topology).

                   --Geoffrey A. Landis, Brown University
                     Reply to: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA

------------------------------

Date: 20 Mar 86 21:30:51 GMT
From: tektronix!tekig5!tekigm2!timothym@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Timothy D Margeson)
Subject: Re: more than one copy of book per person? yes!
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Hi,

Following up on the discussion of why one might have several copies of
the same material.

I have two copies of my Websters dictionary, one at home and one at work.
I have two copies of my Rogets thesaurus, ditto.
I have two copies of several types of software, ditto.

I guess that I will have two copies of many things for the convienience
of not dragging the single copies everywhere I go. I would think there are
many of you who take the same opinion for similar reasons. So, perhaps when
we are populating space we all may indeed become millionaires. Hooray :-)


-- 
Tim Margeson (206)253-5240
tektronix!tekigm2!timothym                   @@   'Who said that?'  
PO Box 3500  d/s C1-465
Vancouver, WA. 98665

------------------------------

Date: 21 Mar 86 19:34:46 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!utcs!mnetor!genat!phoenix@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (phoenix)
Subject: Re: Idiot Test
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <3352@hplabsb.UUCP> bl@hplabsb.UUCP (Bruce T. Lowerre) writes:
>> >What is a nickel primarily composed of?
>> money
>You may not believe this, but the correct answer is copper.

It actually depends on where you live.  Here in the glorious Dominion of
Canada (known to you Ahmurikans as "The Great White North"), nickels
are made of 100% pure Canadian-mined nickel, mostly mined in Sudbury
(you know the one:  the acid fumes from the smelters have devistated
the land around the town so badly that Apollo astronauts came here to
test the lunar rover, because the area so resembled the dead surface
of the moon).  

Of course, our silver dollars are nickel, too....


-- 
					The Phoenix
					(Neither Bright, Dark, nor Young)


---"A man should live forever...or die trying."
---"There is no substitute for good manners...except fast reflexes."
---"Never appeal to a man's "better nature".  He may not have one.
    Invoking his self-interest gives you more leverage."

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 25 Mar 86 04:47 EST
From: ART@aquinas.think.com
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #230
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Cc: art@aquinas.think.com
In-Reply-To: <8603241120.AA17539@s1-b.arpa>


    Hey, you could have a lot of fun with these little half-twist matter
    anti-matter flippers.  You could make a neat 3d maze, with a big prize
    in the center.  There would be several paths to the prize, but only one
    that flips you an even number of times.  You start out with the same
    orientation as the prize...

    Tim Smith 

Well, if you get the prize, you had better have trailed a golden
thread behind you, 'cause there's only going to be one path
back out that will leave you flipped the way you started....

Art Medlar
Thinking Machines Corp.
"Universe #80355476: It's 109/L and trr is baking sppooo"

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #231
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA03224; Wed, 26 Mar 86 03:00:59 PST
	id AA03224; Wed, 26 Mar 86 03:00:59 PST
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 86 03:00:59 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8603261100.AA03224@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #232

*** EOOH ***
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 86 03:00:59 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #232

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 232

Today's Topics:
		    Re: detecting alien spacecraft
	Re: Response to Greg Earle's mindless anti-human flame
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 24 Mar 86 16:13:20 GMT
From: nike!im4u!ut-sally!utastro!ethan@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Ethan Vishniac)
Subject: Re: detecting alien spacecraft
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <2586@genat.UUCP>, phoenix@genat.UUCP (phoenix) writes:
> 
> What about alien starships using a non-anti-matter drive?  (There are most
> probably other types of star-drive as well...:-))
> -- 

Invisible aliens and nonexistent aliens have many points in common, the most
obvious being that it`s hard to publish papers about them in a refereed journal.
-- 
"Ma, I've been to another      Ethan Vishniac
 planet!"                      {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan
                               ethan@astro.UTEXAS.EDU
                               Department of Astronomy
                               University of Texas

------------------------------

Date: 24 Mar 86 23:08:05 GMT
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!ism780c!tim@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: Response to Greg Earle's mindless anti-human flame
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <621@mmm.UUCP> allen@mmm.UUCP (Kurt Allen) writes:
>> I shouldn't need to mention the clubbing of baby seals to make coats for
>> F*****g Rich Moron women.
>>
>	I think that the net would be a better place if people used
>	the same communication discipline in posting articles to the net
>	as they are required to use over any other public communication
>	system. I.E. CB, TV, Radio, etc. Please don't express yourself
>	in ways that are degrading, abusive, and rude.

( I assume the "*****" started out as "uckin" ).  Actually, that word is
showing up on radio and TV.  For example, local TV stations in Los Angeles
have taken to showing uncut movies that include such words ( nudity too ).
So far, reactions have been positive.

-- 

Tim Smith       sdcrdcf!ism780c!tim || ima!ism780!tim || ihnp4!cithep!tim

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #232
*******************


0,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA02080; Thu, 27 Mar 86 03:00:52 PST
	id AA02080; Thu, 27 Mar 86 03:00:52 PST
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 86 03:00:52 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8603271100.AA02080@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #233

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 233

Today's Topics:
			Re: Orphaned Response
		 Re: Shuttle and expendable boosters
			  Ames-Dryden Trivia
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 22 Mar 86 00:56:00 GMT
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!convex!rrm!ric@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Orphaned Response
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

There have been several "picture" books on the missions to the outer
planets published by NASA.  The following is a short list, there are
more.  These are 100-200 page books with descriptions of the hardware 
and personnel involved in putting these missions together.

Voyage to Jupiter			~$10		SP-439
Voyages to Saturn			~$11		SP-451
Pioneer: First to Jupiter and Beyond	~$20		SP-466
Meeting With the Universe		~$20		EP-177

These can be obtained from:

Superintendent of Documents
U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington, D.C.  20402

or, if you live in a large city, check to see if the federal government does
not have a bookstore like the one here in Dallas.  They can get updated prices
and ordering information to you.  You can also request that you be on a mailing
list to be notified when space/NASA books and pamphlets are published by 
the government.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard R. Martin 	usenet:		{infoswx!mcomp, texsun} rrm!ric
			Compuserve:	[70535,747]

------------------------------

Date: 25 Mar 86 00:23:18 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Shuttle and expendable boosters
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> Why did'nt NASA create a shuttle that would ride on top of expendable
> boosters ala Hermes/Ariane and the Soviet shuttle (both under development).

Because it does increase operating costs, and low operating costs were
a major rationale for the Shuttle.

Also, looking at it from another angle, what do you think the external
tank and the SRBs are?  The tank isn't reusable, the SRBs are reusable
only to a very limited extent.

Note also that you are comparing paper studies against flying hardware.

> It seams to me that this probably would have had the following effects
> 
> 1. Cheaper. NASA could have kept the Saturn production lines open,
> and used only proven boosters, eliminating the R&D dollars used to develop
> the shuttle boosters...

The boosters would still have needed work to make them suitable for
launching the shuttle.  One cannot change everything above a lower stage
without affecting things like vibration modes within that stage.  That's
why the Saturn V was tested "all up", rather than one stage at a time.

NASA wanted rather badly to launch the Shuttle with a (reusable) variant
of the Saturn V first stage.  But it pushed the costs up just a little
higher, and the bean-counters said no.

> The earlier work done on Dyna-Soar, which was to have
> flown on expendable boosters, could have formed the basis of the shuttle.

In many ways, it did.

> 2. Allowed development of a smaller shuttle, that would not have to
> do everything the current shuttle does. Large payloads could have been lofted
> by a Saturn IB or Saturn 5...

This part I agree with.

> The development of a smaller shuttle would have
> been cheaper and safer, utilizing more proven technology.

This is not self-evident.  With the possible exception of the SSME's,
I can't think of anything in the shuttle whose development was greatly
sensitive to size.

> 3. Have speeded up development of the shuttle. That period of time in
> which the US of A did'nt have any manned space systems because we were
> waiting for the shuttle would'nt have occured...

The shuttle could have been operational several years earlier than it was,
if NASA had been willing to settle for something less than perfection.  In
(I believe) about 1970 Lockheed proposed the "Starclipper", sort of a
mini-shuttle using an expendable tank but no external boosters.  Estimated
development cost (undoubtedly somewhat optimistic) was one billion.  It
was rejected because it was not fully reusable.

> 4. Have allowed backup systems to the shuttle so that grounding of the shuttle
> would'nt have caused a hold on the whole american space program.

To some extent.  Undoubtedly many payloads would still be dependent on the
shuttle to some degree.  Turn it around, though:  if the shuttle were
boosted by (say) a Saturn V derivative, also used as a cargo launcher, and
a disastrous flaw was found in the expendable parts, we'd be no better off
than we are now.  Remember that there were 24 successful shuttle flights,
and the Saturn V only flew 12.5 times (Skylab wasn't a complete Saturn V),
so such a problem could still have been lurking in it.

> 5. Kept in existance an unmanned system to use for lofting very dangerous
> payloads. I.E. interplanetary probes carrying large amounts of explosive fuel.

There is something to be said for this.  Although the "large amounts" of
explosive fuel in the cargo bay of a Centaur-carrying shuttle are dwarfed
by the amounts ten feet away in the external tank.

> Where would we be now if we had made a less advanced shuttle of the above
> type ? 

Probably with no manned space program at all, since NASA couldn't have kept
it going without USAF support.  And keeping the Saturn V in production is
a decision that would have had to have been made in about 1967; the time
when serious shuttle thinking started was far too late.

				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 26 Mar 86 22:44:33 pst
From: eugene@ames-nas.arpa (Eugene Miya)
To: flightline@ames-nas.arpa
Subject: Ames-Dryden Trivia
Cc: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

I've been reading Chuck Yeager's first book Across the High Frontier.
It points out the reason why the original X-1 was painted orange:
"the wet paint trace."  When they were first planning to drop the X-1,
they were not certain the timing and momentum were such that the X-1
would not strike the B-29.  They wanted a stain in case the X-1
hit the B-29 as it was falling out.  A later study showed there was
plenty of clearance.

--enm

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #233
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA04659; Fri, 28 Mar 86 03:01:31 PST
	id AA04659; Fri, 28 Mar 86 03:01:31 PST
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 86 03:01:31 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8603281101.AA04659@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #234

*** EOOH ***
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 86 03:01:31 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #234

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 234

Today's Topics:
		  Re: You can fool all the people...
		  Re: where are the aliens headed??
			    Shuttle models
			   Dysan spheres...
			 Re: Dysan spheres...
		 Re: Shuttle and expendable boosters
		    Dyson Spheres and Larry Niven
		      Re: Eggs in one basket...
			 Re: Dysan spheres...
			      EASCON '86
		      Challenger Campaign Update
			 re Sirius low in sky
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 27 Mar 86 07:03:57 GMT
From: ucsfcgl!ucsfcca!dick@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dick Karpinski)
Subject: Re: You can fool all the people...
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <265@uvacs.UUCP> jlm@uvacs.UUCP (Jerry Marco) writes:
>> but because space is gonna make us all stinking rich.
>Yeah.  And nuclear power will be so cheap to produce we won't be billed
>...
>their equipment their financial worries will be over.  Gimme a break.

But, really, middle-class folks in this country ALREADY have powers
well beyond those granted to kings and emperors of yesteryear!  Could
YOU fly to Hawaii tomorrow and fly back the next day, if you happened
to want to do that?  I could.

Dick
-- 

Dick Karpinski    Manager of Unix Services, UCSF Computer Center
UUCP: ...!ucbvax!ucsfcgl!cca.ucsf!dick   (415) 476-4529 (12-7)
BITNET: dick@ucsfcca   Compuserve: 70215,1277  Telemail: RKarpinski
USPS: U-76 UCSF, San Francisco, CA 94143

------------------------------

Date: 27 Mar 86 03:27:16 GMT
From: hplabs!qantel!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Tom Keller)
Subject: Re: where are the aliens headed??
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa


   I wish to open this discussion by pointing out that I personally would
very much like to meet intelligent aliens.  I think it would be a wonderful
adventure, though I confess that the prospect does frighten me at the same 
time.

   I do not, however, *EXPECT* to meet any intelligent aliens.  The reason
is really quite simple:

   If we assume for the sake of argument that the speed of light is in fact
a velocity beyond which we cannot accelerate a mass, and that an intelligent
alien lifeform would most probably have developed some form of electromagnetic
communications, we come to the inescapable conclusion that we won't be running
into them for a **VERY** long while, even if they *DO* exist (oh, I *HOPE*
they do!).

   Presumably, either they would have detected our emissions, and started on
an exploratory expedition sometime in the past 100 years or so, or we would be
detecting their emissions.  The fact that we are not detecting such emissions
argues that if such emissions were there, the source must be a considerable
distance from us ( I would argue at least 50-100 lightyears).  

   Even assuming that a startdrive which achieves a significant percentage
of lightspeed is available, this implies that it would require anywhere from
150 to 600 years, minimum, for them to travel here.  Likewise for us to travel
there.

   Thus, I predict that *IF* we find intelligent life in the universe, it will
likely be *VERY* far into our future, and ***VERY VERY*** far away.

   I think this is a pity, but it does seem inescapable.

Disclaimer:  I hereby disclaim any and all responsibility for disclaimers.

tom keller
{ihnp4, dual}!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020

(* we may not be big, but we're small! *)

------------------------------

Date: 25 Mar 86 16:29:05 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-lcc!lll-crg!seismo!brl-adm!brl-smoke!wmartin@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Will Martin )
Subject: Shuttle models
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Some months back, someone asked where they could get shuttle models
similar to those used on the news shows. I had posted a respose with the
opinion that any such models would be rather expensive and hard to come
by. However, the latest (May '86) issue of International Combat Arms
magazine has an item in the product-announcement section about such
models (page 14):

TeePee Marketing
3941 Blackthorn St.
Irvine, CA 92714

has a catalog for $1 of a line of "handcrafted solid-display" models.
The shuttle models mentioned in the magazine item are a 1/100th-scale
orbiter model (14" long, wingspan 9.25") at $69.95 and a 1/200th-scale
space shuttle (complete with boosters & tank; 11" long, wingspan 4.5")
at $60.95. Profits on the shuttle models will be donated to "the fund to
rebuild the Challenger orbiter" [sic -- don't know just what fund this
refers to] on all orders received before June 1, '86.

These models seem smaller than the original inquirer asked about --
perhaps the catalog lists larger ones.

I had never heard of this firm before seeing this announcement, so I
know nothing else about them or this...

Will

------------------------------

Date: 25 Mar 86 10:45:09 GMT
From: ucdavis!ucrmath!hope!corwin@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (John Kempf)
Subject: Dysan spheres...
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Just a thought...
Assuming that a race of extra terestrials exist,
Assuming that they can and do decide to build a Dysan sphere,

Two questions:
  Where would they find the mass to build one?
  What would the optical effects look like to an outside observer?
						(ie here?)

-cory

------------------------------

Date: 25 Mar 86 16:39:25 GMT
From: ucdavis!ucrmath!hope!spock@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Chris Ambler)
Subject: Re: Dysan spheres...
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> Just a thought...
> Assuming that a race of extra terestrials exist,
> Assuming that they can and do decide to build a Dysan sphere,
> 
> Two questions:
>   Where would they find the mass to build one?
>   What would the optical effects look like to an outside observer?
> 						(ie here?)
They would most probably utilize the mass of the planets of their system
to build the sphere, demolizing their own planet last. To the outside 
observer, I doubt at this distance, it would radiate enough energy to
make it visible AT ALL...they are quite efficient.

-Spock!  (Christopher J. Ambler, University of California, Riverside)
         -"Captain, I see no reason to bother Starfleet..."

------------------------------

Date: 25 Mar 86 10:02:07 GMT
From: ucdavis!ucrmath!hope!corwin@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (John Kempf)
Subject: Re: Shuttle and expendable boosters
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> Why did'nt NASA create a shuttle that would ride on top of expendable
> boosters ala Hermes/Ariane and the Soviet shuttle (both under development).
> It seams to me that this probably would have had the following effects
> 
> 1. Cheaper. NASA could have kept the Saturn production lines open,
> and used only proven boosters, eliminating the R&D dollars used to develop
> the shuttle boosters. The earlier work done on Dyna-Soar, which was to have
> flown on expendable boosters, could have formed the basis of the shuttle.
> 
...
> 
> Where would we be now if we had made a less advanced shuttle of the above
> type ? 

In his artical, Mr. Allen makes some very good points.  I agree that
we should have kept the old systems operational.  The point that I
strongly disagree with however, is that we should not have done
the reasearch necessary to create the shuttle.  Shure, it would
have been cheaper, and easier, but we would not have advanced
any.  In effect, we would have wasted those interviening years.
Shure, what we had worked fine, but that could be said about
almost any form of technology.  There is always room for
improvement.  Spending money on R&D is not a waste.  In almost
every case, sooner or later, it almost always pays off.
-cory

------------------------------

Date: 27 Mar 86 16:48:32 GMT
From: okamoto@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (The New Number Who)
Subject: Dyson Spheres and Larry Niven
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

As far as a Dyson sphere radiating energy, wouldn't it emit quite
a lot of heat?  You are trapping a lot of solar radiation and
if you don't want the temperature inside the sphere to rise, I would
think you would want to have heat radiators on the outside of the
sphere.

Larry Niven has written an essay on Dyson spheres, Ringworlds, etc.,
called "Bigger Than Worlds".  As of a few years ago, this essay could
be found in the book _A_Hole_In_Space_.  I don't know if it is still
in print.

The New Number Who,	okamoto@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Jeff Okamoto		..!ucbvax!okamoto

------------------------------

Date: 26 Mar 86 05:32:47 GMT
From: ucdavis!ucrmath!hope!corwin@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (John Kempf)
Subject: Re: Eggs in one basket...
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> I've seen some comments about interstellar war being impossible due to
> the distances involved.  These comments strike me a optimistic.  Indeed,
> the technology needed for making starships can be adapted without
> difficulty to build interstellar weapons.
> 
[descriptions of intersteller weapons deleted]

While it is certainly possible to make intersteller war, the 
question is 'why bother?'

What possible motive could be concieved for making a war?
Conquest?  Kinda hard to adminisrate a planet when it takes 
several years to communicate with it.  Eventualy, it would revolt
successfully.
Idiological?  It is hard enough to get one country to agree on something,
let alone a planet.
Resources?  Seems kinda wasteful to attack one solar system when there 
are others at about the same distance (including your own)
-cory

------------------------------

Date: 26 Mar 86 05:16:27 GMT
From: ucdavis!ucrmath!hope!corwin@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (John Kempf)
Subject: Re: Dysan spheres...
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

to my earlier posting, chris responds...
> They would most probably utilize the mass of the planets of their system
> to build the sphere, demolizing their own planet last. To the outside 
> observer, I doubt at this distance, it would radiate enough energy to
> make it visible AT ALL...they are quite efficient.
> 
Consider the mass in a typical solar system, say Sol.  (No, I don't 
know if it is typical, having not yet taken a vacation on Arcturis 
yet...)  Not including the sun, you have a mass on the order of
3.5E30 g.  To make a Dysan sphere, you need to cover a surface area 
of about 8.5264E22 m^2.  This comes out to something on the order
of a shell 10 metres thick. (depending on mateials used, assuming
that transmutation is both possible, and doesn't use up any mass)
Unless there is some way of converting one element into another,
WITHOUT using up any mass, we run out of mass.  Most of the universe
is hydrogen, not steel.

As far as radiating, not after it is finnished, but while it is being
made.
-cory

------------------------------

Date: 25 Mar 86 20:36:20 GMT
From: ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ho95e!slr@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Shelley.L.Rosenbaum.4M514.46131.x3615)
Subject: EASCON '86
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa



I just received a flyer for EASCON '86 (Electronics and Aerospace
Systems Conference).  For anyone who is interested, it will be
held in Washington, D.C. in the Loews L'Enfant Plaza Hotel on
September 8-10.  Possible general topics include the space station,
communications, science & applications, advanced technology, civil
government programs, and military programs.  It's too late to
submit papers, but if you're interested in attending, contact
      EASCON '86
      Suite 300
      655 Fifteenth Street NW
      Washington, DC  20005
For questions, call EASCON '86 at (202) 639-4374.


I attended the last half of last year's conference, and I wish I
had gone to the whole thing.  It had a lot of useful information
presented.


Shelley Rosenbaum
AT&T Bell Labs
{ihnp4, allegra, cbosgd}!ho95c!slr

"A plucked goose doesn't lay golden eggs."

------------------------------

Date: 25 Mar 86 23:30:11 GMT
From: ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dave Newkirk)
Subject: Challenger Campaign Update
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

A large advertisement will run in the March 30 New York Times in the Week
in Review section to call for a real funding drive to buy an additional
shuttle or two.  The ad was placed by a consortium of SF authors including
Janet Morris, Jim Baen, Charles Sheffield and C. J. Cherryh with support
from donations.  To back up the ad, they need public support in the form
of letters, telephone calls, etc to Congress and the President.  There
will also be a donation made to the astronauts children's fund.
-- 
				Dave Newkirk, ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn

------------------------------

Date: 24 Mar 86 20:52:57 GMT
From: ihnp4!houxm!mtuxo!npois!jay@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Anton Winteroak)
Subject: re Sirius low in sky
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa


	The only place where Sirius is not low in the sky twice a day is
close enough to the north pole that it is never in the sky. Anything near
the horizon, Sun, Moon, planet, or star will be quite a bit more red than
at the zenith, since more little dust particles are in the light path,
reflecting blue light, and transmitting red light.
	If we are ever subjected to a vote on the unprovable point of
whether Sirius B was a red giant in recorded history, I vote no, but of
course our vote would also prove nothing. My reason, I don't want to
scrap our models for stellar evolution to agree with one word translated
from out of context.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #234
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA04733; Fri, 28 Mar 86 03:05:29 PST
	id AA04733; Fri, 28 Mar 86 03:05:29 PST
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 86 03:05:29 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8603281105.AA04733@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #235

*** EOOH ***
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 86 03:05:29 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #235

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 235

Today's Topics:
		 Re: Halley Sighting & Mystery object
	   teleoperators/shuttle economics/future in space
		       Re: The Challenger Crew
			 Re: Dysan spheres...
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 25 Mar 86 18:38:34 GMT
From: purdue!rlw@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Richard L Watterson)
Subject: Re: Halley Sighting & Mystery object
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

I saw an object similar  to the one Steve described on the morning of March
21 as I was looking for Halley's comet. It appeared at approximately 4:20
a.m. EST.  I was able to follow it with my telescope for about 15 - 20
seconds.
I also saw Halley's comet that morning, about 20 minutes later just after
the moon went down. I didn't see much of a tail , however the nucleus and the
coma  were well defined and bright.
 
Richard Watterson
rlw@purdue

------------------------------

Date: 25 Mar 86 00:05:47 GMT
From: ihnp4!houxm!mtuxo!mtgzz!dls@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (d.l.skran)
Subject: teleoperators/shuttle economics/future in space
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

The following is from private mail; posted with Rick's permission.

>  From: ihnp4!ucbvax!mcgeer@ji.berkeley.edu (Rick McGeer)
>  Subject: Re:  (teleoperators)(Boskone Panalist, etc.)
>  
>  	It is absolutely irrelevant what a great thing teleoperated devices
>  	might be in 20 years. The question is what do we need to do NOW
>  	so that in 20 years we will be ready to build the lunar mines
>  	and solar power satellites. The Japanese will build the robots
>  	regardless. The space station - the shuttle - these things won't 
>  	just happen.
>  
>  I think Paul's point is that none of these things will be economically viable
>  in 20 years anyway, Shuttle, Space Station, or TAV notwithstanding.  I don't
>  agree with him, but *I can't prove it*; certainly most of the major studies

No one is going to be able to "prove it" except after the fact. The best
that can be done now is to make a solid business case. Such a case cannot
be made, not because of the intrinsic lack of viability of these ideas, but
because the required preliminary work(and hence risk) is far too great
for any profit-making company to undertake. Hence, we must **get with it**
and do the preliminary work as a nation. 
We must build the infrastructure to support
larger ventures, including:
	STS(shuttle & TAV)
	space station in LEO
	station in GEO
	station at L2(functionally a lunar station)
	the OMV
	the reusable OTV

This is what the President's Commission of space is widely rumored
to be asking for AND IT MAKES SENSE. 

>  that I've seen up to now support his position.  We can argue that the SPS
>  study, for example, left out some crucial stuff -- it didn't count the

That's for SURE. The most important consideration left out was the use
of lunar/asteroidal materials("too risky"). I strongly doubt that
any major space construction project is possible without the use of 
materials from non-terrestrial sources. In this context, the infamous
DEO report on solar power satellites that came up with the one trillion
dollar figure and the need for hundreds(nay - thousands) of shuttle flights
must be regarded not as a serious investigation of solar power satellites
but as an attempt to prevent solar power satellites from competing for
scarce research funds within DEO.

>  environmental cost of coal, for example (just as the anti-nukes don't;but any
>  Canadian will give you an earful about the environmental costs of coal, since
>  Canada bears the burden of acid rain).  But we can't prove that anything done
>  in space will prove competitive with earth-based technologies.  I'm sure Paul

I'm not sure what you mean, but there is every reason to suppose that 
communication satellites can and do compete with Earth-based technologies
in many markets. There is a strong case that materials processing in
space will be competitive with Earth-based technologies once we get past
the current R&D phase. In the final analysis, the only way to answer
the critics is to start a business and make money in space.

>  would agree that IF there were any construction in space worth doing RIGHT
>  NOW, that humans would be the answer.  But his point is, given that you're

See above: there is plenty of stuff we need to construct in space right now,
and I didn't even mention satellite repair and the construction of
large communication platforms. If we wait 25 years, we'll still need 20
years to build it all. Robotics is not a magic wand that will build
space stations for us. We need **operating experience** and there's only
one way to get it. We need the 20 years of research in zero gee
or we'll still be on square one bickering about whether or not materials
processing in space makes sense.

>  going to wait 25-50 years anyway, why not do a Manhattan project in robotics
>  right now, as opposed to launching essentially uneconomic Shuttles?
>  
>  					-- Rick.
>  
As I have already mentioned, the money and technical effort going
into robotics/AI/computers already beggars the Manhattan project.
More is just a drop in a bucket. R&D already may be proceeding as fast
as our organizations and economies can absorb the innovations.

However, a similar effort in TAV/Shuttle/Space station technology DOES
NOT EXIST. Robots will be built - by the Japanese if no one else.
We are the technology leaders in space. The Russians have 
copied the shuttle. The ESA(and eventually the Japanese) are
building Dyna-soars while learning from the shuttle's mistakes.
However, if we take off 20 years to build robots & TAVs, we'll probably never
catch up. The Russians will have done 25 years of research on
their uneconomic space station and using their uneconomic 
Proton launch vehicles.  They'll know how to live and work in
space - and we won't. Something tells me the information
won't be for sale, and in any case the experience is non-transferable!

The question we should be asking is: why are we suddenly demanding
NASA make the shuttle economic when Congress DIDN'T ALLOW THEM
TO BUILD EITHER AN ECONOMIC SHUTTLE OR A FLEET LARGE ENOUGH
TO BE ECONOMIC. We as a nation have once again been penny wise
and pound foolish. The tragedy is that our competitors are not
very forgiving. It should be clear to all  that if ESA, China,
Japan, and the USSR are going to offer subsidized launch services, we'll
have to also - just to keep in the game. We've lost the compact
disk market, the VCR, the compact car, the radio/TV market, etc.
etc. etc.  Can we afford to lose out here as well?

As far as I'm concerned the responsiblity for the Challenger disaster
must be shared between the NASA managers who were in such a rush to
launch that they slipped up and the OTA/OMB/Congressional penny
pinchers who spent ten years strangling the shuttle and THEN
turned around and pressured NASA to "make it pay."


Dale

------------------------------

Date: 26 Mar 86 01:12:01 GMT
From: tektronix!teklds!dadla!tekla!robertv@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Robert Vetter)
Subject: Re: The Challenger Crew
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <182@netexa.UUCP> elw@netexa.UUCP writes:
>> > In a perfect world I think it would be found fitting if we were to erect
>> > an eternal flame outside of the Johnson Space Center with a plague to 
>> > commemorate all those who have died in spacecraft above which would be the
>> > pledge:
>> > 	"We shall always persevere"
>> 
>> Huh ???  Where is the plaque for the original Apollo astronauts who
>> died on the launch pad ???  They got into the rocket BEFORE there was
>> a regular high success/launch ratio.  I understand the sentiment, but
>> let's use our energies to go FORWARD rather than to remember the past.
>> 
>> Rob Vetter
>
>Rob, The suggestion clearly states that ALL those who have died would be
>included.  Read before you flame...please?  And, those who do not remember
>the past, have no future.  We need to remember our failures most of all, since
>it is by failure that we learn.
>
>			E. L. Wiles @ NetExpress, Inc. Virginia

	Please accept my apologies.  I DID miss the "all".  The point I
	am trying to make, however, is that nearly two months after the
	accident, we are still mourning.  Please put up your monument.
	Complete your collections for a new orbiter, or the families.
	But, meanwhile, remember that public support for a viable,
	permenant settlement in space is decreasing.

	The space program has degenerated over the past 17 years from
	going to the moon to making a < 1 week stay in orbit.  I believe
	that part of the problem is that we spend alot of time licking
	our wounds.  The Apollo program was diminished after Apollo 13.
	We have put up no space stations since Skylab. And now, it
	looks as if there will be a long wait before another shuttle
	launch.  (I am not by any means saying that these are the only
	reasons for cuts, but they are and were major factors).

	Collectively, we are remembering the "fall off the bicycle",
	and not the exhilaration of "coasting down the hill".
	Yes, it is important to learn from our mistakes.  Yes, the
	people who have their lives in the Challenger and in other
	space missions should be remembered.  But the important thing
	is to "get back on the bike".

------------------------------

Date: 28 Mar 86 02:11:58 GMT
From: nike!lll-crg!seismo!rochester!sher@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (David Sher)
Subject: Re: Dysan spheres...
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

To talk about intermediate structures between a dyson sphere and 
a planet,  how many "earth"s could we put in orbit 93 million miles away 
from the sun before gravitational effects makes the whole structure
unstable?  This is a much smaller scale construction project than a Dyson 
sphere with many of the advantages and it lacks certain of the problems
(namely all the "earth"s will have a real night and so on).

-- 
-David Sher
sher@rochester
seismo!rochester!sher

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #235
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA01839; Sat, 29 Mar 86 03:01:00 PST
	id AA01839; Sat, 29 Mar 86 03:01:00 PST
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 86 03:01:00 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8603291101.AA01839@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #236

*** EOOH ***
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 86 03:01:00 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #236

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 236

Today's Topics:
		  RE: Feasibilty of intestellar war.
	       Fermi Paradox, or "Where is everybody?"
		       Re: SPACE Digest V6 #234
		       Observing Dyson spheres
				Aliens
		  Response from Representative Dwyer
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 28 Mar 86 13:07:36 cet
To: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
From: APRI1801%UA.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: RE: Feasibilty of intestellar war.


John Kempf had these comments of the feasibilty
of interstellar war:

> What possible motive could be concieved for making a war?
> Conquest?  Kinda hard to adminisrate a planet when it takes
> several years to communicate with it.  Eventualy, it would revolt
> successfully.
> Idiological?  It is hard enough to get one country to agree on
> something, let alone a planet.
> Resources?  Seems kinda wasteful to attack one solar system when
> there are others at about the same distance (including your own)

Seems to me that these basic arguments could be applied to
the state of affairs during the (U.S.) Revolutionary War.
What possible motive could Britain have had for waging war
on America?
Conquest? Kinda hard to administrate a country when it takes
several months to communicate with it.
Idealogical? It was hard enough to get Britain to agree on
anything, let alone another country.
Resources? Seems kinda wasteful to attack one (far off) country
when there are others closer to home...

Didn't stop them, though.

While this isn't (of course) an exact parallel, I can imagine
many sets of circumstances in which interstellar war would not
only be possible, but very probable.   Man's desire to kill
his fellow man should not be underestimated.


Mike L. Asher          BITNET: APRI1801 @ UA
University of Alabama  (No, we're not all hicks)

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 28 Mar 86 11:13 PST
From: Dave Platt <Dave-Platt%LADC@system-m>
To: Space <Space@s1-b.arpa>
Subject: Fermi Paradox, or "Where is everybody?"
Randomness: How sharper than a hound's tooth it is to have a thankless
            serpent.


There's an interesting science-fact article in the latest issue of
Analog magazine that reflects on a possible solution to the Fermi paradox.
The paradox is that we have no reliable data to indicate that Earth has
ever been visited by another space-travelling species... and given that
we're a young species on a relatively young planet in a rather young
solar system (by galactic standards), perhaps we should have been
visited or colonized by now.


There are lots of possible explanations:  the development of life is a
rare occurrance;  the evolution of an intelligent species is even rarer;
interstellar travel is in fact impossible;  etc. etc.


The article in Analog (I forget the author's name, unfortunately)
suggests another possible explanation... which, if true, indicates that
tragedy may have stricken many space-travelling species before now.  It
has to do with high-energy cosmic ray particles... those whose point of
origin lies outside of the solar system.


This extra-solar cosmic radiation is so powerful that it will go
straight through quite a few meters of rock or steel.  If a high-energy
cosmic particle hits your body directly, it will usually travel straight
through, leaving a trail of fried cells behind it.  Prolonged exposure
to high-energy cosmic radiation is distinctly unhealthy;  several years
of exposure could probably do major, irrepairable damage to the central
nervous system.  If the particle hits an obstruction, however, it's
likely to blast loose a shower of secondary particles (this is the
origin of cosmic-ray showers in Earth's upper atmosphere), and the
secondary radiation can do much more damage than the original particle.


Recent astrophysical studies have suggested that most, if not all
high-energy cosmics may originate from a single source... Cygnus X-3 (if
I remember correctly).  Cosmic-ray telescopes have been able to detect a
direct flux of cosmic-ray particles from this source, and the amount of
energy apparently available from this source indicates that it could be
supplying most if not all of the higher-energy cosmics that can be
detected from *any* direction.


We don't know yet just what this source is... it may very well include a
black hole and/or other exotic object(s).  There's a strong suggestion
that the physical configuration of this source may very well be rare
(only this one has been detected) and quite possibly unstable (with a
lifetime measured in centuries).  So, it's possible that we're in the
middle of a fairly unusual period in the history of our galaxy... a
short-lived cosmic-ray siege that separates longer periods of "quiet space"
untroubled by high-energy cosmics.


Now... consider a species (or several) that evolve and develop to the point
of having interplanetary (and possibly interstellar) travel, during one of
the long "quiet" periods.  If they were unaware of the possiblity of
a siege of high-energy cosmic radiation, they might very well have
built their spacecraft (and space colonies) to withstand the much lower
levels of particle radiation that originate within their solar system(s).
Normally, these levels are fairly low;  they increase greatly during
solar flare weather, but it would be possible to ride out such flare
radiation in shielded compartments without too much trouble.


Then, an object such as Cygnus X-3 slips into a short-lived phase in
which it emits massive numbers of high-energy particles.  A shell of
high-energy radiation, perhaps a thousand light-years thick or more,
moves outward from the source and throughout most of the galaxy;
its leading edge moves just a hair below lightspeed.  The radiation
impinges on our hypothetical space-travelling culture, which has never
experienced such a siege.  Their solar-flare detectors begin to chatter,
even though the suns are quiet;  they begin seeing flashes of light
as the particles burn holes in their retinas (or whatever they use to
see with);  they begin suffering the effects of neurological damage.
Their ships aren't equipped with electrostatic or electromagnetic
shielding of sufficient power to handle the onslaught of radiation;
their colonies on the surfaces of moons, airless planets, and within
small asteroids don't have enough feet of rock above them to
protect the inhabitants.  Within a generation, many of their space-based
personnel and colonists have died or are suffering major illness from
radiation poisoning.  The home planet, and any colonies on planets
with thick enough atmospheres, "pull in their horns" and revert to
isolation... quite possibly accompanied by major collapse of their
economic structures, which have become dependent on space.


So, the answer to the Fermi paradox might be "They're out there, but
they had a VERY bad experience when they tried space-travel, and decided
to stay home and grow potatoes."


If this scenario has actually occurred, then we (the human race) may
be one of the very lucky species... since we're in the process of
developing space travel during one of the relatively rare sieges of
cosmic radiation, we're aware that it exists... and thus we can take
precautions, such as placing colonies on Luna and Mars far enough
underground.


Disclaimers:  I'm not an astrophysicist, and may very well have made
eight outragous misstatements of fact in this summary (I'm working
strictly from memory).  For further information, see the latest issue
of Analog, as well as an article that appeared in Scientific American
within the last six months or so (it describes the detection of the
cosmic-ray source in question).

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 28 Mar 86 08:02:35 PST
Ppath: vista!crash!noscvax!space@angband
From: pnet01!victoro <Victor.O'Rear%cod@nosc.arpa>
To: vista!crash!noscvax!space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V6 #234

On the subject of spacecraft models (such as the ones used on tv).
I remember a listing of items available from NASA's gift shops, both
Dryden and Cape Kennedy, which included an assortment of wooden display
models.  These are the kind you would find on some officials desk and are
the real McCoy.
        (Sorry, no address at this time...)

Victor O'Rear

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 28 Mar 86 21:43:30 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu>
Subject: Observing Dyson spheres
To: ucdavis!ucrmath!hope!corwin@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@s1-b.arpa

    From: ucdavis!ucrmath!hope!corwin@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (John Kempf)

    Two questions:
      Where would they find the mass to build one?

  If there isn't enough mass in their solar system, they can use mass
from other nearby systems.  Note that a Dyson sphere is not
necessarily a solid sphere circling a star.  It is more likely to be a
very large number of small objects.  It needn't be thick enough to
live on everywhere - most rays of light from the central star may be
intercepted by very thin reflectors which focus the light to a point.
There is certainly enough aluminum in the solar system or even here on
Earth to surround the Sun at 1 AU with aluminum foil.  If you make the
foil just the right thickness, the Sun's gravity and the light pressure
exactly balance, and the foil will remain stationary.

      What would the optical effects look like to an outside observer?

  Well, the sphere would be far enough away in relation to its size
that it would appear to be a point in the sky.  It would radiate as
much energy that the star inside is radiating, but it would be at
infrared wavelengths corresponding to room temperature (or whatever is
a comfortable temperature for the aliens).
  Such stars would be invisble to the eye, and they would be invisible
to any ground based IR telescopes since those wavelengths are absorbed
strongly by the Earth's atmosphere.  But they should not be too
difficult to observe from a low Earth orbit observatory.
  In fact the IRAS observed what may be a partial Dyson sphere last
year.  Fron the vicinity of the star Vega, large amounts of infrared
was observed.  This doesn't quite match what is expected for a Dyson
sphere because 1) The IR represented a very cold temperature (of
course the aliens might be methane based, or they might have found
some new laws of thermodynamics allowing them to conserve heat in ways
we think are impossible). 2) The star was not completely blocked.  In
fact it was hardly blocked at all (so maybe its only a partial sphere).
3) I seem to recall that Vega is much younger than the Sun, so life
would not have had time to evolve there (so maybe we are wrong and
Vega is older, or maybe the aliens are recent immigrants, or maybe
life evolved much faster there than here for some reason).
  More likely, it is just so much uninhabited sand and gravel, perhaps
in the process of forming a solar system, that IRAS observed.
  Lets launch more IR satellites and hunt for Dyson spheres and other
IR.  Large amounts of IR is quite likely a byproduct of any large
technical civilazation.
								...Keith

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 28 Mar 86 22:18:24 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu>
Subject: Aliens
To: hplabs!qantel!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@s1-b.arpa

    From: hplabs!qantel!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Tom Keller)

       Presumably, either they would have detected our emissions, and started
    on an exploratory expedition sometime in the past 100 years or so, or we
    would be detecting their emissions.

  Not necessarily.  They may not use the radio spectrum at all, either
because they have found a different spectrum or because they use
fiberoptics or cables for communications.  They may use only tight
beams for interplanetary communications.  Or they may use light or
some other part of the EM spectrum.
  Even if they generate as much radio as Earth, we could not detect
that if they were more than ten or twenty light years away, unless
they were deliberately aiming a strong signal in our direction.
  Why would they come exploring if they knew of us?  Maybe they aren't
interested.  Or maybe they ARE closely observing us without announcing
themselves.  Or maybe they are on their way and will land next week.
  I don't think any of us are competent to say what their technology
would be capable of, any more than Aristotle could have said anything
reasonable about what computers or the Space Shuttle can do today.
Neither can we do more than guess at their motivations, i.e. whether
they would come here at once if they knew of us.
								...Keith

------------------------------

Date: 27 Mar 86 22:23:09 GMT
From: ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtgzy!ecl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (e.c.leeper)
Subject: Response from Representative Dwyer
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

I wrote a letter to my Congresspersons (see letter at end of article).  The
reply I got from Representative Dwyer may be of interest:

>   "Thank you for contacting me concerning the future of manned space
>   flights in light of the terrible tragedy of the Challenger space
>   shuttle and its crew.
>   
>   The consensus of opinions voiced so far is similar to yours and
>   supportive of the continuation of manned space flights.  Obviously,
>   it will be some months before any further shuttle flights will be
>   scheduled due to the investigation into the Challenger's accident.
>   
>   As a member of the Space Caucus, I, too, feel that the space program
>   has been of enormous benefit to mankind in many varied ways.  I
>   appreciate having your comments on this important issue and will
>   keep your views in mind during the coming months as the
>   investigation into NASA's future continues.  I hope that you will
>   continue to advise me of your feelings on matters of mutual concern
>   and will contact me whenever I can be of service."

(This is the letter I sent to Dwyer and Senator Bradley (if it looks familiar,
it's because pieces were shamelessly stolen from net.space):

       I want to urge your support for the continuation	of the
       manned space program (and the manned space station) with	a
       full and	adequate level of funding.  This includes the
       building	of at least two	more orbiters, one to replace
       Challenger, and the other to serve as the fifth orbiter that
       should have been	built before.

       The questions may arise:	do we need a shuttle-like vehicle,
       and does	it need	to be manned?  The answer to the first is
       unequivocally yes; it is	the only way we	have of	getting
       large arbitrary objects in and out of orbit, and	it is the
       only way	we will	have for quite some years.  I think that
       the answer to the second	is also	yes, and I will	try to
       summarize why.  First, a	vehicle	like the shuttle is
       basically a space station which we do not need to maintain
       in space	for long periods, and which also provides launching
       and retrieval to	earth.	In this	capacity it is useful to
       take humans if only because they	can do space station
       activities while	the vehicle does whatever else it needs	to
       do--that	is the rationale behind	Spacelab.  Second, we do
       not have	teleoperators that can perform anything	other than
       moving objects from one location	to another.  There is no
       machine that can	disassemble an automobile engine (or any
       other engine), and there	won't be one for a while.  That
       means that if we	want to	do repairs and the like	in orbit,
       we have to take people with us for the present.	Forgoing
       this means forgetting things like the Hubble telescope, and
       why build expendable observatories when they can	be repaired
       and modified to last for	many years?

       We should begin designing the next vehicle.  And	we should
       continue	to use the one we have now, with people	aboard.

)

					Evelyn C. Leeper
					...ihnp4!mtgzz!ecl
					(or ihnp4!mtgzy!ecl)

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #236
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA01922; Sat, 29 Mar 86 03:05:26 PST
	id AA01922; Sat, 29 Mar 86 03:05:26 PST
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 86 03:05:26 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8603291105.AA01922@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #237

*** EOOH ***
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 86 03:05:26 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #237

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 237

Today's Topics:
		    Response from Senator Bradley
		   Response from Senator Lautenberg
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 27 Mar 86 22:22:32 GMT
From: ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtgzy!ecl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (e.c.leeper)
Subject: Response from Senator Bradley
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

I wrote a letter to my Congresspersons (see letter at end of article).  The
reply I got from Senator Bradley is worth printing here:

>        "Thank you for contacting me concerning the space shuttle program.
>   I appreciated the opportunity to review your comments on this issue.
>
>        The explosion of the space shuttle was a horrible tragedy.  The
>   Space Program, like the President, is a symbol of America.  I feel a
>   terrible sense of loss for the families and the country.  The only thing
>   that we can do is to be reminded of our finitude and man's limits in the
>   universe.
>
>        I have often talked about the Challenger landing on the salt flats
>   in California--how it made us feel as Americans--like we could do it
>   all; and that America was back, that we are proud of our team; and more
>   profoundly that we are optimistic about the capacity of man to harness
>   nature through science.
>
>        But now, we are not so sure.  Our optimism is undaunted but we have
>   to recognize that there may be a price.  In its advance, science always
>   has its failures--only now those failures have human faces.
>
>        We all hope the investigation of the Challenger catastrophe will
>   make less likely any future tragedies."

A few comments of my own on his reply:

1) I knew there would be a price.  I think most of us did.  Maybe only
Senators were dense enough to not realize it.

2) When a Senator starts talking about "our finitude" and "man's limits",
he probably means, "we shouldn't vote any more money for this Godless
enterprise."

3) One way to make future tragedies less likely is to stop trying--I have this
terrible feeling in my gut this is what he means.

In contrast, the response I got from Representative Dwyer was very pro-space:
yes, this was a tragedy, but we must continue, etc.  (See separate posting.)
I know who's getting my vote next time--and who isn't.

I would be curious to know what sorts of responses other people have gotten.

(This is the letter I sent to Bradley and Dwyer (if it looks familiar, it's
because pieces were shamelessly stolen from net.space):

       I want to urge your support for the continuation	of the
       manned space program (and the manned space station) with	a
       full and	adequate level of funding.  This includes the
       building	of at least two	more orbiters, one to replace
       Challenger, and the other to serve as the fifth orbiter that
       should have been	built before.

       The questions may arise:	do we need a shuttle-like vehicle,
       and does	it need	to be manned?  The answer to the first is
       unequivocally yes; it is	the only way we	have of	getting
       large arbitrary objects in and out of orbit, and	it is the
       only way	we will	have for quite some years.  I think that
       the answer to the second	is also	yes, and I will	try to
       summarize why.  First, a	vehicle	like the shuttle is
       basically a space station which we do not need to maintain
       in space	for long periods, and which also provides launching
       and retrieval to	earth.	In this	capacity it is useful to
       take humans if only because they	can do space station
       activities while	the vehicle does whatever else it needs	to
       do--that	is the rationale behind	Spacelab.  Second, we do
       not have	teleoperators that can perform anything	other than
       moving objects from one location	to another.  There is no
       machine that can	disassemble an automobile engine (or any
       other engine), and there	won't be one for a while.  That
       means that if we	want to	do repairs and the like	in orbit,
       we have to take people with us for the present.	Forgoing
       this means forgetting things like the Hubble telescope, and
       why build expendable observatories when they can	be repaired
       and modified to last for	many years?

       We should begin designing the next vehicle.  And	we should
       continue	to use the one we have now, with people	aboard.

)

					Evelyn C. Leeper
					...ihnp4!mtgzz!ecl
					(or ihnp4!mtgzy!ecl)

------------------------------

Date: 27 Mar 86 22:22:50 GMT
From: ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtgzy!ecl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (e.c.leeper)
Subject: Response from Senator Lautenberg
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

I wrote a letter to my Congresspersons (see letter at end of article).  The
reply I got from Senator Lautenberg may be of interest:

>   "Thank you for contacting me to express your support for the
>   continuation of the Space Shuttle program and other NASA programs.
>   
>   Our nation has mourned the loss os seven fellow Americans who gave
>   their lives in the exploration of space.  I was deeply saddened by
>   the Space Shuttle disaster.
>   
>   I have strongly supported, and will continue to support, our
>   nation's space program.  Millions of Americans have benefited from
>   the knowledge and new technologies we have derived from our
>   exploration of space.  However, before the Shuttle program resumes
>   flights, we must understand the cause of this accident.
>   
>   As you probably know, a presidential commission is currently
>   studying the records of the disaster to determine its cause.  Please
>   be assured that I will keep your views in mind as Congress reviews
>   the Shuttle accident.
>   
>   I hope you will continue to contact me on issues of concern to you.
>   Having the benefit of your views is important to me."

(This is the letter I sent to Lautenberg (if it looks familiar,
it's because pieces were shamelessly stolen from net.space):

	I want to urge you to support, and support fully, the manned space
	program.  While unmanned probes can do preliminary exploration, and
	robots (or waldos) can do some tasks in space, it is vitally
	important that we send people into space also.

	The Challenger accident has raised the manned vs. unmanned debate
	to new heights.  More people than ever are beginning to wonder
	whether we really should be sending men and women into space.
	Perhaps, they wonder, we should wait until it is safer.  After all,
	Voyager shows that people don't really need to send people into
	space.  Right?  WRONG!

	Voyager didn't prove anything.  All it had to do was sit and watch
	the greatest show in the solar system.  People have done and will
	be (I hope) doing far more difficult jobs (repairing satellites,
	producing new medicines, etc.).

	Now, and for the forseeable future, people are needed in space to
	repair satellites and to conduct "shotgun" research (conducting a
	wide variety of experiments where the astronaut is responsible for
	setting the experiments up).  The technology to have waldos
	(mechanical arms which are controlled from the ground) do any but
	the simplest of these jobs simply isn't there.  Consider:

		-The best waldos available today have little, if any,
		feedback.  This means that jobs which are easy to do by hand
		are difficult, if not  impossible to do with a waldo.

		-The best mechanical "hands" available today are crude, not
		having anywhere near the flexibility of a human hand (even
		one encased in a heavy glove).

		-Any waldo used in space will have to be controlled by a
		radio link.   But, NASA no longer has world-wide radio
		coverage.  This means that either:

			-The waldo is used for only the 15-30 minutes out
			of each orbit it is in radio contact.

			-The commands to the waldo are relayed through a
			satellite in geosynchronous orbit.  This may not
			be practical, since it means that there will be a
			1/2 second delay due to speed of light lag.

	Using robots to do repair work is even farther in the future than
	using waldos.  With the technology available today, it is considered
	a major accomplishment to just have a robot pick up the right tool,
	much less use it correctly.

	"Shotgun" research is just as, if not more, valuable than repairing 
	satellites.  Consider how expensive it would be to send design a
	payload that  will take a picture of Halley's comet.  It was much
	less expensive to simply  hand a camera to one of the astronauts and
	ask him or her to take the picture.  A lot of important research
	that has been done on the space shuttle would have simply been too
	expensive to do before we began routinely sending people into orbit.

	Cost has always been the bottom line.  Having people in orbit has
	allowed us to recover two satellites, repair two satellites and
	perform an incredible amount of research.  Without people in orbit,
	these missions would either have  been impossible, or far more
	expensive.  In the long run, because of their  ability to perform
	research cheaply and their ability to fix things when they go wrong,
	manned launches will be cheaper than unmanned ones.

	As for waiting until space travel is safer...space travel will never
	be perfectly safe (but, neither will driving to work, or flying in
	an airplane, or...).  Obviously we should try to make it as safe as
	possible.  But when is it safe enough?  A reasonable answer would
	be: that it is safe enough when there are people willing to do it.
	Even following the Challenger accident, there is no shortage of
	people willing to work in space.  And there is a need to go.

)

					Evelyn C. Leeper
					...ihnp4!mtgzz!ecl
					(or ihnp4!mtgzy!ecl)

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #237
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA04424; Sun, 30 Mar 86 03:00:59 PST
	id AA04424; Sun, 30 Mar 86 03:00:59 PST
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 86 03:00:59 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8603301100.AA04424@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #238

*** EOOH ***
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 86 03:00:59 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #238

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 238

Today's Topics:
	     Re: Fermi Paradox, or "Where is everybody?"
	     Re: Fermi Paradox, or "Where is everybody?"
			    Dyson spheres
				nickel
			    Dyson spheres
			    Dyson spheres
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted-Date: Sat 29 Mar 1986 09:55:03 EST
Date: Sat 29 Mar 1986 09:55:03 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Re: Fermi Paradox, or "Where is everybody?"
To: Dave Platt <Dave-Platt%LADC@system-m>
In-Reply-To: Dave Platt's message of Fri, 28 Mar 86 11:13 PST
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa

When I realized what the author of that Analog article was proposing
I was practically rolling on the floor with laughter.  He didn't
realize that only the *uncharged* particles from Cygnus X-3 travel
in straight lines (and would form a shell); the charged particles
(especially the lower energy ones that make up the bulk of cosmic
radiation) are trapped by galactic magnetic field lines and diffuse
through the galaxy for a few millions years, like nuclei in a magnetic
fusion machine, until they run into something (mainly interstellar
matter) or escape.  A pulse of radiation added to this galactic
reservoir will be tremendously smeared out.  Charged cosmic rays
hitting earth show no directionality anyway.

It may be conceivable that planets near a Cygnus X-3 would receive
lethal doses of radiation when the nearby source turned on.  In that
case, Earth may be have lucked out and never have been near such
a source during its history.  All the other potentially life bearing
planets got zapped.

------------------------------

Posted-Date: Sat 29 Mar 1986 09:55:03 EST
Date: Sat 29 Mar 1986 09:55:03 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Re: Fermi Paradox, or "Where is everybody?"
To: space@s1-b.arpa
In-Reply-To: Dave Platt's message of Fri, 28 Mar 86 11:13 PST

When I realized what the author of that Analog article was proposing
I was practically rolling on the floor with laughter.  He didn't
realize that only the *uncharged* particles from Cygnus X-3 travel
in straight lines (and would form a shell); the charged particles
(especially the lower energy ones that make up the bulk of cosmic
radiation) are trapped by galactic magnetic field lines and diffuse
through the galaxy for a few millions years, like nuclei in a magnetic
fusion machine, until they run into something (mainly interstellar
matter) or escape.  A pulse of radiation added to this galactic
reservoir will be tremendously smeared out.  Charged cosmic rays
hitting earth show no directionality anyway.

It may be conceivable that planets near a Cygnus X-3 would receive
lethal doses of radiation when the nearby source turned on.  In that
case, Earth may be have lucked out and never have been near such
a source during its history.  All the other potentially life bearing
planets got zapped.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 29 Mar 86 12:08:38 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu>
Subject: Dyson spheres
To: dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@s1-b.arpa

    From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>

    How about getting mass from the sun?  It's about 2% "metals" (elements
    heavier than helium) by mass, or about 6000 times the mass of the earth
    in heavy elements.  Granted, there are engineering problems (!), but
    we're in fantasy mode anyway and have lots of energy to play with.

  This is kind of hard to imagine.  What would they collect it with
that wouldn't burn up?  Of course they might simply mine it out of the
solar wind.  But I think getting it from other solar systems would be
easier, especially if they are in no hurry.
  Another possibility would be to turn the sunlight into matter.  This
would create equal amounts of antimatter, but the antimatter could be
gradually dropped into the sun to increase its brightness slightly.
In fact they would get back just the amount of light that they used to
build the thing in the first place!
    
    >If you make the foil just the right thickness, the Sun's gravity and the
    >light pressure exactly balance, and the foil will remain stationary.

    Not if you absorb the sunlight and radiate it as waste heat.  The energy
    flowing out must equal the energy flowing in, so the radiation pressures
    will balance.

  No.  Each part of the sphere radiates heat equally in all
directions, so there is no net pressure from that.
								...Keith

------------------------------

Date: 28 Mar 86 21:44:28 GMT
From: hplabs!pesnta!lsuc!msb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Mark Brader)
Subject: nickel
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Going off on a tangent to something in net.jokes, we find:

> > ....100% pure Canadian-mined nickel, mostly mined in Sudbury
> > (you know the one:  the acid fumes from the smelters have devistated
> > the land around the town so badly that Apollo astronauts came here to
> > test the lunar rover, because the area so resembled the dead surface
> > of the moon).  

Henry Spencer remarked:
> Yes, but for reasons having nothing to do with acid fumes.  The Apollo
> astronauts trained at Sudbury because the Sudbury basin is strongly
> suspected to be a meteorite crater.  The barrenness of the landscape was
> irrelevant, although this misunderstanding was so prevalent that the
> mayor of Sudbury (among others) took offense.

But he left out the interesting part.  The nickel comes from the meteorite.
Something like 70-80% of the world's total supply of nickel comes from
this one meteorite!  [I can't find where I read this, but I suspect that
it refers to the total of nickel that has been mined rather than reserves.]

Mark Brader

------------------------------

Posted-Date: Sat 29 Mar 1986 17:14:17 EST
Date: Sat 29 Mar 1986 17:14:17 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Dyson spheres
To: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: "Keith F. Lynch"'s message of Sat, 29 Mar 86 12:08:38 EST
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa

>    >If you make the foil just the right thickness, the Sun's gravity and the
>    >light pressure exactly balance, and the foil will remain stationary.
>
>    Not if you absorb the sunlight and radiate it as waste heat.  The energy
>    flowing out must equal the energy flowing in, so the radiation pressures
>    will balance.
>
>  No.  Each part of the sphere radiates heat equally in all
>directions, so there is no net pressure from that.

But you can't dump heat back into the inside of the sphere, since all you
can see there is other radiating surfaces or the sun.  The heat must be
radiated from the *exterior* of the sphere, which is visible to
interstellar space.

I think I see your point, though.  Even if there is no net radiation
from the interior sufaces the waste heat will still exert pressure
there (when it is emitted and reabsorbed).  A gas of photons in thermal
equilibrium with the radiators, if you will.

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 30 Mar 86 01:12:23 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu>
Subject: Dyson spheres
To: dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@s1-b.arpa

    From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>

    But you can't dump heat back into the inside of the sphere, since all you
    can see there is other radiating surfaces or the sun.

  Sure you can.  Don't think of it as a sphere, think of it as
individual small objects.  Each object receives light from the sun,
and radiates heat equally in all directions.  The fact that the heat
generated in some directions will be intercepted by the sun or by
other of the small objects is not relevant.

    The heat must be radiated from the *exterior* of the sphere, which is
    visible to interstellar space.

  Ultimately, it all is.

    I think I see your point, though.  Even if there is no net radiation
    from the interior sufaces the waste heat will still exert pressure
    there (when it is emitted and reabsorbed).  A gas of photons in thermal
    equilibrium with the radiators, if you will.

  This is a more difficult way of thinking of it, but yes.
								...Keith

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #238
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA00405; Mon, 31 Mar 86 11:08:38 PST
	id AA00405; Mon, 31 Mar 86 11:08:38 PST
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 86 11:08:38 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8603311908.AA00405@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #239

*** EOOH ***
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 86 11:08:38 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #239

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 239

Today's Topics:
			 Re: Dysan spheres...
		       Observing Dyson spheres
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 29 Mar 86 02:12:33 GMT
From: ucdavis!ucrmath!hope!corwin@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (John Kempf)
Subject: Re: Dysan spheres...
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> To talk about intermediate structures between a dyson sphere and 
> a planet,  how many "earth"s could we put in orbit 93 million miles away 
> from the sun before gravitational effects makes the whole structure
> unstable?  This is a much smaller scale construction project than a Dyson 
> sphere with many of the advantages and it lacks certain of the problems
> (namely all the "earth"s will have a real night and so on).

As far as the number of planets, as long as they were in a kempler rosette,
the only limiting factor should be tidal locking of the planets to each other.
If you were to go that far, it would probably be easier to create a ringworld.
anybody else out there have any ideas?
-cory

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 30 Mar 86 12:23:21 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu>
Subject: Observing Dyson spheres
To: ucdavis!ucrmath!hope!corwin@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@s1-b.arpa

    From: ucdavis!ucrmath!hope!corwin@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (John Kempf)

    Interesting idea about the aluminum foil.  I had not considered
    just a shell, only a fully habitable sphere.

  The original idea was that the sphere would be many relatively small
asteroid-like objects.

    As far as visuals go, I was picturing things along the lines of a rotating
    flashlight from a half built sphere, to a strobe star from a partial sphere
    started from several locations.

  It would probably be built more or less all around the star at once,
and gradually become denser as more and more colonies, farms, and
factories are built, until finally none of the sunlight escapes into
interstellar space as all of it is intercepted.  Much like satellites
around the Earth (except that nobody expects satellites to become so
prevalent that they block all sunlight and moonlight from reaching
Earth).
  Of course it is possible that it might be built in the way you
describe, though it sounds pretty unstable to me.  And if it is
suspended by light pressure, it would not be rotating.  We would
either see the star or not depending on which way the hemisphere
happened to face.
  Probably what we should be looking for are room temperature IR
stars, stars that are unusually dim, stars that are getting rapidly
(on an astronomical timescale) dimmer, stars that do vary in
brightness in some hard to explain way, and of course anything else
unusual looking.

    Definately agree with launching more satellites and/or observatories,
    but why limit it to IR? Wouldn't radio also be a sign of civilization?

  Only if the aliens use strong but poorly aimed radio signals for
communications or some other purpose.  A more advanced technology
might consider radio obsolete.  But unless we seriously misunderstand
thermodynamics, any civilization which uses massive amounts of energy
for anything at all will have to radiate enormous amounts of infrared
into interstellar space.
								...Keith

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #239
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA03066; Tue, 1 Apr 86 03:01:02 PST
	id AA03066; Tue, 1 Apr 86 03:01:02 PST
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 86 03:01:02 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8604011101.AA03066@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #240

*** EOOH ***
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 86 03:01:02 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #240

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 240

Today's Topics:
   Analog idea as to why we're alone, one of many possible reasons
Perhaps fast-burning stars are the BEST places to find Dyson spheres?
		    Re: Free goods from free space
	       History of Skylab #2 - Waste Management
		     Re: Observing Dyson spheres
		   Re: Survivability of astronauts
			   Interstellar War
			     Colonization
		      Scuttle the Space Program?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 1986 March 29 23:43:04 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@su-ai.arpa>
To: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Analog idea as to why we're alone, one of many possible reasons

DP> Date: Fri, 28 Mar 86 11:13 PST
DP> From: Dave Platt <Dave-Platt%LADC@system-m>
                                      ******** Valid internet host name??
DP> Subject: Fermi Paradox, or "Where is everybody?"
DP> There's an interesting science-fact article in the latest issue of
DP> Analog magazine that reflects on a possible solution to the Fermi paradox.
DP> ...  So, it's possible that we're in the
DP> middle of a fairly unusual period in the history of our galaxy... a
DP> short-lived cosmic-ray siege that separates longer periods of "quiet space"
DP> untroubled by high-energy cosmics.
DP> Now... consider a species (or several) that evolve and develop to the point
DP> of having interplanetary (and possibly interstellar) travel, during one of
DP> the long "quiet" periods.  If they were unaware of the possiblity of
DP> a siege of high-energy cosmic radiation, they might very well have
DP> built their spacecraft (and space colonies) to withstand the much lower
DP> levels of particle radiation that originate within their solar system(s).
DP> Then, an object such as Cygnus X-3 slips into a short-lived phase in
DP> which it emits massive numbers of high-energy particles.

Possible.  My evaluation is that there are many many ways that a
civilization can either go extinct or otherwise abandon or never
develop extensive space colonization, and this is one of them. Each
way is rare, but together they provide a good reason why we're
presently alone. Unfortunately we have thought of only about ten of
them, and there are perhaps thousands of ways to go wrong that we have
yet to guess. (We have already thought of: original development of
true life from primordial soup is harder than we think,
bacteria->eucariotic cells are a rare event withough which multicelled
life is impossible, development of abstract intelligence is usually
counter-survival but we got lucky, even with intelligence technology
is rare, thermonuclear war usually gets everyone before they make it
to space, ecological disaster usually gets everyone, political
conservatism usually gets everyone, interstellar travel is harder than
we think, they're out there but keeping their hands off us because
they want to watch us, everybody's paranoid so nobody's transmitting,
and now occasional outbreaks of massive high-energy particles wipe out
spacefaring people.) I suspect if we actually go out there and observe
life on planets around other stars (and maybe even some local
space-based civilizations) we'll learn many other stories of why a
given lifeform never made it to where we did. (Like that TV program
years ago, "there are a million stories, this is one".) Or we'll have
thermonuclear war and millenia later somebody will happen upon our
remains, and from radiodecay measurements will know when we had our
war and how extensive it was and what materials we made our concrete
out of and not much else about us due to millenia of erosion. Or we'll
have thermonuclear war and nobody will happen upon us until after
continental drift has gobbled&melted the surface of all present-day
continents and except for a slight excess of some isotopes there'll be
no evidence we ever got technological at all. Or somebody out there
will receive our TV transmissions and decide to reactivate their long
dormant space program and rush like mad to save us, but they'll arrive
too late and lose the chance to chat with the only technological race
they've ever discovered besides themselves, and they will suddenly
feel incredibly alone in the Universe.

------------------------------

Date: 1986 March 30 00:03:58 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@su-ai.arpa>
To: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu
Cc: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Perhaps fast-burning stars are the BEST places to find Dyson spheres?

KFL> Date: Fri, 28 Mar 86 21:43:30 EST
KFL> From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu>
KFL> Subject: Observing Dyson spheres
KFL>   In fact the IRAS observed what may be a partial Dyson sphere last
KFL> year.  Fron the vicinity of the star Vega, large amounts of infrared
KFL> was observed.  This doesn't quite match what is expected for a Dyson
KFL> sphere because ... 3) I seem to recall that Vega is much younger
than the Sun, so life would not have had time to evolve there (so
maybe ... the aliens are recent immigrants, ...)

Vega and other fast-burning stars like Vega, Sirius, Deneb etc. would
be ideal for spacefaring civilizations to visit, compared to
slow-burning stars like the Sun and Epsilon Eridani which are ideal
for original evolution of pre-spacefaring civilization. Fast-burning
stars give out much more energy per unit time than slow-burning stars,
so for a given investment of bootstrapping energy and a given time
frame to get what you can get then get moving on to avoid being left
behind, fast-burning stars may be optimal. Just like some Earth-based
species hybernate or reside as eggs during winter, then wake up or
hatch at the peak of Spring and eat like mad and breed like mad and
finish just in time to hybernate during the next winter, maybe
spacefaring civilizations send spores to nearby fast-burning stars,
each spore bootstraps itself to maximal use of the star's energy as
fast as it can then starts sending out spores to new fast-burning stars
that have turned on recently (after spore's arrival at this current
star, during the bootstrapping period here), continuing to
simultaneously breed and send spores until this star is about to go
supernova. There's a wave of this kind of life at the front, the
expanding shell of life. Those who are too slow at bootstrapping get
left behind and have only leftovers. Those who are too fast at
bootstrapping aren't strong enough to defend when the real wave hits
them. So there's an optimal speed of expansion, and stars smaller than
a particular size aren't settled at all because they don't give off
enough energy to support the rapid bootstrapping needed to keep up
with the wave (shell). Maybe the shell has already passed us by.

Anyway, fast-burning stars would seem to be better, not worse,
candidates for dyson spheres for really advanced civilizations that
are starhopping their way across the galaxy. Only just-emerging
civilizations, still around their home star, would make Dyson spheres
around ruddy little stars like ours.

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 30 Mar 86 17:54:18 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Free goods from free space
To: ulysses!ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@s1-b.arpa, Poli-Sci@red.rutgers.edu

  You seem to think that while governments may have enough wealth to
develop space resources, that individuals and corporations do not.
  This is a rather silly attitude to take, since governments produce
no wealth, but take it from individuals and corporations.  In free
countries, individuals and companies are still allowed to keep more
than half of their created and earned wealth (though this may change
in the U.S. if the Democrats are elected in '88) so they should be
better able to afford the expense of space exploration, development,
and colonization.
								...Keith

------------------------------

Date: 28 Mar 86 20:45:43 GMT
From: ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dave Newkirk)
Subject: History of Skylab #2 - Waste Management
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

While one group at Marshall worked on medical experiments, another group
was coming to grips with a more complex problem: providing a system of
waste management in the workshop.  The problem had new dimensions for
Skylab.  Previous programs had required no more than a sanitary method
of collecting and disposing of body wastes with a minimum of handling;
but for Skylab, the medical experiments required collection, measurement,
and return of both urine and feces for analysis.  Gemini and Apollo
systems would not do, even if - as they were not - they had been ideal
from the user's point of view.
[...]
Since the problems of separating air from liquid and of volume measurement
did not arise with solid wastes, the fecal collection system was in good
shape by the end of 1969.  Its principal problem arose out of the
difficulty of conclusive testing in zero g.  The zero-g condition could
be maintained for only about 30 seconds in the KC-135 aircraft, and the
device had to be tested in that short period.  Urination could be
successfully simulated by mechanical devices, and a urine-collecting
device was easy to test; but defecation could not be simulated.  Test
subjects who could perform on cue were needed.  The Huntsville office
was able to find a few people with this talent, and in November 1969
two days of aircraft testing produced nine good `data points' for the
fecal collector.

(Excerpt from "Living and Working in Space - A History of Skylab", NASA
SP-4208, for sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Gov't Printing
Office, Washington, D.C. 20402)
-- 
				Dave Newkirk, ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn

------------------------------

Date:           Mon, 31 Mar 86 12:40:11 PST
From: Bob English <lcc.bob@locus.ucla.edu>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Subject:        Re: Observing Dyson spheres
In-Reply-To:    Message of Mon, 31 Mar 86 11:19:53 PST
                    from "Ted Anderson <ota@s1-b.arpa>"
                    <8603311919.AA00611@s1-b.arpa>

> From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu>

>   Only if the aliens use strong but poorly aimed radio signals for
> communications or some other purpose.  A more advanced technology
> might consider radio obsolete.  But unless we seriously misunderstand
> thermodynamics, any civilization which uses massive amounts of energy
> for anything at all will have to radiate enormous amounts of infrared
> into interstellar space.
> 								...Keith

A more advanced technology might consider massive use of energy
obsolete.  Unless I seriously misunderstand thermodynamics, any
civilization radiating massive amounts of infrared is going to be
hot.

--bob--

"Everything you know is wrong" -- Firesign Theater.

------------------------------

Date: 28 Mar 86 02:28:22 GMT
From: ihnp4!aicchi!dbb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Burch)
Subject: Re: Survivability of astronauts
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa


The B1-a had an escape pod system where the enire crew compartment would
separate and come down on parachutes.  It would be possible to completely
redesign the shuttle to have this feature, but it is potentally more
dangerous than the current situation; What if it separated at the wrong
time, like in orbit??


-- 
-David B. (Ben) Burch
 Analyst's International Corp.
 Chicago Branch (ihnp4!aicchi!dbb)

"Argue for your limitations, and they are yours"

------------------------------

Date:  Mon, 31 Mar 86 18:08 EST
From: Jong@his-billerica-multics.arpa
Subject:  Interstellar War
To: space@s1-b.arpa

Now HERE's a topic that will start some speculation!

Paul Dietz mentions the possibility of accelerating large objects
(or lots of objects) to relativistic velocities as a weapon in
interstellar war.  My first impression upon reading that is to
wonder what time scale interstellar war would be fought on.  If
we encountered an alien civilization, and later went to war with
them, how long would it last?  Would silent momentum bombs be
crashing into the Earth thousands of years after cessation of
hostilities?  How, in fact, would communication between the
civilizations take place at all?  At light speeds, the
conversation:  "We surrender"/"We accept" might take centuries,
by which time enormous destructive forces could be set in motion
against the respective targets.

In this regard, consider the battle of New Orleans, fought (I
think) during the War of 1812.  This battle made the reputation
of Andrew Jackson, and was in fact a terrible defeat of the
British, made more terrible by the fact that it took place two
weeks after the conclusion of a peace treaty between the
combatants!

I think Joe Haldeman's "The Forever War" considers these
possibilities.

------------------------------

Date:  Mon, 31 Mar 86 18:11 EST
From: Jong@his-billerica-multics.arpa
Subject:  Colonization
To: space@s1-b.arpa

Regarding the point that, if there were advanced civilizations
out there, we'd have encountered them by now, Michael
Papagiannis, chairman of the Astronomy Department at Boston
University, takes the position that there are no other advanced
civilizations out there for us to encounter (else we'd have
noticed them by now).  It's sort of the anti-Sagan position, and
my comment on it is that it shows you what academics will do for
attention.

(Of course, I'd love to prove him wrong...  :-) )

------------------------------

Date:  Mon, 31 Mar 86 18:19 EST
From: Jong@his-billerica-multics.arpa
Subject:  Scuttle the Space Program?
To: space@s1-b.arpa

1) I don't think talk of solving Earth's population problem by
shooting people off into space is realistic.  I recall the
statement that the population of China was increasing so rapidly
that, even if the Chinese lined up six abreast and marched into
the sea, we'd never be rid of them, because the population was
growing faster.

(Disclaimer 1:  This was from Cold War days, when the notion of
the Yellow Peril was at its most fearsome.)

(Disclaimer 2:  The idea of marching people to their deaths was
and still is repugnant to me, if not the original author.)

(Disclaimer 3:  I'm Chinese myself, and I don't mean any offense,
so I don't think you need to leap to the defense of the race.)

(Disclaimer 4:  No one explained how the Chinese could reproduce
on the march...)

Anyway -- given practical payload capacities, I don't think you
could make much of a dent in the population through export.

Refer to "The Marching Morons" by Kornbluth for an amusing
treatment of this subject.

2) [enter drag-meeting-completely-off-course-mode]

What's all this blather about the rights of animals?  Animals
have no rights.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #240
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA03153; Tue, 1 Apr 86 03:05:28 PST
	id AA03153; Tue, 1 Apr 86 03:05:28 PST
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 86 03:05:28 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8604011105.AA03153@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #241

*** EOOH ***
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 86 03:05:28 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #241

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 241

Today's Topics:
		    Dyson spheres: why build 'em?
			  Re: Dysan Spheres
		  Re: Dyson spheres: why build 'em?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 31 Mar 86 18:05:04 cet
To: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
From: APRI1801%UA.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: Dyson spheres: why build 'em?


With all this talk of Dyson spheres, one thought occurs to me:
Why build them around a sun?    If we assume that any society
advanced enough to build a Dyson sphere has some cheap matter-to-energy
technique, then what do they need a sun for?  Admittedly, most stars
are a little more dependable than your average electric plant, but
surely the problems of collecting, converting, and distributng
the output of the sun would outweigh this, not to mention such
things as novae, solar flares, etc.
But now, once you're no longer building the structure AROUND
something, a sphere is not neccesarily the optimum shape.  If we
make one more assumption, that the society in question has some
means of generating gravity (or a reasonable facsimile), then the
structure no longer needs spin (or symmetry) and could be any shape
at all.
Am I missing something here?

Mike Asher    BITNET: APRI1801 @ UA
University of Alabama

------------------------------

Posted-Date: Mon 31 Mar 1986 20:54:45 EST
Date: Mon 31 Mar 1986 20:54:45 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Re: Dysan Spheres
To: space@s1-b.arpa

I've figured it out.  A Dysan sphere is a cloud of 10**26 floppy disks
that intercept all the light emitted by the sun.  If mass is a problem
we use single density disks.  :-)

------------------------------

Date: 1 Apr 86 02:42:55 GMT
From: brahms!desj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (David desJardins)
Subject: Re: Dyson spheres: why build 'em?
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <8604010009.AA01902@s1-b.arpa> APRI1801@UA.BITNET (Mike Asher)
writes:
>But now, once you're no longer building the structure AROUND
>something, a sphere is not neccesarily the optimum shape.  If we
>make one more assumption, that the society in question has some
>means of generating gravity (or a reasonable facsimile), then the
>structure no longer needs spin (or symmetry) and could be any shape
>at all.

   Well, since we're assuming that they aren't bound by the laws of physics,
why do they need a place to live at all?  Why don't they just float around
in empty space, and wish for whatever they might desire?
   :-)

   -- David desJardins

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #241
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA02499; Wed, 2 Apr 86 03:01:23 PST
	id AA02499; Wed, 2 Apr 86 03:01:23 PST
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 86 03:01:23 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8604021101.AA02499@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #242

*** EOOH ***
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 86 03:01:23 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #242

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 242

Today's Topics:
	     I've got some good news and some bad news...
		   Employement in Space, 1990-2020
			  Re: Dyson spheres
		    Black Holes and Useful Energy
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted-Date: Tue 1 Apr 1986 08:27:22 EST
Date: Tue 1 Apr 1986 08:27:22 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: I've got some good news and some bad news...
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Cc: dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa

Todays (4/1/86) NY Times reports a group of scientists at the U. of Iowa
have proposed that the Earth is continually being bombarded by small
comets, each with a mass of about 100 tons.  They analyzed ultraviolet
images from the Dynamics Explorer satellite, a satellite in a eccentric
orbit that images the Earth's atmosphere.  They discovered "holes" in
the dayside UV emission that they claim are caused by very high altitude
water clouds temporarily blocking the UV light emitted by the upper
atmosphere.  They claim the Earth is being struck by 20 minicomets
per minute.  The comets are fragile and not very dense (density less
than .1), so they disperse in the thin upper atmosphere without
generating an incandescent trail.  They claim these comets could
add about 1/10,000 inch of water to the Earth's surface every year,
or oceans of water over geological time.

This is in some sense good news, since these things will also hit the
moon, and the water could freeze out at the poles.  But it's also bad
news: if their numbers are right, a 100 ton comet will pass through a
square in space roughly six kilometers on a side once per year.  This
could knock a large hole in a powersat, and could severely damage a
space colony.  Some sort of bumper may be needed to spread out the
impact.

------------------------------

Date: 01 Apr 86 11:40 EST
From: C0144%CSUOHIO.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
To: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Employement in Space, 1990-2020

    Would any futurists out there like to give their own ideas on how
Americans could be employed in space through the year 2020. This time
frame would likely encompass several hundred shuttle missions, the space
station project, and perhaps (with a good political back wind) a trip
to Mars.

    As part of an article I'm writing for Air&Space magazine, I'm
scouring the countryside looking for different perspectives. If you
have any ideas, please fire them out. Of course, if I use any material
gained in this fashion, I would be quoting the original source(s).

                                         Dave Chatfield

------------------------------

Date: 31 Mar 86 19:40:39 GMT
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!cmcl2!lanl!jlg@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Jim Giles)
Subject: Re: Dyson spheres
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <[AI.AI.MIT.EDU].22300.860329.KFL> KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU ("Keith F. Lynch") writes:
>
>    From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
>
>    How about getting mass from the sun?  It's about 2% "metals" (elements
>    heavier than helium) by mass, or about 6000 times the mass of the earth
>    in heavy elements. [...]
>
>  This is kind of hard to imagine.  What would they collect it with
>that wouldn't burn up?  [...]

Magnetic fields, of course.  Larry Niven used something like this in
'Ringworld Engineers' (as long as we're talking fantasy, I might as well
mention some).  There, he used bands of superconducting materials in the
Ringworld hull to manipulate the surface gasses of the star.  His purpose
was to control the solar wind, and make it strong enough and precise enough
to keep the Ringworld structure in a balanced orbit (talk about hard to
imagine!).  Something like that could (in fantasy, anyway) mine the upper
atmosphere of the Sun.

J. Giles
Los Alamos

------------------------------

Date: 1986 April 01 16:32:43 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@su-ai.arpa>
To: "mcgrath%mit-oz"@mc.lcs.mit.edu
Cc: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Black Holes and Useful Energy

J> Date: Sat 22 Mar 86 15:44:45-PST
J> From: Jim McGrath <J.JPM@[36.21.0.13]>
J> Reply-To: mcgrath%mit-oz@mit-mc.arpa
J> All the literature I have read always concentrated on recovering the
J> energy stored by the black hole as spin (afterall, it has the angular
J> momentum of the original star), not gravitational energy per se.
J> Apparently this approach has fewer engineering difficulties :-).

Unfortunately spin is a conserved quantity. If you spin down the black
hole you must corresponding spin up the spaceship. Perhaps you can use
some kind of drag against the instellar medium or the gallactic
magnetic field to drain off the spin, but that would seem to involve a
considerable engineering problem. Still, if we ever get our hands on
(not literally, unless we want to lose part of our hands) a small
black hole, it would be worth studying.

(It occurs to me that a good sink for toxic waste would be a black
hole. We could "kill two birds with one stone" by using toxic waste as
the mass we drop into the gravity well.)

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #242
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA06022; Thu, 3 Apr 86 03:01:29 PST
	id AA06022; Thu, 3 Apr 86 03:01:29 PST
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 86 03:01:29 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8604031101.AA06022@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #243

*** EOOH ***
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 86 03:01:29 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #243

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 243

Today's Topics:
			    Dyson Spheres
			 Infalling minicomets
		   Black holes as garbage disposals
			       Infrared
			Speed of colonization
		     Re: Observing Dyson spheres
		  Re: Dyson Spheres and Larry Niven
			  Re: Shuttle models
	    Sun won't go supernova as far as I can figure
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:          Wed, 2 Apr 86 15:01 EST
From: (1)  <MEHARP01%ULKYVX.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu>
Subject:       Dyson Spheres
To: space@s1-b.arpa
X-Original-To: space@angband.arpa

Could someone out there direct me to a source on Dyson spheres?
I have been following some of the conversation on here and I find
myself lacking knowledge on this topic.

Thanks in advance.

Michael Harpe
University of Louisville

Internet:  MEHARP01%ULKYVX.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 02 Apr 86 15:46 PST
From: Dave Platt <Dave-Platt%LADC@cisl-service-multics.arpa>
To: Space <Space@s1-b.arpa>
Subject: Infalling minicomets
Randomness: Government expands to fill the available revenue, and then some.

FYI, the reports from the Dynamics Explorer 1 (DE-1) satellite that
led to the numerous-small-comet hypothesis were reported in Science
News (12/21/85 and 12/28/85);  the hypothesis itself was apparently
published in Geophysical Research Letters, and is mentioned in this
week's Science News.

------------------------------

Date: Wed,  2 Apr 86 21:16:58 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu>
Subject: Black holes as garbage disposals
To: REM%IMSSS@su-ai.arpa
Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@s1-b.arpa

    From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@su-ai.arpa>

    (It occurs to me that a good sink for toxic waste would be a black
    hole. We could "kill two birds with one stone" by using toxic waste as
    the mass we drop into the gravity well.)

  A fusion torch or a simple carbon arc will decompose any wastes into
their constituent elements.  This is a much easier technology than
black hole control.
  I think we want to avoid dropping stuff into large black holes as
long as possible, since it is a very long time until you can get it
out again, i.e. upwards of ten to the hundredth power years.
								...Keith

------------------------------

Date: Wed,  2 Apr 86 23:11:23 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu>
Subject: Infrared
To: lcc.bob@locus.ucla.edu
Cc: Space@s1-b.arpa

    From: Bob English <lcc.bob@locus.ucla.edu>

    A more advanced technology might consider massive use of energy
    obsolete.

  I doubt it.  Energy is needed for so many things.  Desalinization of
water.  Purification of wastes.  Rapid transportation (especially
interstellar).  Heating and cooling.  Manufacturing.  Mining.  Very
large scale farming.
  Each person, and presumably each alien, needs a certain amount of
energy just to live.  This amount alone would be very large if the
population was very large.

    Unless I seriously misunderstand thermodynamics, any civilization
    radiating massive amounts of infrared is going to be hot.

  No, it might be radiationg at a moderate temperature from a large
surface area.
  For instance the Vega system is radiating billions of watts of
infared 'heat' radiation.  But it is being radiated by objects far
below freezing.  Per unit surface area, the walls around you are
giving hundreds of times more infrared than that.
								...Keith

------------------------------

Date: Wed,  2 Apr 86 23:27:13 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu>
Subject: Speed of colonization
To: "JONG@HIS-BILLERICA-MULTICS.ARPA"@ai.ai.mit.edu
Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@s1-b.arpa

    From: Jong@his-billerica-multics.arpa

    1) I don't think talk of solving Earth's population problem by
    shooting people off into space is realistic.

  Well, 900,000,000 passengers took trips in planes last year.  If we
can built spacecraft that are as plentiful and as large as airplanes
and are no more expensive to build and to operate than a 747, we could
move everyone to space in less than 6 years!

    I recall the statement that the population of China was increasing so
    rapidly that, even if the Chinese lined up six abreast and marched into
    the sea, we'd never be rid of them, because the population was growing
    faster.

  According to the World Almanac, the population of China is
increasing by 19 million per year.  Since it takes about a second to
march a distance equal to the distance between people in a marching
column, and since there are 31 million seconds in a year, just one
column marching into the sea would eventually depopulate China.
  By airplane, it would only take 14 months.  That's about how long it
would take to move all of China's people somewhere else if they were
in no particular hurry, and if there were someplace else big enough
for them (for instance Space).
								...Keith

------------------------------

Date: 31 Mar 86 22:55:18 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Observing Dyson spheres
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>   In fact the IRAS observed what may be a partial Dyson sphere last
> year.  Fron the vicinity of the star Vega, large amounts of infrared
> was observed.  This doesn't quite match what is expected for a Dyson
> sphere...  More likely, it is just so much uninhabited sand and gravel,
> perhaps in the process of forming a solar system, that IRAS observed.

Alas for this theory, IRAS found a number of those dust disks, and one
of them (around Beta Pictoris) was photographed in late 1984.  Looks much
more like a random mass of dust than an artificial construct, although the
resolution of the picture is admittedly rather low.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 1 Apr 86 02:33:00 GMT
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiucdcsb!carroll@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Dyson Spheres and Larry Niven
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa


Well yeah. It has to radiate as much heat as the Sun puts out, or it will
melt sooner or later. Since it has a much larger radiating surface, it can
be a lot cooler that the surface of the Sun and still be ok.

------------------------------

Date: 2 Apr 86 05:48:47 GMT
From: decvax!cwruecmp!hal!ncoast!smith@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Phil Smith)
Subject: Re: Shuttle models
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Another place to try:

Paul K. Guillow,Inc.
Wakefield,MA 01880 U.S.A.

I have a model of the Columbia that was bought thru the Smithsonian.

It is 1/77 scale. 19"Lx9"Hx12 13/16WS made of balsa.
The Guillow's kit no. is 1201
I have no idea of price. I received it as a gift.
-- 

		      decvax!cwruecmp!ncoast!smith
		    ncoast is dead, long live ncoast!
			ncoast!smith@case.csnet 
		(ncoast!smith%case.csnet@csnet-relay.ARPA)

------------------------------

Date: 1986 March 12 23:30:42 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@su-ai.arpa>
To: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Sun won't go supernova as far as I can figure

(I might have replied privately except your UUCP path is too long.)

C> Date: 11 Mar 86 15:58:18 GMT
C> From: ucdavis!lll-lcc!lll-crg!mordor!ut-sally!ut-ngp!cgeiger@ucbvax.berkeley.
edu  (Charles S. Geiger, Esq.)
C> Oh sure, the sun will supernova in 3 billion years, so only humans can save
C> life in the long run

You're arguing against a "strawman". Current theory predicts that only stars
much much larger than our Sun can go supernova. Our Sun will merely go
red-giant in about 5 billion years after first fusing hydrogen faster than it
is now thereby releasing energy at a faster rate thereby boiling the oceans
etc. Even if we shield the Earth from the enhanced emission to avoid boiling
oceans, it'll be difficult to survive the red-giant stage.

It's larger but semi-nearby stars like Betelguese or Antares that will probably
go supernova while still somewhat near Earth, and sometime later Deneb after it
has drifted far away.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #243
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA01647; Fri, 4 Apr 86 03:01:41 PST
	id AA01647; Fri, 4 Apr 86 03:01:41 PST
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 86 03:01:41 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8604041101.AA01647@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #244

*** EOOH ***
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 86 03:01:41 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #244

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 244

Today's Topics:
		    Black holes and useful energy.
		  Re: Dyson spheres: why build 'em?
			  Re: Dysan Spheres
		    Re: Scuttle the Space Program?
		    Dyson spheres: Why build 'em?
			Not just Test Pilots!
			 Re: Dysan spheres...
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Thu, 3 Apr 86 07:40 EST
From: JOHNSON%northeastern.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa, johnson%northeastern.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
Subject:  Black holes and useful energy.

     Draining spin angular momentum would be difficult [using the
galactive magnetic field].  It would seem to require a galactic time
scale to be useful.  You might try for the polarized monopole effect
due the gravity of the situation but I never really believed in
polarized monopoles anyway.  Another choice might be to build a VERY
large coil of some conductor (plasma maybe) around it and wait for any
available magnetic field to give a generator of stellar proportions.
For a "small" black hole this might be feasible.  Also, because of its
high momentum, it wouldn't slow down anytime "soon".  It might be
easier just to let star light fall into it  and use the added energy
to drive UV or x-ray style photocells.  There is  also the idea of
finding a binary (Cygnus x-1?) and tapping the energy of  the filament
as it falls.

     (When I was in college physics we thought of starting a company.  It 
was called The Black Hole Garbage Collection Company.  We would haul 
around a black hole to sites that needed waist disposal and just dump 
everything into it.  That major problem at the time was how to move since 
you couldn't get near it.  Later I though of what happens when the thing 
decides to explode.  I guess nothing's perfect.  Not even back holes.)

Chris Johnson
Northeastern University

------------------------------

Date: 1 Apr 86 20:50:33 GMT
From: ucdavis!ucrmath!hope!corwin@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (John Kempf)
Subject: Re: Dyson spheres: why build 'em?
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> 
> With all this talk of Dyson spheres, one thought occurs to me:
> Why build them around a sun?    If we assume that any society
> advanced enough to build a Dyson sphere has some cheap matter-to-energy
> technique, then what do they need a sun for?  Admittedly, most stars
> are a little more dependable than your average electric plant, but
> surely the problems of collecting, converting, and distributng
> the output of the sun would outweigh this, not to mention such
> things as novae, solar flares, etc.

But wouldn't the problems of feeding the man made energy converter
be just as much of a problem?  After all, Consider: The output of
the energy converter STILL has to be distributed.  Also, once the 
solar conversion unit is set up, it should (assuming that it is
built properly) be self sufficient.  The matter-energy conversion
unit would have to be continuously fed.  As far as flares, etc., I 
would assume that a civilization advanced enough to need a sphere,
would also be able deal with flares, possible along the lines of
Ringworld.

> But now, once you're no longer building the structure AROUND
> something, a sphere is not neccesarily the optimum shape. 

I would think that a cylinder would be a better shape, as that would
allow varied climates, via varied amounts of radiation.
-cory

------------------------------

Date: 2 Apr 86 04:57:46 GMT
From: ucdavis!ucrmath!hope!corwin@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (John Kempf)
Subject: Re: Dysan Spheres
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> I've figured it out.  A Dysan sphere is a cloud of 10**26 floppy disks
> that intercept all the light emitted by the sun.  If mass is a problem
> we use single density disks.  :-)

Alright, Alright, I apologize for mis-spelling Freman Dyson's name.
My only question is are those single or double sided diskettes? :-{)
-cory

------------------------------

Date: 1 Apr 86 22:01:45 GMT
From: ucdavis!ucrmath!hope!xcalibur@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Marco Summers)
Subject: Re: Scuttle the Space Program?
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa


> 
> 2) [enter drag-meeting-completely-off-course-mode]
> 
> What's all this blather about the rights of animals?  Animals
> have no rights.



*** REMESS THIS PLACE WITH YOUR LINEAGE ***


    This depends upon whether we are talking about MORAL rights or LEGAL
rights.

    Morally, speaking, animals, as living, sentient beings, have all the rights
of humans and every other life form --- perhaps MORE than humans, since, by
most accounts, they were here first.

    Legally, they have few (if any) rights.

    I consider this a sad commentary upon the human condition. It is also 
analogous to the school of thought which (in America) gives "rights" only
to American citizens.

                        Xcalibur
                             (aka Marco Summers at the
                             University of California
                             at Riverbed)

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 03 Apr 86 17:58:53 cet
To: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
From: APRI1801%UA.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: Dyson spheres: Why build 'em?


With all this talk of Dyson spheres, one thought occurs to me:
Why build them around a sun?    If we assume that any society
advanced enough to build a Dyson sphere has some cheap matter-to-energy
technique, then what do they need a sun for?  Admittedly, most stars
are a little more dependable than your average electric plant, but
surely the problems of collecting, converting, and distributng
the output of the sun would outweigh this, not to mention such
things as novae, solar flares, etc.
But now, once you're no longer building the structure AROUND
something, a sphere is not neccesarily the optimum shape.  If we
make one more assumption, that the society in question has some
means of generating gravity (or a reasonable facsimile), then the
structure no longer needs spin (or symmetry) and could be any shape
at all.
Am I missing something here?

Mike Asher    BITNET: APRI1801 @ UA
University of Alabama

------------------------------

Date: 2 Apr 86 20:46:14 GMT
From: ihnp4!ihwpt!knudsen@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (mike knudsen)
Subject: Not just Test Pilots!
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Here is a fine letter-to-the-editor lifted from the
Chicago Tribune of 3/31, in response to one of the paper's
regular columnists.  I think it sums up the feelings on these
newsgroups, and I hope the Congressman who has been
passing our stuff on to his colleagues will include this.

--BEGIN QUOTE--
In his Feb 26 column, Bob Greene said only military test pilots
should be sent into space.  Although I understand his concern
for the safety of civilians, I can't agree with him.
Military test pilots haven't cornered the market
on "the right stuff."

In every profession there are people who care enough about
something to risk their life for it.  Christa McAuliffe did not
die trying to be the first civilian in space.
She died trying to prove a point:
	Normal people -- civilians -- make history.
	
The Americas were populated and explored not by the military
but by civilians willing to risk their lives to find a better
world.  The West was won not by the fastest gun but by
families willing to fight drought, Indians, and the unknown
for a piece of land they could call their own.

If we lock the doors of space and give the key only to
test pilots, we destroy the very principle Christa McAuliffe
died for:
	We, the people, are the real heroes.
	Space belongs to us.
	
-- Gregory Wolford

--END QUOTE--  --mike k

------------------------------

Date: 2 Apr 86 22:39:36 GMT
From: voder!kontron!cramer@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: Dysan spheres...
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> To talk about intermediate structures between a dyson sphere and 
> a planet,  how many "earth"s could we put in orbit 93 million miles away 
> from the sun before gravitational effects makes the whole structure
> unstable?  This is a much smaller scale construction project than a Dyson 
> sphere with many of the advantages and it lacks certain of the problems
> (namely all the "earth"s will have a real night and so on).
> 

Along with gravitational effects damaging stability, what about collisions
when Earth #48 stamps on the brakes for a comet crossing our orbit? :-)
It's bad enough on the freeways.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #244
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA01992; Sat, 5 Apr 86 03:01:24 PST
	id AA01992; Sat, 5 Apr 86 03:01:24 PST
Date: Sat, 5 Apr 86 03:01:24 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8604051101.AA01992@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #245

*** EOOH ***
Date: Sat, 5 Apr 86 03:01:24 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #245

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 245

Today's Topics:
	 animal rights (drifting away from SPACE topic, sigh)
			 Tricks with Tethers
       Private altruistic investment not for private companies
		Re: Morton-Thiokol Engineering Claims
		    History of Skylab #3 - Reentry
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 1986 April 04 07:11:26 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@su-ai.arpa>
To: ucdavis!ucrmath!hope!xcalibur@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Cc: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
Subject: animal rights (drifting away from SPACE topic, sigh)

MS> Date: 1 Apr 86 22:01:45 GMT
MS> From: ucdavis!ucrmath!hope!xcalibur@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Marco Summers)
MS> Subject: Re: Scuttle the Space Program? [sic, that ain't the topic]
MS>     Morally, speaking, animals, as living, sentient beings, have
MS> all the rights of humans and every other life form --- perhaps MORE
MS> than humans, since, by most accounts, they were here first.

Most of the animals that were here first are distant ancestors of
those currently living. Whether these deceased ancestors have any
rights is moot, since we are condidering only the rights of those
creatures currently living. If you claim that because an animal's
ancestors were here before us an animal has more rights, well our
ancestors were here just as long, since we all evolved from the same
bacteria 3.5 billion years ago or longer.

------------------------------

Date:         Fri, 04 Apr 86 15:37:44 EST
From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
To: space digest <SPACE@s1-b.arpa>
Subject:      Tricks with Tethers

Boosting a satellite into geosynchronous orbit (while retrieving one
already there):
     The satellite you want to put into geosynch is launched into an orbit
with apogee 20,000 km (ie., the apogee is halfway to geosynch).  The
satellite you want to retrieve is dropped into an orbit with perigee
20,000 km.  Then, when the two satellites pass each other, you toss a
rope from one to the other.  The one on top is moving faster.  The
two satellites then rotate around their common center of mass.  When the
tethered satellite system has rotated 180 degrees, let go of the rope.
(obviously, the two satellites have to be of equal mass for this to work)
Presto, now the satellite you want in geosynch is in an orbit with perigee
20,000 km and apogee geosynch, and the one you want to retreive is in
orbit the one you want to boost started from.  A little kick at the apogee,
and you're done.
     The actual savings in energy is just such that you have boosted.
one satellite and recovered the other using the amount of energy it
would normally take to just launch one.  If you chain a lot of
satellites together--N satellites ascending and N descending--you could
save a lot more.
     (of course, this is only worthwhile if you have a lot of satellites
in geosynch you want to get back down).

                   --Geoffrey A. Landis, Brown University
                     Reply to: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA

------------------------------

Date: 1986 April 05 00:36:28 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@su-ai.arpa>
To: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu
Cc: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Private altruistic investment not for private companies

K> Date: Sun, 30 Mar 86 17:54:18 EST
K> From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu>
K> Subject: Re: Free goods from free space

K>   You seem to think that while governments may have enough wealth to
K> develop space resources, that individuals and corporations do not.

I think you're beating a straw man. The argument isn't that companies,
if they pool their funds, don't have as much money as government has.
The argument is that anybody who pools is at a disadvantage compared
to those which don't pool because there's no payback for many years by
which time the original research investment will have become unrelated
to who gets the payback, i.e. everyone in the world has an equal
chance of getting payback, unlike normal shortterm ventures where only
the company making the investment gets the payback. A large government
such as the USA (something like half the gross national product in the
world??) gets such a large share of the payback when it finally
happens that even though other nations get the same payback at zero
investment, the share of payback the USA gets is enough to make it
worthwhile. But small nations and individual companies won't get
enough share of the payback, so their altruistic investment will hurt
them to bankruptcy, they aren't large enough to afford to be
altruistic to help the whole human race at their own private expense.

Years in the future when the basic research is done and the general
facilities such as launching payloads and refueling in space etc. are
developed, when the interval between investment and payback is short
compared to the lifetime of a patent or trade secret, companies will
be able to make an investment and get back nearly all the profits, and
then investment will be feasible for any company that has a good idea
and can borrow enough money to bring the project to payback.

------------------------------

Date: 5 Apr 86 03:57:54 GMT
From: decvax!linus!axiom!paul@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Paul O`Shaughnessy)
Subject: Re: Morton-Thiokol Engineering Claims
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>From henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) Wed Mar 12 15:55:33 1986

>The Morton-Thiokol engineers who will participate in redesign of the SRB
>seals should be told that one of them will be randomly selected to be a
>passenger on the first test flight.  THEN we'd see what's within their
>powers; I suspect it would be considerably more than you suggest.

YES!  The first flight should be packed full of Morton-Thiokol engineers
and NASA bureaucrats.  No launching in subzero temperatures for those
talented folk, I can assure you.


-----------------
  Paul O'Shaughnessy @ Axiom Technology, Newton, Massachusetts
  Home of the 'Management Team'      {ihnp4,utzoo}!linus!axiom!paul (uucp)
                  {bellcore!topaz,decvax!seismo}!harvard!axiom!paul (uucp)

------------------------------

Date: 4 Apr 86 14:29:15 GMT
From: ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dave Newkirk)
Subject: History of Skylab #3 - Reentry
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

While the workshop, with no provision for controlled reentry, awaited
asssembly and checkout at the Cape, the time came to call for proposals
to build Shuttle's launch system.  Implementing recommendations made the
previous year, Deputy Administrator George Low ordered that the request
for proposals include the requirement for a study of the reentry hazard
created by the large fuel tanks.
...
The discussion of the hazards of orbital debris raised questions in the
mind of Administrator James C. Fletcher, who had taken over in 1971
after the decision to forego controlled reentry for Skylab had already
been made.  Fletcher, unwilling to accept the risk involved if he had
any practical alternative, ordered the matter reopened.  With just over
four months remaining before launch, program director William Schneider
directed Marshall and MSC to study the possibility of using the main
engine of the Apollo spacecraft to deorbit Skylab as the last crew left
it.
...in April 1973 a group at Houston began reviewing the techniques and
operational procedures for deorbiting the cluster with the service
propulsion system of the Apollo spacecraft.  By the time the workshop
was launched, the group was well into its task and had defined many of
the problems that would have to be worked.  But their efforts were
wasted.  The loss of the micrometeroid shield and the damage to the
workshop's solar arrays during launch created too many engineering
uncertainties that could not be dealt wih.  On 13 July 1973 Schneider
stopped all studies on controlled deorbit.  Whatever problems might
be created by the reentry of the workshop would have to be solved later.

(Excerpt from "Living and Working in Space - A History of Skylab", NASA
SP-4208, for sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Gov't Printing
Office, Washington, D.C. 20402)
-- 
				Dave Newkirk, ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #245
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA00276; Sun, 6 Apr 86 12:46:34 PST
	id AA00276; Sun, 6 Apr 86 12:46:34 PST
Date: Sun, 6 Apr 86 12:46:34 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8604062046.AA00276@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #246

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 246

Today's Topics:
		  Re: Black Holes and Useful Energy
			 ... Interstellar War
			Re: nickel in Sudbury
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 5 Apr 86 06:47:46 GMT
From: decwrl!magic!stolfi@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Jorge Stolfi)
Subject: Re: Black Holes and Useful Energy
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

REM%IMSSS@SU-AI.ARPA (Robert Elton Maas) writes:
R>
R> Jim McGrath <J.JPM@[36.21.0.13]> Writes:
R> J> All the literature I have read always concentrated on recovering the
R> J> energy stored by the black hole as spin [...]
R>
R>Unfortunately spin is a conserved quantity. If you spin down the black
R>hole you must corresponding spin up the spaceship.

  You can carry two black holes with equal but opposite spin, and
  remove energy from both at the same rate. This trick
  may be helpful also when creating the spinning black holes, if you
  plan to do it a space factory...

    Jorge Stolfi
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The opinions expressed above are not the sort of thing my employer,
my teachers, my friends, or my mother would like to be associated with.

------------------------------

Date: 5 Apr 86 06:20:11 GMT
From: decvax!mcnc!ncsu!uvacs!rwl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Ray Lubinsky)
Subject: ... Interstellar War
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> While it is certainly possible to make intersteller war, the 
> question is 'why bother?'

Why bother to do anything?  Why bother to build the pyramids in Giza?   Why
bother  to  build  the  hanging  gardens of Babylon?  Why bother to explore
space?  Somebody gets it into his head to do something, so it's  done.   Do
you expect a planet-wide quorum before anything major happens in the world?

> What possible motive could be concieved for making a war?
> Conquest?  Kinda hard to adminisrate a planet when it takes 
> several years to communicate with it.  Eventualy, it would revolt
> successfully.

That didn't seem to stop the English, Spanish,  and  Portuguese  when  they
colonized the Americas.

> Idiological?  It is hard enough to get one country to agree on something,
> let alone a planet.

Maybe.  Then again, most of Western Europe was involved  in  the  Crusades.
Most  of the western world was allied against the Axis powers in WWII.  Who
can say what issues may motivate people to band together, however briefly.

> Resources?  Seems kinda wasteful to attack one solar system when there 
> are others at about the same distance (including your own)
> -cory

In our solar system, the ratio of habitable planets to terrestrials is  1:4
at  best.   What  if even this ratio is enormously large?  Gerard K. O'Neil
notwithstanding, maybe people don't *like* living  in  space  colonies  and
would rather have a planet under their heels.  Seems like habitable planets
would be a pretty choice resource at that rate.

And then, there's just the possibility of a misunderstanding that gets  out
of  hand.   Refer to Joe Haldemann's _The_Forever_War_ for details.  Now, I
don't think it's too likely that we'll be embroiled in an interstellar  war
any time in the near future, but as far as the motivating circumstances go,
it would be possible.

-- 

Ray Lubinsky	University of Virginia, Dept. of Computer Science
		UUCP: ...!cbosgd!uvacs!rwl or ...!decvax!mcnc!ncsu!uvacs!rwl

------------------------------

Date: 4 Apr 86 16:03:56 GMT
From: ihnp4!alberta!ubc-vision!garfield!dalcs!sys1@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (David Jones)
Subject: Re: nickel in Sudbury
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

I will now extend the tangent previously extended by Mark Brader
about the discussion following "What is a nickel made of?"

Someone started this off by saying American nickels are mostly
copper.

Re: Candian nickels:
>>> ....100% pure Canadian-mined nickel, mostly mined in Sudbury
>
>Henry Spencer remarked:
>> Yes, but for reasons having nothing to do with acid fumes.  The Apollo
>> astronauts trained at Sudbury because the Sudbury basin is strongly
>> suspected to be a meteorite crater.  The barrenness of the landscape was
>> irrelevant, although this misunderstanding was so prevalent that the
>> mayor of Sudbury (among others) took offense.
>

Mark Brader added:

>But he left out the interesting part.  The nickel comes from the meteorite.
>Something like 70-80% of the world's total supply of nickel comes from
>this one meteorite!  [I can't find where I read this, but I suspect that
>it refers to the total of nickel that has been mined rather than reserves.]

	Now as I recall from my high school geography, there are two
theories about why there is so much nickel in the Sudbury area.  The first
is the one referred to by Mark above, and the second is that there was a
massive intrusion of molten rock that cooled *very* slowly allowing the
various metals to separate as each reached their `freezing' points.
I forget whether this latter theory involved the meteorite doing damage
to the crust to allow the intrusion, or whether a big fat volcano
was enough.

	Odd how a question to test how dumb a person is elicits such a
discussion.

					David Jones

CDN:	sys1@cs.dal.cdn
UUCP:	...!{utcsri, seismo!ihnp4!dartvax}!dalcs!sys1
ARPA:	sys1%cs.dal.cdn%ubc.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
CSNET:	sys1%cs.dal.cdn@ubc.csnet

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #246
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA02151; Mon, 7 Apr 86 03:01:32 PST
	id AA02151; Mon, 7 Apr 86 03:01:32 PST
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 86 03:01:32 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8604071101.AA02151@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #247

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 247

Today's Topics:
				Rights
		     Belated April fools message
			   Thousand Earths
			     Re: Infrared
			     Air & Space
			 Where is everybody?
	     Re: Fermi Paradox, or "Where is everybody?"
		  Dyson spheres...perhaps a new use
			 SPACE Digest V6 #246
			 SPACE Digest V6 #246
			partial Dyson spheres
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun,  6 Apr 86 14:03:58 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu>
Subject: Rights
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Poli-Sci@red.rutgers.edu

    From: ucdavis!ucrmath!hope!xcalibur@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Marco Summers)

    Morally, speaking, animals ... have all the rights of humans and every
    other life form --- perhaps MORE than humans, since, by most accounts,
    they were here first.

  And plants were here before animals.  Do they have even more rights,
i.e. the right not to be eaten by those upstart animals and by people?
  If you really believe this, what do you eat?

    It is also analogous to the school of thought which (in America) gives
    "rights" only to American citizens.

  People in every country have rights, whether or not that country
recognizes them.
  Please explain how the U.S. can give rights to Soviet citizens.
Wouldn't we have to overthrow the Soviet government first?  Do you
advocate this?

  I'm directing any replies to the political science list,
POLI-SCI @ RUTGERS (sorry, I don't know the usenet equivalent).
This doesn't belong on SPACE.
								...Keith

------------------------------

Date: Sun,  6 Apr 86 14:49:05 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu>
Subject: Belated April fools message
To: REM%IMSSS@su-ai.arpa
Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@s1-b.arpa

    From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@su-ai.arpa>

    Still, if we ever get our hands on (not literally, unless we want to lose
    part of our hands) a small black hole, it would be worth studying.

  That's it!  A practical use for those small black holes at last!
  A black hole fingernail clipper!
								...Keith

------------------------------

Date: Sun,  6 Apr 86 14:17:55 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu>
Subject: Thousand Earths
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu

  Building multiple Earths is not easier than building a Dyson sphere.
Planets are extremely inefficient ways to collect sunlight and to use
matter.
  The vast majority of the mass of the Earth is used simply for
gravity.  And we don't really want gravity in that form, as it makes
it difficult to leave Earth.  Spin is a much better source of
'gravity'.
  Once again, please realize that a Dyson sphere is not necessarily
one solid object or even remotely spherical.  Consider about ten to
the seventeenth office/apartment buildings, each attached to another
one by a cable, and set spinning about their common center to provide
artificial gravity.  Also about ten to the sixteenth farms, which
would be large flat things facing the sun.  And about ten to the
fifteenth factories, which would be all sorts of shapes, and would
probably have one or more large parabolic mirrors aimed at the sun.
Also, there might be forests, consisting of plants genetically
engineered to live in space.  Little or no sunlight would get through
all of this to escape into interstellar space, just as in a dense
forest on Earth, little sunlight ever reaches the ground.
								...Keith

------------------------------

Date: 3 Apr 86 17:44:09 GMT
From: ucdavis!ucrmath!hope!corwin@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (John Kempf)
Subject: Re: Infrared
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In several articals, Kieth Lynch has written about civilization 
producing heat waste.  My only complaint is that this assumes that
civilization occurs from a life form that lives in an environment
whose temperature cycles around the freezing point of water, or 
something close to it.  What would happen if there were a life form
similar to the Outsiders in Larry Niven's Known Space series?
This life form is based on helium 2, and gets its energy through
the thermo-electric effect.  Assuming such a life form could exist
(I have no data either way), It would seem to me that they would 
avoid heat producing technologies.  
-cory

------------------------------

Date: 4 Apr 86 20:56:24 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-lcc!lll-crg!mordor!ut-sally!ut-ngp!ahna422@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Carlos Perez)
Subject: Air & Space
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

I would like to complement Dave, et. al., for an excellent first
issue of Smithsonian's Air & Space magazine.  I am pleasantly
surprised that authors are taking advantage of electronic nets
to facilitate the writing of articles.  Keep up the great work.

C. H. Perez

------------------------------

Date: 5 Apr 86 20:56:15 GMT
From: nike!topaz!bentley!kwh@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (KW Heuer)
Subject: Where is everybody?
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <860331231142.732170@HIS-BILLERICA-MULTICS.ARPA>
Jong@HIS-BILLERICA-MULTICS.ARPA writes:

>Michael Papagiannis ... takes the position that there are no other
>advanced civilizations out there for us to encounter ....  It's
>sort of the anti-Sagan position, and my comment on it is that it
>shows you what academics will do for attention.

What does he mean by "out there"?  That there are no ETIs within
one light-generation, or in the galaxy, or the entire universe, or
what?

Let's phrase the question a little differently.  How far away is the
next nearest spacegoing civilization?  It'd be interesting to see the
distribution of answers (from 0, meaning they are already here, to
infinity, meaning they don't exist).  My guess is 500-1000 ly.

Karl W. Z. Heuer (ihnp4!bentley!kwh), The Walking Lint
"Either we are alone or we are not.  Both options are mind-boggling."
(Sorry, don't know who said it.)

------------------------------

Date: 5 Apr 86 21:22:51 GMT
From: nike!topaz!bentley!kwh@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (KW Heuer)
Subject: Re: Fermi Paradox, or "Where is everybody?"
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <8603281934.AA00600@s1-b.arpa> Dave-Platt%LADC@SYSTEM-M (Dave Platt) writes:
>There's an interesting science-fact article in the latest issue of
>Analog magazine that reflects on a possible solution to the Fermi paradox.
>... (I forget the author's name, unfortunately)

Perhaps it should be mentioned that the "latest issue" is May 1986, despite
its March availability.  The author is Duncan Lunan.

The Fermi paradox says, in effect, "Why haven't the ETIs reached Earth yet?"
with the implication that interstellar travel is easy.  It seems to me that
this is a premature and arrogant attitute for a race that has just barely
made it to the moon.  Wait another century, see if we have any interstellar
cruise ships or Von Neumann probes, and ask the question again.  I bet we'll
have a whole different set of answers.

Karl W. Z. Heuer (ihnp4!bentley!kwh), The Walking Lint

------------------------------

Date: 1 Apr 86 16:20:58 GMT
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!k.cs.cmu.edu!dep@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (David Pugh)
Subject: Dyson spheres...perhaps a new use
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa


    Dyson spheres are an interesting idea, but I don't think the conventional
use for them (using them to collect _all_ the sun's energy) would be all that
effective. The cost of building the sphere would be so high that it probably
wouldn't be justified.

    Consider another use, however...a STL star-faring civilization finds
a nice planet in a nearby system, nice except that the star is has a high
variability or emits _big_ flares. It seems to me that putting a _lot_ of
dust in a close orbit around the sun would tend to dampen the flares and,
if the dust had a very high heat capacity, reduce the variability.

    This type of Dyson's sphere would be far easier to build...no need,
for example, to try to route power from the sphere to the civilization.
In addition, you could start small, only 'dusting' a band around the sun
corresponding to where people are going to be & expanding the coverage
as more and more of the system is used.

    From elsewhere, the sun would look like a red giant -- much hotter than
your conventional Dyson sphere, but cooler than the original sun.

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1986  23:43 EST
From: MINSKY%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Cc: Space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #246
In-Reply-To: Msg of 6 Apr 1986  15:59-EST from Ted Anderson <ota at s1-b.arpa>

About the twin counter-spinning black holes: It will be hard to keep them 
from fusing together in your factory, unless they, too, are spinning around one another.  Maybe we'll end up with three or four before they form a
convenient, easy-to-use lab setup.

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1986  23:43 EST
From: MINSKY%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Cc: Space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #246
In-Reply-To: Msg of 6 Apr 1986  15:59-EST from Ted Anderson <ota at s1-b.arpa>

About the twin counter-spinning black holes: It will be hard to keep them 
from fusing together in your factory, unless they, too, are spinning around one another.  Maybe we'll end up with three or four before they form a
convenient, easy-to-use lab setup.

------------------------------

Date: 07-Apr-1986 0842
From: redford%jeremy.DEC@decwrl.dec.com  (John Redford)
To: space@s1-b.arpa, redford%jeremy.DEC@decwrl.dec.com
Subject: partial Dyson spheres


> To talk about intermediate structures between a dyson sphere and 
> a planet,  how many "earth"s could we put in orbit 93 million miles away 
> from the sun before gravitational effects makes the whole structure
> unstable?  This is a much smaller scale construction project than a Dyson 
> sphere with many of the advantages and it lacks certain of the problems
> (namely all the "earth"s will have a real night and so on).

Back in the sixties there was an extensive study of UFOs headed by
Richard Condon, a fairly well-known experimental physicist.  They 
published a thick book called the Condon Report, hoping to finally quell
the UFO hysteria.  They failed, of course (people just thought it 
was another government cover-up), but the book did discuss a 
number of interesting questions.  One of them was whether there could 
be a counter-Earth, an earth that always kept on the far side of the sun.
Presumably this was where the saucers would come from, since the 
other planets of the solar system didn't look too hospitable.

They decided that there couldn't be such a planet.  Perturbations 
from other planets would eventually make it drift out from the 180 degree
position, and there wouldn't be any restoring force.  I would think, 
in fact, that the attraction of the earth would eventually pull it 
and the earth together, but I'm not a gravitational dynamicist.

A body CAN share an orbit with another body if it is at the Lagrange 
points L4 or L5, sixty degrees ahead of or behind the main body.  However,
the body must be substantially smaller for the orbit to be stable, 
something like 25 times smaller, I think.  There was an old Hal 
Clement story that revolved on this point (sorry).  For the earth's 
orbit, that means that you could build something several times more 
massive than the Moon at the points.  You'd have a lot more room at 
Jupiter's Lagrange points, but wouldn't get as much sunlight.

Of course, the asteroid belt is an example of millions of planetoids 
in roughly the same orbit.  I don't know if it's stable, though.  
They could be bashing into each other all the time and we'd never know.
It could be that they come in such small pieces because they've been 
grinding each other to bits for the last X billion years.  The 
present theories of planetary rings say that there are significant 
numbers of collisions between the particles, but the rings are in a 
different regime from the asteroids, being inside the Roche limit.

Interesting aside: Saturn's rings were originally thought to be a 
solid ring around the planet, a sort of natural Ringworld.  Opinion 
turned against that idea, though, when the gaps in the rings were 
discovered, and when it was found that Saturn could be seen through 
the A ring.  The last nail in the coffin came from James Clerk 
Maxwell, who proved that a solid ring was dynamically impossible.
The science of two hundred years ago appears in the science fiction 
of today!  Back to the future!

John Redford
DEC-Hudson

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #247
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA05096; Tue, 8 Apr 86 03:01:21 PST
	id AA05096; Tue, 8 Apr 86 03:01:21 PST
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 86 03:01:21 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8604081101.AA05096@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #248

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 248

Today's Topics:
		   Re: Survivability of astronauts
			       Geostar
				 Heat
			 Interstellar travel
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 2 Apr 86 23:38:12 GMT
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!rlgvax!hadron!klr@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Kurt L. Reisler)
Subject: Re: Survivability of astronauts
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <728@aicchi.UUCP> dbb@aicchi.UUCP (Burch) writes:
>
>The B1-a had an escape pod system where the enire crew compartment would
>separate and come down on parachutes.  It would be possible to completely
>redesign the shuttle to have this feature, but it is potentally more
>dangerous than the current situation; What if it separated at the wrong
>time, like in orbit??
>
>
>-- 
>-David B. (Ben) Burch
> Analyst's International Corp.
> Chicago Branch (ihnp4!aicchi!dbb)
>
>"Argue for your limitations, and they are yours"

	If memory serves me, the only B-1 to have crashed, was a B-1a with
	such an escape pod.  The pod did eject (or was it thrown from the
	wreckage?), but the crew died, either in the pod, or when they were
	thrown from it.  Pictures that appeared in AWS&T (Aviation Leak and
	Space Mythology) clearly showed the wreckage of the escape pod about
	100+ meters away from the wreckage of the bomber.

	Keep the dream alive!  Write your Congress-critter.

------------------------------

Date: 26 Mar 86 15:48:09 EST
From: LANTZ@red.rutgers.edu
Subject: Geostar
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

	According to the local paper here in New Brunswick, NJ,
(The Home News) Geostar will be launched this comming Friday (28-Mar-86)
on an Ariane booster.  The first Geostar satellite will enable the company
to locate geostar transmitters (latitude, longitude, and altitude) within
one-eighth of a mile.  A second satellite will be launched in 1988 or 89,
and will improve the accuracy to within 30 feet.  The system is scheduled
to be in operation by September of 1986.  The first customer is a
railroad holding company, which will use the system for locating and
tracking rail cars.
	Each truck, car, plane, or what-have-you, carries a transmitter
which sends a signal to the satellite.  The satellite then relays the
location to the companies receiving station in West Windsor, NJ.  From
there the info is passed over long-distance phone lines to the subscribing
companies computer center.  They currently have backorders for 12,000
transmitters.

	Well, it's good to here that they got their FCC approval, and
are going ahead with the project!

Brian Lantz (Lantz@Rutgers)
-------

------------------------------

Date: Mon,  7 Apr 86 23:18:59 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu>
Subject: Heat
To: ucdavis!ucrmath!hope!corwin@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@s1-b.arpa

    From: ucdavis!ucrmath!hope!corwin@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (John Kempf)

    In several articals, [Keith] Lynch has written about civilization 
    producing heat waste.  My only complaint is that this assumes that
    civilization occurs from a life form that lives in an environment
    whose temperature cycles around the freezing point of water, or 
    something close to it.

  No it doesn't.  Heat and temperature aren't the same thing at all.

    What would happen if there were a life form
    similar to the Outsiders in Larry Niven's Known Space series?
    This life form is based on helium 2, and gets its energy through
    the thermo-electric effect.  Assuming such a life form could exist
    (I have no data either way), It would seem to me that they would 
    avoid heat producing technologies.

  They would certainly avoid producing large amounts of heat in their
living areas.  But then so do we.  Steel is not cast on one's living
room carpet.
  And even if they do have a low temperature technology, that doesn't
mean it is low energy.  It just means that all the heat would be
dumped at 4 degrees Kelvin or whatever.  Other than requiring an
extremely large radiating surface to dissipate each watt of heat,
there is no problem with this.
								...Keith

------------------------------

Date: Mon,  7 Apr 86 23:27:35 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu>
Subject: Interstellar travel
To: nike!topaz!bentley!kwh@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Cc: Space@s1-b.arpa

    From: nike!topaz!bentley!kwh@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (KW Heuer)

    The Fermi paradox says, in effect, "Why haven't the ETIs reached Earth
    yet?" with the implication that interstellar travel is easy.  It seems to
    me that this is a premature and arrogant attitute for a race that has just
    barely made it to the moon.

  I think it would be far more arrogant to say "We don't have
interstellar travel therefore it's impossible".
  We have not "just barely made it to the moon".  We have several
probes on their way out of the solar system.

    Wait another century, see if we have any interstellar cruise ships or ...

  Sorry, but I don't have another century.  My doctor only gives my 70
years to live.
  We have speculate with the data we have on hand.  That is the only
way progress can ever be made.
								...Keith

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #248
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA08497; Wed, 9 Apr 86 03:01:39 PST
	id AA08497; Wed, 9 Apr 86 03:01:39 PST
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 86 03:01:39 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8604091101.AA08497@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #249

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 249

Today's Topics:
			    catch a comet
		Re: Morton-Thiokol Engineering Claims
		   Geostar with only one satellite?
		    Re: Sun won't go supernova...
			 the greening of Mars
   The space shuttle crew is valuable - for several million reasons
		      Cost of space colonization
			  Re: catch a comet
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 4 Apr 86 18:32:16 GMT
From: ihnp4!inuxc!inuxe!fred@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Fred Mendenhall)
Subject: catch a comet
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***

	As comet Halley starts heading back into outer reaches of
the solar system, I started to think wouldn't it be wonderful if the
next time it returned peoplekind had gotten their act together well
enough that it would be worthwhile to catch and keep Halley for 
the resources it could provide.  So the questions that then popped in my
mind were obvious. What, when and where are the favorable points in
Halley's next orbit to nudge it so as to capture it somewhere in the
Earth-Moon system.

	I think Phil Karn once mentioned that aphelion is usually
a good point because it typically requires low energy to make
orbital changes at this point, (actually he said apogee because
he was talking about Earth Satellites) but lets rule that out
because its a long way to go to catch the bugger.

 Any ideas?

					Fred Mendenhall

------------------------------

Date: 7 Apr 86 23:05:40 GMT
From: sdcsvax!noscvax!rupp@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (William L. Rupp)
Subject: Re: Morton-Thiokol Engineering Claims
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <206@axiom.UUCP>, paul@axiom.UUCP (Paul O`Shaughnessy) writes:
> 
> YES!  The first flight should be packed full of Morton-Thiokol engineers
> and NASA bureaucrats.  No launching in subzero temperatures for those
> talented folk, I can assure you.
> 

I thought one of my earlier postings had settled this issue! (I tell you, I
don't get no respect!)  Seriously, folks, lay off the engineers at MT.  Those
netlanders who put them in the same category as the NASA officials responsible
for the launch decision are being both short-sighted and unfair.  The
NASA honchos had two other warnings (Rockwell and ??, I forget at the moment)
and went ahead anyway.  Some, at least, of the MT engineers made vigorous
warnings.  It is not their fault that they weren't listened to.  I fail
to understand why posters can't see that.  Let's move to other questions.

------------------------------

Date: 08-Apr-1986 1451
From: redford%jeremy.DEC@decwrl.dec.com  (John Redford)
To: space@s1-b.arpa, redford%jeremy.DEC@decwrl.dec.com
Subject: Geostar with only one satellite?


re: launch of the first Geostar

I thought that the Geostar navigation system operated by measuring the
time when a signal from a transmitter reached three different
satellites. The time difference for each pair of satellites defined a
hyperbolic surface that the transmitter would sit on, and the
intersection of the three hyperboloids determined the exact position.
How can this work with only one satellite? For that matter how could
it work with just two?  Anybody have further info? 

John Redford
DEC-Israel

------------------------------

Date: 6 Apr 86 05:13:10 GMT
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!oberon!hartsoug@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Mike Hartsough)
Subject: Re: Sun won't go supernova...
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>C> Oh sure, the sun will supernova in 3 billion years, so only humans can save
>C> life in the long run
>
>much much larger than our Sun can go supernova. Our Sun will merely go
>red-giant in about 5 billion years after first fusing hydrogen faster than it

As I understand it (and I'm certainly no expert), the/our Sun is of the
proper size to "go" Nebular (correct terminology?). I believe that I got
this info from Carl Sagan's book "Cosmos", but I'm not sure...


-- 
	Michael J. Hartsough
	hartsoug@oberon.UUCP

It is to the interest of the commonwealth of mankind that there should
be someone who is unconquered, someone against whom fortune has no power.
			---- Seneca
That's why I'm here.

------------------------------

Date: 08-Apr-1986 1949
From: redford%jeremy.DEC@decwrl.dec.com  (John Redford)
To: space@s1-b.arpa, redford%jeremy.DEC@decwrl.dec.com
Subject: the greening of Mars


A while ago a friend sent me an interesting book, "The Greening of 
Mars" by James Lovelock and Michael Allaby (Warner books paperback,
(c) 1984).  It discusses the terraforming of Mars through the reminisces
of one of its colonists.   The technique is interesting, and I 
wonder if anyone out there can say more about its feasibility.

Remember the scare a while back that freon from aerosol cans could be 
destroying the ozone layer?  According to Lovelock (who invented some 
of the instruments used in measuring tiny ozone concentrations) it 
proved to be a false alarm, but freon in cans was banned anyhow.  
Freon may not destroy ozone, but it can have an important effect on the 
atmosphere because it absorbs infrared radiation very well.  In fact, 
a given amount of freon (or more generally, the chloro-fluoro-carbon 
compounds, CFCs) will absorb as much infrared as 1000 times as much 
carbon dioxide.  

If enough of it could be put into Mars's atmosphere, 
the surface temperature could rise substantially.  The rise would 
cause huge dust storms, which would blacken the polar ice caps, 
causing still further rises.  Eventually, the surface would be warm 
enough to support Antarctic algae.  If black algae were used, the 
surface would stay dark.  The polar ice caps would melt completely, 
since they are made of carbon dioxide frost, thus raising the air pressure.
The pressure would increase to about a sixth that of the earth at sea level,
low but not intolerable if one is breathing almost pure oxygen.
As the algae spread, more oxygen would be released into the air.  As 
the temperature increased, other kinds of plants could survive 
outside, and the proportion of oxygen would rise still higher.  It 
would not rise so much that a human could breathe the Martian air unaided,
but you could go outside without a space suit.  You might not even 
need an oxygen tank; a membrane system could concentrate the oxygen 
in the air enough to make it breathable.  Plants could survive 
unaided because they don't need high 
oxygen levels - they use carbon dioxide.

The CFCs are sent to Mars in obsolete ICBMs.  As guidance systems 
improve, the older rockets will become of less and less value.  Strap 
a few of them together, and they could deliver a couple of tons of 
freon to Mars.  Since there are several thousand of them rotting away 
in silos and warehouses, quite a lot of freon could be delivered.  Of course,
there is probably some way to make the freon on the spot, but a great 
deal of it is needed at once to kick the Martian ecosystem out of its 
present metastable state.

The book is written at a pretty low level, and is already wrong on 
some political points, but is interesting nonetheless.  Anybody know 
if this might actually work?

John Redford
DEC-Israel

------------------------------

Date: 8 Apr 86 02:50:53 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!watnot!watdcsu!magore@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (M.A.Gore - ICR)
Subject: The space shuttle crew is valuable - for several million reasons
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

- Line eater space for rent -

       I have been following the discussion about  the  value  of
shuttle crew and their safety. I am distressed to note several of
the postings that are currently bouncing around have left  a  few
*MILLION*  terms  out  of  their  `value  equations'.  I'm rather
optimistic the people at NASA and in political  power  understand
these `terms' can vote (-:

       Seriously these questions (like the  value  of  the  crew)
have  to  take  into  account  the personal feelings of *ALL* who
support the space program.

       If the issue (value of crew) were put to a  vote  I  think
the  answers  would  be  of  great  benefit  to the astronauts. I
personally feel that many of the people  who  support  the  space
program  think  that  the crew is more important than the shuttle
even to the point of no comparison. (Being optimistic again...)

My opinion is:
       I care for those who go *ON OUR BEHALF*.   So  let  *THEM*
make the choice, then let's back them.

Now insert the several other million points of view here and  you
*might* get close the a real "equation" for just this one case.

       Slight topic change.  Let  those  who  support  the  space
program  support  it.   Let  those  who don't not. And `never the
twain shall meet'. (Do I hear any cheers?)

       Anyone  out  there  object  to  the   spending   of   over
$6,000,000,000  per  year  on  pizza in North America? What gives
something value are the people that support it. If the people who
support  it think it's worthwhile isn't that what matters? If I'm
redundant have I made a point? (-:

Disclaimer: This is NOT a self referential disclaimer disclaiming
the word `not'

------------------------------

Date: Tue,  8 Apr 86 23:29:57 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu>
Subject: Cost of space colonization
To: Space@s1-b.arpa

  It costs $1500 to launch one pound of payload on the Space Shuttle.
This makes it the most expensive form of transportaion ever, right?
This puts it out of the range of the common man, right?
  Wrong.

  In the colonial era, it was typical for a person to promise to work
for substinence wages for seven years in return for passage to
America.
  If a typical present-day wage is $20,000 based on a 40 hour week,
and if these indentured servants typically worked an 80 day week that
would be $280,000 over the seven year period.  Assuming a tenth of
that is needed for substinence, that leaves $252,000.
  This is sufficient to pay for launch of 168 pounds at $1500 per
pound.  If we assume that most of the materials for structure, air,
water, and food are brought in from the asteroid belt by cheap
unmanned ion rockets, little would have to be launched from Earth
except people.
  Actually, since space industry is likely to be much higher paying
that Earth-based industry, and since we will get an economy of scale
reducing the costs of each launch if we have far more shuttles and far
more launches, the economics should be even more favorable.
								...Keith

------------------------------

Date: 9 Apr 86 05:16:06 GMT
From: ucbjade!ucbruby!dean@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: catch a comet
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <760@inuxe.UUCP> fred@inuxe.UUCP (Fred Mendenhall) writes:
>	As comet Halley starts heading back into outer reaches of
>the solar system, I started to think wouldn't it be wonderful if the
>next time it returned peoplekind had gotten their act together well
>enough that it would be worthwhile to catch and keep Halley for 
>the resources it could provide....

Such peace and cooperation would indeed be wonderful.  But I believe that
such a society would be reluctant to reach out and swat down an object
that has had such profound effects on mankind.  Halley's "value" lies
not in the resources it holds but in the poetry it inspires.

-Dean Pentcheff        (dean@ucbruby)

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #249
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA10971; Thu, 10 Apr 86 03:01:24 PST
	id AA10971; Thu, 10 Apr 86 03:01:24 PST
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 86 03:01:24 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8604101101.AA10971@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #250

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 250

Today's Topics:
			    Webb interview
		Re: Morton-Thiokol Engineering Claims
			  RE: Fermi-Paradox
supernova -> red giant -> nebula (topic change, not solar metamorph...)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 9 Apr 86 00:01:32 GMT
From: decvax!linus!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Webb interview
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

The March L5 News has an interview with Dr. David C. Webb of the National
Commission on Space.  Some excerpts:

"A technological program cannot operate nor be developed if it is open to
being taken apart every year and changed around as, indeed, the Shuttle
was.  The Shuttle was originally designed -- if you remember 1972 -- to
keep the cost of going into orbit to $100 a pound.  Well, it's approximately
$1800 minimum and $2000 a pound average to fly in the Shuttle today.  Why?
Because the Shuttle was designed by committee.  At least it wasn't so much
designed by committee as approved by committee.  And the result is a
disaster, a three-humped camel that isn't doing what it should do, never
can, and never will.  It takes 5000 people to launch the Shuttle with
thirty days turnaround time.  This is the supreme part of the United
States' technology.

"Well, I don't believe a word of it.  That is a disaster, and it was made
by this country because of the fact that it was bussed by Congressional
Committees every inch of the way.  It was second-guessed, third-guessed,
and fourth-guessed.  It was the result of an incredible combination of
working down to a price that was lowered every year.  So the Congress has
a major rethinking to do about how they are going to handle technological
programs because the fact of the matter is that, at the present time, the
US is the only industrially advanced country in the world incapable of
putting on a properly executed technological program."

"...we have a Space Station coming down the tubes that is going to take
this nation ten years to build to put six men into a tin can.  That, at
a cost of ten billion dollars.  It's capped at eight billion, but nobody
believes it, least of all the Europeans who are going to join us in this
venture.  You know, really, when you think about it, there is something
extraordinarily wrong with that approach.  I'm not suggesting that this
necessarily was the answer, but it was quite easy to take an external
tank, take two years, two billion dollars, and you have a Space Station
for sixteen people, launched for free.  Why didn't we do it?"

"...next year the USSR will launch Salyut 8, and that's going to be a
new ball game.  They will have at least twenty people in that Space
Station.  They are so far behind us in so many ways, yet it's like the
tortoise and the hare... all of sudden we find they've got twenty people
in a Space Station, eight years before we put up six...	 If we don't want
to become the Spain of the 21st Century, we better move it."
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 9 Apr 86 21:12:31 pst
From: David Smith <dsmith%hplabsc%hplabs.arpa@csnet-relay.arpa>
To: space%s1-b@csnet-relay.arpa
Subject: Re: Morton-Thiokol Engineering Claims

> Seriously, folks, lay off the engineers at MT.  Those
> netlanders who put them in the same category as the NASA officials responsible
> for the launch decision are being both short-sighted and unfair.  The
> NASA honchos had two other warnings (Rockwell and ??, I forget at the moment)
> and went ahead anyway.  Some, at least, of the MT engineers made vigorous
> warnings.  It is not their fault that they weren't listened to.  I fail
> to understand why posters can't see that.  Let's move to other questions.

Based on what AW&ST is now printing, the engineers have been 
guilty as sin for years.  The low temperature was just a side 
show.  The joints have been ready to blow all along (TV news has 
shown films of burn-throughs on two previous flights).  The 
engineers did not do very thorough testing to find how the joints 
reacted to the strain.  

		David Smith
		{backbone!}hplabs!dsmith

------------------------------

Date: 7 Apr 86 14:43:57 GMT
From: ihnp4!inuxc!inuxe!fred@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Fred Mendenhall)
Subject: RE: Fermi-Paradox
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***

I don't believe that the Fermi-Paradox claims that there is
no other intelligent life in the Galaxy but rather that 
intelligent life is not abundant.

Consider that there is over 100 Million Million stars in our Milky
Way and for the sake of argument lets assume that say 10,000 star systems
harbor intelligent life. One would expect that with that many life 
forms our race would turn out to be fairly mediocre in any of
its attributes. For instance there may be many races like our Dolphins
that for what ever reason have some degree of intelligence but have
developed no technology and yet we would also expect to find species
that make us look like stone age primitives.

If you accept these premises, then the Fermi-Paradox says look, there
has been sufficient time just since our star has been burning 
for the Milky Way Galaxy to be totally colonized, i.e. every single star 
system, tens of thousands of time by a sufficiently motivated race using 
technology just beyond our present abilities. It should have been already 
done. Where are they?

At the very least we should be able to detect the group of races just 
ahead of us tinkering with their own star systems.

The lack of evidence of other races leads to several possible conclusions:

	1. The game is rigged and we are some sort of experiment.
	   (Makes dramatic story lines but I don't believe it.)
	
	2. Humanity is not mediocre but is exceptional in its
	   technological prowness. (Possible, but not even my ego is
	   able to believe that.)
	
	3. The number of intelligence race in the Galaxy is not large.
	   (This one feels right to me.)
	
No matter which conclusion you choose to believe the implications
are profound.  

(.. Of course I have been known to be wrong...  from time to time)

				Fred Mendenhall

------------------------------

Date: 1986 April 10 00:16:41 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@su-ai.arpa>
To: hplabs!sdcrdcf!oberon!hartsoug@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Cc: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
Subject: supernova -> red giant -> nebula (topic change, not solar metamorph...)

MH> Date: 6 Apr 86 05:13:10 GMT
MH> From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!oberon!hartsoug@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Mike Hartsough)
MH> Subject: Re: Sun won't go supernova...

C> Oh sure, the sun will supernova in 3 billion years, so only humans can save
C> life in the long run
REM>much much larger than our Sun can go supernova. Our Sun will
REM>merely go red-giant in about 5 billion years after first fusing
REM>hydrogen faster than it

MH> As I understand it (and I'm certainly no expert), the/our Sun is of the
MH> proper size to "go" Nebular (correct terminology?). I believe that I got
MH> this info from Carl Sagan's book "Cosmos", but I'm not sure...

I could believe that, I stand slightly corrected. Both "planetary"
nebula (I think that's what you mean) and mere red giant are
relatively gentle events compared to supernova. If we waited until the
last minute and the Sun started to go red giant or nebular we'd have
lots more time to escape the gradually increasing effects, in fact
with moderate shielding and an internal energy source to pump out heat
we might actually continue to survive within the plasma shell of a red
giant until the energy source ran out, but if the Sun went supernova
this quadrant of the galaxy would be fried and we'd be blasted to
smitherines. Fortunately the latter is impossible (by current theory).

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #250
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA02702; Fri, 11 Apr 86 03:01:57 PST
	id AA02702; Fri, 11 Apr 86 03:01:57 PST
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 86 03:01:57 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8604111101.AA02702@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #251

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 251

Today's Topics:
			  Re: catch a comet
			  Re: catch a comet
			   Guilty engineers
	  Re: SETI and Spaceflight, Alien Encounters & NASA
			    M-T Engineers
			  Capturing a comet
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 8 Apr 86 23:13:51 GMT
From: hplabs!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Michael McNeil)
Subject: Re: catch a comet
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <760@inuxe.UUCP> fred@inuxe.UUCP (Fred Mendenhall) writes:
>
>	As comet Halley starts heading back into outer reaches of
>the solar system, I started to think wouldn't it be wonderful if the
>next time it returned peoplekind had gotten their act together well
>enough that it would be worthwhile to catch and keep Halley for 
>the resources it could provide.  So the questions that then popped in my
>mind were obvious. What, when and where are the favorable points in
>Halley's next orbit to nudge it so as to capture it somewhere in the
>Earth-Moon system.
>					Fred Mendenhall

No! No! No!  While I agree with the above sentiment in general --
i.e., let's mine comets and asteroids -- I'd much rather turn Old
Faithful into a geothermal-electric plant than "capture" Halley's
Comet for "the resources it could provide."  We *don't* need it!  

Far sooner than Halley's will next return, we'll have access (I hope)
to the hundreds of Earth-orbit-crossing asteroids (Apollo asteroids),
which are probably mostly expired comets.  There are also a number of
short period (but still living) comets, which contain more volatiles.  
Further out -- but still much closer than Halley's Comet for many
years to come -- is the asteroid belt, containing many times the
mineral resources of all the comets and asteroids nearer to Earth.  

Halley's Comet is a celestial phantasm which for millenia has dazzled
people during its periodic returns.  It's a touchstone we have to the
past, to our ancestors, and to the future.  It is not too soon in our
expansion into space to realize that some things in space, as well as
on Earth, should be preserved for all time, simply because they are
wonderful, or beautiful, or cross time and link us with our ancestors.  

Save Halley's Comet!  

-- 

Michael McNeil
3Com Corporation     "All disclaimers including this one apply"
(408) 970-1835
..!ucbvax!hplabs!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm

	And with an awful, dreadful list
	Towards other galaxies unknown
	Ponderously turns the Milky Way ...
		Boris Pasternak

------------------------------

Date: 9 Apr 86 21:21:51 GMT
From: bellcore!petrus!magic!science!bambi!mike@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Mike Caplinger)
Subject: Re: catch a comet
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa


As a matter of fact, the idea to catch Halley and force its orbit into
the inner solar system so its resources can be exploited is just
about precisely the plot of HEART OF THE COMET, by Greg Benford
and David Brin.  That book gives some information about the delta-V
needed, and where and how it might be applied, to bring about various
orbit changes.  As both the authors are scientists (Benford is an
physicist at UC something-or-other) the facts are probably close.
They suggest the use of mass drivers as a propulsion device for the
"Big Nudge."

	Mike Caplinger, mike@bellcore.com

------------------------------

Date: 8 Apr 86 20:05:13 GMT
From: tektronix!tekred!joels@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Joel Swank)
Subject: Guilty engineers
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa


  I must respond to Henry's articles about the guilt of the Morton Thiokol
engineers. Things are obviously quite different in the ivory towers of
U of T than they are down here in the real world.

  1. In my 15 years in the business I have NEVER seen a case where
technical correctness held any weight against political considerations.
If engineers resigned every time their technical evaluations were
overridden, there would be few employed engineers.

  2. In no cases would the resignation of any technical persons
have any effect on the decision process. The managers would happily replace
the malcontents with persons willing to 'get with the program'. The
loss of some technical excellence is of little importance when a multi-
million dollar contract is at stake.

  3. Although, I am always ready to resign on smaller issues than loss
of life, I do not have 2 kids in college and a $1100 house payment on
the back of my mind.

  4. I'm not sure how Henry expects these people to sacrifice themselves
when such sacrifice would accomplish nothing except to get Henry's
approval that they 'did the right thing'. Few people will put the
lives of strangers above the well being of their familys.

  5. Decisions are made by managers. That is their responsibility. That
is what they are there for. If it is the engineer's responsibility, then
let's get rid of the managers altogether, and make decisions on a vote
of the technical people.

  6. Responsibility without authority is worthless. It is unfair to hold
responsible those with no control.

  7. The engineers were not even close to being sure that the destruction
of the Challenger was imminent. They only knew that they did not have
enough data to ensure that flight was safe. This is not an obvious case
where the 'moral' thing to do is resign. Had they resigned and the
accident not happened they would have been just some stupid, unemployed 
(and probably unemployable) engineers.

Conclusion: The blame rests squarely in the lap of the managers (Thiokol
and NASA) that were charged with the decision. We should not let them
squirm out of it by blaming the persons who designed the failing component.

Joel Swank
Tektronix, Redmond, Oregon

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 86 10:52:28 pst
From: eugene@ames-nas.arpa (Eugene Miya)
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Re: SETI and Spaceflight, Alien Encounters & NASA 

[I don't have the time to read the group, but here is a
response I promised some time ago.  If you've comments send
mail if I have to read it.]

Henry Spencer posted an article about the feasibility of spaceflight
with reference to a CACM article by Kent Cullers and Barney Oliver.
I had a chance to pull a Woody Allen-Marshall McLuhan [e.g. the film
Annie Hall] by visiting Kent Cullers at the SETI project.

Kent (a Digitial Signal Processing-type) sends his greetings to the
net (you guys). He says that one of the reasons why he talked about
the relative infeasibility of space travel is partly political
in nature.  For instance, one line of reasoning is that if such
travel is feasible, however difficult, directing money into such
projects would totally cut SETI off.  Henry mentioned Robert
Forward and Kent is a colleague.  They respect each other.  They
are both familiar with the funding and management situation
on Capitol Hill.

On the subject of how we might have an encounter with an
intelligent civilization:  the first thing would hopefully be
a signal.  The process of verifying that a signal was a signal
(as opposed to noise) would within probably 1 hour be news.
It would not be something that people could keep quiet very long.
The same would go for actual alien contact (as say contrasted
by CE3K, Starman, and many other films).  It's the scientific/social
process that drives this.  A cover-up is not likely to stay quiet
long.

People have actually thought about this.  There is a professor at
George Washington U who has actually thought about and proposed
diplomatic training for astronauts.  He has thought about space legal
implications and just who would represent who. I've lots more
detail on this, but I don't think it's appropriate to the net.

--eugene miya
  eugene@ames-nas
  {numerous uucp}!ames!eugene

------------------------------

Date: 9 Apr 86 15:57:06 GMT
From: decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-star!fisher@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Burns Fisher ZKO1-1/D42 DTN 381-1466)
Subject: M-T Engineers
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

----

First, let me apologize for cross posting to both columbia and space.  I can't
tell at this point which is the main repository for comments like this, 
although I think it should be columbia.

In any case, I would like to quote on of the M-T engineers, Roger Boisjoly,
from testimony at the special commission hearing:

"I left the meeting <where it was decided to launch over the engineer's
recommendations> feeling badly defeated, but I felt I really did all I could to 
stop the launch".

I don't see liability here on Roger's part.

Burns

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 86 22:34:28 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu>
Subject: Capturing a comet
To: ihnp4!inuxc!inuxe!fred@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@s1-b.arpa

    From: ihnp4!inuxc!inuxe!fred@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Fred Mendenhall)

    	As comet Halley starts heading back into outer reaches of
    the solar system, I started to think wouldn't it be wonderful if the
    next time it returned peoplekind had gotten their act together well
    enough that it would be worthwhile to catch and keep Halley for
    the resources it could provide.

  Good idea.  But not with Halley, it has too much emotional appeal.
Lots of other comets.

    	I think Phil Karn once mentioned that aphelion is usually
    a good point because it typically requires low energy to make
    orbital changes at this point ...

  It depends on how you want to change the orbit.  To change the
perihelion, act at aphelion.  To change the aphelion, act at
perihelion.
								...Keith

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #251
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA06250; Sat, 12 Apr 86 03:01:54 PST
	id AA06250; Sat, 12 Apr 86 03:01:54 PST
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 86 03:01:54 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8604121101.AA06250@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #252

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 252

Today's Topics:
		    Re: Sun won't go supernova...
		      Re: Eggs in one basket...
       Spiral Arms, Our Privileged Positon, SETI, and the Fermi
		    Re: Sun won't go supernova...
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 10 Apr 86 03:48:01 GMT
From: decvax!linus!alliant!spain@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dave Spain)
Subject: Re: Sun won't go supernova...
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <260@oberon.UUCP> hartsoug@oberon.UUCP (Mike Hartsough) writes:
>>C> Oh sure, the sun will supernova in 3 billion years, so only humans can save
>>C> life in the long run
>>
>>much much larger than our Sun can go supernova. Our Sun will merely go
>>red-giant in about 5 billion years after first fusing hydrogen faster than it
>
>As I understand it (and I'm certainly no expert), the/our Sun is of the
>proper size to "go" Nebular (correct terminology?). I believe that I got
>this info from Carl Sagan's book "Cosmos", but I'm not sure...
>
>
>-- 
>	Michael J. Hartsough
>	hartsoug@oberon.UUCP

From everything I've read or heard on the subject our Sun is supposed to
go Nova, not Supernova, in some N number of years (N >>>> 1). After which
the Sun will collapse into a white dwarf star which will gradually cool over
the eons to form a dark star. A rather mundane and typical death for a main
sequence star.

Larger stars (i.e. those with more mass) can blast themselves to death in
a Supernova (the difference between going Nova and Supernova is not usually
clearly explained other than in terms of the magnitude of the explosion
and the remanents left behind) leaving behind either white dwarves, neutron
stars or black holes depending on their original mass.

One possible difference between what is considered Nova vs Supernova might
be the formation of a planetary nebula after the explosion. An even more likely
explanation would be the observed visual magnitude of the star at the height of
the explosion, relative to others stars have gone Nova.

Any astronomers out there who could clear up this confusion?

------------------------------

Date: 27 Mar 86 23:52:00 GMT
From: decvax!ima!inmet!janw@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Eggs in one basket...
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa


>/* Written  2:20 pm  Mar 23, 1986 by dietz@SLB-DOLL.CSNET in inmet:net.space */
>/* ---------- "Eggs in one basket..." ---------- */
>I've seen some comments about interstellar war being impossible due to
>the distances involved.  These comments strike me a optimistic.  Indeed,
>the technology needed for making starships can be adapted without
>difficulty to build interstellar weapons.

The problem is: how do you find your enemies in the  vastness  of
space?  And  assuming  you  did - will they still be there by the
time your weapons arrive? And if they stay, won't it  be  because
they've  had time to prepare a good defense? And, at interstellar
distances, won't your weapons be rather archaic by  that  time  ?
The  first three arguments seem to apply to the solar system, too
- assuming, of course, moderate size colonies.  Another  one  is:
wouldn't  the  motivation  to  hunt  someone down, overcoming the
above difficulties,  decrease  with  distance?  

		Jan Wasilewsky

------------------------------

Date:         Fri, 11 Apr 86 14:24:33 EST
From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
To: space digest <SPACE@s1-b.arpa>
Subject:      Spiral Arms, Our Privileged Positon, SETI, and the Fermi
  Paradox

     Just read an interesting article by B.A. Balazs in the recent
Acta Astronautica (Vol. 13, #3, March 1986, pp. 123-126).  He
argues that based on the standard density-wave model of spiral arms
(due to Lin), we should expect to find inhabitable planets only around
stars that are between spiral arms, and have been for a long time:
ie., only around stars which are nearly co-rotational with the spiral
arms (which do *not* --at least according to the density wave theory--
rotate at the same velocity as the stars that compose them)  Any given
star will move in and out of the spiral arms as it orbits the galaxy.
Inside the spiral arms, a star will be much more subject to "catastrophic
events" due to the shock wave in the interstellar medium;
he posits that the maximum lifetime of a civilization will thus be
the length of time its star spends between spiral arms.
   His analysis of velocity and distance data shows that the sun is
within 1% of the radial distance that's co-rotational with the
spiral arms; he says that the sun's orbit emerged from an arm about
4.9 billion years ago.  (Reasonable, since the shock wave theory says
that star formation should occur in the spiral arms).  (However,
note that (a) his analysis seems to differ from Lin's analysis
of the rotation rate of the spiral arms, and (b) how fast we orbit
the galaxy depends in detail on how far we are from the galactic
center, which is not known to within 10%, much less 1%).
    His article is about where to point antennae for SETI searches;
he says to point them at the co-rotational zone, which is an annulus
less than 500 parsecs wide at roughly our distance from the galactic
center, but excluding the spiral arms.  This is a small portion of the
galaxy.  I note that this is a possible solution to the Fermi
paradox, since if it's true, the number of inhabitable stars in
the galaxy is much less than the number of stars in the galaxy.
    Last, he says our radial phase is 152 degrees between the
Sagittarius and Perseus arms.  Since the arms are 180 degrees apart,
I figure that this gives us 28 degrees to go: about a billion years.
The situation thus isn't urgent.  Yet.

                   --Geoffrey A. Landis, Brown University
                     Reply to: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA

------------------------------

Date: 12 Apr 86 00:19:38 GMT
From: nike!styx!lll-crg!caip!spinner@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Spinner)
Subject: Re: Sun won't go supernova...
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>From everything I've read or heard on the subject our Sun is supposed to
>go Nova, not Supernova, in some N number of years (N >>>> 1). After which
>the Sun will collapse into a white dwarf star which will gradually cool over
>the eons to form a dark star. A rather mundane and typical death for a main
>sequence star.
>[...]
>Any astronomers out there who could clear up this confusion?

   I'm not an astronomer, but I think I can help.  When the sun runs
out of hydrogen in its core (about 5 or so billion years from now), it
will begin to burn hydrogen near the core, forming an expanding shell of
fusing hydrogen.  This will heat the outside of the star and cause it to
expand into a red giant until its radius includes the Earth's orbit.
Mercury, Venus, and the Earth are most likely going to be "swallowed
up" in this expansion.  While the sun is expanding, it will tend to pulsate
and throw off rings of gas (planetary nebula).  Finally, the sun will cool and
shrink, becoming a white dwarf.  Since a white dwarf has no source of heat, it
will eventually cool to the point where it is no longer visable (at least, in
normal visable light).

(At least, that is what astronomers are saying currently, according to my
handy-dandy astronomy textbook :-)

Ron Spinner (Spinner@Caip.Rutgers.Edu)

(Obligatory Disclaimer:  The opinions expressed above are solely my own, even
when they're not.)

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #252
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA08228; Sun, 13 Apr 86 03:02:07 PST
	id AA08228; Sun, 13 Apr 86 03:02:07 PST
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 86 03:02:07 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8604131102.AA08228@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #253

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 253

Today's Topics:
		      Pick up Comet Halley? No!
			  Re: catch a comet
		     Catch a comet?  Not Halley!
		Re: Morton-Thiokol Engineering Claims
		    Re: Sun won't go supernova...
		       Re: the greening of Mars
			   Re: Colonization
		       Re: the greening of Mars
		     Re: Observing Dyson spheres
    Re: Survivability of astronauts (really B1-a crash correction)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 10 Apr 86 02:13:09 GMT
From: dual!mordor!ut-sally!ut-ngp!ahna422@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Carlos Perez)
Subject: Pick up Comet Halley? No!
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa



Once I had thought about the possibility of displaying in the 
National Air and Space Museum the Voyager probes for all to see, ie,
the technology of actually going and picking them up was not only
feasible, but greatly available.  I had even hoped that before I
die, I could see one of the probes on display.  However, I then 
thought about the historical significance of the probes.  They should
be left on course, as we intended.  Of course, sometime in the 
future those probes will "exist" just like those log cabins they
leave sandwiched between city skyscrapers today, to commemorate
the early settlers that founded the city.

Comet Halley is like this.  It should be left alone for "historical
reasons".  I believe that the next time it comes around, that people
will travel on interplanetary "tourist buses" to view the comet.
I can imagine somebody wearing a funny looking hat saying into a
megaphone "and here on the right is the tail of Comet Halley, composed
of ..."

C. H. Perez

------------------------------

Date: 8 Apr 86 16:04:14 GMT
From: hplabs!qantel!lll-lcc!lll-crg!topaz!harvard!cmcl2!lanl!jkw@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Jay Wooten)
Subject: Re: catch a comet
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> 	As comet Halley starts heading back into outer reaches of
> the solar system, I started to think wouldn't it be wonderful if the
> next time it returned peoplekind had gotten their act together well
> enough that it would be worthwhile to catch and keep Halley for 
> the resources it could provide....

An interesting idea but I'm not sure that a comet's resources would be worth
it.  Halley appears to be mostly hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon (more than
anticipated which is why it is so dark).  There is some evidence of heavier
stuff such as sulfur and iron, but not much.  Maybe the water would be useful
but a large addition of water to the ecosphere might have unexpected (and not
so delightful) consequences.  I think that a similar effort to rope a metallic
asteroid would pay much greater dividends.  Besides, don't you want your
great**n grandkids to have the fun of getting up before dawn, trucking out to
the countryside, and straining their eyes to get a glimpse of the fuzzy thing?

	  Jay Wooten  Los Alamos National Lab  ARPA:jkw@lanl.ARPA

------------------------------

Date: 8 Apr 86 17:44:53 GMT
From: hplabs!qantel!lll-lcc!lll-crg!topaz!harvard!talcott!cfa!mink@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Doug Mink)
Subject: Catch a comet?  Not Halley!
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Fred Mendenhall writes in <760@inuxe.UUCP>:

> 	As comet Halley starts heading back into outer reaches of
> the solar system, I started to think wouldn't it be wonderful if the
> next time it returned peoplekind had gotten their act together well
> enough that it would be worthwhile to catch and keep Halley for 
> the resources it could provide...
> 
>  Any ideas?

Yes!  Leave it in its orbit where the future inhabitants of Earth can
see it once or twice per lifetime until the comet dies a natural death.
P/Halley is more than a mass of "resources."  Its existence is a
spiritual resource, as well as a reminder of our history.  When it comes
back, we are reminded of the ancient Chinese astronomers who first
recorded its appearance, of William the Conqueror's victory at Hastings
and the art which commemorated it, of the polymath Edmund Halley and the
origins of modern science, of the struggles between science and
pseudo-science in 1910, and of the worldwide cooperation of the
1985-1986 International Halley Watch and the Russian, Japanese, and
European spacecraft which met the comet on its way back to the outer
solar system.  I would go so far as to propose that Comet Halley be the
first extraterrestrial UN preserve, to serve as a symbol of the primeval
solar system as it was before its inhabitation by life.  Its returns
serve as mileposts in the spatial and mental expansion of humanity.

	-Doug Mink, aging hippy astronomer
	Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, Mass.
UUCP:	mink@cfa.UUCP or {seismo|ihnp4|cmc12}!harvard!talcott!cfa!mink
ARPA:	mink%cfa.UUCP@harvard.HARVARD.EDU or mink%cfa.UUCP@HARVARD.ARPA

------------------------------

Date: 9 Apr 86 18:18:42 GMT
From: decvax!linus!axiom!paul@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Paul O`Shaughnessy)
Subject: Re: Morton-Thiokol Engineering Claims
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa


>                    Seriously, folks, lay off the engineers at MT.  Those
>netlanders who put them in the same category as the NASA officials responsible
>for the launch decision are being both short-sighted and unfair.

You're right, and I'm sorry that I grouped the two together.

>Let's move to other questions.

I agree.

------------------------------

Posted-Date: Sat 12 Apr 1986 10:37:14 EST
Date: Sat 12 Apr 1986 10:37:14 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Re: Sun won't go supernova...
To: Dave Spain <decvax!linus!alliant!spain@ucbvax.berkeley.edu>
In-Reply-To: decvax!linus!alliant!spain's message of 10 Apr 86 03:48:01 GMT
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa

The sun won't go nova, either.  Novas apparently occur when a white
dwarf and a normal star are in close orbit.  Matter is transfered to
the surface of the white dwarf, where it accumulates and heats up until
a massive fusion reaction occurs.  The white dwarf is left intact but
much hot gas is expelled.  This process can recur.

After a while, the white dwarf may accumulate enough matter to begin
higher fusion reactions in its body.  This is believed to be the cause
of type-I supernovas, and would completely disrupt the white dwarf.
Type-II supernovas are somewhat dimmer and are caused by the core
collapse of massive stars (I think > 5 solar masses).

------------------------------

Date: 9 Apr 86 18:52:40 GMT
From: voder!kontron!cramer@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: the greening of Mars
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> 
> A while ago a friend sent me an interesting book, "The Greening of 
> Mars" by James Lovelock and Michael Allaby (Warner books paperback,
> (c) 1984).  It discusses the terraforming of Mars through the reminisces
> of one of its colonists.   The technique is interesting, and I 
> wonder if anyone out there can say more about its feasibility.
> 
>[long discussion of terraforming stategies for Mars]
> The book is written at a pretty low level, and is already wrong on 
> some political points, but is interesting nonetheless.  Anybody know 
> if this might actually work?
> 
> John Redford
> DEC-Israel

Actually, terraforming Venus would be a lot easier.  I remember reading
a proposal some years ago to drop blimps into the Venerian atmosphere
at a level that would be cool enough for algae to operate at.  They
would photosynthesize like mad in Venus' high carbon dioxide atmosphere,
and in a few thousand years might produce enough free oxygen to produce
an ozone layer, and reduce the carbon dioxide content enough to lower
temperatures.

But we are definitely talking about a long time.

------------------------------

Date: 6 Apr 86 08:09:01 GMT
From: uwvax!uwmacc!john@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (john jacobsen)
Subject: Re: Colonization
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> Regarding the point that, if there were advanced civilizations
> out there, we'd have encountered them by now, Michael
> Papagiannis, chairman of the Astronomy Department at Boston
> University, takes the position that there are no other advanced
> civilizations out there for us to encounter (else we'd have
> noticed them by now).  It's sort of the anti-Sagan position, and
> my comment on it is that it shows you what academics will do for
> attention.
> 
> (Of course, I'd love to prove him wrong...  :-) )

*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***

It seems to me, though I really don't know much about it, that we as humans
have existed for a fraction of a fraction of a... of the lifetime of the
Universe (note capitalization) since the Big One (BANG!)-- and that the level
of technology we operate at now is much newer than our identity as a species,
at that (see Dr. Sagan's Cosmic Calendar in _The_Dragons_of_Eden_).  Is it
likely that someone would drop by in so short a time?  Just 'cause we haven't
seen 'em in a second or two, doesn't mean they ain't there....

                                 ---John E. Jacobsen, UW-Madison.

P.S.  We're dealing with an undergrad's perception of things, here... likely
      to be inept.... call it symptoms of college inadequacy complexes.

"So long and thanks for all the fish" -- the dolphins

------------------------------

Date: 10 Apr 86 15:51:50 GMT
From: decwrl!magic!stolfi@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Jorge Stolfi)
Subject: Re: the greening of Mars
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa


In article <710@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>   Actually, terraforming Venus would be a lot easier. I remember
>   a proposal some years ago to drop blimps into the Venerian atmosphere
>   at a level that would be cool enough for algae to operate at.  They
>   would photosynthesize like mad in Venus' high carbon dioxide atmosphere,
>   and in a few thousand years might produce enough free oxygen to produce
>   an ozone layer, and reduce the carbon dioxide content enough to lower
>   temperatures.

I did a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation, and concluded that the
atmosphere of Venus contains something like a hundred million billion tons
(10**20 Kg) of carbon dioxide, equivalent to a layer of carbon several
hundred feet thick over the whole planet.  Can anyone confirm these
numbers?  

If they are correct, can you explain how we are supposed to get rid of a
hundred trillion tons of dead algae per year?  :-) Note also that we would
probably have to take to Venus some 100 billion tons of water to just to
start the cycle (and we still would have to recover all hydrogen from the
dead algae).  

Not impossible, but... wouldn't it be easier to Venusform
the human race instead?

  j :-)



-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The opinions expressed above are not the sort of thing my employer,
my teachers, my friends, or my mother would like to be associated with.

------------------------------

Date: 7 Apr 86 17:58:37 GMT
From: ihnp4!stolaf!mmm!srcsip!sarff@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Kent Sarff)
Subject: Re: Observing Dyson spheres
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <[AI.AI.MIT.EDU].22222.860328.KFL> KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU ("Keith F. Lynch") writes:
>
>There is certainly enough aluminum in the solar system or even here on
>Earth to surround the Sun at 1 AU with aluminum foil.  If you make the
>foil just the right thickness, the Sun's gravity and the light pressure
>exactly balance, and the foil will remain stationary.
>

Keith,

    I am a skeptic, as are probably many others reading this.  Please
back up your data regarding the Dyson sphere.  Enlighten me with at least
a few specifics such as some crude dimensions for the sphere,  degree of
completeness ( 0 degrees being infinte thinness, 90 degrees being complete
sphere), and an estimate of the mass of aluminum required to build such
a structure.  I am interested also in the available supply of bauxite 
ore, the source of most aluminum on earth.  Would there be enough, 
including recycling all the aluminum currently in the hands of consumers?

     I think not.  But I challenge you to PROVE me wrong.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 "Goodbye cruel world that was my home   | Kent Sarff
  there's cleaner space out here to roam | Honeywell Systems & Research Center
  Put my feet up on the moons of Mars    | Signal & Image Processing/
  sit back, relax, and count the stars." |         Machine Vision Technology
                       -Ian Anderson     | AT&T (612) 782-7591
-----------------------------------------  USENET ihnp4!srcsip!sarff
-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 "Goodbye cruel world that was my home   | Kent Sarff
  there's cleaner space out here to roam | Honeywell Systems & Research Center
  Put my feet up on the moons of Mars    | Signal & Image Processing/
  sit back, relax, and count the stars." |         Machine Vision Technologies
                       -Ian Anderson     | AT&T (612) 782-7591
-----------------------------------------  USENET ihnp4!srcsip!sarff

------------------------------

Date: 10 Apr 86 16:47:45 GMT
From: hplabs!oliveb!felix!fritz!pwb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Phil Bonesteele)
Subject: Re: Survivability of astronauts (really B1-a crash correction)
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <354@hadron.UUCP> klr@hadron.UUCP (Kurt L. Reisler) writes:
>
>	...
>
>	If memory serves me, the only B-1 to have crashed, was a B-1a with
>	such an escape pod.  The pod did eject (or was it thrown from the
>	wreckage?), but the crew died, either in the pod, or when they were
>	thrown from it.  Pictures that appeared in AWS&T (Aviation Leak and
>	Space Mythology) clearly showed the wreckage of the escape pod about
>	100+ meters away from the wreckage of the bomber.
>
>	Keep the dream alive!  Write your Congress-critter.


The  crash  mentioned  above  was  indeed of  a B-1a  and occurred in
California's Mojave desert while performing high  speed, low altitude
(~100 ft.)  tests.  The incorrect  data is  that the  entire crew DID
NOT die.  Only the test pilot died.   The  rest of  the crew survived
the crash of the escape pod into the  ground.   The jettison occurred
so close to the ground that the parachutes  couldn't fully decelerate
the pod before it struck the ground.  

				Phil Bonesteele
				FileNet Corp.
				Costa Mesa, CA
				{decvax, ucbvax,hplabs}!trwrb!felix!pwb

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #253
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA10864; Mon, 14 Apr 86 03:01:59 PST
	id AA10864; Mon, 14 Apr 86 03:01:59 PST
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 86 03:01:59 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8604141101.AA10864@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #254

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 254

Today's Topics:
	      catch a comet for mining, but not Halley!
      Supernova and nova seem to be totally different in nature
	     Anniversaries of Shuttle/Manned Space Flight
	     A longish rant on development incentives...
			  Re: catch a comet
		    Re: Pick up Comet Halley? No!
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 1986 April 12 11:35:56 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@su-ai.arpa>
To: hplabs!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Cc: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
Subject: catch a comet for mining, but not Halley!

MM> Date: 8 Apr 86 23:13:51 GMT
MM> From: hplabs!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Michael McNeil)
MM> Subject: Re: catch a comet

>	As comet Halley starts heading back into outer reaches of
>the solar system, I started to think wouldn't it be wonderful if the
>next time it returned peoplekind had gotten their act together well
>enough that it would be worthwhile to catch and keep Halley for 
>the resources it could provide.

MM> Halley's Comet is a celestial phantasm which for millenia has dazzled
MM> people during its periodic returns.  It's a touchstone we have to the
MM> past, to our ancestors, and to the future.  It is not too soon in our
MM> expansion into space to realize that some things in space, as well as
MM> on Earth, should be preserved for all time, simply because they are
MM> wonderful, or beautiful, or cross time and link us with our ancestors.  
MM> Save Halley's Comet!  

I agree. p/Halley should be a tourist attraction for all time, not
gobbled up for materials. We have a big universe out there with lots
and lots of resources. We can preserve a few choice memories such as
p/Halley and the sites of the early lunar&martian landings. It's not
too soon for the IAU to formally declare a few spots out there to be
preserved for all time, in my opinion.

------------------------------

Date: 1986 April 12 11:19:28 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@su-ai.arpa>
To: decvax!linus!alliant!spain@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Cc: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Supernova and nova seem to be totally different in nature

DS> Date: 10 Apr 86 03:48:01 GMT
DS> From: decvax!linus!alliant!spain@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dave Spain)
DS> Subject: Re: Sun won't go supernova...
DS> ...
DS> One possible difference between what is considered Nova vs
DS> Supernova might be the formation of a planetary nebula after the
DS> explosion. An even more likely explanation would be the observed
DS> visual magnitude of the star at the height of the explosion,
DS> relative to others stars have gone Nova.
DS> ...
DS> Any astronomers out there who could clear up this confusion?

I'm not really an astronomer, but I've read a bunch on this topic in
Sky&Telescope etc.  From what I've read, there is believed at present
to be a complete difference between the nature of a supernova and the
nature of a nova. A supernova is a complete collapse of the core of a
normal but large star that has finished burning its thermonuclear fuel
and is now controlled purely by gravity until it collapses to the
point where it can't compress further so it bounces back from that
barrier. A nova is merely a tiny (by comparison) thermonuclear
detonation on the surface of a neutron star from buildup of infalling
matter (hydrogen) from a companion normal star. I'll leave it to a
real astronomer (amateur or professional) to improve on my summary.

------------------------------

Date: 12 Apr 86 00:14:18 GMT
From: ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!hropus!riccb!rjnoe@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Roger J. Noe)
Subject: Anniversaries of Shuttle/Manned Space Flight
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Saturday, April 12, 1986 will be the fifth anniversary of the STS-1 launch,
when John Young and Robert Crippen became the first humans to fly in space
in the shuttle Columbia.  It will also be the twenty-fifth anniversary of
manned space flight.  It was on this date in 1961 when Yuriy Gagarin reached
orbit in Vostok 1.  (It was only three weeks later - May 5, 1961 - when
Alan Shepard went into space on Mercury-Redstone 3.)  There are a few other
significant dates in the history of space exploration which are fast
approaching.  April 13 will be the sixteenth anniversary of "Houston, we've
got a problem here," the explosion on board Apollo 13.  And April 24 will
be nineteen years since cosmonaut Komarov died when Soyuz 1 impacted after
its parachutes tangled.  In spite of all the troubles, all the tragedies,
isn't it just awesome that we've come so far, so quickly?
--
Roger Noe			ihnp4!riccb!rjnoe

------------------------------

Date: 9 Apr 86 09:45:38 GMT
From: ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!raha@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Bob Hettinga)
Subject: A longish rant on development incentives...
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa



Ah, it's springtime! You'll soon know why they call this the windy city...
Forgive me, I'm normally not so verbose; it's just that my dander's up a
bit.

First, a little background:

----  I just got through reading a New York Times editorial from last week.
It seems that Reagan's Space Commission just issued(leaked?) their
recommendations for NASA's next 50 years.  It looks like Das Marsprojekt was
resurrected once again.  The NYT (<---I tend to pronounce it that way, too)
says they're all for exploration of the moon, Mars, and the colonization of
both as long as it's done for the brotherhood and betterment of mankind,
there should be a joint US-USSR Mars mission, etc., etc., ad nauseum. 

----  I heard from a friend and just read it here on the net (true
confirmation of reality if there was any ;-)) that the earth may be
bombarded by *lots* of micro(mini?)comets.  While this seems like someone's
rationalization for funny black spots in their IR data, maybe we have
something here.  I certainly hope so.

----  (short story here) Last year, I got a copy of the Space Studies
Institute's senior associate newsletter with some recommendations for space
research project priorities.  Two of them were concerned with finding nearby
extraterrestrial resources that weren't known to be on the moon already: a
lunarpolar orbiter designed to look for water, and an earth-orbit survey
mission to look for possible earth-trojan asteriods.

This prompted me to think up a scam. (So, what else is new?)  To wit:  What
would a privately funded heliocentric earth-orbit resource discovery mission
look like?  The average venture capitalist needs a return multiple of 10
times initial investment, preferably within 5 years. IF you can raise the
$75-100 million, AND get somebody official to recognize your claim to
whatever you find (the Feds probably wouldn't do it unilaterally, the
signatories to the last big space-related treaty would be nice, and the UN
might be the 'politically correct' way to go, but what a mess it would
be...), COULD you find $750 million worth of saleable stuff out there on
earth's orbit?  Come to think of it, what are the chances of finding
anything out there at all?

So, I called (he'll kill me for using his name) Scott Dunbar at JPL.
Scott's the guy who got his PhD out of Princeton by showing (among other
things) where earth-trojan asteriods would be, if there were any.  He then
went to JPL to (among other things) see if he could find them.  Scott let me
in on a little bit of reality. First, he has shot a lot of slides of earth's
orbit.  While looking along earth's orbit is somewhat difficult, especially
near the sun, Scott is pretty much sure that the largest possible asteriod
out there couldn't be bigger than 1km in diameter.  Given the statistical
distribution of asteriods that size or smaller in the solar system, he gave
me a back-of-the hand guess. If they were there, and if *all* the remaining
asteroids in earth's orbit were stuck together in one big blob, they would
yield something no more than 10km in diameter. Ouch.  That little mass
diffused throughout earth's entire orbit would probably make refining it a
real collision with diminishing returns.  Which brings me to my last bit of
info.  

----  I read in Space Business News that Gerry O'Neill has luekemia.
Evidently they got the information out of an offering memorandum for
Geostar's last round of funding.  I hope Gerry's doctors have it under
control.  While I'm not a believer in "Great Man" theories, Gerry is going
to be pointed at for a hell of a lot more human progress than most of his
contemporaries can ever imagine.  Not that a eulogy's in order at the
moment, -- he seems like a tough old bird --  but the news prompted some
serious thought on my part about what *I* was doing to further the ideas he
brought to humanity's collective attention.  Damn little these days, I'm
afraid.  I decided to try a little harder. See what happens...

I told you all that, to paraphrase Cosby, to tell you this:

[soapbox mode on]

I think Mars and Moon bases are great *research* projects, I haven't heard
anything about private space incentives (not subsidies!) in the Space
Commission's report.  Haven't read it yet, but I bet you dollars to
doughnuts there's nothing in there except lip service to the idea.  I
suppose they see the government as the only actor in space for the next
fifty years, and that NASA and SDIO contracts would be the only game in
town.  Yech! That's the kind of thinking that will continue to give us a
space infrastructure dependent on politics, Proxmire, and pork barrels.  Ok.
I'll take a deep breath. I know that the Commission's report beats the hell
out of no space policy planning at all.  I also understand that if
governmental actors hadn't gotten involved in space, we might not have
gotten into space at all, because the entry cost was just too damn high for
commercial enterprise.  There are no Rocket Ship Gallileos or Tom Swifts,
and Big Science and Big Engineering cost Big Bucks.  Big Business isn't in
the habit of risking Big Bucks on truly untried technologies.  But I just
can't help wondering if there is some way to expand into space without using
a federal budget line item to do it. 

I think the major obstacles to space development at this point are
institutional, not technological.  I'll cite an historical example. If
Lincoln hadn't given the railroads rights-of-way, I don't think the western
United States would have developed as fast as it did.  The operative word
here is 'given'.  Lincoln gave away land to the railroads as rights-of-way
which had only marginal value to the nation at the time.  The railroads in
turn used it not only to build tracks on, but also as collateral for loans
and as equity with which to sell stock.  It really didn't cost Lincoln much,
and he got his 'investment' back in increased revenue.  The state of
railroad technology was given much incentive to improve, and improve it did,
along with the economic fortunes of the nation.  Can you imagine what might
have happened if the transcontinental railroad was government subsidized,
much less government built?  About the only benefits I can think of are
environmental ;-)....

So, what can the powers-that-be give us (potential developers of
extraterrestrial resources) that is useless to them, but would be integral
to the expansion of mankind into the solar system?  How about mineral rights
to parts of the Moon, or giving us a carbonaceous chondrite asteroid (or
microcomet) with the proviso that it be brought into to a 2:1 Earth-Moon
resonance orbit and/or developed within ten years?  Sound simplistic?  What
about transcontinental railroad rights-of-way in the middle of the
nineteenth century?

I am sick of being told that the most significant event in man's evolution
since the invention of agriculture, the establishment of permanent,
autonomous human settlements outside of the earth's biosphere, isn't going
to occur in my lifetime because the appropriations aren't there.  What do
appropriations have to do with it?  Is the government the only source of
financing for something like this?  I think not.  But investment in the
private development of space can only occur in an atmosphere of some
certainty about where the governmental actors are going to dance, because no
one wants to be danced on.  What's needed is a clear, coherent statement by
*somebody*, *anybody* who can say, 'Yes.  Go do it. We won't stop you.' But
they need to have the authority to make it stick, and under conditions
acceptable to the developing parties -- a buck has to be made.  I don't
think this is too far-fetched.  I just haven't figured out who to ask to
give me an asteriod (or a microcomet) yet.....  :-).

[exit soapbox mode]


I told you this was the windy city. My apologies for any stepped-on toes.
I'll welcome any discussion on this, preferably in the mail.  I've clogged
the net enough already.  


Thanks.  My spleen feels much better now that it's had a venting....

Bob Hettinga
-- 


Bob Hettinga (Chairman, CEO, Virtual Vacuum Ventures, Inc. ( V3I ) ) 

UUCP: ...!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!raha 

Phone: 312-684-8340
Home Address: 		5454 South Dorchester
			Chicago, Illinois 60615

------------------------------

Date: 9 Apr 86 13:15:52 GMT
From: decvax!linus!philabs!cmcl2!harvard!seismo!rochester!ritcv!djs5345@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (David John Smith Jr.)
Subject: Re: catch a comet
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa



>	As comet Halley starts heading back into outer reaches of
>the solar system, I started to think wouldn't it be wonderful if the
>next time it returned peoplekind had gotten their act together well
>enough that it would be worthwhile to catch and keep Halley for 
>the resources it could provide.  
>
>					Fred Mendenhall


Why would we want to do a thing like that??  Capturing the comet would 
be robbing future generations of the spectacle and wonder that most
of us have experienced with this coming of the comet.  The next comet
viewers will be treated to a much better view of Halley's than
we had this time around.  

We would also be removing from the skies one of the most important 
astronomical objects in history.  If humankind begins pillaging the
skies as we have done with our own planet, soon there will be nothing
left unspoiled in the solar system for our enjoyment.  We must 
abondon the "mastery of nature" trip that the human race is on now.

I agree that the comet can teach us a great deal, as can the rest of
our universe and environment, but let's not destroy as we learn.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
David J. Smith Jr.
(on the weekends: Dave Smith)
Rochester Institute of Technology
UUCP:	{allegra,seismo}!rochester!ritcv!djs5345
BITNET:	DJS5345@RITVAXC
USMAIL:	244 Kimball Drive
	Rochester, NY 14623
VOICE:	(716) 272-1578
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Does the Institute have any opinions??

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

------------------------------

Date: 12 Apr 86 20:08:03 GMT
From: tektronix!reed!omen!caf@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX)
Subject: Re: Pick up Comet Halley? No!
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <3191@ut-ngp.UUCP> ahna422@ut-ngp.UUCP (Carlos Perez) writes:
>
>Comet Halley is like this.  It should be left alone for "historical
>reasons".  

Why not pick up a small comet, one that isn't visible to the naked eye,
and (incidentally) one that would be a more manageable size.  One doesn't
have to chop down the largest tree in a forest just to get a wood sample.

   Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX  ...!tektronix!reed!omen!caf   CIS:70715,131
   Author of Professional-YAM communications Tools for PCDOS and Unix
 Omen Technology Inc     17505-V NW Sauvie Island Road Portland OR 97231
Voice: 503-621-3406 TeleGodzilla: 621-3746 300/1200 L.sys entry for omen:
omen Any ACU 1200 1-503-621-3746 se:--se: link ord: Giznoid in:--in: uucp
omen!/usr/spool/uucppublic/FILES lists all uucp-able files, updated hourly

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #254
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA02016; Tue, 15 Apr 86 03:02:03 PST
	id AA02016; Tue, 15 Apr 86 03:02:03 PST
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 86 03:02:03 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8604151102.AA02016@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #255

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 255

Today's Topics:
			  Re: catch a comet
			  Re: Fermi-Paradox
			  Re: catch a comet
		       Re: Interstellar travel
			 new shuttle schedule
			   Bye bye Bussard
		  History of Skylab #4 - Launch Day
			Re: Capturing a comet
		 Re: Black holes as garbage disposals
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 10 Apr 86 20:11:27 GMT
From: decvax!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!brl-adm!brl-smoke!wmartin@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Will Martin )
Subject: Re: catch a comet
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <468@3comvax.UUCP> michaelm@3comvax.UUCP (Michael McNeil) writes:
>Halley's Comet is a celestial phantasm which for millenia has dazzled
>people during its periodic returns.  

Well, I think Halley's has sure let us down this time... :-)
I have not been "dazzled" in the slightest; all this brouhaha about it
has the earmarks of the puffery prior to Kohoutek, which also was a
total let-down. Let's face it, when we refer to a comet as "dazzling",
we mean that there is this gigantic tail arching across the greater part
of the night sky, and an overpoweringly-bright head -- a sight that
totally transforms our view of the universe, not just a miniscule hazy
patch somewhere off in the heavens that you need a guidebook and
artificial optical aids to find!

The idea of capturing Halley's might be good as a threat... "Awright,
youse punk comet! You put on a fancy show, or the boys here will turn
you into a dirty-ice mine, see?" for the next approach...   :-)

Will

------------------------------

Date: 10 Apr 86 17:54:04 GMT
From: decvax!mcnc!philabs!cmcl2!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!prometheus!pmk@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Paul M Koloc)
Subject: Re: Fermi-Paradox
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <761@inuxe.UUCP> fred@inuxe.UUCP (Mendenhall), Fred said:

> Fermi-Paradox says look, there has been sufficient time 
> just since our star has been burning for the Milky Way Galaxy to 
> be totally colonized, i.e. every single star system, tens of 
> thousands of time by a sufficiently motivated race using 
> technology just beyond our present abilities. It should have been
> already done. Where are they?
>
>The lack of evidence of other races leads to several possible conclusions:
>	1. The game is rigged and we are some sort of experiment.
>	   (Makes dramatic story lines but I don't believe it.)
>	2. Humanity is not mediocre but is exceptional in its
>	   technological prowness. (Possible, but not even my ego is
>	   able to believe that.)
>	3. The number of intelligence race in the Galaxy is not large.
>	   (This one feels right to me.)

If > 3, then why?  Did they invent "a welfare society" and breed 
themselves back into oblivion or some quasar bomb and blast 
themselves back into the cosmic elements?? 
				
May you become the Force.
+---------------------------------------------------------+--------+
| Paul M. Koloc, President: (301) 445-1075                | FUSION |
| Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222        |  this  |
| {umcp-cs | seismo}!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP  | decade |
+---------------------------------------------------------+--------+

------------------------------

Date: 11 Apr 86 11:28:32 GMT
From: decvax!linus!philabs!cmcl2!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!chris@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Chris Torek)
Subject: Re: catch a comet
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <2535@brl-smoke.ARPA> wmartin@brl-smoke.ARPA (Will Martin ) writes:
>Well, I think Halley's has sure let us down this time... :-)
>I have not been "dazzled" in the slightest [...]

The quoted article was not supposed to be taken seriously; but Will
Martin has touched upon a rather fundamental thing here.  I am not
sure that it is Halley that has let us down.  Rather, we have come
to expect too much, and we do not consider the effects of our own
actions.  Astronomers, of course, know this quite well, but perhaps
the `man on the street' does not:  we have polluted the night sky
with great quantities of light.  I live near the heart of one of
the largest cities in the United States---Washington, D.C.---and
in this area the nights are never truly dark.  It is no wonder no
one thinks much of Halley:  No one can really see it!

------------------------------

Date: 11 Apr 86 21:30:33 GMT
From: uwvax!topaz!bentley!kwh@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (KW Heuer)
Subject: Re: Interstellar travel
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <[AI.AI.MIT.EDU].24939.860407.KFL> KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU ("Keith F. Lynch") writes:
>    From: nike!topaz!bentley!kwh@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (KW Heuer)
>
>    The Fermi paradox says, in effect, "Why haven't the ETIs reached Earth
>    yet?" with the implication that interstellar travel is easy.  It seems to
>    me that this is a premature and arrogant attitute for a race that has just
>    barely made it to the moon.
>
>  I think it would be far more arrogant to say "We don't have
>interstellar travel therefore it's impossible".

Agreed.

>  We have not "just barely made it to the moon".  We have several
>probes on their way out of the solar system.

Terran intelligence (carbon and silicon*) has just barely made it to the
moon.  The extra-solar probes are somewhat analagous to a note-in-a-bottle.
It's a nice achievement, but I wouldn't use it to prove anything.

>  We have speculate with the data we have on hand.  That is the only
>way progress can ever be made.

Yup.  And to make better speculations we need more data, which we can only
get by going Out There.  I don't think we'll get it in my lifetime.  I hope
I'm wrong.

Karl W. Z. Heuer (ihnp4!bentley!kwh), The Walking Lint
*I include machine intelligence (which doesn't exist yet) because the
discussion of the Fermi Paradox allows for Von Neumann probes.

------------------------------

Date:  Sun, 13 Apr 86 16:51 EST
From: Mark Purtill <Purtill@mit-multics.arpa>
Subject:  new shuttle schedule
To: space@s1-b.arpa

<Fnord>
The Boston Glob printed a new shuttle schedule today (4/13/86), which
was apparently based on an 18 month layoff.  There would be 4 flights in
'87, starting in July.  The first would launch a replacement for the
comsat lost on Challenger, then two military cargos, and in december, 
Galileo.

Now here's my question:  I was under the impression that Galileo's
launch window was three weeks long every thirteen months;  it was
originally palnned to be launched in May.  May + 13 mo = June '87
!= Dec '87.  So what's going on?

       Mark
^.-.^  Purtill at MIT-MULTICS.ARPA    **Insert favorite disclaimer here**
(("))  2-229 MIT Cambrige MA 02139

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 Apr 86 13:51:05 PST
From: space-request@s1-b.arpa
Apparently-To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

------------------------------

Date:         Sun, 13 Apr 86 13:39:52 EST
From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
To: space digest <SPACE@s1-b.arpa>
Subject:      Bye bye Bussard

     There has been much speculation, expecially in science fiction,
about the possibility of relativistic star travel by fueling a fusion
starship with interstellar hydrogen collected in passage (ie., a
"fusion ramjet", also called a "Bussard ramjet).  This idea stems from
a 1960 paper by R.W. Bussard, in Astronautica Acta.
     There are many problems with such a proposition.  The major
one is that the scoop would have to be incredibly light weight,
yet have a very large input area.  No solid scoop could do; it
would have to be electromagnetic in character.  However, EM
scoops will only work on ionized hydrogen; interstellar hydrogen
is typically neutral.  Thus, the interstellar medium has to be
ionized in front of the ship, and this has to be done without
the use of prodigious amounts of energy. (I have heard it suggested
that this could be done by shining an appropriately tuned laser
ahead of the ship.  As far as I know, the details of this have never
been worked out.)  Another, more subtle problem, is that the material
which generates the magnetic fields is under a great amount of stress
due to the force of the field on the generator; the ultimate strength
of the material puts a maximum on the field strength.  A final problem
is that this requires the ability to do H-H fusion, a technology which
is much more difficult than D-T fusion, which is now being studied.
     In passing, let me mention another, derivatave scheme, proposed
by Whitmire and Jackson (J. British Interplanetary Soc., 30, 223, 1977):
interstellar hydrogen is collected by a scoop, but rather than use it
for fusion, it is heated by a stationary laser and used as reaction mass.
This avoids the necessity of doing H-H fusion on the fly.
     Unfortuantely, Bussard assumed the interstellar medium had a
density of about 1 atom per cc.  I've just been looking over a NASA
conference proceedings discussing the interstellar medium (NASA
CP 2345, 1984), and the actual density in the neighborhood of the sun
is a lot lower, more like 0.1 per cc.
     There are several ways of making this measurement.  One is by
looking at the absorption of the light from various nearby stars by
interstellar hydrogen.  This tells you the average density of H
along the line of sight.  Another way is by looking at the ionization
glow at the shock where the sun's plasma bubble intersects the
interstellar medium.
     The results vary depending on the method.  It looks like the sun
is right on the edge of a cloud of density roughly 0.1/cc (numbers
quoted range from 0.4 to 0.6 for voyager measurements, up to as high
as 0.12).  Around this is a hot bubble of density 0.01 to 0.001 atoms/cc,
of radius >50 parsecs, the remnant of an ancient supernova.
     These numbers are all too low for Bussard ramrockets to work.
Looks like we're going to have to find another way to leave
this place.

                   --Geoffrey A. Landis, Brown University
                     Reply to: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA

------------------------------

Date: 13 Apr 86 01:56:47 GMT
From: ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dave Newkirk)
Subject: History of Skylab #4 - Launch Day
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

The Saturn V performed its final mission in style, and 10 minutes after
liftoff on 14 May 1973 Skylab was in its planned orbit, 436 km above the
Earth.  During the next half hour, a series of commands from the instrument
unit would bring the laboratory to life.
...
Thus far there had been only one curious indication, a report from Houston
that the meteroid shield had deployed prematurely.  When nothing more was
heard, officials at the launch site dismissed the indication as a false
telemetry signal.  After the telescope mount had moved into its proper
position, there was time to relax while awaiting deployment of the work-
shop's solar arrays.

The relaxation was short lived.  About half an hour after liftoff,
Flight Director Donald Puddy in Houston reported erratic signals from
both the meteroid shield and the workshop solar arrays.  The solar wings
were scheduled to deploy 41 minutes after launch, when Skylab had passed
beyond the range of the station at Madrid.  Tension mounted as officials
listened for news from the tracking station at Carnarvon, Australia.
The information was confusing.  One telemetry signal indicated that the
array had released for deployment but was not fully extended, while
temperature signals suggested that both wings were gone, a conclusion
reinforced by the absence of voltage signals.
...
A bleak picture confronted the Skylab team the evening of the launch.
Besides the overheating and the lack of power, the attitude-control
system has problems.  Responses from rate gyroscopes were not averaging
properly, and the initial manuevers had expended excessive amounts of
nitrogen gas.  No doubt engineers wished they could bring Skylab back
for repairs.  This was out of the question, of course.  The chances of
repairing it in space looked unpromising, but the attempt had to be made.
...
If Huntsville and Houston bore the heaviest responsibility, the entire
Skylab team was involved.  From Huntington Beach to Cape Canaveral,
workdays of 16-18 hours became normal, and people lost track of time.
Tempers remained remarkably calm despite the long hours.  Relations
between Marshall and JSC were excellent, a condition  that both sides
attributed to the close working ties that had grown up during Skylab's
design and development phases.  There was healthy competition between
groups developing sunshades, but in looking back on the time, participants
most often recalled the teamwork and the tremendous amount of work
accomplished in such a short time.  Huntsville officials referred to the
period as `the 11 years in May.'

(Excerpt from "Living and Working in Space - A History of Skylab", NASA
SP-4208, for sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Gov't Printing
Office, Washington, D.C. 20402)
-- 
				Dave Newkirk, ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn

------------------------------

Date: 12 Apr 86 19:48:31 GMT
From: bellcore!petrus!karn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Phil R. Karn)
Subject: Re: Capturing a comet
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>     	I think Phil Karn once mentioned that aphelion is usually
>     a good point because it typically requires low energy to make
>     orbital changes at this point ...
> 
>   It depends on how you want to change the orbit.  To change the
> perihelion, act at aphelion.  To change the aphelion, act at
> perihelion.

What I was probably saying is that *plane changes* are best done at
aphelion.  Since Halley's (and many comets) are in retrograde orbits whose
planes are way out of the ecliptic, this is still no small task. Work out
how much kinetic energy there is in Halley relative to the earth, and I
think you'll conclude that "capturing" it is an unlikely prospect. (I'll
give you a hint. The energy liberated by Halley striking the earth would far
dwarf the combined nuclear arsenals of the US and USSR).

Phil

------------------------------

Date: 10 Apr 86 16:00:32 GMT
From: ihnp4!mecc!sewilco@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Scot E. Wilcoxon)
Subject: Re: Black holes as garbage disposals
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <[AI.AI.MIT.EDU].23521.860402.KFL> KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU writes:
>  A fusion torch or a simple carbon arc will decompose any wastes into
>their constituent elements.  This is a much easier technology than
>black hole control.
>...
>								...Keith

After decomposing into elements, an "industrial-scale mass spectrometer"
can separate the elements for collection. (ala J.P.Hogan's "Voyage From
Yesteryear")

How about radioactives?  Do we presently have knowledge and technology
(given cheap electricity) to transmute radioactives we can't use to less
hazardous elements?
-- 

Scot E. Wilcoxon  Minn. Ed. Comp. Corp.            quest!mecc!sewilco
45 03 N / 93 08 W   (612)481-3507  {ihnp4,mgnetp}!dicome!mecc!sewilco
"Amateur Time Lord - I can only move forward in time, very slowly."

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #255
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA07705; Wed, 16 Apr 86 03:02:06 PST
	id AA07705; Wed, 16 Apr 86 03:02:06 PST
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 86 03:02:06 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8604161102.AA07705@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #256

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 256

Today's Topics:
		     Re: Observing Dyson spheres
     Re: Black holes as garbage disposals - Reverse Dyson Spheres
			     Re: Infrared
		       Re: Interstellar travel
			  Re: catch a comet
			    homesteading?
		      "Only" a kilometer across
			Re: Terraforming Venus
			  RE: Fermi-Paradox
		   Re: Survivability of astronauts
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 9 Apr 86 16:18:44 GMT
From: ihnp4!mecc!sewilco@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Scot E. Wilcoxon)
Subject: Re: Observing Dyson spheres
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu>
>...ght consider radio obsolete.  But unless we seriously misunderstand
> thermodynamics, any civilization which uses massive amounts of energy
> for anything at all will have to radiate enormous amounts of infrared
> into interstellar space.
> 								...Keith

I've thought of a couple of ways of cooling without radiating a lot of
infrared in all directions.

1. Thermocouples convert heat to electricity.  Electricity can be used
to send energy out of the area in a useful form, such as radio beams to
neighbors or laser beams to spacecraft.  Let's not add to this list..two
examples of directional emissions is enough to make the point.

2. A heat source in front of a reflector could be used as a propulsion
system.  How about a white-hot mass (or plasma) in front of a light
sail?  It would be very slow, but would generate a somewhat directional
IR beam which might not be aimed at us (which implies the craft was
accelerating toward us).

We're not talking practical here, folks.  Maybe some unknown technology
would allow control of a plasma without using huge amounts of
*external energy* to keep it in one place. 

I said "external energy".  A reflective partial sphere (well, not a
circular shape..parabolic instead) around a star would indeed be
a heat source in front of a reflector as in #2 above.

In this case, the entire system would be under way.  Very slowly.

Vega is partially blocked, you say?  Maybe they're coming to our
neighborhood. :-)
-- 

Scot E. Wilcoxon  Minn. Ed. Comp. Corp.            quest!mecc!sewilco
45 03 N / 93 08 W   (612)481-3507  {ihnp4,mgnetp}!dicome!mecc!sewilco
"I'll break my neck jumping down there!"
"What are you worried about? You're indestructible."
"I know, but it still hurts."

------------------------------

Date: 12 Apr 86 07:43:53 GMT
From: decvax!linus!alliant!spain@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dave Spain)
Subject: Re: Black holes as garbage disposals - Reverse Dyson Spheres
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <[AI.AI.MIT.EDU].23521.860402.KFL> KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU ("Keith F. Lynch") writes:
>
>>    From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@su-ai.arpa>
>>
>>    (It occurs to me that a good sink for toxic waste would be a black
>>    hole. We could "kill two birds with one stone" by using toxic waste as
>>    the mass we drop into the gravity well.)
>
>  A fusion torch or a simple carbon arc will decompose any wastes into
>their constituent elements.  This is a much easier technology than
>black hole control.
>  I think we want to avoid dropping stuff into large black holes as
>long as possible, since it is a very long time until you can get it
>out again, i.e. upwards of ten to the hundredth power years.
>								...Keith

I first remember running across the idea of using a black hole as a trash
bin in a Carl Sagan book "The Cosmic Connection". I am not necessarily
attributing the idea to Sagan its just that I remember reading about in
his book.

In any case, the idea was to build an inverted Dyson sphere, with a black
hole in its center. The radius of the sphere is large enough to provide
1 G of acceleration at the surface of the sphere where people could live
and work. This in effect makes for a VERY LARGE planet. Energy could be
supplied by sending the waste generated by the people on the surface
down to the black hole in special carriers. The carries were to follow
a precise trajectory such that at a key point in their travel they eject
the waste mass into the black hole, imparting them with enough energy to
return to the surface. By using the gravitational acceleration of the
black hole they were supposed to be able to return to the sphere surface
with more kinetic energy than they left with, hence a net gain.

An idea I had (again no claim implied as to originality) is that additional
heat and light could be supplied to the surface if you could manage to somehow
put one or more "normal" stars into orbit around the black hole, far enough
away from the sphere to provide a more or less earth-like solar environment
(assuming the inhabitants are humanoid). Day/Night cycles could be simulated
by making sure that the star(s) are not "Dyso-centric" to the surface
and are spaced properly to give the desired day/night ratio and to make sure
they won't collide with each other.

------------------------------

Date: 10 Apr 86 18:04:00 GMT
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiucdcsb!carroll@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Infrared
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa


No. According to all current physics, heat is the inevitable product of
any activity in the physical universeEven the photoelectric thing still
gets you. In order to DO something with the electricity, it must flow
through some sort of circut (either organic or artificial), and that must
dissipate energy, which turns into heat. Even superconducting circuts have
to dump heat. Not much, but some. And the more you have, the more heat.

------------------------------

Date: 14 Apr 86 05:24:11 GMT
From: bellcore!petrus!karn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Phil R. Karn)
Subject: Re: Interstellar travel
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

I'm surprised no one has mentioned Sagan's answer to the Fermi paradox yet
(I think he calls it the Cosmic Quarantine hypothesis).

To restate Sagan's argument: Only 44 years elapsed between Marconi's first
transatlantic tests (about when we first announced our existence to the rest
of the universe in a "shell" expanding at the speed of light) and the first
test of a nuclear weapon.  This is a VERY short time in comparison to the
age of the universe (and the age of the earth).  It could very well be the
case that intelligent, technological civilizations have been quite common in
the history of the universe, but that they are wiped out by nuclear wars
before they are able to move off the planet, or even announce their
existence by radio for very long.  I believe Sagan goes on to conjecture
that the very traits which cause a race to evolve the ability to exploit
technology and travel into space are the same traits which cause them to
destroy themselves before they get much of a chance.

I find this theory very persuasive.

Phil

------------------------------

Date: 11 Apr 86 22:31:36 GMT
From: ihnp4!stolaf!mmm!umn-cs!hyper!dean@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dean Gahlon)
Subject: Re: catch a comet
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> 	As comet Halley starts heading back into outer reaches of
> the solar system, I started to think wouldn't it be wonderful if the
> next time it returned peoplekind had gotten their act together well
> enough that it would be worthwhile to catch and keep Halley for 
> the resources it could provide.  
> 
> 					Fred Mendenhall
*What* resources?????
I'm sure that there are lots of things floating around out in space
that have more resources than comets. (And are probably more
accessible, to boot).


         So many wheels, so little time...
                     				Dean

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 86 13:19:15 PST
From: mcgeer%ji@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Rick McGeer)
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: homesteading?

	Bob Hettings has a point, and I'll give him a better example:
homesteading.  Tracts of land were given free to settlers if they lived and
worked them for a period of some years (indeed, as I recall the Kansas
settlers were lined up at the Kansas-Missouri border, and at a specified hour
were told 'go'.  First one to reach a tract got the homestead rights...)

	But there's a problem, too.  Which body has the authority to give
homestead rights?  Not the US government -- we certainly don't have rights
to any celestial body.  I suppose that some argument could be made about the
Moon, but in my judgement the US would be foolish to make it.

	This leaves the UN -- but the experience of the Moon Treaty is enough
to convince me that the UN will *not* grant homesteading or access rights to
private, American firms.

	My suggestion would be for the US government to yield *its* rights
to celestial bodies, and for private venturers to go anyway.  It's very
unlikely that a foreign government could make a succesful claim in US courts,
or in any jurisdiction that could interfere with business operations.

							-- Rick.

------------------------------

Date:         Mon, 14 Apr 86 14:10:20 EST
From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
To: space digest <SPACE@s1-b.arpa>
Subject:      "Only" a kilometer across

     Bob Hettinga quotes the largest asteroid co-orbital with Earth as
being "only" a kilometer across.  "Only"??  If we take that as being 500
meters radius, the mass of it (assuming nickel-iron) is 4 billion tons.
Friday's NYT quotes nickel as  just over $4000 per ton (unfortunately,
they don't list iron).

     An iron meteroid is typically 8.5% nickel, so the value of the
nickel alone would be over a trillion dollars (assuming the price
doesn't drop when the available amount increases).  This doesn't
even count the value of the iron, or the platinum group elements.

                   --Geoffrey A. Landis, Brown University
                     Reply to: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA

------------------------------

Date:         Sun, 13 Apr 86 21:54:47 EST
From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
To: space digest <SPACE@s1-b.arpa>
Subject:      Re: Terraforming Venus

    It would indeed be very difficult to Terraform Venus.  It's got too
damn much atmosphere.  100 Kg. per square centimeter.  Even if it were
turned into carbon, it would form a layer 150 meters thick, and leave
behind 73 kilograms of O2 over every square centimeter.  That's a
pressure of 45 PSI of pure oxygen!  How do you prevent the carbon layer
from burning?
     Also, it has too little water.
     There's a good article on terraforming Venus in the December 1984
issue of Analog (an issue which coincidentally features my story "Elemental"
as the cover story); and a follow-up article, "The Post-diluvian world",
appeared a while later.  (Also, see Pamela Sargent's latest book "Venus
of Dreams"--which I haven't read yet.)

                   --Geoffrey A. Landis, Brown University
                     Reply to: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA

------------------------------

Date: 14 Apr 86 03:38:03 GMT
From: decvax!dartvax!agroh@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Andrew M. Groh)
Subject: RE: Fermi-Paradox
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>  . . .
> If you accept these premises, then the Fermi-Paradox says look, there
> has been sufficient time just since our star has been burning 
> for the Milky Way Galaxy to be totally colonized, i.e. every single star 
> system, tens of thousands of time by a sufficiently motivated race using 
> technology just beyond our present abilities. It should have been already 
> done. Where are they?
>  . . .

The assumption that is made but not stated is that space travel is "easy".
That is: it is possible to reach and colonize stars in a "reasonable" amount
of time.  If this is not possible then the argument breaks down.  If the
fastest we were able to propel a spaceship were 5% of the speed of light, as
a practical limit,  it would be very difficult for us to reach any other
solar system.  Therefore, this paradox does not exist if space travel is
difficult.

Andrew M. Groh

Net:     {decvax|linus|cornell}!dartvax!agroh
Written: 31 N Main St, Hanover, NH 03755
Phone:   (603)-643-9823

------------------------------

Date: 14 Apr 86 00:10:03 GMT
From: decvax!linus!alliant!spain@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dave Spain)
Subject: Re: Survivability of astronauts
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>In article <354@hadron.UUCP> klr@hadron.UUCP (Kurt L. Reisler) writes:
>>In article <728@aicchi.UUCP> dbb@aicchi.UUCP (Burch) writes:
>>
>>The B1-a had an escape pod system where the enire crew compartment would
>>separate and come down on parachutes.  It would be possible to completely
>>redesign the shuttle to have this feature, but it is potentally more
>>dangerous than the current situation; What if it separated at the wrong
>>time, like in orbit??
>
>	If memory serves me, the only B-1 to have crashed, was a B-1a with
>	such an escape pod.  The pod did eject (or was it thrown from the
>	wreckage?), but the crew died, either in the pod, or when they were
>	thrown from it.  Pictures that appeared in AWS&T (Aviation Leak and
>	Space Mythology) clearly showed the wreckage of the escape pod about
>	100+ meters away from the wreckage of the bomber.

In the case of the B-1a accident I believe only the pilot was killed as a
result of the pod ejection. The other crew member(s) survived with various
injuries (whether they died of these injuries later I do not know).

Supposedly pod ejection systems are not favored much by the pilots who would
have to rely on them in an emergency situation to save their lives. It is
evidently far riskier to attempt to eject the crew cabin as a single unit
than to have the crew bail out individually by jumping out or by using
individual ejection seats.

This always struck me as being somewhat counter-intuitive since one would think
that ejecting a crew-cabin intact would be LESS risky for the crew than
an ejection by individuals. For example, an intact crew cabin could be used to
maintain pressurization at high altitudes, freeing crew members from cumbersome
pressure suits, provide both aerodynamic and impact shock resistance, allow the
crew to maintain communication with the ground, and provide a flotation device
for over-water ditchings.

Of course, on the negative side there are some REAL problems with pod-escape
systems. Higher G-forces needed to eject the complete mass of the pod, high-G
forces again when the pod impacts the ground, the stresses such forces place on
the structure of the pod and objects within the pod that could turn them into
deadly projectiles, the aerodynamic stability of the pod on and after ejection
(both a G-force and controllability problem, remember modern parachutes allow
individuals condsiderable ability to steer away from trouble). Also some of the
advantages listed above can also be had in a pod-less escape system, probably
for less money. Pressure suits and headset radios to name a few. It may be that
for aircraft, a pod-escape system may never be as good as seat ejection.
Of course, given a preference, I'm sure most pilots would prefer to try to land
the aircraft over ejection whenever a landing is possible. On the other hand,
a spacecraft provides an additional set of problems when it comes to crew
ejection. Re-entry being one of the more obvious.

Perhaps the real problem with such a system is a lack of research and
development behind it that could make it really feasible. I would think such a
system would be ideal for a spacecraft escape system. If not for the shuttle,
perhaps for a TAV. I like to envision the possibility of an escape-pod that
would look much like a small powered shuttle itself (similar to the French
HERMES in size).

Comments/Critiques?

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #256
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA10605; Thu, 17 Apr 86 03:02:06 PST
	id AA10605; Thu, 17 Apr 86 03:02:06 PST
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 86 03:02:06 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8604171102.AA10605@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #257

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 257

Today's Topics:
			 Catch Another Comet
			   Re: Colonization
			  Re: Dyson spheres
	       A reply to the NYT Editorial of April 5
		      LA Area: Space Talk at ISI
			   Re: Colonization
		       Re: the greening of Mars
		 Re: Black holes as garbage disposals
			      Recycling
			 SPACE Digest V6 #255
			   Shuttle schedule
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 14 Apr 86 14:25:46 GMT
From: ihnp4!inuxc!inuxe!fred@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Fred Mendenhall)
Subject: Catch Another Comet
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

OK I YIELD! If it means so much to everyone, I'll keep my hands off 
Halley and let it orbit peacefully until it runs out of gas.

So lets talk about a hypothetical, large, long period comet.

What resources does it have that we would want? None, if your on the 
Earth, but if you have earnest space colonization effort underway 
the water and the carbon is fairly valuable. Even if Earth launches 
drop to $50.00 - $100.00 a pound that's a steep price to pay for water and
coal. (Carbon is a terribly useful atom for making plastics and 
synthetic fibers. It would be tough to have a self supporting colony
without it.)

As Phil pointed out the Delta Vee needed to directly capture 
a "Halley like" comet is large, Halley's impact energy with Earth is 
on the order of our nuclear arsenals. However, that simply implies that if
we want to catch something "like Halley"  we need to look for 
an opportunity to use one of the gas giants to decelerate the
critter. 

Several people have said there are better candidates than Halley.
OK, what are they?  What are their orbital elements?

				Fred Mendenhall

------------------------------

Posted-Date: Mon 14 Apr 1986 21:58:37 EST
Date: Mon 14 Apr 1986 21:58:37 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Re: Colonization
To: space@s1-b.arpa
In-Reply-To: uwvax!uwmacc!john's message of 6 Apr 86 08:09:01 GMT

 uwvax!uwmacc!john@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (john jacobsen) write:
>It seems to me, though I really don't know much about it, that we as humans
>have existed for a fraction of a fraction of a... of the lifetime of the
>Universe (note capitalization) since the Big One (BANG!)-- and that the level
>of technology we operate at now is much newer than our identity as a species,
>at that (see Dr. Sagan's Cosmic Calendar in _The_Dragons_of_Eden_).  Is it
>likely that someone would drop by in so short a time?  Just 'cause we haven't
>seen 'em in a second or two, doesn't mean they ain't there....

Foo!  Why should aliens wait for us to appear before they visit earth?
I can't believe it: they've designed their starships, and are out
cruising around the galaxy, but they don't touch anything in our solar
system because they somehow know that humans will evolve here n billion
years in the future.

The Earth has only microscopic prokaryotic life for most of its history.
*One* alien landing party being careless with its garbage would have
changed that.  We see no signs of alien colonization anywhere in the
solar system.  They should have gotten here long ago.  I don't think
they're in our galaxy or in any nearby galaxies.

------------------------------

Posted-Date: Tue 15 Apr 1986 15:25:33 EST
Date: Tue 15 Apr 1986 15:25:33 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Re: Dyson spheres
To: Kent Sarff <ihnp4!stolaf!mmm!srcsip!sarff@ucbvax.berkeley.edu>
In-Reply-To: ihnp4!stolaf!mmm!srcsip!sarff's message of 7 Apr 86 17:58:37 GMT
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa

  Kent Sarff in response to Keith Lynch wrote:
>    I am a skeptic, as are probably many others reading this.  Please
>back up your data regarding the Dyson sphere.  Enlighten me with at least
>a few specifics such as some crude dimensions for the sphere,  degree of
>completeness ( 0 degrees being infinte thinness, 90 degrees being complete
>sphere), and an estimate of the mass of aluminum required to build such
>a structure.  I am interested also in the available supply of bauxite 
>ore, the source of most aluminum on earth.  Would there be enough, 
>including recycling all the aluminum currently in the hands of consumers?
>
>     I think not.  But I challenge you to PROVE me wrong.

Bauxite is only the most economical ore of aluminum, not the sole
source.  Aluminum is a common element, occuring in clays, feldspars,
etc.  By mass, the crust of the earth is 8.1% aluminum.  So, the top 100
kilometers of the earth's crust contain about 1E25 grams of aluminum.
The earth is 1.5E13 centimeters from the sun; a spherical shell of
Al of this radius with a mass of 1E25 grams would be about 13 microns
thick, much thicker than proposed lightsail materials.

------------------------------

Date: 14 Apr 86 19:40:02 GMT
From: ihnp4!drutx!mtuxo!mtgzz!dls@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (d.l.skran)
Subject: A reply to the NYT Editorial of April 5
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa


  Editor
  New York Times

  Dear Sir:

  The editorial in the April 5 Times, "NASA's Future in Space"
  distorts the report of the National Commission on Space. Far
  from being "aimless," NASA has had a perfectly
  straightforward policy since Apollo. The major purpose of
  the shuttle program has been to build a "highway to space."
  This can only be accomplished by building something like the
  shuttle and flying it until we get it right. A thousand
  probes to Uranus will not bring the human/industrial use of
  space one day closer, but every shuttle flight (successful
  or not) is a giant step toward knowing how to live and work
  in space.  The shuttle IS AN END IN ITSELF of extraordinary
  value.

  By ignoring the National Commission on Space's contention
  that the first priority of the space program should be
  cutting the cost of getting to orbit by a factor of ten, and
  building the infrastructure (space stations and reusable
  orbital transfer vehicles) to support the industrial
  development of space resources, the Times seeks to cut
  Americans off from the future we deserve. If the space
  program is reduced to yet another pointless spectacle, this
  time on Mars rather than the Moon, we will have given over
  the real future of humanity to the Soviets and the
  Europeans, both of whom are rushing to claim space as an
  industrial frontier.

  Opening the final frontier of space as a place for
  industrial development and, eventually, human habitation, is
  the only end that justifies the risk of life in space. To
  treat space as merely an arena for engineers and astronauts
  to play or as an opportunity to demonstrate "international
  cooperation" for its own sake is to dismiss the long-term
  dream of using space for human benefit and to insult every
  poor person in America.


                                                  Sincerely,
                                                  Dale L. Skran Jr.

------------------------------

Date: 15 Apr 1986 19:17:16 PST
Subject: LA Area: Space Talk at ISI
From: Craig Milo Rogers  <ROGERS@usc-isib.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa

	There will be a film and talk by Astronaut Ludwig van den Berg
on Tuesday, 22 Apr 1986 at 3:00 PM at USC/Information Sciences Institute
in Marina del Rey.  Dr. van den Berg was a mission specialist for the
crystal growth experiments on a recent shuttle flight.  The topic of
the talk will be "Living and working in space."

	The talk will be non-scientific.  All interested parties are
invited.

	This talk is sponsored by the Institute for Physics of the
School of Medicine of the University of Southern California.  The
talk will be given in the 11th floor conference room of USC's
Information Sciences Institute, 4676 Admiralty Way (cross street
Lincoln).  Pay parking is available, either at the Institute's
building's pay lot ($$$) or the L.A. County parking lot nearby ($).

					Craig Milo Rogers

------------------------------

Posted-Date: Tue 15 Apr 1986 20:23:56 EST
Date: Tue 15 Apr 1986 20:23:56 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Re: Colonization
To: john jacobsen <uwvax!uwmacc!john@ucbvax.berkeley.edu>
In-Reply-To: uwvax!uwmacc!john's message of 6 Apr 86 08:09:01 GMT
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa

>It seems to me, though I really don't know much about it, that we as humans
>have existed for a fraction of a fraction of a... of the lifetime of the
>Universe (note capitalization) since the Big One (BANG!)-- and that the level
>of technology we operate at now is much newer than our identity as a species,
>at that (see Dr. Sagan's Cosmic Calendar in _The_Dragons_of_Eden_).  Is it
>likely that someone would drop by in so short a time?  Just 'cause we haven't
>seen 'em in a second or two, doesn't mean they ain't there....

Foo!  Why should they wait for us to evolve before they start exploring
the galaxy?  If people start travelling in starships I don't expect
we'll wait just because some intelligent creature will evolve on
Altair-4 a billion years from now.  Long before then we'd have grabbed
all the real estate in the galaxy.

------------------------------

Posted-Date: Tue 15 Apr 1986 20:29:05 EST
Date: Tue 15 Apr 1986 20:29:05 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Re: the greening of Mars
To: Clayton Cramer <voder!kontron!cramer@ucbvax.berkeley.edu>
In-Reply-To: voder!kontron!cramer's message of 9 Apr 86 18:52:40 GMT
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa

>Actually, terraforming Venus would be a lot easier.  I remember reading
>a proposal some years ago to drop blimps into the Venerian atmosphere
>at a level that would be cool enough for algae to operate at.  They
>would photosynthesize like mad in Venus' high carbon dioxide atmosphere,
>and in a few thousand years might produce enough free oxygen to produce
>an ozone layer, and reduce the carbon dioxide content enough to lower
>temperatures.

If all the CO2 in Venus's atmosphere were to be converted to carbon and
oxygen, there would be 300 times more O2 than in earth's atmosphere,
which, even at 40 degrees C, would be immediately fatal.  The oxygen
might be used to oxidize surface rocks, as on earth, but you'd need to
grind Venus's crust to a depth of 100 kilometers to absorb all the gas.
The suggestion has been made that imported hydrogen could be used to
convert the oxygen to water, but water is a very good greenhouse gas
also.  This is important; even with no atmosphere Venus will take
centuries to cool enough to live on (because heat diffuses up slowly
from hot subsurface rocks); a greenhouse atmosphere would slow this
cooling process greatly.

You really have to get rid of a lot of the atmosphere.  Probably the
easiest way to do that is to detonate extremely large nuclear explosives
and eject the atmosphere into space.  Many billions of tons of fusion
fuel would be needed (probably deuterium).

------------------------------

Posted-Date: Tue 15 Apr 1986 21:26:23 EST
Date: Tue 15 Apr 1986 21:26:23 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Re: Black holes as garbage disposals
To: "Scot E. Wilcoxon" <ihnp4!mecc!sewilco@ucbvax.berkeley.edu>
In-Reply-To: ihnp4!mecc!sewilco's message of 10 Apr 86 16:00:32 GMT
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa

>How about radioactives?  Do we presently have knowledge and technology
>(given cheap electricity) to transmute radioactives we can't use to less
>hazardous elements?

Yes, with a device called an electronuclear breeder.  A high
current accelerator directs ~1 GeV protons into a heavy element target
(which could include actinide waste).  Nuclear collisions in the
target liberate copious neutrons that can be used to breed additional
fissile material.  The target nuclei are converted to lower atomic
number fragments that presumably have shorter halflives.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 86 23:58:18 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu>
Subject: Recycling
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu

    From: ihnp4!mecc!sewilco@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Scot E. Wilcoxon)

    After decomposing into elements, an "industrial-scale mass spectrometer"
    can separate the elements for collection. (ala J.P.Hogan's "Voyage From
    Yesteryear")

  Right.  In fact, by exploiting the wave nature of the ions, it may
be possible to use the mass spectrometer to build things.

    How about radioactives?  Do we presently have knowledge and technology
    (given cheap electricity) to transmute radioactives we can't use to less
    hazardous elements?

  Given cheap enough and dense enough power, sure.  All you have to
do is get the radioactives hot enough, and the nuclei will come apart
into hydrogen.  Of course this requires extremely high temperatures,
much higher than are needed for (or produced by) fusion.
								...Keith

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1986  00:38 EST
From: MINSKY%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Cc: Space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #255
In-Reply-To: Msg of 15 Apr 1986  06:20-EST from Ted Anderson <ota at s1-b.arpa>

Here is a scheme for the Bussard Mass-Collector: use gravitation!

Specifically, you send a modest mass ahead of the ram-scoop.  As your
collection-mass passes through the cosmic dust, there is a brief
impulse the supplies those drifiting atoms with an increment of momentum dir4ected toward the axis of flight - that is, the path of your spaceship.
Then your ship has a very long sequence of little collectors in a line along the axis.  You need this because the particles that lie further out take longer to reach the axis.

I have not really worked this out, but it is a variant of an old idea:
that new stars form along the path of an old star through a dust-cloud.
If that theory is sound, you could send a little star ahead, a few thousand light years, say, and then the ship could scoop up an endless line of little
clots of condensed matter in its wake.

The nice feature is that the faster goes the scoop-mass, the less momentum it loses
in the momentum-transfer tide-like encounters.  Presumably, you keep
pushing it ahead with your H-H fusion-=powerd laser.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 86 23:41:44 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu>
Subject: Shuttle schedule
To: Purtill@multics.mit.edu
Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@s1-b.arpa

    From: Mark Purtill <Purtill@mit-multics.arpa>

    The Boston Glob printed a new shuttle schedule today (4/13/86), which
    was apparently based on an 18 month layoff.  ...
    Now here's my question:  I was under the impression that Galileo's
    launch window was three weeks long every thirteen months;  it was
    originally palnned to be launched in May.  May + 13 mo = June '87
    != Dec '87.  So what's going on?

  Is that an official NASA schedule?  Possibly the reporter just made
it up by adding 18 months to an old schedule.
								...Keith

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #257
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA13836; Fri, 18 Apr 86 03:02:00 PST
	id AA13836; Fri, 18 Apr 86 03:02:00 PST
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 86 03:02:00 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8604181102.AA13836@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #258

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 258

Today's Topics:
				Debris
	   Vega's mass spectrograms of Halley: Funny lines?
			  RE: Catch a comet
			  RE: Fermi-Paradox
			Re: Terraforming Venus
		     Lights out for Comet Halley
	       Cosmic Quarantine hypothesis persuasive?
		    Venus has too much atmosphere?
		       Re: Where is everybody?
			  Re: Fermi-Paradox
			    Fermi Paradox
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 86 23:41:59 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu>
Subject: Debris
To: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@s1-b.arpa

  Can anyone explain why it took so long to find the SRB and the crew
compartment?  Wasn't the explosion and impact captured on many tapes
and films from differrent directions, allowing triangulation to locate
things to within a few feet?
								...Keith

------------------------------

Date: 16 APR 86 00:36-CST
From: HIGGINS%FNALC.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
To: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Vega's mass spectrograms of Halley: Funny lines?

    The other day I went to a talk at Chicago's Adler Planetarium.
Roald Sagde'ev, a Big Wheel in Soviet space science and international
cooperation, had recently been in town to discuss the Vega probes of
Halley's Comet.  He met with the Planetarium guys, giving them a lot
of photos from the Vega data, but didn't have time to stick around and
explain them.
    Among the pictures was one from the mass spectrometer experiment.
It showed a lot of peaks, with the big ones labeled with the elements
they represented.  Lots of hydrogen, of course, abundant oxygen and
carbon, somewhat less nitrogen.  There was a stubby bump at iron-56.
But the startling feature of the data was an enormous peak way out in
the heavy elements labeled "Ag".  Its height was about the same as the
oxygen and carbon.
    Does anybody know what's going on here?  Have you heard some
detailed explanation of this experiment?  Maybe there was a
silver-plated component of the spacecraft that was outgassing.  Maybe
it's some kind of calibration peak for the instrument.  Maybe there's
something that can fake an abundant peak in a mass spec.
    Or maybe Halley's Comet is 10% silver.    (-:

                                        Bill Higgins
                                        Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
                                        HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET

------------------------------

Date:     Wed, 16 Apr 86 09:18 EST
From: WOTAN%UMass.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa
Subject:  RE: Catch a comet

I don't think the person who proposed capturing Halley's comet had
material resources (who needs a big dirty snowball (-:) in mind...
but even then, to quote J.R.R.Tolkien, "He who breaks something
apart to find what it is has left the path of wisdom"
\gb
#include <appropriate_disclaimers.i>

------------------------------

Posted-Date: Wed 16 Apr 1986 07:59:10 EST
Date: Wed 16 Apr 1986 07:59:10 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: RE: Fermi-Paradox
To: "Andrew M. Groh" <decvax!dartvax!agroh@ucbvax.berkeley.edu>
In-Reply-To: decvax!dartvax!agroh's message of 14 Apr 86 03:38:03 GMT
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa

  Andrew M. Groh writes:

>The assumption that is made but not stated is that space travel is "easy".
>That is: it is possible to reach and colonize stars in a "reasonable" amount
>of time.  If this is not possible then the argument breaks down.  If the
>fastest we were able to propel a spaceship were 5% of the speed of light, as
>a practical limit,  it would be very difficult for us to reach any other
>solar system.  Therefore, this paradox does not exist if space travel is
>difficult.

False false false!!!   Even at 1% of the speed of light the entire galaxy
could be colonized in a few tens of millions of years.  There is no
rule that the colonists have to reach their destination in one generation.
If we can imagine people living in space colonies orbiting the sun,
why not imagine sending a fleet of several dozen (or hundred) of the colonies
off to alpha centauri?  The enery and material required is tiny compared
to what is potentially available in the solar system.

------------------------------

Posted-Date: Wed 16 Apr 1986 08:08:51 EST
Date: Wed 16 Apr 1986 08:08:51 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Re: Terraforming Venus
To: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
In-Reply-To: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET's message of Sun, 13 Apr 86 21:54:47 EST
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa

73 kg. of oxygen per square centimeter is more like 1000 PSI, not 45
PSI.  Instant oxygen poisoning, even at room temperature.

------------------------------

Posted-Date: Wed 16 Apr 1986 08:24:52 EST
Date: Wed 16 Apr 1986 08:24:52 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Lights out for Comet Halley
To: space@s1-b.arpa

My two cents on the catch Halley controversy...

Exploiting Halley seems uneconomical; the moons of the outer planets
(Phoebe?) are probably more accessible.  If we wanted to, though, the
best way would be to guide Halley into fly-bys of Jupiter or Saturn
to get free angular momentum.

I was very disappointed by Halley's show.  The problem is clear: Halley
is getting old, and doesn't produce enough gas.  With a little ingenuity
we can solve that problem.  We just need to increase Halley's surface
area a bit.  I propose that the next time around we punch Halley's
lights out.  A few tens of tons of mass hitting Halley head on would
probably do wonders for its brightness.  If that's not good enough
a small nuclear explosive could be tried.  Later generations would be
robbed of a comet, but perhaps some later-day Cristo (sp?) could
place a chunk of ice in the same orbit.

------------------------------

To: space
Date:    Wed, 16 Apr 86 07:15:08 PST
From: august@jpl-vlsi.arpa
Subject: Cosmic Quarantine hypothesis persuasive?


>Date: 14 Apr 86 05:24:11 GMT
>From: bellcore!petrus!karn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Phil R. Karn)
>Subject: Re: Interstellar travel
> 
>I'm surprised no one has mentioned Sagan's answer to the Fermi paradox yet
>(I think he calls it the Cosmic Quarantine hypothesis).
> 
>... It could very well be the case that intelligent, technological 
>civilizations have been quite common in the history of the universe, 
>but that they are wiped out by nuclear wars before they are able to 
>move off the planet, or even announce their existence by radio for 
>very long.  I believe Sagan goes on to conjecture that the very traits 
>which cause a race to evolve the ability to exploit technology and 
>travel into space are the same traits which cause them to destroy 
>themselves before they get much of a chance.
> 
>I find this theory very persuasive.
> 
>Phil

If one was to believe the "conjecture" and "theory" then why are we trying
so hard to advance our space program. Why does this net exist. Why does this
digest exist.

I disagree with the statement "...the very traits which cause a race 
to evolve the ability to exploit technology and travel into space are 
the same traits which cause them to destroy themselves before they get 
                      ^^^^^
much of a chance".

I beleve that the ability to exploit technology gives a race the tools to
to destroy themselves. The "traits" of invention and destruction are not
related.

Emotion is the driving force in destruction, not inventive intelligence.

I am glad that this, however "persuasive" this theory is, that it be
considered only a theory. I believe that it is a defeatist theory.

Richard B. August  AUGUST@JPL-VLSI

------------------------------

Date: 16 Apr 1986 1013-PST
From: Rem@imsss
Subject: Venus has too much atmosphere?
To: SPACE%Angband@su-score.arpa

So Venus has too much atmosphere? Wonderful, we can kill two birds
with one stone. (1) Use a dipper or plasma pump or whatever to drain
away the atmosphere to use as resources for space industry (lots of
carbon and sulfur; oxygen too except we have too much of that on the
Moon already so we can discharge the oxygen as reaction mass or just
dump it back into Venus's atmosphere as waste like the early photosynthetic
bacteria did on Earth), and as a side effect (2) we reduce the atmosphere
to where terraforming will be practical (and probably have already dumped
enough oxygen already not to have to do much more terraforming anyway).

Note, this was discussed on SPACE several years ago, including techniques
for plasma pump etc., so let's not re-invent all those ideas, perhaps the
moderator can retrieve archives of this discussion for newcomers to fetch
via FTP or mail?

------------------------------

Date: 8 Apr 86 21:59:38 GMT
From: ucdavis!ucrmath!hope!corwin@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (John Kempf)
Organization: University of California, Riverside
Subject: Re: Where is everybody?
References: <860331231142.732170@HIS-BILLERICA-MULTICS.ARPA>, <690@bentley.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> In article <860331231142.732170@HIS-BILLERICA-MULTICS.ARPA>
> Jong@HIS-BILLERICA-MULTICS.ARPA writes:
> 
> >Michael Papagiannis ... takes the position that there are no other
> >advanced civilizations out there for us to encounter ....  It's
> >sort of the anti-Sagan position, and my comment on it is that it
> >shows you what academics will do for attention.
> 
> What does he mean by "out there"?  That there are no ETIs within
> one light-generation, or in the galaxy, or the entire universe, or
> what?
> 
> Karl W. Z. Heuer (ihnp4!bentley!kwh), The Walking Lint

I have two other ideas, (appologies if they have already been posted)
FIRST, assuming that an ET space faring civilization exists, They may
have already discovered us, recieved our television/radio broadcasts,
and decided that they are not interested, as for them, there would be 
no profit in it.
SECOND, what if they evolved around a hotter(colder) star, and they
A. cannot survive long under our sun, or B. have a theory that life 
cannot evolve under nice bright yellow stars, but only under dull cold 
red (painfully hot blue?) ones.
-cory

------------------------------

Date: 14 Apr 86 19:31:10 GMT
From: tektronix!tekred!joels@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Joel Swank)
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR
Subject: Re: Fermi-Paradox
References: <761@inuxe.UUCP>, <212@prometheus.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Errors-To: <space-request@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa


   I have a personal theory about the answer to the Fermi paradox. It is
that civilization is a tenuous and short lived phenomenon. Life is
probably ubiquitous. Most living planets probably spawn intelligence
one or more times during their lives. But the intelligent species
must develop a high civilization to even attempt communication of
their existence to other worlds. Our civilization, built on over
a million years of human evolution, has had the capability to communicate
across the universe for less than 50 years. Our continued existence
is very much in doubt ( nuclear war, environmental destruction, etc).
We will probably cease to exist in a relatively short period of time.
Even if civilization manages to exist for a few thousand years, this
is almost nothing when compared to the estimated 15-20 billion year
age of the universe. If this is true it would be possible for thousands
of civilizations to have formed since the beginning of the universe
with none ever knowing about any of the others. I think the key to
becoming a cosmopolitan species is immortality. Only a race that can
undertake projects lasting millions of years can really be expected to 
conquer the universe. Any race that has achieved this must have 
a morality and intelligence that far transcends our own. They would
certainly have a strict 'hands off' policy toward primative beings
such as us.

Joel Swank
Tektronix, Redmond, Oregon

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Apr 86 14:12 PST
From: David E. Wilkins <WILKINS@sri-ai.arpa>
Subject: Fermi Paradox
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> Fermi-Paradox
>The lack of evidence of other races leads to several possible conclusions:
>	1. The game is rigged and we are some sort of experiment.
>	   (Makes dramatic story lines but I don't believe it.)
>	2. Humanity is not mediocre but is exceptional in its
>	   technological prowness. (Possible, but not even my ego is
>	   able to believe that.)
>	3. The number of intelligence race in the Galaxy is not large.
>	   (This one feels right to me.)
>No matter which conclusion you choose to believe the implications
>are profound.

All in good fun:

Assuming we have to believe one of these 3 is another example of the
common fallacy "if we can't conceive of it, it can't be possible".
Self-importance and geo-centricity have always abounded and probably
always will, at least until we do contact other intelligences. (The
estimates of how many planets can support life in our galaxy always
seems to assume that all life needs the same temperature range as the
particular type of carbon-based life we have here on earth.)  SETI is an
example of electromagnetic chauvanism.  We haven't thought of radio
waves as the best way to communicate for even 100 years, so why do we
think someone thousands or millions of years beyond us will still think
it a reasonable way to communicate?

I can think of a number of other possible conclusions, many of which do
not have such profound implications:

4.  Some other sort of communication has been developed by advanced
races (say something we cannot conceive of that has the properties of
mental telepathy), which renders both electromagnetic rediation and
travel by physical matter unnecessary.

5.  They've already checked us out and found us totally boring.

6. All the best bars are on the other side of the galaxy.

7. Our whole galaxy is the newest nut house of the Intergalactic 
Psyhchiatric Association, and we don't have many inmates yet.

8.  Our spiral arm has AIDS and is quarantined.
(Or perhaps they're afraid of spiders or snakes.)

9.  They know that our whole galaxy is going supernova in 1,000 years
and so have moved elsewhere.

10.  There may be some underlying physical reason that interstellar travel
is not possible within the life span of every type of life that has
evolved anywhere.

11. They've decided to hide from us until the Chicago Cubs win the
World Series.

12. For every reason we can think up, there may be a million we cannot
conceive of.  

I'll stop now, hoping to have made my point.   I am reminded of top
scientists early this century testifying before the Senate and courts
that communicating information across distances on waves thru the air is
totally impossible, and the crazies how claim that it can be done are
obviously quacks out to steal your investment dollars.

David

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #258
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA01302; Sat, 19 Apr 86 03:02:05 PST
	id AA01302; Sat, 19 Apr 86 03:02:05 PST
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 86 03:02:05 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8604191102.AA01302@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #259

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 259

Today's Topics:
			     Dumping heat
		       'Reverse Dyson spheres'
		Freeman Dyson: "To Uranus, Next Time"
			Re: Re: Fermi-Paradox
			   Shuttle schedule
			    Dyson Spheres
		       Re: Interstellar travel
			Re: Re: Fermi-Paradox
			     Alien visits
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Apr 86 19:45:56 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu>
Subject: Dumping heat
To: hnp4!mecc!sewilco@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@s1-b.arpa

    From: ihnp4!mecc!sewilco@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Scot E. Wilcoxon)

    1. Thermocouples convert heat to electricity.  ...

  No, they get power by equalizing differences of temperature.  There
is no way to get useful power from heat, only from differences of
heat.  It is similar to hydroelectric plants, which get power by
equalizing water levels, but not by 'converting water level into
power'.  This is the second law of thermodynamics.  It is considered
one of the least likely physical laws to ever be proven wrong.
  Given an object (for instance a star or a Dyson sphere) radiating
heat into space, you can use thermocouples or many other techniques to
get useful energy and dump the SAME amount of heat into interstellar
space at a LOWER temperature.
  I suppose it is possible that instead of radiating heat at room
temperature, the builders of the Dyson sphere extract more useful
power and radiate the same heat at a much lower temperature, which
would mean we should look for longer wave infrared, or even for
microwaves.  But the extra energy isn't all that great, and dumping at
a lower temperature would require building a larger Dyson sphere, so
maybe this isn't that likely.

    2. A heat source in front of a reflector could be used as a propulsion
    system.

  This is true, but that IS dumping heat into interstellar space.  We
would expect to find about as many accelerating away from us as
towards us, so we should be able to see them about as easily as
'ordinary' Dyson spheres.
								...Keith

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Apr 86 20:25:11 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu>
Subject: 'Reverse Dyson spheres'
To: decvax!linus!alliant!spain@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@s1-b.arpa

    From: decvax!linus!alliant!spain@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dave Spain)

    In any case, the idea was to build an inverted Dyson sphere, with a black
    hole in its center.  ... Energy could be supplied by sending the waste
    generated by the people on the surface down to the black hole in special
    carriers. ...

  This is called a Misner-Thorne-Wheeler sphere.  In the March 1983
Scientific American it is desribed how such a device could support
civilization for over ten to the hundredth power years.
								...Keith

------------------------------

Date:         Wed, 16 Apr 86 22:58:35 EST
From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
To: space digest <space-incoming@s1-b.arpa>
Subject:      Freeman Dyson: "To Uranus, Next Time"

I went to an interesting lecture by Freeman Dyson at MIT today,
entitled "To Uranus, Next Time".  Some of the high points are
summarized here.  Freeman Dyson is known as a top rank scientist who
is willing to speculate on far-out ideas.  Space digest readers may
recognize his name as one of the originators (with Ted Taylor) of the
atomic-bomb powered spaceship concept "Orion".

Dyson had high praise for the people at JPL.  He noted that, compared
to when Voyager encountered Saturn, when it encountered Uranus, the
sunlight was four times dimmer for taking pictures, the radio signal
four times weaker for receiving them, and the equipment the same, but
five years older... but the photos taken had twice as good angular
resolution.  The secret was on-board, reprogrammable software.  Over
the intervening five years, the engineers had worked out better ways
to compensate for the spacecraft's motion.  Further, he noted, this
time when the spacecraft went behind the planet, the high-gain antenna
was precisely aimed at the limb of Uranus, and the beam refracted
through the atmosphere, so that at no time was the signal lost.

On the other hand, he had nothing good to say about the shuttle, which
he said was designed by engineers who did not have the customers'
needs in mind (personally I'd lay the blame on the cost cutters in
Congress, but never mind.  In the questioning session after, he stated
that he would have thought a ramjet boosted shuttle, much smaller,
which breathes air up to mach 15 would have been better.  He said this
would have been feasable twenty years ago if funding hadn't been
diverted to the shuttle.  He also, let me hasten to add, said he
really didn't know much about it).

He speculated on what a Uranus probe might be like in 2016, thirty
years from now.  (He clearly labeled his speculations as 'dreams' or
'science fiction', not fact.)  The date was chosen as being as far
from us now as the launch of Voyager was from the V-2's.  There would
be some differences, he said.  For one thing, the entire probe would
only weigh a kilogram.  It would reach Uranus in two years, not ten,
and land on each of the moons, walk around on them, "taste" them, and
then move on to the next.  Its cousing would already be at Jupiter,
Saturn, the inner planets, and various asteroids and comets.

This feat relies on three new technologies: genetic engineering,
artificial intelligence, and Solar Electric Propulsion.  The probe
would be grown, not assembled.  It would be part plant, providing a
life support system running off of sunlight; part animal, sensors,
navigation, locomotion; and part electronic, for radio communications.
The AI integrates the animal and electrical parts into a symbiosis.
The "brain" weighs only one gram.

In order to keep the probe down to a single kilogram, and get it to
Uranus in two years, conventional rockets aren't good enough; solar
sails are too slow.  It would use a solar electric propulsion system,
a solar collector which provides the power for a small, extremely high
specific impulse ion engine.  The engine thrusts at about one milligee
for three to four months, at a power level of about a kilowatt.  A
hundred square meter thin film dish acts simultaneously as a solar
collector, and as an antenna for the radio to Earth.  Since the
antenna is ten times as big as Voyager's, the signal need only be one
tenth the power, so two watts transmitted power is sufficient.  (the
dish also collects sunlight to regulate the temperature at Uranus).
At Uranus, the craft makes a pass through the very outer layers of the
atmosphere, and here the dish acts as an aeorbrake, braking the craft
at a hundred G's for about 30 seconds, slowing the probe down from 50
kilometers per second to about 20.  During this maneuver, the peak
temperature is about 700 C.  It then uses a fly-by of one or more
moons to adjust the trajectory to move the perigee (peri-uran?) up.

At Uranus, the solar electric propulsion system only produces 0.1
milligee acceleration, since the sunlight is much dimmer.
(fortunately, the acceleration goes as only the square root of the
intensity).  This is enough to get around, however.  It "grazes" in
the rings to resupply.  If one ring "tastes" bad (that is, if it
doesn't contain the right chemicals), it can move to another.  Using
sunlight, it converts the "food" into fuel for the ion and rocket
propulsion systems.

Ion propulsion isn't good enough to hop onto and off of the moons.
For this it uses a small chemical rocket.  There is a precedent, he
says, to the use of chemical rockets in the animal world.  The
Bombadier beetle reacts chemicals in a tiny reaction chamber to shoot
out scalding liquid onto its enemies.  It uses this to land on the
moons, and probably also to hop around distances which are too far to
walk.  On the moons as well, it grazes to refill its tanks.

                   --Geoffrey A. Landis, Brown University
                     Reply to: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA

------------------------------

Date: 16 Apr 86 22:58:56 GMT
From: tektronix!reed!clyde@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Clyde Bryja)
Subject: Re: Re: Fermi-Paradox
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> 
>    I have a personal theory about the answer to the Fermi paradox. It is
> that civilization is a tenuous and short lived phenomenon.
> 
> Joel Swank

This is certainly one plausible explanation.  I also have another.  In
order for an advanced civilization to completely colonize the galaxy,
it has to have a large enough population to do so.  The number of
planetary bodies humans (to name a specific example with which all
netters have had experience (even though nobody understands humans
:-])) may be able to colonize in this galaxy may be as many as 100
million (though that's being liberal).  I find to hard to believe that
a responsible, space faring species of beings would allow themselves
to populate that many planets.

I gotta' go.  A few more of my thoughts (for what little they're worth) will
follow later.

+++++++++++
"For Easter Day is Christmas time,		Clyde Bryja
 And far away is near,				Box 21, Reed College
 And two and two is more than four,		Portland, OR	97202
 And over there is here."

------------------------------

Posted-Date: Thu 17 Apr 1986 16:50:37 EST
Date: Thu 17 Apr 1986 16:50:37 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Shuttle schedule
To: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: "Keith F. Lynch"'s message of Tue, 15 Apr 86 23:41:44 EST
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa, Purtill%multics.mit.edu@csnet-relay.arpa,
        dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa

A possible explanation of the Galileo launch time is the existence of
an alternative trajectory that gets to Jupiter with slightly less
delta-v.  I believe the trajectory swings by the earth again, but takes
somewhat longer to get to Jupiter.  Any JPL people want to give hard
facts?  Such a trajectory might be needed if extra armoring has to be
installed around the RTG.

------------------------------

Date:         Thu, 17 Apr 86 15:13:29 EST
From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
To: space digest <space-incoming@s1-b.arpa>
Subject:      Dyson Spheres

> The earth is 1.5E13 centimeters from the sun; a spherical shell of
> Al of this radius with a mass of 1E25 grams would be about 13 microns
> thick, much thicker than proposed lightsail materials.
   When designing Dyson spheres, keep in mind that the Earth receives
1.3 kW/cm2 over a disk area pi Re squared, but radiates to space
over a spherical area 4 pi Re squared.  Thus, it radiates only 0.3
kW/cm2, at an average temperature of about 300 C.
     A spherical shell will receive energy over its entire inside area,
and radiate over its entire outside area.  (The radiation from the inside
is recollected elsewhere on the inside surface, for no net radiation
loss).  If you want to keep it at a livable temperature, ie., about
300 C, it has to recieve only 1/4 as much per square cm as the Earth:
thus it must be twice as far from the sun as the Earth is, which would
be about half-way between Mars and the center of the Asteroid belt.
    This would make the aluminum foil only 3 microns thick.
    Another way you could make such a shell stable, other than ballancing
it on light pressure, would be to make the thing in giant segments
shaped like pieces of orange peel, all co-orbital.  It could be as
few as two hemispheres.  Of course, there
would have to be tiny gaps between the segments, so an external observer
would see occasional flashes of light from the star; in the case of
two segments,  twice a local year, which would be slightly less than
once an Earth year.   Something else to tell astronomers to look for...

                   --Geoffrey A. Landis, Brown University
                     Reply to: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA

Credit where credit is due department:
Paul Dietz:
> 73 kg. of oxygen per square centimeter is more like 1000 PSI, not 45
> PSI.  Instant oxygen poisoning, even at room temperature.
     Sorry for the miscalculation, everybody: I divided where I should
have multiplied.  Note that Oxygen poisoning commences at about 30 PSI
partial pressure of oxygen.
                                   --GL

------------------------------

Date: 14 Apr 86 18:07:00 GMT
From: hplabs!hpfcdc!hpfcla!ajs@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Interstellar travel
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> Terran intelligence (carbon and silicon*) has just barely made it to the
> moon...  It's a nice achievement, but I wouldn't use it to prove
> anything.

It does prove the absurdity of this statement:

"If we can send a man to the moon, why can't we XXX?"

Obviously, going to the moon was easier than XXX.

Alan Silverstein, hpfcla!ajs

------------------------------

Date: 17 Apr 86 05:02:43 GMT
From: tektronix!reed!clyde@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Clyde Bryja)
Subject: Re: Re: Fermi-Paradox
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> 
>    I have a personal theory about the answer to the Fermi paradox. It is
> that civilization is a tenuous and short lived phenomenon.
> 
> Joel Swank

Okay.  Here is the possible resolution that makes the most sense to me.
(This is a generalization of the simple little example of my last posting.)
Considering the technological advances that our species has made in the last
few thousand-- nay, even the last few hundred-- years, how can we possibly
hope to predict what is and what is not ultimately possible?  Consider, for
example, that only a century ago the whole idea of radio communication
was unimagined.  Who are we to try and second guess what some collection
of beings technologically millions of years in advance of us (not to mention
physically and mentally very different to begin with) will need/desire to
do with the matter that lies about them in the universe?  Quite simply, who
are we to assume that such entities should colonize the place?  They might
not need planets at all.  They might not even need space-time anymore, for
all we know.  There might be an infinite number of universes/dimensions/
spaces/entity-dwelling-places, for all we know.  In that case, with an
infinite number of "places" to go, there might be nobody left in our universe
beyond a certain level of development.  Anything is possible, and the
"paradox" seems to me to be an artifact of our 20th Century human (I might
even be more specific and say "Western") point of view and body of knowledge.


-- 
+++++++++++
"For Easter Day is Christmas time,		Clyde Bryja
 And far away is near,				Box 21, Reed College
 And two and two is more than four,		Portland, OR	97202
 And over there is here."

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 17 Apr 86 23:29:40 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu>
Subject: Alien visits
To: dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@s1-b.arpa

    From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>

    The Earth has only microscopic prokaryotic life for most of its history.
    *One* alien landing party being careless with its garbage would have
    changed that.

  Perhaps one alien landing party being careless with its garbage
*caused* that.
								...Keith

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #259
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA01397; Sun, 20 Apr 86 03:02:05 PST
	id AA01397; Sun, 20 Apr 86 03:02:05 PST
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 86 03:02:05 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8604201102.AA01397@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #260

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 260

Today's Topics:
			 Aluminum foil sphere
	     Re: Cosmic Quarantine hypothesis persuasive?
		    Punching Halley's lights out.
	       Re: supernova -> red giant -> nebula (t
			   Re: Colonization
			Re: nickel in Sudbury
			    Fermi paradox
			  Re: catch a comet
		       Re: Catch Another Comet
			  Re: catch a comet
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 17 Apr 86 23:56:37 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu>
Subject: Aluminum foil sphere
To: dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@s1-b.arpa

    From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>

    So, the top 100 kilometers of the earth's crust contain about 1E25 grams
    of aluminum.  The earth is 1.5E13 centimeters from the sun; a spherical
    shell of Al of this radius with a mass of 1E25 grams would be about 13
    microns thick, much thicker than proposed lightsail materials.

  Right.  I was assuming 0.6 microns thick, which is the right
thickness for the light pressure to balance the Sun's gravity.  A
piece of aluminum foil that thick could just hang in space at any
distance from the Sun.
								...Keith

------------------------------

Date: 17 Apr 86 21:40:11 GMT
From: bellcore!petrus!karn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Phil R. Karn)
Subject: Re: Cosmic Quarantine hypothesis persuasive?
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

What I meant was the following:

It is pretty easy to understand the development of our ability to make tools
and our aggressive, warlike traits from an evolutionary standpoint.  Until
the modern era, both traits had positive survival value for the individual
(those who were more aggressive, especially those who made tools to be
aggressive with, were more likely to survive).

It is even possible that much of what we call human "intelligence" developed
only because of this intra-human competition. After all, plenty of animal
species have been very successful without human level intelligence.  I've
often wondered, though, why so many progenitors of homo sapiens sapiens
became extinct. Given our uniquely human predilection for gratuitously
killing other humans, however, this shouldn't be such a mystery.

So it would appear that the intelligence required to develop space travel
comes only to warlike, aggressive species like ours, and that other
technogical developments of lesser difficulty (e.g., nuclear weapons)
usually destroy those races before they have a chance to move off their home
planets. Hence the Cosmic Quarantine.

Maybe this is a defeatist theory, but I still find it persuasive because it
fits the observations.  Science isn't based on wishful thinking.

Phil

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 18 Apr 86 11:26 PST
From: Dave Platt <Dave-Platt%LADC@cisl-service-multics.arpa>
To: space@s1-b.arpa, dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
Really-To: dietz%slb-doll.csnet%csnet-relay@arpa, space%s1-b@arpa
Subject: Punching Halley's lights out.
Randomness: Freedom of the press is limited to those who own one.
            A.J. LIEBLING

Au contraire!  I've read reports of observations back in November or
so of '85, which indicated that Halley's nucleus was then substantially
more active than most comets at a similar distance from the sun...  and
that it was apparently more active than during its previous visit in
1910.  The reports (Sky&Telescope, I think) said, in effect, that
the detectable halo of gas surrounding the nucleus already covered an
area larger that the sun's diameter, and that plumes and jets of gas
were visible sooner and more obviously than had been expected.

We're just in the wrong place... the 1910 visitation came much closer
and was pretty spectacular, from what I've heard, and Halley's can't
have lost all that much of its outgassing capability in just one
visit.  Rather than punching its lights out with a kinetic or atomic
weapon, let's just change the orbital period of Earth so as to ensure
a close passage by Halley during each of the next dozen visits or
so ;-}

------------------------------

Date: 16 Apr 86 23:58:00 GMT
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiucdcsb!carroll@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: supernova -> red giant -> nebula (t
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa


What about friction with the gas?

------------------------------

Date: 16 Apr 86 23:57:00 GMT
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiucdcsb!carroll@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Colonization
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa


The point is that, no reason is seen why an advanced civilization, even
one limited to moving at light speed, couldn't have colonized the entire
galaxy by now. In fact, current estimates are that the galaxy could be
filled, even by us, in a few tens of millions of years, a very short time
on a galatic scale. So, why haven't they? Why aren't they here, living
on this planet (and every other one), without us (our ancestors having
been removed as unnecessary overhead, or possible competition)? That's
the question. Anyway, although it sounds like this guy thinks he's being
original in this concept, I read an article in Analog several years back
on the same subject, which considered a number of possible reasons. The
one I found most interesting is the claim that the nuclear winter scare
that's been going around came out of SETI research on this topic! Sagan
and Co. were wondering about this question, and decided that one solution
was that there were two types of civilizations, peaceful and aggressive,
and the peaceful ones would take a long time to colonize, while the
aggressive ones would blow themselves up. So, they needed a powerful
mechanism that would pretty much guarantee extinction for aggressive
technological societies, and came upon the Nuclear Winter scenario,
which requires a rather modest amount of nuclear attack to wipe out
intelligent life on the planet. I will try to find the article again,
to give references.

------------------------------

Date: 14 Apr 86 22:02:10 GMT
From: tektronix!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!bcsaic!pamp@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (pam pincha)
Subject: Re: nickel in Sudbury
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <1933@dalcs.UUCP> sys1@dalcs.UUCP (David Jones) writes:
>I will now extend the tangent previously extended by Mark Brader
>about the discussion following "What is a nickel made of?"
>
>Someone started this off by saying American nickels are mostly
>copper.
>
>Re: Candian nickels:
>>>> ....100% pure Canadian-mined nickel, mostly mined in Sudbury
>>
>>Henry Spencer remarked:
>>> Yes, but for reasons having nothing to do with acid fumes.  The Apollo
>>> astronauts trained at Sudbury because the Sudbury basin is strongly
>>> suspected to be a meteorite crater.  The barrenness of the landscape was
>>> irrelevant, although this misunderstanding was so prevalent that the
>>> mayor of Sudbury (among others) took offense.
>>
>
>Mark Brader added:
>
>>But he left out the interesting part.  The nickel comes from the meteorite.
>>Something like 70-80% of the world's total supply of nickel comes from
>>this one meteorite!  [I can't find where I read this, but I suspect that
>>it refers to the total of nickel that has been mined rather than reserves.]
>
>	Now as I recall from my high school geography, there are two
>theories about why there is so much nickel in the Sudbury area.  The first
>is the one referred to by Mark above, and the second is that there was a
>massive intrusion of molten rock that cooled *very* slowly allowing the
>various metals to separate as each reached their `freezing' points.
>I forget whether this latter theory involved the meteorite doing damage
>to the crust to allow the intrusion, or whether a big fat volcano
>was enough.
>
The second theory discussed above is the original theory and it didn't
take into account a meteorite. The intrusion was thought to be more
a ring dike intrusion (extrusion of molten rock that push up between
cooler surrounding rocks generally without ever reaching the surface)
set-up more than a volcanic (meaning that there was a surface outlet
for the magma).

(Note: geologist use the terms lava and magma as two
different terms. Lava is moltem rock that has reached the surface
of the earths crust. Magma is molten rock contained within the earths
crust. Cooling rates and crystilization of rocks under these two
conditions are different enough to require this distinction.)

The Sudbury complex is a slow cooled magma situation. The current studies
I've run across do point to a large meteor impact melting a
significant portion of the crust as well as itself and contributing
to the high nickel content. This is still a topic of much debate.)

(Note: There is an "eruptive" phase in the complex, but it is
not the major part of the complex. It is the portion that caused
the "meteor" theory to come up though. For those who are more interested
look up info on the Onaping Breccia Formation of the Whitewater group.
The theories for this 5000 foot thick section of rocks the last time
I looked was:
		1.A Tuff or ignimbrite formation
			(Speers,1957; Hawley,1962);

		2. "glowing avalanche" deposit
			(Williams,1956; Thompson and Williams,1959);

		3. impact meteor breccia (Deitz,1964).

I hope this helps those who are interested.)

Pamela M. Pincha-Wagener
>	Odd how a question to test how dumb a person is elicits such a
>discussion.
>
>					David Jones
>
>CDN:	sys1@cs.dal.cdn
>UUCP:	...!{utcsri, seismo!ihnp4!dartvax}!dalcs!sys1
>ARPA:	sys1%cs.dal.cdn%ubc.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
>CSNET:	sys1%cs.dal.cdn@ubc.csnet

------------------------------

Date: 16 Apr 86 01:36:15 GMT
From: amdcad!amdimage!prls!philabs!cmcl2!harvard!seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!ahna422@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Fermi paradox
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa


One of the more interesting theories I have heard on "where are they?"
is that all creatures (including intelligent ones) have a built in
self-destruct mechanism and are destined to obliterate themselves.
This is based on the assumption that self-destruction is a universal 
law, like gravity.  The theory is somewhat Darwinistic.  Only aggressive
animals will survive, and once that these agressive animals aquire
intelligence, they will turn on themselves because of their "nature".

Even though the theory is purely hypothetical (ie, is not based on
physical or observed evidence), it does explain reasonably why we
see no ETs.

-- 
C. H. Perez          University of Texas at Austin 
                     ARPA:  ahna422@ngp.cc.utexas.edu
                     UUCP:  ahna422@ut-ngp.UUCP

------------------------------

Date: 14 Apr 86 22:01:20 GMT
From: tektronix!uw-beaver!bullwinkle!rochester!seismo!umcp-cs!prometheus!pmk@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Paul M Koloc)
Subject: Re: catch a comet
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <402@bambi.UUCP> mike@bambi.UUCP (Mike Caplinger) writes:
>As a matter of fact, the idea to catch Halley and force its orbit into
>the inner solar system so its resources can be exploited is just
>about precisely the plot of HEART OF THE COMET, by Greg Benford
>and David Brin.  That book gives some information about the delta-V
>needed, .. ..
>	Mike Caplinger, mike@bellcore.com

Let's be "realistic" about this comet.  Why do want to go to the
trouble of "towing" it into earth orbit, when all that's required
is to activate it's wake up sensors and it will fly itself here!

After all, if in future centuries we want to experimentally spread
evolving life forms to other planets on other star systems, then
at the point the "seeded" life forms evolve smart species and it
becomes "technological" we could give them the teaching libraries
to catapult them to an advanced technological age.  Putting this
library into a sleeping space ship in a deep elliptic orbit is
just the ticket.  During its residence in the Oort it would pick
up protective layers of dust and condensed ices upon its surface
and remain in a deep frozen state greatly increasing its component
lifetime, and then during star approach it would become a spectacle 
for a few short months.   To awaken the thing all we should have 
to do is to fire a "starwars" size laser at it, which should be
enough to penetrate it's gunky crust and trigger the underlying
sensors.  The ship would then start up its fusion drive, shake
off the crust and search out the triggering life form.  

Hmmmm!  On second thought maybe we should be more conservative
just in case the damn thing is an unfriendly "berserker", and 
search for young upstart civilizations. 
+---------------------------------------------------------+--------+
| Paul M. Koloc, President: (301) 445-1075                | FUSION |
| Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222        |  this  |
| {umcp-cs | seismo}!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP  | decade |
+---------------------------------------------------------+--------+

------------------------------

Date: 16 Apr 86 17:34:21 GMT
From: tektronix!uw-beaver!bullwinkle!rochester!ken@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Ipse dixit)
Subject: Re: Catch Another Comet
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>if you have earnest space colonization effort underway 
>the water and the carbon is fairly valuable.

We already have a space colonization effort underway. It is called
Starship Earth. We have all the resources we need, we only have to
learn to use them wisely.

	Ken
-- 
UUCP: ..!{allegra,decvax,seismo}!rochester!ken ARPA: ken@rochester.arpa
Snail: CS Dept., U. of Roch., NY 14627. Voice: Ken!

------------------------------

Date: 15 Apr 86 00:14:28 GMT
From: amdcad!amdimage!prls!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Frank Adams)
Subject: Re: catch a comet
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa


The next encounter with Halley's comet should occur long before it comes
back again.

Trying to plan projects 76 years in the future is an absurdity.

Frank Adams                           ihnp4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
Multimate International    52 Oakland Ave North    E. Hartford, CT 06108

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #260
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA04638; Mon, 21 Apr 86 03:02:04 PST
	id AA04638; Mon, 21 Apr 86 03:02:04 PST
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 86 03:02:04 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8604211102.AA04638@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #261

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 261

Today's Topics:
		       Re: Where is everybody?
		   Re: Survivability of astronauts
			   Re: Colonization
			   Re: Colonization
			Re: Re: Fermi-Paradox
		       Re: Catch Another Comet
		 Debris, or why couldn't they find it
			  Silver in Halley?
			    Fermi paradox
		     Could Voyager Orbit Neptune
			Voyager around Neptune
			  RE: Fermi-Paradox
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 14 Apr 86 23:58:07 GMT
From: amdcad!amdimage!prls!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Frank Adams)
Subject: Re: Where is everybody?
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa


In article <690@bentley.UUCP> kwh@bentley.UUCP writes:
>Let's phrase the question a little differently.  How far away is the
>next nearest spacegoing civilization?  It'd be interesting to see the
>distribution of answers (from 0, meaning they are already here, to
>infinity, meaning they don't exist).  My guess is 500-1000 ly.

My guess is that there are no others in our local group.  I'm not entirely
sure of the scale, but I think that puts it on the order of billions of light
years.  This is far enough that they haven't had time to get here yet,
given the age of the universe (and reasonable assumptions about development
time).

Frank Adams                           ihnp4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
Multimate International    52 Oakland Ave North    E. Hartford, CT 06108

------------------------------

Date: 16 Apr 86 21:12:21 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!utcsri!utai!uthub!koko@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (M. Kokodyniak)
Subject: Re: Survivability of astronauts
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

... discussion of B-1 escape pod ...
> 
> This always struck me as being somewhat counter-intuitive since one would think
> that ejecting a crew-cabin intact would be LESS risky for the crew than
> an ejection by individuals. For example, an intact crew cabin could be used to
> maintain pressurization at high altitudes, freeing crew members from cumbersome
> pressure suits, provide both aerodynamic and impact shock resistance, allow the
> crew to maintain communication with the ground, and provide a flotation device
> for over-water ditchings.
> 
> Of course, on the negative side there are some REAL problems with pod-escape
> systems. Higher G-forces needed to eject the complete mass of the pod, high-G
> forces again when the pod impacts the ground, the stresses such forces place on
> the structure of the pod and objects within the pod that could turn them into
> deadly projectiles, the aerodynamic stability of the pod on and after ejection
> (both a G-force and controllability problem, remember modern parachutes allow
> individuals condsiderable ability to steer away from trouble). Also some of the
> advantages listed above can also be had in a pod-less escape system, probably
> for less money. Pressure suits and headset radios to name a few. It may be that
> for aircraft, a pod-escape system may never be as good as seat ejection.
> Of course, given a preference, I'm sure most pilots would prefer to try to land
> the aircraft over ejection whenever a landing is possible. On the other hand,
> a spacecraft provides an additional set of problems when it comes to crew
> ejection. Re-entry being one of the more obvious.
> 
	Generally, larger objects have much higher terminal velocities
than smaller objects with similar density and shape.  Thus an escape pod
would hit the earth's surface with a much higher velocity (and force)
than a single human being, assuming both in free fall.  Of course, the
use of parachutes would reduce the terminal velocity of both, but the
pod's parachute would need to be larger and stronger, and hence would
be more likely to fail.  Furthermore, if all the astrounauts had their
own parachutes, then one parachute failing would only endanger one life,
not all.

------------------------------

Date: 17 Apr 86 22:12:38 GMT
From: hplabs!oliveb!barb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Barb Jernigan)
Subject: Re: Colonization
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

And another thing, Paul writes ...

> *One* alien landing party being careless with its garbage would have
> changed that....

Maybe we're the product of that garbage, eh?  It certainly seems plausible
given the "optimism" many posters are showing regarding the nature of the
human species.

Feh!

Barb

------------------------------

Date: 17 Apr 86 22:09:35 GMT
From: hplabs!oliveb!barb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Barb Jernigan)
Subject: Re: Colonization
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> They should have gotten here long ago.  I don't think
> they're in our galaxy or in any nearby galaxies.

Why?  I mean, what an egocentric thing to say.  Maybe "They" are
outright allergic to blue-green planets, or Sol-like stars, or, or...
Maybe we're all spitting in a black hole.

And are we so _absolutely_ certain "They" _haven't_ gotten here?
Not that I'm saying they have, but I won't say unrevocably that
they haven't.  Frankly, I haven't seen any conclusive evidence
one way or another.  (Though it's fun looking.)

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are
dreamt of in your philosophy.

Barb

------------------------------

Date: 19 Apr 86 00:05:48 GMT
From: brahms!desj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (David desJardins)
Subject: Re: Re: Fermi-Paradox
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <3093@reed.UUCP> clyde@reed.UUCP (Clyde Bryja) writes:
>In order for an advanced civilization to completely colonize the galaxy,
>it has to have a large enough population to do so.  The number of planetary
>bodies humans may be able to colonize in this galaxy may be as many as 100
>million (though that's being liberal).  I find to hard to believe that a
>responsible, space-faring species of beings would allow themselves to
>populate that many planets.

   This sounds sort of like Columbus saying, "The land area of the New
World may be [is] as much as 16,253,000 square miles.  I find it hard to
believe that a responsible, ocean-faring species would allow themselves
to populate that much area."
   Neither statement makes much sense.

   -- David desJardins

------------------------------

Date: 19 Apr 86 00:19:55 GMT
From: brahms!desj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (David desJardins)
Subject: Re: Catch Another Comet
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <17266@rochester.ARPA> ken@rochester.UUCP (Ipse dixit) writes:
>We already have a space colonization effort underway. It is called
>Starship Earth. We have all the resources we need, we only have to
>learn to use them wisely.

   We may have all of the resources *you* need.  Some of us have bigger
plans.
   Seriously, are you saying that there is something *wrong* with making
use of more resources?  If it is possible to mine asteroids for metals that
are in limited supply on Earth, why should we not do so?

   -- David desJardins

------------------------------

Date:           Fri, 18 Apr 86 16:11:42 PST
From: Dana Myers <bilbo.dana@locus.ucla.edu>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Subject:        Debris, or why couldn't they find it

The shuttle was travelling very fast when it broke up (2000 mph is the
unconfirmed number I recall). Both video and film have limited framing rates,
for a whole variety of reasons. It is hard to shoot film real fast through
a shutter mechanism, etc. Video tubes suffer from effects of persistance. In
any case, the film likely just shows what we saw; a shuttle/booster one
instant, pieces the next. The pieces, no longer accelerating since they
were disconnected from the booster, probably "fell out" of the cameras' view
very quickly. Remember, the cameras were "panning" to follow the speeding
shuttle and would take time to stop motion, probably under human control so
expect at least .1 sec of reaction time.

After all this rambling rhetoric, something else should be recalled; it
was nine or ten miles the pieces fell, in an atmosphere. They likely did
not fall straight down or even follow traceable trajectories. Also, once the pirces
hit the water, they may have broken up and floated for some distance before
sinking.

For an experiment, try building a complicated model of a car, say in 1/10th
scale. It is important that the model is constructed much like a real car
or airplane. Start a movie camera running (video won't work because the
blast flash obscures the detail) and ignite an M-80 "firecracker" under
the model. See how much the film helps find the tiny pieces. I tried
this once with video, and, as I noted, the video was useless. Film would
only let you see the flash clearly.
:-}

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 18 Apr 86 23:00:33 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu>
Subject: Silver in Halley?
To: HIGGINS%FNALC.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@s1-b.arpa

    From: HIGGINS%FNALC.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu

    But the startling feature of the data was an enormous peak way out in
    the heavy elements labeled "Ag".  Its height was about the same as the
    oxygen and carbon.

  The probe was flying throught the tail of the comet, a giant cloud
of dust and gas.
  Thr probe obviously found the silver lining. :-)
								...Keith

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 18 Apr 86 23:27:41 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu>
Subject: Fermi paradox
To: WILKINS@sri-ai.arpa
Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@s1-b.arpa

    From: David E. Wilkins <WILKINS@sri-ai.arpa>

    We haven't thought of radio waves as the best way to communicate for even
    100 years, so why do we think someone thousands or millions of years 
    beyond us will still think it a reasonable way to communicate?

  It is the first (and only) technology we have developed that is
definitely capable of communicating over interstellar distances.  Some
of our radio telescopes are already capable of exchanging messages
with similar installations thousands of light years away.
  There are good theoretical reasons why the UHF and SHF regions of
the radio spectrum are optimal for communications.  This is not a
function of technology but is inherent in the properties of the waves
themselves, and of the medium through which they travel.
  I suppose it is possible that we are overlooking something, or that
there is a whole new communications medium that we can't conceive of.
There isn't much I can say to this except that that doesn't seem to be
a promising first step.  We can listen to the radio, so lets listen to
the radio until something better comes along.  We can't accomplish
anything by starting with the assumption that we don't know diddly.
  Besides, Fermi's paradox asks not why aren't they on radio and TV,
but why aren't they here in person? (In alien?)
  I only wish I knew the answer.
  A few possibilties you missed:

1) We are the 'elder race'.  SOMEONE has to be first!

2) Variation on 'quarantine': Diversity is of enormous value.  New
   races are allowed to develop in seclusion to see what new science,
   math, and arts they will come up with.

3) Variation on 'quarantine': They are monitoring EVERYTHING that
   happens on Earth, and have been for centuries.  In a few thousand
   years when we are all fabulously wealthy and historian/archeologist
   is a very common occupation/hobby, they will sell us the films for
   some enormous price.

4) Computer technology always overtakes space technology.  The aliens
   become more and more involved in networks and message systems and
   discussion groups and clever hacks and AI and getting the last bug
   out and video games, while abandoned rocketships molder unmourned.

								...Keith

------------------------------

Date: Sat 19 Apr 86 10:35:24-EST
From: Gary T. Leavens <GTL@xx.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: Could Voyager Orbit Neptune
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

It seems a shame for Voyager to hurtle right past Neptune when it finally
gets there.  Is there any way to arrange for it to go into some kind
of orbit around Neptune, or is Voyager simply going to fast to slow down?
-------

------------------------------

Date: 17 Apr 86 18:19:11 GMT
From: amdcad!cae780!ubvax!sxnahm@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Voyager around Neptune
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

This suggestion is so obvious, I know there must be a good reason
against it.

At the risk of spoiling the plot of Star Trek (the movie) I, it seems
to me that it would be much better to try to put Voyager II into an orbit
around Neptune, rather than let it go drifting off into interstellar
space.  After all, Voyager I is already on that course.  The main problem
with Voyager's Uranus encounter was that is was too darn short.  If we
left Voyager in an orbit around Neptune, we'd have ample time to sit and
look around.

Questions:  why isn't this feasible?  Are there any benefits to sending
Voyager II into interstellar space which would be greater than having
the probe stationed at Neptune?  How long would it be before Voyager's
power supply would give out?

I suspect that the reason it would not be possible is that there isn't
enough fuel left to manuever the probe into the narrow window that would
allow Neptune's gravity to grab Voyager, or that the speed-of-light delay
in sending commands would make it much too difficult.  (The latter seems
less likely, considering the fancy foot work NASA did to reprogram
Voyager at Uranus to slew the cameras at a rate which offset the high speed
at which it traveled through the system.)
-- 
Steve Nahm                  UUCP route:       {amd|cae780}!ubvax!sxnahm
sxnahm@ubvax.UUCP           Internet address: amd!ubvax!sxnahm@decwrl.DEC.COM

------------------------------

Date: 18 Apr 86 18:24:15 GMT
From: decvax!dartvax!agroh@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Andrew M. Groh)
Subject: RE: Fermi-Paradox
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> False false false!!!   Even at 1% of the speed of light the entire galaxy
> could be colonized in a few tens of millions of years.  There is no
> rule that the colonists have to reach their destination in one generation.
> If we can imagine people living in space colonies orbiting the sun,
> why not imagine sending a fleet of several dozen (or hundred) of the colonies
> off to alpha centauri?  The enery and material required is tiny compared
> to what is potentially available in the solar system.

This still makes space travel difficult.  We need a large power source to
supply these ships and it would seem to me that probably living conditions on
these ships would not be as pleasant as on the home planet.  If this is the
case then it would be hard to convince people to get on these ships.  The
point I am trying to make is that by using occum's razor,  the simplest
assumption is that space travle is difficult, not that there are not many
places where intelligence has developed.

Andrew M. Groh

Net:     {decvax|linus|cornell}!dartvax!agroh
Written: 31 N Main St, Hanover, NH 03755
Phone:   (603)-643-9823

-- 

Andrew M. Groh

Net:     {decvax|linus|cornell}!dartvax!agroh
Written: 31 N Main St, Hanover, NH 03755
Phone:   (603)-643-9823

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #261
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA08783; Tue, 22 Apr 86 03:02:07 PST
	id AA08783; Tue, 22 Apr 86 03:02:07 PST
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 86 03:02:07 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8604221102.AA08783@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #262

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 262

Today's Topics:
			 Re: Guilty engineers
		       Re: the greening of Mars
		 shuttle data recorders/crew remains
		 Re: Guilty engineers (they aren't!)
		       Re: Catch Another Comet
	     Re: Cosmic Quarantine hypothesis persuasive?
			  No Paradox Fer Me
			   Re: Colonization
		       Re: Catch Another Comet
   History of Skylab #5 - The investigation of the launch accident
			Re: Re: Fermi-Paradox
	 Re: Vega's mass spectrograms of Halley: Funny lines?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 17 Apr 86 18:34:58 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Guilty engineers
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

I'm going to be brief about this, and this is my last contribution to
this particular discussion.

Joel Swank claims that the Morton Thiokol engineers were totally free
of any responsibility for the disaster for a number of reasons, most
of which seem to me to amount to (a) they were just following orders,
(b) they would have suffered if they had made a fuss, or (c) trying to
stop it wouldn't have helped.  So the blame is 100.0000% (not just, say,
90%, which is the number I'd pick) on the NASA and M-T management, and the
engineers were right to knuckle under, shut up,	and stay with their jobs
rather than resigning in protest.

My reply to that is one question, and three concepts to consider.

The question:  Would the Challenger astronauts agree?

The concepts:  Ethics.  Duty.  Honor.
-- 
Support the International
League For The Derision		Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
Of User-Friendliness!		{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 17 Apr 86 22:11:54 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: the greening of Mars
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> You really have to get rid of a lot of the atmosphere.  Probably the
> easiest way to do that is to detonate extremely large nuclear explosives
> and eject the atmosphere into space...

There was a paper in JBIS a while ago which came up with a better way,
albeit an expensive one.  Venus has another problem:  its spin is far
too slow.  A "day" of hundreds of Earth-days is distinctly awkward
for agriculture, for example.  You can kill two birds with one stone by
hitting Venus with several large asteroids, coming in at shallow angles.
This blows off much of the atmosphere and also increases the planet's
spin rate an order of magnitude	(which still isn't great but is definitely
a major improvement).  Note that we are not talking about 1-km rocks here;
we're talking about using the half-dozen biggest asteroids in the Solar
System.  Moving them is the hard part.
-- 
Support the International
League For The Derision		Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
Of User-Friendliness!		{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 16 Apr 86 18:55:46 GMT
From: tolerant!mordor!ut-sally!ut-ngp!osmigo1@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Ron Morgan)
Subject: shuttle data recorders/crew remains
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

I recall learning that a data recorder similar to those used in airliners was
recovered from the shuttle. It reportedly kept an audio record of what was
going on in the shuttle. On the 5:30 news, I saw them washing the tapes in 
some kind of cleaning tank. Not a word about it since. Does anybody know what
was found on these tapes?

Can anyone furnish some information regarding the condition of the remains
of the crew, or the results of the autopsies? Did they die from heat, extreme
g's, or what?

Ron Morgan
osmigo1@ut-ngp

------------------------------

Date: 18 Apr 86 16:07:18 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!watnot!watvlsi!ksbszabo@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Kevin Szabo)
Subject: Re: Guilty engineers (they aren't!)
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <6600@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
>Joel Swank claims that the Morton Thiokol engineers were totally free
>of any responsibility for the disaster for a number of reasons, most
>of which seem to me to amount to (a) they were just following orders,
>(b) they would have suffered if they had made a fuss, or (c) trying to
>stop it wouldn't have helped.
>The question:  Would the Challenger astronauts agree?
>The concepts:  Ethics.  Duty.  Honor.

I can't believe I am reading this.  Henry, you have the best 20-20
hindsight of any computer scientist that I have ever known.

The Morton Thiokol engineers DIDN'T know that the flight was going
to fail.  They were worried and expressed their misgivings, as was
their duty.  From the testimonies that I have watched and read,
I see that the M-T engineers had seen some erosion of the seals previously
BUT had not been able to relate it to any one factor.  They were
concerned, yes; they were not absolutely sure.

Why haven't you resigned to protest the underfunding of Ontario's 
universities?  Our post-secondary school system is crumbling yet
you haven't made a public protest.  Ethics. Duty. Honour. Your Morals.
20-20 hindsight. Bleah.

			Kevin Szabo,  Elec Eng '82
-- 
Kevin Szabo'  ihnp4!watmath!watvlsi!ksbszabo  (VLSI Group,U of Waterloo,Ont,Can)

------------------------------

Date: 17 Apr 86 08:15:10 GMT
From: hplabs!qantel!lll-lcc!lll-crg!styx!lognet2!seismo!umcp-cs!chris@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Catch Another Comet
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <17266@rochester.ARPA> ken@rochester.UUCP (Ipse dixit) writes:
>We already have a space colonization effort underway. It is called
>Starship Earth.

Perhaps so, but I am afraid that its trajectory is rather dull.  :-)

>We have all the resources we need, we only have to learn to use
>them wisely.

We have only the resources we need for some number N more years.
N may not be fixed, but it is certainly bounded.  And in the end
it is not whether we *need* to venture forth, but rather whether
we *want* to.
-- 
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 1415)
UUCP:	seismo!umcp-cs!chris
CSNet:	chris@umcp-cs		ARPA:	chris@mimsy.umd.edu

------------------------------

Date: 18 Apr 86 17:25:29 GMT
From: ihnp4!ihuxy!ejbjr@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Branagon)
Subject: Re: Cosmic Quarantine hypothesis persuasive?
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> I beleve that the ability to exploit technology gives a race the tools to
> to destroy themselves. The "traits" of invention and destruction are not
> related.
> 
> Emotion is the driving force in destruction, not inventive intelligence.

But the inventors don't get to control the use of their inventions ...

------------------------------

Date: 18 Apr 86 22:05:24 GMT
From: ihnp4!inuxc!inuxm!arlan@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (A Andrews)
Subject: No Paradox Fer Me
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Of course, the discussion about the so-called Fermi Paradox is moot
if one considers that some reports of advanced craft in our atmosphere
might be evidence that they ARE already here.

This opinion is probably a minority on this net, but that bothers me
not a bit.  (Just wait till I get their franchise for propulsion systems!)

(Obviously this opinion is only my own, and does not represent AT&T in
any manner, nor any of my children, whose careers might be jeoa/pardized
at various universities in Austin, Louisville, and Muncie...)

--arlan andrews

------------------------------

Date: 18 Apr 86 20:09:03 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!utcsri!ubc-vision!alberta!cadomin!andrew@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Andrew Folkins)
Subject: Re: Colonization
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <8604152146.AA03582@s1-b.arpa> dietz@slb-doll.CSNET (Paul Dietz) writes:

[ . . . ]
>The Earth has only microscopic prokaryotic life for most of its history.
>*One* alien landing party being careless with its garbage would have
>changed that. [ . . . ]

Ooh! Ooh! One of my favorite hypothesis : the first true cells to appear
on the planet Earth came from an alien landing party 3 billion years ago
when their trash compactor (or equivalent) broke down and they chucked their
leftovers overboard. Just think : we may all be remotely descended from . . .
from . . . eww yuck! Not that!

Andrew Folkins        ...ihnp4!alberta!andrew    
 
"We humans think of ourselves as being rather good at reasoning, but at
best we perform about a hundred logical inferences a second.  We're
talking about future expert systems that will be doing ten million
inferences a second.  What will it be like to put a hundred years thought
in every decision?  Knowledge is power."  - Edward A. Feigenbaum

------------------------------

Date: 18 Apr 86 18:21:47 GMT
From: hplabs!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Michael McNeil)
Subject: Re: Catch Another Comet
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <17266@rochester.ARPA> ken@rochester.UUCP (Ipse dixit) writes:
>>if you have earnest space colonization effort underway 
>>the water and the carbon is fairly valuable.
>
>We already have a space colonization effort underway. It is called
>Starship Earth. We have all the resources we need, we only have to
>learn to use them wisely.
>	Ken

So you propose only the one starship, forever and ever?  That seems a
bit risky, given the large mishaps we see that other starships flying
nearby us have experienced.  It's also presumptious -- "seen one
starship, seen them all."  I for one would like to experience, maybe
even live in, some other parts of this marvelous universe of ours --
and this particular starship of ours seems to be locked in a holding
pattern around its power supply.  Let's build more starships, okay?  

-- 

Michael McNeil
3Com Corporation     "All disclaimers including this one apply"
(408) 970-1835
..!ucbvax!hplabs!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm

	What a wonderful and amazing Scheme have we here of the
	magnificent Vastness of the Universe!  So many Suns, so
	many Earths ... !  
		Christianus Huygens, *New Conjectures Concerning the
		Planetary Worlds, Their Inhabitants and Productions*,
		c. 1670

------------------------------

Date: 20 Apr 86 07:46:47 GMT
From: ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dave Newkirk)
Subject: History of Skylab #5 - The investigation of the launch accident
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Congressional critics were quick to fault NASA for the accident.  Senate
space comitte chairman Frank Moss called for NASA to investigate, which
agency policy required in any event.
...
The board examined 10 ways that the shield might have failed, but
considered only 2 as likely.  The first involved the space between the
edge of the shield and the workshop wall.  ALthough NASA had stipulated
that the shield fit tightly against the tank, at launch the shield had
gaps that exceeded design specifications by half a centimeter.  Wind-
tunnel tests confirmed that a buildup of pressure in these spaces could
have led to the accident.  Flight data, however, pointed toward the shield's
auxiliary tunnel as the probable cause of the accident.  The tunnel, used
as a conduit for wires, was designed to vent pressure as the launch vehicle
rose through the atmosphere.  But the tunnel had not been constructed
as designed, and pressure could build up.
...
	Why had NASA and McDonnel Douglas failed to detect the deficiency
in six years of development and testing?  The board blamed the error in part
on the presumption by Skylab engineers that the shield would fit tightly,
as specified in design criteria.  The actual shield proved to be a `large,
flexible, limp system' that could not be rigged to design specifications.
The comittee criticized NASA's failure to treat the shield as a deparate
system with a project engineer responsible for all its details.  There was no
evidence that development had been compromised by a lack of time, money or
expertise.  Instead, the comittee attributed "the design deficiencies ... and
the failure to communicate within the project ... to an absence of sound
engineering judgement and alert engineering leadership concerning this partic-
ular system over a considerable period of time."

(Excerpt from "Living and Working in Space - A History of Skylab", NASA
SP-4208, for sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Gov't Printing
Office, Washington, D.C. 20402)
-- 
				Dave Newkirk, ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn

------------------------------

Subject: Re: Re: Fermi-Paradox
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 86 17:14:00 -0500
From: James R. Van Zandt <jrv@mitre-bedford.arpa>

>                                              ...In that case, with an
> infinite number of "places" to go, there might be nobody left in our universe
> beyond a certain level of development.  Anything is possible, and the
> "paradox" seems to me to be an artifact of our 20th Century human (I might
> even be more specific and say "Western") point of view and body of knowledge.
> 
> 
>               Clyde Bryja

Vernor Vinge suggests something similar in a novel in current issues of Analog
(i.e. four issues, starting with May).
                                       - Jim Van Zandt

------------------------------

Date: 19 Apr 86 13:56:48 GMT
From: ihnp4!inuxc!inuxa!rmrin@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (D Rickert)
Subject: Re: Vega's mass spectrograms of Halley: Funny lines?
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> . . . 
>     Does anybody know what's going on here?  Have you heard some detailed
> explanation of this experiment?  Maybe there was a silver-plated component
> of the spacecraft that was outgassing.  
>     Or maybe Halley's Comet is 10% silver.    (-:
>                                         Bill Higgins

Probably just a reflection from the cameras pointed at the comet.

You are Beautiful,			Dick Rickert
my manufactured love;-			AT&T CPL
but it is only Svengali,		Indy, IN
talking to himself again.		Reward is its own virtue!

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #262
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA12031; Wed, 23 Apr 86 03:02:06 PST
	id AA12031; Wed, 23 Apr 86 03:02:06 PST
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 86 03:02:06 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8604231102.AA12031@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #263

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 263

Today's Topics:
			   Trojan asteroids
			     Dyson sphere
			      Colonizing
			   Re: Colonization
		       Re: Catch Another Comet
	     Re: Cosmic Quarantine hypothesis persuasive?
			Re: Capturing a comet
			Voyager around Neptune
			   Where are they?
       Re: SPACE Digest V6 #261 (Making Voyager orbit Neptune)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 21 Apr 86 00:40:32 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu>
Subject: Trojan asteroids
To: ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!raha@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@s1-b.arpa

    From: ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!raha@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Bob Hettinga)

    So, I called (he'll kill me for using his name) Scott Dunbar at JPL.
    Scott's the guy who got his PhD out of Princeton by showing (among other
    things) where earth-trojan asteriods would be, if there were any.

  I thought it was Lagrange who figured that out.
								...Keith

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 21 Apr 86 00:42:34 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu>
Subject: Dyson sphere
To: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@s1-b.arpa

    From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu

    Another way you could make such a shell stable, other than ballancing
    it on light pressure, would be to make the thing in giant segments
    shaped like pieces of orange peel, all co-orbital.

  I don't think so.  It would tend to collapse towards the sun near
its poles.
  Another balancing act would be to hurl material towards the Sun, and
to recapture the material on its way back out.  As Dave Spain has
pointed out, if the hurled material were to eject material near the
Sun, you can get energy from this.
								...Keith

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 21 Apr 86 00:45:01 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu>
Subject: Colonizing
To: tektronix!reed!clyde@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@s1-b.arpa

    From: tektronix!reed!clyde@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Clyde Bryja)

    The number of planetary bodies humans ... may be able to colonize
    in this galaxy may be as many as 100 million (though that's being
    liberal).

  It might be considerably more than that.  There are an estimated 100
billion solar systems in this galaxy.  If half are unsuitable because
they are double stars, and half the remaining because the star's
spectral type is too far wrong, and half the remaining because they
just don't happen to have any Earthlike planets, and those remaining
have only one Earthlike planet each, that would still be over ten
billion planets we could colonize.
  Not that we need colonize any of them, or despair if we can't find
any.  It seems likely that O'Neill colonies, Ringworlds, and Dyson
spheres are better places to live.

    I find to hard to believe that a responsible, space faring species of
    beings would allow themselves to populate that many planets.

  Huh?  Why?  What's irresponsible about it?
								...Keith

------------------------------

Date: 17 Apr 86 23:43:17 GMT
From: uwvax!uwmacc!john@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (john jacobsen)
Subject: Re: Colonization
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> Foo!  Why should they wait for us to evolve before they start exploring
> the galaxy?  If people start travelling in starships I don't expect
> we'll wait just because some intelligent creature will evolve on
> Altair-4 a billion years from now.  Long before then we'd have grabbed
> all the real estate in the galaxy.

Right.  All the real estate in the galaxy is an awful lot.  I admit to not
knowing the figures, but I bet that with 100.000 light years diameter we wont
ever visit all of them before we mutate (through natural or induced radiation)
into plants or computers or sentient rocks.
--John

"So long and thanks for all the squid."

------------------------------

Date: 17 Apr 86 17:16:12 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-lcc!lll-crg!styx!lognet2!seismo!rochester!ken@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Catch Another Comet
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <977@umcp-cs.UUCP> chris@maryland.UUCP (Chris Torek) writes:
>Perhaps so, but I am afraid that its trajectory is rather dull.  :-)

:-) True, but we are not likely to get a better viewpoint on the universe
for a while.

>We have only the resources we need for some number N more years.
>N may not be fixed, but it is certainly bounded.

All the more reason to treat the Earth as a closed cycle environment.

>And in the end
>it is not whether we *need* to venture forth, but rather whether
>we *want* to.

More power to that, but what I am trying to say is, thinking that
space is the solution to our resource problems is like a child who
messes up his playroom with toys and hopes to get a new playroom.

Anyway this is getting away from the original speculation. For getting
resources in space, I would think an asteriod would be a better catch
than a comet.

	Ken
-- 
UUCP: ..!{allegra,decvax,seismo}!rochester!ken ARPA: ken@rochester.arpa
Snail: CS Dept., U. of Roch., NY 14627. Voice: Ken!

------------------------------

Date: 18 Apr 86 17:27:28 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-lcc!lll-crg!mordor!ut-sally!ut-ngp!ahna422@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Carlos Perez)
Subject: Re: Cosmic Quarantine hypothesis persuasive?
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <8604161555.AA08573@s1-b.arpa>, august@JPL-VLSI.ARPA writes:
> 
> >From: bellcore!petrus!karn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Phil R. Karn)
> > 
> >... It could very well be the case that intelligent, technological 
> >civilizations have been quite common in the history of the universe, 
> >but that they are wiped out by nuclear wars before they are able to 
> >move off the planet, or even announce their existence by radio for 
> >very long.  ... 
> 
> I disagree with the statement "...the very traits which cause a race 
> to evolve the ability to exploit technology and travel into space are 
> the same traits which cause them to destroy themselves before they get 
>                       ^^^^^
> much of a chance".
> 
> Emotion is the driving force in destruction, not inventive intelligence.

Yes, I too, would say it is a defeatist theory, but somehow a distinction
is made between emotion and intelligence.  I assert that "emotion" and
"mental dexterity" are both products of nature.  They are related 
like siblings.  "Emotion" is not an invader from outer space bent on
destroying Earthlings, but the natural product of system earth.  While
technical know-how has invented thermonuclear weapons, it is true that
we still have the capacity to lash out in anger.  These "traits" of
technogical mastery and emotion combine to form a lethal mixture.  I
say that negative emotion was at one time necessary for survival, but
today it is excess baggage (or ball and chain for a swimmer?)  "Guns  
don't kill people, people do.  But only people invent guns".  

Well, enough of this.  This is net.space!

------------------------------

Date: 17 Apr 86 21:49:44 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-lcc!lll-crg!styx!lognet2!seismo!brl-adm!brl-smoke!wmartin@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Capturing a comet
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Regarding this continuing discussion, y'all might be interested in a new
book I just ran across today at my local library, and seem to be the
first to have checked out: HEART OF THE COMET, by Gregory Benford and
David Brin (1986, Bantam Spectra, ISBN 0-553-05125-3). This is an SF novel
about setting up a colony on Halley's on its next flyby and opens in 2061.
These two authors have good reputations, but I haven't read any of the
book yet, so have no idea of its quality. Thought it was worth a mention...

Regards, Will

------------------------------

Date:         Mon, 21 Apr 86 11:56:42 EST
From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
To: space digest <SPACE-INCOMING@s1-b.arpa>
Subject:      Voyager around Neptune

> It seems a shame for Voyager to hurtle right past Neptune...
> Is there any way to arrange for it to go into some kind
> of orbit around Neptune?

No, it's going past too fast (something like 30 kilometers per second?)
It would have to have huge fuel reserves to stop.
     The neat trick to stop it would be aerobraking--have it make a pass
through the Neptunian atmosphere to shed excess heat.  But Voyager
isn't designed for that; it would burn up.
     Another possibility is to do multiple gravity slingshot maneuvers off
the moons, but I suspect the gravities of the moons are too small to shed
that much velocity.
                   --Geoffrey A. Landis, Brown University
                     Reply to: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA

------------------------------

Date:         Mon, 21 Apr 86 12:00:29 EST
From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
To: space digest <SPACE-INCOMING@s1-b.arpa>
Subject:      Where are they?

>>Let's phrase the question a little differently.  How far away is the
>>next nearest spacegoing civilization?       -- kwh@bentley.UUCP
> My guess is that there are no others in our local group.
> ...on the order of billions of light years.    --Frank Adams
     (nb.  The local group is roughly one megaparsec in extent.
The Ursa Major group is roughly 2.5 megaparsecs away --GL)

This answer seems to be to be wildly conservative.
I made a crude calculation of what percentage of stars would have
planets which could support our kind of life*, and came up with
roughly 1 in a thousand.  This puts the average distance between
such stars as about 30 ly.  If one in a thousand of these actually
has a spacegoing civilization, then the distance between them is
roughly 300 ly.  This sounds reasonable to me.  It means that,
searching the sky, only one star in a million would be the home of
a spacegoing civilization, so I don't think it's unreasonable that
we haven't heard their radio signals yet.
     So my guess for how far away they are is, on the order of
250-500 LY.
     Why aren't they here?  Well, contrary to speculation on the net,
it is in fact very difficult to travel distances comparable to 30
light years.  It is by no means impossible, but it's hard.
It's easy to glibly talk about travelling the distance at 1% of the
speed of light in 3000 years, but try calculating the mass ratio
for such a trip sometime (it's not as simple as just "attach a
rocket to a space colony.") And are you sure that a space colony
can be self-sustaining for that long with no external resourses?
     We are talking about massive expenditures of resourses to
make a trip that has no benefit to the people who funded it.
Information could be more cheaply gotten from tiny robot probes;
the results wouldn't even come back in the builder's
lifetime--or their children's children's children's.
It is quite reasonable to me that a civilization might colonize a few
nearby stars, but I wonder why people think they would go to the
great expense of colonizing *every* possible star.  After you've done
a few, why keep up draining your economy?  To put excess population?
No more than a negligible fraction of the population could ever
make the trip; it would have no effect on the limits to growth.
For resourses?  Come on, shipping costs over a few light years are
astronomical (NPI).
     And as for Frank Adams' implication that all spacegoing races
routinely colonize over *intergalactic* distances; I think
that this is going beyond science fiction into the realm of
pure fantasy.

     REFERENCE:  If you can, find a copy of Stephen Dole's long out of
print book Habitable Planets for Man, which discusses in detail what
is needed for a planet to be habitable (for human type life).
     *  What about other types of life?  I won't dismiss the possibility,
but in the absence of finding (or making) such life, I don't think we
can say much about whether it's out there or not.
    (These conclusions are subject to revision on further results about
antimatter propulsion.  If antimatter could be made in large quantities,
cheaply, and efficiently used for propulsion, interstellar flight IS
reasonable.  On the other hand, a civilization that can make antimater
cheaply can destroy itself very quickly, on purpose or by accident.
Talk about genies in bottles....)

                   --Geoffrey A. Landis, Brown University
                     Reply to: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA

------------------------------

Date: Mon 21 Apr 86 14:27:23-PST
From: Roger Crew <Crew@su-sushi.arpa>
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V6 #261 (Making Voyager orbit Neptune)
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
In-Reply-To: <8604211111.AA04789@s1-b.arpa>


amdcad!cae780!ubvax!sxnahm@ucbvax.berkeley.edu writes:
> it seems to me that it would be much better to try to put Voyager II
> into an orbit around Neptune, rather than let it go drifting off into
> interstellar space.

No.

The problem has to do with conservation of energy.  Whenever you have
an object fall in towards a planet from an arbitrarily large distance
away, it goes in, follows a hyperbolic orbit, and comes right back out
again.  This happens no matter how massive the planet is or how slowly
the object is going to start with (provided it has at least escape
velocity, but that's negligible if you start sufficiently far away...)

Basically, when Voyager gets near Neptune it'll have too much kinetic
energy (read ``velocity'') to be able to stay there.  I can only think
of 3 ways to get rid of the excess velocity:

1)  Have Voyager crash into Neptune or one of its moons.

    Probably not the most desirable of results...

2)  Have Voyager eject some mass (i.e., propellant) in the right direction.

    This kind of maneuver requires many orders of magnitude more
    prpellant than what Voyager carries (which is only enough for
    minor course corrections).  Indeed, if Voyager did (or could)
    carry this much propellant economically, there would be no need to
    pull crazy stunts like sending it to Jupiter first to gain
    velocity.

3)  Find some body in the vicinity of Neptune (other from Neptune)
    for Voyager to trade momenta with.  

    This would be a neat trick.

    The body has to be something with appreciable gravity (unless we
    want to use a strong rope with a grappling hook (-: ), i.e., a
    moon big enough to deflect Voyager by some large angle, and in
    close enough to Neptune, that is, moving fast enough that it takes
    sufficient velocity from Voyager.  Since Voyager already has at
    least solar escape velocity (many miles/sec) even before getting
    to Neptune, I doubt that anything in Neptune's system is going to
    put much of a dent in that... even if we were lucky enough to get
    the geometry right.

 roger

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #263
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA15730; Thu, 24 Apr 86 03:02:13 PST
	id AA15730; Thu, 24 Apr 86 03:02:13 PST
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 86 03:02:13 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8604241102.AA15730@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #264

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 264

Today's Topics:
			AN Astronomers' Burden
			      Re:Debris
			  Voyager @ Neptune
			  Life on earth idea
			  Re: catch a comet
		       Re: Interstellar travel
			 Re: Shuttle schedule
			Re: Orphaned Response
		     Re: Observing Dyson spheres
		 Re: Guilty engineers (they aren't!)
		  Re: Black holes and useful energy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

To: space
Date:     Mon, 21 Apr 86 14:59 ???
From: Sonny Crockett <WELTYC%rpicie.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject:  AN Astronomers' Burden


Dear Abby;

	This weekend was supposedly the last chance most of us in the
north will have to see Halley's Comet with any chance for success.
Living in upstate New York, where it is cloudy and/or rainy most of
the time, the number of  chances I had to see the comet were few.  But
I managed, of course.  However, a few of my freinds found out that
this weekend was the last chance, and seeing it was clear (to them,
not being astronomers themselves, it seemed clear,  but it was
actually quite hazy), they begged me to take them out and show them
the comet.  I agreed, making sure each of them realized that there was
nothing to see really aside from a fuzzy little patch of light.  They
understood, saying they just wanted to be able to say they saw it.  OK
- I hadn't seen the comet in about a month, and Astronomy said it was
supposed to be somewhere in Centaraus, moving west.  Well, the haze on
the horizon made focusing anything difficult, everything looked like a
fuzzy little ball, and try as I might, I couldn't find the darn thing.
I eventually realized that it was probably below the level where
nothing at all was visible through the haze.  These poor guys were all
geared up to see it though, and there wouldn't be another chance, the
moon would be full in about a week, and there was rain ahead for at
least that long.  They would never see Halley's comet.  The thought
saddened me.  Then I spotted a faint double star, so  close together
that my 4" cassegrain was barely able to separate them, and with the
haze, the companion star looked like a little tail behind the main
star.  Faint enough that it was by no means spectacular, but with the
help of the haze, it sure looked convincing.  "I found it!!!" I
shouted.  We spent the next hour or so looking at it, and then packed
up an went home.  They told everyone how they had seen Halley's comet.
Well, I feel a little guilty about it, now.  And I wonder: should I
tell them?  Or is it the burden of the  Astronomer to let it go?

					-A confused Chris Welty

------------------------------

From: prandt!kramer@ames-nas.arpa
To: amelia!Space@s1-b.arpa
Cc: amelia!KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu
Subject: Re:Debris
Date: 21 Apr 86 16:31:51 PST (Mon)

In response to Keith Lynchs query asking why it took so long to find the SRB and
crew cabin, there are several reasons:
	1) The camaras were not designed for triangulation.  This would 
require an exact bearing of the impact of all the pieces of debris.  I doubt
if the camara have the necessary grid markings or automatic feedback to 
allow for this.
	2) I never saw the SRB impact - I assumed it was out of visual range
	3) It was never clear that the cabin was part of the debris which
impacted with the visual area.
	4) Most importantly, there is no way to account for the current and
drift of the items, particularly when they have different degrees of 
bouyancy.  Remember the SRB are supposed to stay afloat.  The gulf stream and 
other currents would carry debris a long way, even when it is on the bottom
Having search for underwater debris myself, I think is is remarkable anything
was found.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 21 Apr 86 23:33:25 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu>
Subject: Voyager @ Neptune
To: GTL@xx.lcs.mit.edu
Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@s1-b.arpa

    From: Gary T. Leavens <GTL@xx.lcs.mit.edu>

    It seems a shame for Voyager to hurtle right past Neptune when it finally
    gets there.  Is there any way to arrange for it to go into some kind
    of orbit around Neptune, or is Voyager simply going to fast to slow down?

  In Space, slowing down is just as hard as speeding up.  Flyby probes
thus require considerably less fuel than orbital probes.  Remember
that the first few Moon probes and Mars probes were flybys.
  Flyby probes also have the advantage that they can continue on to
explore new places.  If the Voyager probes had somehow been able to go
into orbit around Jupiter, as Galilieo will, we would not have seen
Saturn and Uranus.
  There is some degree of control as to where the Voyager probe goes.
The earlier you do a midcourse correction, the less fuel it takes.
With every previous encounter, there were tradeoffs between getting the
best possible view and being lined up properly for the next planetary
flyby.  With Neptune, there is no such tradeoff, since it is the last
planet (I think Pluto is on the other side of the solar system, not
reachable by Voyager) and nobody really cares just which direction it
leaves the solar system.
								...Keith

------------------------------

Date: 20 Apr 86 00:19:39 GMT
From: ucdavis!ucrmath!hope!corwin@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (John Kempf)
Subject: Life on earth idea
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

I hope that this idea hasn't been discussed already, but I just
thought of this one.

How about if an alien civilization came here a LONG time ago,
noticed that the planet's air was not overly breathable, or something,
then left, ACCIDENTLY dropping off a few bacteria or something.
Any comments? or have I been reading too much Sci-Fi?
-cory

------------------------------

Date: 18 Apr 86 18:51:31 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-lcc!lll-crg!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!mit-eddie!mit-trillian!vis@ucbvax.  (Tom Courtney)
Subject: Re: catch a comet
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <1248@mmintl.UUCP> franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) writes:
>
>The next encounter with Halley's comet should occur long before it comes
>back again.
>
>Trying to plan projects 76 years in the future is an absurdity.

Why not? I know several medieval cathedrals took 25+ years to build, and they
left us with something which was very worthwhile. Imagine what could have happened
it people started contributing to the Halley Fund in the 1910s instead of the 
1980s (probably having to restart after the Depression, of course).

If we actually end up colonizing the stars in a big way, such long range planning
will not be absurd, it will be required.

------------------------------

Date: 17 Apr 86 23:44:27 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-lcc!lll-crg!seismo!harvard!cmcl2!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Frank Adams)
Subject: Re: Interstellar travel
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <86@petrus.UUCP> karn@petrus.UUCP writes:
>To restate Sagan's argument: [...] It could very well be the
>case that intelligent, technological civilizations have been quite common in
>the history of the universe, but that they are wiped out by nuclear wars
>before they are able to move off the planet, or even announce their
>existence by radio for very long.  I believe Sagan goes on to conjecture
>that the very traits which cause a race to evolve the ability to exploit
>technology and travel into space are the same traits which cause them to
>destroy themselves before they get much of a chance.
>
>I find this theory very persuasive.

I don't.

I could well believe that this happens in the majority of the cases.  Even
90%.  I could even believe 99%, although I get rather dubious at this point.
But I simply don't believe that EVERY race which develops space flight blows
itself up.  And it only takes one race to colonize the whole galaxy.

To answer another poster, interstellar flight at 5% of the speed of light is
still quite fast enough to make it likely that another race, if they existed,
would have filled the galaxy by now.  You need to hold it to about .1% to
have an effective quarantine.  (At 5%, I would estimate the actual expansion
rate, counting all the various political events along the way, at .1%.  This
fills the galaxy in about 100 million years -- plenty of time.)

Frank Adams                           ihnp4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
Multimate International    52 Oakland Ave North    E. Hartford, CT 06108

------------------------------

Date: 19 Apr 86 07:59:51 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-lcc!lll-crg!seismo!cit-vax!palmer@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (David Palmer)
Subject: Re: Shuttle schedule
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Organization : California Institute of Technology

	The Galileo probe will be sent on a orbit that takes longer than the
originally planned orbit.  I think that this is becaus they have decided not
to use the Centaur upper stage, but I am not sure.

		David Palmer

------------------------------

Date: 20 Apr 86 00:02:00 GMT
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!okstate.UUCP!uokvax.UUCP!cdrigney@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Orphaned Response
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa


/* Written  3:45 am  Apr  9, 1986 by raha@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP in uokvax.UUCP:net.space */

> would a privately funded heliocentric earth-orbit resource discovery mission
> look like?  The average venture capitalist needs a return multiple of 10
> times initial investment, preferably within 5 years. IF you can raise the
> $75-100 million, AND get somebody official to recognize your claim to

What if you think bigger?  For $10 billion and 10 years could one put
together an expedition to the asteroids to return with a metallic
asteroid - even a small one would be worth trillions of dollars, giving
you a 100-fold return in 10 years (think of it as 2 10-fold increases
in 5 years each).  I think that's still within the bounds of private
funding, all it lacks is vision.  I suspect I've underestimated the
cost by a factor of 10 and the time by a factor of two, but if you've
done it once you can do it again for substantially less - and there are
lots of suitable asteroids.

Or am I just dreaming?

		--Carl Rigney
USENET:		{ihnp4,allegra!cbosgd}!okstate!uokvax!cdrigney

A 10 km nickel-iron asteroid contains 1 trillion cubic meters -
the value would depend on how many tons of asteroid it takes to
refine into 1 ton of ore, and what that would sell for.  $1 per
cubic meter seems like a very conservative estimate - anyone know
the real figures?

------------------------------

Date: 19 Apr 86 23:50:00 GMT
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!okstate.UUCP!uokvax.UUCP!cdrigney@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Observing Dyson spheres
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa


KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU ("Keith F. Lynch") writes:

>There is certainly enough aluminum in the solar system or even here on
>Earth to surround the Sun at 1 AU with aluminum foil.  If you make the

Kent Sarff (sarff@srcsip.UUCP) replies:

>     I am a skeptic, as are probably many others reading this.  Please
> back up your data regarding the Dyson sphere.  Enlighten me with at least
> a few specifics such as some crude dimensions for the sphere,  degree of
> completeness ( 0 degrees being infinte thinness, 90 degrees being complete
> sphere), and an estimate of the mass of aluminum required to build such
> a structure.  I am interested also in the available supply of bauxite 
> ore, the source of most aluminum on earth.  Would there be enough, 
> including recycling all the aluminum currently in the hands of consumers?

Well, let's make a quick estimate.  The orbit of the earth has
radius 1.5E11 meters, and the area of a sphere is 4 * pi * r^2,
so assuming a 1 mm thickness of aluminum foil you have
approximately 2.8E20 cubic meters of aluminum.

The earth has a radius of 7000 km, and the volume of a sphere is
4/3 * pi * r^3, so its volume is a bit more than 1.4E21 cubic
meters.  The density of the earth is 5.5 g/cc, and if aluminum
were the same then you need 20% of the earth's volume - I
SERIOUSLY doubt that 20% of the earth is aluminum, or even
bauxite.  So no, there's not enough aluminum to do this, unless
I've misestimated the thickness of aluminum foil by several
orders of magnitude.  To balance the pressure of sunlight it
would probably have to be a lot thinner than 1 mm, though.
Anyone care to handle that part of the calculation?

As for the amount of aluminum in the solar system - I doubt that,
since its probably only a few times the amount in earth, AT MOST.
The big planets are primarily light elements, which isn't
helpful.

So there's no need to contribute your pop cans to the cause,
folks. :-)

		--Carl Rigney
USENET:		{ihnp4,allegra!cbosgd}!okstate!uokvax!cdrigney

------------------------------

Date: 20 Apr 86 02:02:23 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Guilty engineers (they aren't!)
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> I can't believe I am reading this.  Henry, you have the best 20-20
> hindsight of any computer scientist that I have ever known.
> The Morton Thiokol engineers DIDN'T know that the flight was going
> to fail...

Since I've explicitly bowed out of this debate, please do me the courtesy
of not seriously misrepresenting my views when you are "rebutting" them.

I never said they did.  Nor is it in any way necessary to my reasoning.
-- 
Support the International
League For The Derision		Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
Of User-Friendliness!		{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 10 Apr 86 16:53:00 GMT
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!convex!ti-csl!khill@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Black holes and useful energy.
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa


     (When I was in college physics we thought of starting a company.  It 
was called The Black Hole Garbage Collection Company.  We would haul 
around a black hole to sites that needed waist disposal and just dump 
everything into it.  That major problem at the time was how to move since 
you couldn't get near it.  Later I though of what happens when the thing 
decides to explode.  I guess nothing's perfect.  Not even back holes.)

Chris Johnson
Northeastern University

I have read a short story about this, but can't remember the author.  The
garbage company puts a charge on a very small (quantum?) black hole and hauls
it around with electric fields.  All worked fine until the barge carrying
it sunk in a lake.  (Murphy will always triumph!)

???????????????????????????????????????????????????
Ken Hill
USENET : {convex!smu,texsun,ut-sally}!ti-csl!khill
CSNET : khill@TI-CSL
???????????????????????????????????????????????????

Any opinions expressed herein are merely coincidental.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #264
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA01588; Fri, 25 Apr 86 03:02:05 PST
	id AA01588; Fri, 25 Apr 86 03:02:05 PST
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 86 03:02:05 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8604251102.AA01588@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #265

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 265

Today's Topics:
			  Re: catch a comet
		       Re: Catch Another Comet
				Skylab
			  RE: Fermi-Paradox
			    Fermi Paradox
	    What really is in a comet? We don't know yet!
			   Re: Dyson sphere
       Iron etc. in p/Halley confirmed, good news, but silver??
	only small amount dumped if useful fraction beamed out
	      If Mohammad won't come to the mountain...
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 21 Apr 86 15:52:09 GMT
From: ihnp4!mmm!allen@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Kurt Allen)
Subject: Re: catch a comet
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <760@inuxe.UUCP> fred@inuxe.UUCP (Fred Mendenhall) writes:
>
>	As comet Halley starts heading back into outer reaches of
>the solar system, I started to think wouldn't it be wonderful if the
>next time it returned peoplekind had gotten their act together well
>enough that it would be worthwhile to catch and keep Halley for 
>the resources it could provide.

	David Brin recently co-authored a book called something like
	Heart of the comet. The book is about an attempt to capture
	halley's comet, and discusses how halleys comet could be
	captured and utilized. It's a good book. Try it.


-- 
	Kurt W. Allen
	3M Center
	ihnp4!mmm!allen

------------------------------

Date: 21 Apr 86 07:42:59 GMT
From: amdcad!lll-crg!seismo!rochester!ken@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Catch Another Comet
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>If it is possible to mine asteroids for metals that
>are in limited supply on Earth, why should we not do so?

Not at all, be my guest. But first you would have to convince me that
it was economical to do so. Remember you'd have to bring it back.
Chances are it won't be for a while.

What I see more likely is getting water or something in space to drive
atomic propulsion. Fun to speculate anyway...

	Ken
-- 
UUCP: ..!{allegra,decvax,seismo}!rochester!ken ARPA: ken@rochester.arpa
Snail: CS Dept., U. of Roch., NY 14627. Voice: Ken!

------------------------------

Date:     Tue, 22 Apr 86 10:53:14 CST
From: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI <wmartin@almsa-1.arpa>
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject:  Skylab

Nice to read the "history" excerpts that Dave Newkirk has been posting.

This last one inspired a question: in the films of Skylab from the outside,
we see the flexible fabric(?) shield over the body fluttering and flapping.
Since there is no air around it, I always wondered what caused that 
material to flap around so. Was it being hit by exhaust from the attitude 
thrusters of the rendezvousing [the dictionary says that's right, but I'll
never believe it!] spacecraft, and that impinging gas was causing the flutter?
Or what?

Will

------------------------------

Posted-Date: Tue 22 Apr 1986 16:07:14 EST
Date: Tue 22 Apr 1986 16:07:14 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: RE: Fermi-Paradox
To: "Andrew M. Groh" <decvax!dartvax!agroh@ucbvax.berkeley.edu>
In-Reply-To: decvax!dartvax!agroh's message of 18 Apr 86 18:24:15 GMT
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa

>  The
>point I am trying to make is that by using [Occam's] razor,  the simplest
>assumption is that space travel is difficult, not that there are not many
>places where intelligence has developed.

There is evidence that suggests interstellar travel at .01 c is possible
(specifically: designs for fission reactor powered ion rockets or
various kinds of nuclear pulse propulsion).  There is no evidence that
it is impossible.  There is no similar evidence that intelligent life 
is common (the Drake equation is a classic example of garbage in, gospel
out).

------------------------------

Sender: "Robert H. Kincaid.DlosLV"@xerox.com
Date: 22 Apr 86 14:14:12 PST (Tuesday)
Subject: Fermi Paradox
From: RHK.DlosLV@xerox.com
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa
Cc: RHK.DlosLV@xerox.com
Reply-To: RHK.DlosLV@Xerox.COM


There is an obvious but unprovable solution to the Fermi Paradox.  
Namely, that we have already been visited by intelligent beings 
and just don't know it.  This could happen in two ways.  First, 
It happened a very long time ago (perhaps before homo sapiens, or 
at least before recorded history).  It could have happened even 
more recently, but we just don't know it.  Stop and consider how 
we would go about visiting another planet.  I would hope we would 
be very careful about contaminating both ourselves, and the 
planet with diseases from each other.  Consider the extremes we 
took with the Apollo missions where we went to a relatively dead 
object.  Things would even get more complicated if we knew 
intelligent life was there.  Do you think we would go visit with 
horns blaring and lights flashing?  How would we likley be 
received?  If the planet and its civilization were anything like 
ours we would probably be blasted right out of the sky as some 
potential threat.  I submit that we and proabably any intelligent 
visitors would proabalby try to sneak in quietly and look around 
before announcing as profound a fact as alien intelligence.  If 
they were really intelligent AND benevolent, they would proabably 
try very hard to remain unseen until they felt we were ready for 
the news.  If they were not benevolent, we would probably not be 
here asking this question in the first place.  This isn't really 
a new idea.  The infamous "Chariots of the Gods" presented a 
similar concept.  That book tried too hard to prove speculation 
as fact.  However, it does offer an alternative solution to the 
"paradox".

That's one answer as to why we have or haven't been visited.  If 
we have been visited and not colonized, then the visitor must be 
a benevolent one who wishes to leave us alone and see what 
develops.

Or this is all hogwash...

---------------------------------------------------------------

Robert Kincaid @ Xerox, Lewisville TX

XNS : RHK:DlosLV:Xerox
UUCP: ihnp4!xrxeng!rhk

------------------------------

Date: 1986 April 22 18:37:49 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@su-ai.arpa>
To: ihnp4!inuxc!inuxe!fred@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Cc: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
Subject: What really is in a comet? We don't know yet!

FM> Date: 14 Apr 86 14:25:46 GMT
FM> From: ihnp4!inuxc!inuxe!fred@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Fred Mendenhall)
FM> Subject: Catch Another Comet

FM> ... lets talk about a hypothetical, large, long period comet.

FM> What resources does it have that we would want? None, if your on the 
                                                             ****
FM> Earth, but if you have earnest space colonization effort underway 
FM> the water and the carbon is fairly valuable.
 (Please learn to spell the word "you're" which is a contraction of "you are")

What is your source of information as to the inner composition of
comets? How do you know the "dirty snowball" is more than 99% useless
water? If it were 10% iron, we could get a lot of iron from a comet a
few miles diameter. If 2% were gold or platinum or rare earths etc.
it'd be valuable. I think we can be hesitant to make claims about the
value of a comet in materials for Earth use, but we should likewise be
hesitant to dismiss the value of a comet until we have taken one apart
and found what's inside it. Maybe what makes a comet in the first
place is an iron meteor accumulates water that is gravitationally
attracted to it during the early years of the solar system when there
was lots of random stuff loose in space. Maybe there were 100 times
the present population of comets, with 1% of them getting purpurbed to
the Oort cloud and 99% of them condensing to form the planets? Let's
go fetch some random comet and take it apart, and then make serious
comments about its value, ok?

FM> (Carbon is a terribly useful atom for making plastics and synthetic
FM> fibers. It would be tough to have a self supporting colony without
FM> it.)

Yup, maybe just use a comet for space, and in the process of
extracting the water and carbon we find a lot of residue and we
analyze it to see what else is in it??

------------------------------

Date: 22 Apr 86 05:32:25 GMT
From: ucdavis!ucrmath!hope!corwin@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (John Kempf)
Subject: Re: Dyson sphere
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> 
>     From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
> 
>     Another way you could make such a shell stable, other than ballancing
>     it on light pressure, would be to make the thing in giant segments
>     shaped like pieces of orange peel, all co-orbital.
> 
>   I don't think so.  It would tend to collapse towards the sun near
> its poles.
[portion deleted]
> 								...Keith
why not string these orange peals together, with some seperation,
give it some spin, and allow it to function like the shadow squares
in ringworld?  The added benefit being that to any intersteller observer,
we have suddenly become a strobe star,  deffinately worth looking into...
-cory

------------------------------

Date: 1986 April 22 18:57:14 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@su-ai.arpa>
To: "HIGGINS%FNALC.BITNET"@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Cc: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Iron etc. in p/Halley confirmed, good news, but silver??

H> Date: 16 APR 86 00:36-CST
H> From: HIGGINS%FNALC.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
H> Subject: Vega's mass spectrograms of Halley: Funny lines?

H> ... Vega probes of Halley's Comet. ...
H>     Among the pictures was one from the mass spectrometer experiment.
H> It showed a lot of peaks, with the big ones labeled with the elements
H> they represented.  Lots of hydrogen, of course, abundant oxygen and
H> carbon, somewhat less nitrogen.  There was a stubby bump at iron-56.

Hey, here's the answer to "what good would a comet be for materials on
Earth?", lots of iron. Of course for space we have carbon etc. confirmed.

H> But the startling feature of the data was an enormous peak way out in
H> the heavy elements labeled "Ag".  Its height was about the same as the
H> oxygen and carbon.

When you find out, I'd like to hear (but I'm a week behind in my mail
so maybe it's already answered).

------------------------------

Date: 1986 April 23 01:48:49 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@su-ai.arpa>
To: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu
Cc: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
Subject: only small amount dumped if useful fraction beamed out

K> Date: Wed, 16 Apr 86 19:45:56 EST
K> From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu>
K> Subject: Dumping heat

    From: ihnp4!mecc!sewilco@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Scot E. Wilcoxon)
    1. Thermocouples convert heat to electricity.  ...

K>   No, they get power by equalizing differences of temperature. ...

But the amount of heat that is transferred at each end is proportional
to temperature, with the difference between the heat (energy) grabbed
at the hot end and the heat (energy) emitted at the cold end being
converted into pure useful energy. So in effect some of the total heat
coming in is diverted/converted into useful energy. Thus literally
Scot is correct, but KFL's analysis is more complete/correct. But the
slight error in KFL's statement is important, see below.

K>   Given an object (for instance a star or a Dyson sphere) radiating
K> heat into space, you can use thermocouples or many other techniques to
K> get useful energy and dump the SAME amount of heat into interstellar
K> space at a LOWER temperature.

Here's where you start to go wrong. If you absorb energy at 3000
degrees Kelvin and emit it at 30 degrees kelvin (you'd need an
infinitely large heat sink to exactly match the 2.7 degree background,
so let's assume you use a reasonable size sink that emits at 30K),
then for every 3000 units of energy from the star only 30 units is
emitted in the sink and the remaining 2970 units are converted into
useful energy (assuming perfectly efficient conversion). If you use
that 2970 units to run motors and other consuming devices and emit
that directly via the heat sink then the sink emits the full 3000
units of energy but at lower temperature, as you claim. But if you use
that 2970 units to power radio transmitters or other means of emitting
beamed energy, then only 30 units go out the sink, and the total
infrared/microwave emission from the Dyson sphere is much much weaker
than the total emitted by the star (only 1% as much energy), making
the former bright star hard to detect far away.

K>   I suppose it is possible that instead of radiating heat at room
K> temperature, the builders of the Dyson sphere extract more useful
K> power and radiate the same heat at a much lower temperature, which
K> would mean we should look for longer wave infrared, or even for
K> microwaves.  But the extra energy isn't all that great, and dumping at
K> a lower temperature would require building a larger Dyson sphere, so
K> maybe this isn't that likely.

I assumed above dumping at 30K, where indeed you find borderline
microwave/infrared instead of normal "thermal" (Earth temperature)
infrared. If you dump at room temperature (300K), you still get 90% of
the incoming (star) energy converted to useful energy and only 10%
dumped in the case of the 90% going out on a radio beam (or 100%
dumped if instead of beaming you consume and emit). 10% of a bright
star would be a medium star, possible to detect if we look carefully
with infrared space telescopes such as IRAS.

------------------------------

Date: 1986 April 23 02:23:52 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@su-ai.arpa>
To: "Dave-Platt%LADC"@cisl-service-multics.arpa
Cc: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
Subject: If Mohammad won't come to the mountain...

DP> Date: Fri, 18 Apr 86 11:26 PST
DP> From: Dave Platt <Dave-Platt%LADC@cisl-service-multics.arpa>
DP> Subject: Punching Halley's lights out.
DP> ...  Rather than punching its lights out with a kinetic or atomic
DP> weapon, let's just change the orbital period of Earth so as to ensure
DP> a close passage by Halley during each of the next dozen visits or
DP> so ;-}

(:- Don't forget to file your environmental impact report first! -:)

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #265
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA03529; Sat, 26 Apr 86 03:02:08 PST
	id AA03529; Sat, 26 Apr 86 03:02:08 PST
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 86 03:02:08 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8604261102.AA03529@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #266

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 266

Today's Topics:
      Ken wants to stay in the womb, I want to be born and live!
			 Earth is one basket!
		   Challenger accident photography
			Voyager around Neptune
			 re: Where are they ?
	   Re: StarDate: April 12: The First Space Traveler
		  Re: Black holes and useful energy.
		   GREAT SPACE RACE: new TV series
			Re: Re: Fermi-Paradox
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 1986 April 23 04:10:43 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@su-ai.arpa>
To: ucdavis!lll-lcc!lll-crg!styx!lognet2!seismo!rochester!ken@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Cc: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Ken wants to stay in the womb, I want to be born and live!

K> Date: 17 Apr 86 17:16:12 GMT
K> From: ucdavis!lll-lcc!lll-crg!styx!lognet2!seismo!rochester!ken@ucbvax.berkel
ey.edu
K> Subject: Re: Catch Another Comet

K> More power to that, but what I am trying to say is, thinking that
K> space is the solution to our resource problems is like a child who
K> messes up his playroom with toys and hopes to get a new playroom.

Try this alternative metaphor: It's like a foetus in a womb thinking
maybe if it gets out of that womb it'll have more room to stretch its
legs and grow and learn new things, ... nah, the outside world is
probably just like the world in here only not as nice, let's stay in
here and never be born until we are absolutely sure it's worth doing.

------------------------------

Date: 1986 April 23 03:04:16 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@su-ai.arpa>
To: tektronix!uw-beaver!bullwinkle!rochester!ken@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Cc: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Earth is one basket!

I> Date: 16 Apr 86 17:34:21 GMT
I> From: tektronix!uw-beaver!bullwinkle!rochester!ken@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Ipse
 dixit)
I> Subject: Re: Catch Another Comet
I> We already have a space colonization effort underway. It is called
I> Starship Earth. We have all the resources we need, we only have to
I> learn to use them wisely.

Unfortunately we have only one ship, and if it wrecks we are all dead.
We need multiple ships, hence need for space colonization beyond
Earth. Didn't you learn yet that no matter how carefully we try to
keep our one ship alive, it may blow up in our faces like Challenger
did, and that we need lots and lots of ships so we can continue on
after a disaster occurs? You never heard of Murphy??

MM> Date: 18 Apr 86 18:21:47 GMT
MM> From: hplabs!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Michael McNeil)
MM> So you propose only the one starship, forever and ever?  That seems a
MM> bit risky, given the large mishaps we see that other starships flying
MM> nearby us have experienced.

Sigh, I see my point has already been raised (I'm behind in mail again).
Well, maybe if more than one person says it in different words it'll
sink in, so I'll go ahead and send my message anyway. Thanks Mike for
rebutting Ipse.

------------------------------

Date: 22 Apr 86 15:13:15 GMT
From: decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-star!fisher@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Challenger accident photography
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa


>The shuttle was travelling very fast when it broke up (2000 mph is the
>unconfirmed number I recall). Both video and film have limited framing rates,
>for a whole variety of reasons. It is hard to shoot film real fast through
>a shutter mechanism, etc. Video tubes suffer from effects of persistance. In
>any case, the film likely just shows what we saw; a shuttle/booster one
>instant, pieces the next. The pieces, no longer accelerating since they
>were disconnected from the booster, probably "fell out" of the cameras' view
>very quickly....

I agree that I would be surprised if the debris could be tracked 
photographically.  However, two notes:

1)  There are enhanced photos that show the Challenger crew cabin separating
cleanly from the rest of the vehicle and falling away relatively undamaged.
(An unidentified person who saw the films said that you could see it glittering
in the sun as it rotated).  Side note:  It is currently thought that the
crew cabin broke up on hitting the ocean; it fell relatively intact.  However,
it is assumed that the crew was most likely killed by the immense acceleration
forces immediately after the explosion.  The worst-case scenario is that
one or more of the crew survived until ocean impact, but was unconcious 
thoughout the fall.

2)  The debris actually was tracked by radar.  That was how they prioritized
debris fields that were found by sonar. (i.e. they looked at the radar tapes
and tried to determine what piece of debris was most likely to be at a 
particular location in the ocean.  A very uncertain business, at best, however.

Burns

...decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-star!fisher

------------------------------

Date: 22 Apr 86 15:12:38 GMT
From: decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-star!fisher@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Voyager around Neptune
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>This suggestion is so obvious, I know there must be a good reason
>against it.

You're right! 

>At the risk of spoiling the plot of Star Trek (the movie) I, it seems
>to me that it would be much better to try to put Voyager II into an orbit
>around Neptune, rather than let it go drifting off into interstellar
>space.  After all, Voyager I is already on that course.  The main problem
>...
> 
>Questions:  why isn't this feasible?  Are there any benefits to sending
>Voyager II into interstellar space which would be greater than having
>the probe stationed at Neptune?  How long would it be before Voyager's
>power supply would give out?

I'm sure most planetary scientists would be much more thrilled to have
Voyager in orbit around Neptune than to have it heading out of the solar
system.

Don't worry about the power supply.  I think it will be running long
after the Voyagers and Pioneers are too far away for us to receive simply
because of the inverse square law.
 
>I suspect that the reason it would not be possible is that there isn't
>enough fuel left to manuever the probe into the narrow window that would
>allow Neptune's gravity to grab Voyager, or that the speed-of-light delay
>in sending commands would make it much too difficult.  

The delay has nothing to do with it.  As the accurate fly-bys show, we can
do a pretty good job of predicting where V will be a decade ahead of time,
say nothing of a measly few hours.  The problem is a single word: ENERGY.
Narrow window nothing!  It's not a question of accuracy.  It is a question
of quantity.  Remember that Voyager will be essentially falling toward
Neptune from infinity.  This means that when it reaches ~the surface, it
will be traveling at Neptune's escape velocity ( + whatever velocity it
had before Neptune's gravity started having a noticable effect).  The Earth's
escape velocity is about 25,000 MPH, or about 7 miles/second.  Neptune is
more massive, and thus will have a greater escape velocity.  Remember what
it took to accelerate Voyager to Earth's escape velocity to begin with?
(Hint: 5-4-3-2-1 <ear-splitting roar>).

Warning:  the preceeding is an over-simplified, back-of-the-envelope argument
meant to show that it is EXPENSIVE to slow down to orbital velocity.  Obviously,
if it were necessary to use a Titan-Centaur to do it, there would be no other
planetary orbiters.  It is over-simplified because (1) undoubtedly the 
definitive treatise would not be welcomed by those who pay the USENET phone
bills, and (2) I don't know any more than an over-simplified explanation.

Burns

...decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-star!fisher

------------------------------

Date:         Wed, 23 Apr 86 08:35:55 EST
From: Dean Carpenter
  <ST701979%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu>
To: Space Digest <SPACE-INCOMING@s1-b.arpa>
Subject:      re: Where are they ?

One has to be careful when attributing reasons for colonizing other planets
to *other* species because human goals and incentives tend to color things.

Has anyone read The Mote in God's Eye by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle ?
I use this as a reference - it is a first contact story and one of the
characteristics of the *others* is that they HAVE to bear young to survive.
Not just once, but in cycles, continuously.  Their history was a l o n g
one of risen and fallen civilizations due to population pressure.

Admittedly, it seems unlikely that nature would find such a scheme to be of
benefit to the species, but it does provide for a very good reason to find as
many inhabitable planets as they could ...

Dean Carpenter

PS. The book is highly reccommended

------------------------------

Date: 23 Apr 86 02:56:05 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-lcc!lll-crg!topaz!bentley!kwh@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (KW Heuer)
Subject: Re: StarDate: April 12: The First Space Traveler
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In net.astro article <612@utastro.UUCP> utastro!dipper (Deborah Byrd) writes:
>... Gargarin -- the world's first astronaut.

If I wanted to quibble, I'd say he was the first *cosmonaut*.  But I won't,
because I consider the words to be synonymous.

Can someone explain why the word for "space traveler" depends on the subject's
nationality?  Even if the Russian word is "kosmonotski" or whatever, why don't
they just translate that to "astronaut" (and vice versa)?

Karl W. Z. Heuer (ihnp4!bentley!kwh), The Walking Lint
Disclaimer: I don't know Russian, as you can tell.
"CCCP stands for Communist Communist Communist Pickle" -- Thicke of the Night

------------------------------

Date: 23 Apr 86 02:38:31 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-lcc!lll-crg!topaz!bentley!kwh@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (KW Heuer)
Subject: Re: Black holes and useful energy.
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <16200001@ti-csl> ti-csl!khill writes:
>>     (When I was in college physics we thought of starting a company.  It 
>>was called The Black Hole Garbage Collection Company....)
>
>I have read a short story about this, but can't remember the author.  The
>garbage company puts a charge on a very small (quantum?) black hole and hauls
>it around with electric fields.  All worked fine until the barge carrying
>it sunk in a lake.  (Murphy will always triumph!)

Sounds like "Garbage", by Robert L. Schultz (Oct 1985 Analog), which was based
on a joke ad by "Nothingness Unlimited" which appeared some time earlier in
the same magazine (apparently in 1978).

Karl W. Z. Heuer (ihnp4!bentley!kwh), The Walking Lint
"And they come in 7 decorator colors!  (Take our word for it)"
"Filling your needs with nothing at all.  Nothingness Unlimited."

------------------------------

Date: 22 Apr 86 14:47:04 GMT
From: ihnp4!houxm!mtuxo!mtgzy!ecl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (e.c.leeper)
Subject: GREAT SPACE RACE: new TV series
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Channel 21 WLIW in Garden City, New York, (and maybe other PBS stations) is
running "The Great Space Race", four 1-hour shows on space.  Dates (on WLIW)
and synopses of the episodes are:

	05/07	"Payload in the Sky": This new 4-part series examines the
		space exploration race and answers such questions as: Who
		are involved in the race?  What are they after?  What has
		really happened so far, and what are the stakes?  Today:
		"Payload in the Sky" takes a look at the increasing
		commercial and military interests in space and programs of
		other countries.

	05/21	"Unlockng the Universe":  Experts provide insight and
		theories on how our universe began, and the probability of
		intelligent life elsewhere.

	05/21	"The Earth Below": This program looks at the technology and
		the enormous and unexpected impact that the "great space
		race" has had on life on our own planet.
		(Yes, the date is correct! They are running two to make up
		for the week they skipped.)

	05/28	"The Next Civilization": Plans are already on drawing boards
		for space stations, lunar bases, Mars colonization and
		free-floating colony capsules in space.  Some of the world's
		top scientists explore such questions as: What will they be
		like?  What sort of life is possible?  What societies will
		emerge?  How will they change man physically and
		psychologically?

Looks interesting!

					Evelyn C. Leeper
					...ihnp4!mtgzz!ecl
					(or ihnp4!mtgzy!ecl)

------------------------------

Date: 22 Apr 86 22:44:10 GMT
From: ihnp4!inuxc!inuxa!rmrin@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (D Rickert)
Subject: Re: Re: Fermi-Paradox
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> > 
> >    I have a personal theory about the answer to the Fermi paradox. It is
> > that civilization is a tenuous and short lived phenomenon.
> > 
> > Joel Swank
> 
> This is certainly one plausible explanation.  I also have another.  In
> order for an advanced civilization to completely colonize the galaxy,
> it has to have a large enough population to do so.  The number of planetary
> bodies humans (to name a specific example with which all netters have had
> experience (even though nobody understands humans :-])) may be able to
> colonize in this galaxy may be as many as 100 million (though that's
> being liberal).  I find to hard to believe that a responsible, space faring
> species of beings would allow themselves to populate that many planets.
> 
Consider the following assumptions:

Most intelligent races do not have the strong sexual drive of humans. 
(Most terrestrial animals only attempt to breed in certain seasons or
once in their lives.)

The Universe is full of diverse intelligent species who are in
contact with one another.

The drive for territory of these species is small, either through
instinct, training, or the natural selection of being exposed
to other, more powerful (but not unfriendly) species who frown
on strong territorial imperatives.

Under these assumptions, the Earth could well be a quarantined
planet, either awaiting the presumed inevitable self-destruction
or a self-imposed change in the dominant species' behavior.
-- 


You are Beautiful,			Dick Rickert
my manufactured love;-			AT&T CPL
but it is only Svengali,		Indy, IN
talking to himself again.		Reward is its own virtue!

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #266
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA08001; Sun, 27 Apr 86 03:02:05 PDT
	id AA08001; Sun, 27 Apr 86 03:02:05 PDT
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 86 03:02:05 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8604271002.AA08001@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #267

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 267

Today's Topics:
			 Re: Where are they?
		     LA Area: Tours in Space Talk
		  Speed of interstellar colonization
		     Ease of interstellar travel
			   Space resources
	  Fermi Paradox; comments on comments on comments on
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted-Date: Wed 23 Apr 1986 15:12:56 EST
Date: Wed 23 Apr 1986 15:12:56 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Re: Where are they?
To: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
In-Reply-To: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET's message of Mon, 21 Apr 86 12:00:29 EST
Cc: dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa, space@s1-b.arpa

A reply to Geoffrey Landis:

(Please forgive me if you already received an earlier version of this
message; I think (but am not sure) that the mailer ate it.)

1. You say that Frank Adam's estimate of the distance to the nearest
   civilization in wildly conservative.  I don't see how this opinion
   can be scientifically justified, given our near total ignorance
   of how life originates, how stable biospheres are over geologic time
   and how frequently intelligent life evolves.  A very low frequency
   of occurence of    civilizations seems as justified by the data as
   your estimate.  The only firm evidence seems to be the alien's apparent
   absence.  If life is very rare we won't be able to prove it until we
   explore many stars.

2. You mention the mass ratio required to accelerate a large mass to
   .01 c and slow it down again.  This ratio depends on the exhaust
   velocity of your rocket.  A nuclear pulse rocket using fusion
   micro or macroexplosions has an exhaust velocity of several percent
   of the speed of light, so the fuel mass and vehicle mass should
   be comparable.  A million tons (say) of deuterium should not
   be difficult to obtain, given the quantities of the stuff present
   in the outer solar system.  Perhaps you were talking about
   chemical rockets?  A classic technique of technological pessimists
   is to pick a stupid technology to solve a problem, show that that
   particular technology is inadequate, then claim the problem cannot be
   solved by ANY technology.

3. I don't understand where you get the distance of 30 light years.
   Are you assuming that most target stars cannot be colonized?  The
   average distance between a star and its nearest neighbor (not counting
   multiple stars) is much less than 30 light years.

4. You mention that habitable planets are scarce.  Why should colonists
   live on planets?

5. You made, I believe, the assumption that all colonization
   ships must be launched from the star system in which the species
   first evolved.  Why can't the colonies also produce ships when their
   populations have been built up sufficiently to support the effort?

6. You state your skepticism over projects that will not immediately
   benefit those providing the resources.  Please consider such projects
   as: pyramids, cathedrals, particle accelerators, space programs, etc.
   These soaked up nontrivial fractions of their society's resources
   for extended periods.  To prevent colonization your argument must
   apply uniformly to everyone in the solar system for periods of
   thousands of years, yet it doesn't hold now and hasn't held
   in the past.

   Your argument would also make small-scale SETI experiments
   pointless, since they cannot detect "leakage", only high power
   beacons.  Maintaining such beacons would require maintenance
   and energy over periods long compared to that needed for starship
   construction.

   Note also that an interstellar voyage will provide a useful base
   for astronomical observations well before it reaches the target
   system.  I'm sure many astronomers would sell their left arms
   for parallax measurements over a baseline of light months.

7. The cost of shipping material goods over interstellar distances
   may be great, but the cost of shipping information is trivial.
   You need somethere there to send the information, though, and only
   a large scale society at the target can do a complete investigation
   of a star system (unless you believe in intelligent self reproducing
   robots).  Some material goods may be economically shipped over
   interstellar distances -- for example, microorganisms based on
   an entirely new biochemistry could be extremely valuable.

8. Your deprecation of Frank Adams' suggestion that intergalactic
   colonization is possible shows a failure of imagination on your part.
   The energy required to accelerate a (say) ten million ton vehicle
   to .99 c is equal to the energy emitted by the sun in about 1/10
   second; a civilization that has colonized a galaxy will have access
   to the energy emitted by billions of stars.  Such a vehicle
   (accelerated by laser radiation pressure, say) could travel to
   M-31 in 200,000 years, ship time, and could slow down by plasma
   drag in the target galaxy.  Of course, we can't build such a ship now,
   but there's no obvious reason why it should always be impossible.

------------------------------

Date: 23 Apr 1986 14:22:11 PST
Subject: LA Area: Tours in Space Talk
From: Craig Milo Rogers <Rogers@usc-isib.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Cc: BBoard@usc-isib.arpa, BBoard@usc-ecl.arpa
Reply-To: Rogers@USC-ISIB.ARPA

	  Mr. Gary Hudson will talk about his company's plans to
     send tourists into space in 1992.  The lecture will be given
     at 7:00 PM on Saturday, April 26, in the Kinsey Auditorium at
     the California Museum of Science and Industry in Exposition
     Park.

          Mr. Hudson is president of Pacific American Launch
     Systems, which is developing the Phoenix Launch Vehicle.  The
     tours are part of a joint venture with Society Expeditions, a
     company well known for its exotic tour packages.

          The 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 will be a $2.00 admission
     charge.  For more information about this lecture or other
     OASIS activities contact Craig Milo Rogers <Rogers@USC-ISIB.ARPA>,
     or call (213) 419-0561.
-------

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 23 Apr 86 19:56:09 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu>
Subject: Speed of interstellar colonization
To: uwvax!uwmacc!john@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@s1-b.arpa

    From: uwvax!uwmacc!john@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (john jacobsen)

    Right.  All the real estate in the galaxy is an awful lot.  I admit to not
    knowing the figures, but I bet that with 100.000 light years diameter we
    wont ever visit all of them before we mutate (through natural or induced
    radiation) into plants or computers or sentient rocks.

  If population increases at 2%, we will be able to populate ten
billion (10**10) worlds as densely as Earth within 12 centuries.  This
is much less time than it takes for significant mutations to occur.
  Of course it will really take at least 1000 centuries to get to the
other side of the galaxy even at speeds close to that of light.  But
it doesn't matter, since the colonists wouldn't experience such time,
thanks to relativistic time contraction and possibly suspended
animation.
  This is not to say we will colonize the galaxy this quickly.  It
will probably take much longer.  The point of Fermi's paradox is
simply that a world that started 1% sooner or where life evolved 1%
faster would have had technology similar to ours millions of years
ago, and would have had ample time to colonize the whole galaxy
several times over, even if they went no faster than our Voyager
probes.
								...Keith

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 23 Apr 86 20:15:04 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu>
Subject: Ease of interstellar travel
To: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@s1-b.arpa

    From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu

         Why aren't they here?  Well, contrary to speculation on the net,
    it is in fact very difficult to travel distances comparable to 30
    light years.  It is by no means impossible, but it's hard.

  It's hard for us.  I don't see any reason to think it is hard in any
permanent sense.  Many things are easy now that were extremely hard
less than a century ago.  I see no reason why this trend shouldn't
continue.

    It is quite reasonable to me that a civilization might colonize a few
    nearby stars, but I wonder why people think they would go to the
    great expense of colonizing *every* possible star.  After you've done
    a few, why keep up draining your economy?

  It would probably not be the original solar system that colonizes
all other solar systems.  Most likely, each solar system would
colonize any nearby solar systems as soon as it becomes reasonably
wealthy and heavily populated.
  Suppose there were enormous numbers of continents on Earth.  They
would not all have been colonized in Columbus's age, but don't you
think they all would have been eventually?

         REFERENCE:  If you can, find a copy of Stephen Dole's long out of
    print book Habitable Planets for Man, which discusses in detail what
    is needed for a planet to be habitable (for human type life).

  Why planets?  Why not O'Neill type colonies?  With those, solar
systems can support about ten to the twentieth people.
								...Keith

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 23 Apr 86 20:01:48 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu>
Subject: Space resources
To: ucdavis!lll-lcc!lll-crg!styx!lognet2!seismo!rochester!ken@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@s1-b.arpa

    From: ucdavis!lll-lcc!lll-crg!styx!lognet2!seismo!rochester!ken@ucbvax.berkeley.edu

    ... thinking that
    space is the solution to our resource problems is like a child who
    messes up his playroom with toys and hopes to get a new playroom.

  No, it's like tiring of your playroom and wanting to play outdoors
or visit your neighbors.
								...Keith

------------------------------

Date:         Wed, 23 Apr 86 20:24:35 EST
From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
To: space digest <SPACE-INCOMING@s1-b.arpa>
Subject:      Fermi Paradox; comments on comments on comments on

    In this posting I will restrict my commentary on to Paul Dietz'
comments to just those relevant to the original discussion
on how far it is to the next civilization.  Commentary on
the difficulty or ease of interstellar travel (which I personally
find a more interesting topic) I'll save for later.

>  You say that Frank Adam's estimate of the distance to the nearest
>  civilization is wildly conservative.  I don't see how this opinion
>  can be scientifically justified ...
     Of course it can't be scientifically justified.  I said
     "conservative", not "wrong".  However, there
     are 100,000,000,000 stars in the galaxy.  Life has to be not
     merely unlikely, but very very very unlikely for it to be true
     that we are the only civilization in our galaxy; it has to
     be very very very very unlikely for us to be the only one
     in not only our galaxy, but all of the local group.  If there
     are a million other civilizations out there, I think it is
     fair to wonder why they're not here.  If there are only one
     or ten,or even a hundred, however, it's just not *that* surprising
     they're not here.

>  A classic technique of technological pessimists
>  is to pick a stupid technology to solve a problem, show that that
>  particular technology is inadequate, then claim the problem cannot be
>  solved by ANY technology.
     In this case, mea culpa.  However, the argument I was rebutting
was that if there were *ANY* civilizations within "billions of
light years" that they would *certainly* already be here, since
they have had many billion years since the beginning of the
universe to come here, and therefore they don't exist.

>  Why can't the colonies also produce ships when their
>  populations have been built up sufficiently to support the effort?
   Why should they?  After the first ten, or a hundred, or a thousand
stars have been explored, at great expense, what is the point in
keeping on?  What do they get out of it?  Are you so willing to
argue that the return is so great, that not only *might* they do
it, but it is so absolutely certain that they will do it
that by observing that they have not colonized every habitable star
within a billion light years, we can conclude they don't exist?

>  You state your skepticism over projects that will not immediately
>  benefit those providing the resources.  Please consider such projects
>  as: pyramids, cathedrals, particle accelerators, space programs, etc.
    Actually, I think that most of those are examples of projects
where the people who controlled the funding expected returns in the
near term.
>  [my argument has to] apply uniformly to everyone in the solar system
for periods of thousands of years...
   No, the argument that a civilization would be certain to continue
colonizing every available star would have to apply for *millions* of
years.

>  Your argument would also make small-scale SETI experiments
>  pointless, since they cannot detect "leakage", only high power
>  beacons.  Maintaining such beacons would require maintenance
>  and energy over periods long compared to that needed for starship
>  construction.
     I think it is much easier to build radio transmitters than to
build starships.  However, let me assure you that if the nearest
other civilization is a billion light years away, then small-scale SETI
is *for sure* impossible.

>  Note also that an interstellar voyage will provide a useful base
>  for astronomical observations well before it reaches the target
>  system.
     True.  That may be a good justification for one or two
interstellar missions, and even justification for an intergalactic
mission (although I'm not sure that the astronomers would learn
anything  worth the 200,000,000 years wait).  But it is
not a reason to colonize every possible star in the galaxy.

>  Some material goods may be economically shipped over
>  interstellar distances -- for example, microorganisms based on
>  an entirely new biochemistry could be extremely valuable.
     A good point.  However, if you argue that there are NO
civilizations at all about any of the nearest 100,000,000,000
stars, then I doubt that you will find any microorganisms at all
until you have searched many thousands or even millions of stars.
Searching at 1% of lightspeed, I think that many, if not most,
civilizations would give up well before a thousand stars have been
searched.

>  Your deprecation of Frank Adams' suggestion that intergalactic
>  colonization is possible shows a failure of imagination on your part.
     I was criticizing his suggestion that intergalactic colonization
was a *certain* result of the existence of *any* spacefaring
civilization.

                   --Geoffrey A. Landis, Brown University
                     Reply to: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #267
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA11227; Mon, 28 Apr 86 03:02:04 PDT
	id AA11227; Mon, 28 Apr 86 03:02:04 PDT
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 86 03:02:04 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8604281002.AA11227@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #268

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 268

Today's Topics:
			   O'Neill colonies
			  Re: Fermi-Paradox
			   Re: Alien visits
			   Re: Dyson sphere
		  Re:  Fermi-Paradox (one more time)
			 Re: Shuttle schedule
			  Titan malfunction
			  Long-term planning
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 23 Apr 86 21:38:50 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu>
Subject: O'Neill colonies
To: ucdavis!ucrmath!hope!corwin@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@s1-b.arpa

    From: ucdavis!ucrmath!hope!corwin@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (John Kempf)

    what's an o'neil colony?  I havn't heard that term before.

  Named for Gerard K. O'Neill, who invented (with his students) the
idea, an O'Neill colony is a large hollow cylinder in space which
rotates on its axis for artificial gravity and whose central volume
contains breathable air.
  The inner surface can be lined with rocks, dirt, trees, farmland,
lakes, rivers, and hills.  If it is large enough, even mountain ranges
and oceans might be found inside.  It would be much like living on
Earth except the climate is controlled, ground can be seen above
instead of space, and spacecraft launching is trivial.  The stars can
be easily seen through one's basement floor window.
  Such colonies are much more efficient uses of mass than planets,
where most of the mass only serves to produce gravity.  Also, it is
possible that other solar sytems contain few if any Earthlike
planets.  Our own solar system certainly contains only one.  If we
build enough O'Neill colonies, we can support billions of times the
population that a planet can, and we can do so in any solar system
including ones without planets.
								...Keith

------------------------------

Date: 22 Apr 86 23:29:54 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-lcc!lll-crg!topaz!harvard!adelie!ll-xn!olsen@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Jim Olsen)
Subject: Re: Fermi-Paradox
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> Seriously, I find it much harder to believe that a species, having developed
> the technology, would be able to prevent itself from populating almost
> everything available to it.  Remember, human civilization ... is only about
> 10,000 years old.  We are talking about billions of years here: 100,000
> times longer than human civilization has existed.  Can you imagine a culture
> remaining recognizable for such a long period of time?  Much less stable
> enough to enforce a "limits to growth" policy?  I can't.

I can.  Isn't it a little presumptuous to predict the behavior of all billion-
year-old civilizations by extrapolating from the first 10,000 years of human
civilization?  We don't understand how our present society works, so let's not
be so positively sure we can tell what an ultra-advanced civilization would do.
-- 
Jim Olsen   ARPA:olsen@ll-xn   UUCP:{decvax,lll-crg,seismo}!ll-xn!olsen

------------------------------

Date: 22 Apr 86 22:56:23 GMT
From: hplabs!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Michael McNeil)
Subject: Re: Alien visits
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <[AI.AI.MIT.EDU].28205.860417.KFL> KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu
("Keith F. Lynch") writes:
>From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
>> The Earth has only microscopic prokaryotic life for most of its history.
>> *One* alien landing party being careless with its garbage would have
>> changed that.
>
>Perhaps one alien landing party being careless with its garbage
>*caused* that.
>						...Keith

Perhaps, but if so the alien landing took place a *long* time ago.  
It's been demonstrated that life has existed on Earth for more than
3.5 billion years; therefore, the alien expedition must have arrived
less than a billion years after Earth's formation (a time when Earth
was very unlike the world we know and love today).  If any subsequent
aliens visited, none of their life can have taken hold on Earth, since
all life presently living on Earth is *very* closely interrelated.  

-- 

Michael McNeil
3Com Corporation     "All disclaimers including this one apply"
(408) 970-1835
..!ucbvax!hplabs!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm

	Things are as they are because they were as they were.  
		Thomas Gold, 1972, oral remark to J. A. Wheeler

------------------------------

Date: 22 Apr 86 23:25:36 GMT
From: hplabs!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Michael McNeil)
Subject: Re: Dyson sphere
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <[AI.AI.MIT.EDU].29182.860421.KFL> KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU
("Keith F. Lynch") writes:
>From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
>>Another way you could make such a shell stable, other than ballancing
>>it on light pressure, would be to make the thing in giant segments
>>shaped like pieces of orange peel, all co-orbital.
>
>I don't think so.  It would tend to collapse towards the sun near
>its poles.
>						...Keith

An idea I've heard for stabilizing a Dyson sphere (sorry, I don't
recall who originated it) involved constructing great-circle conduits
along all necessary axes of support for the sphere, then running
superfluid liquid helium through the channels at high speed.  Being
superfluid, the helium will flow forever without losing energy via
friction with the walls -- all that's needed is to keep it cold.  
The circulating helium provides support evenly distributed over the
entire sphere by way of centrifugal force generated in the huge hoops.  

-- 

Michael McNeil
3Com Corporation     "All disclaimers including this one apply"
(408) 970-1835
..!ucbvax!hplabs!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm

	When we are a million species spreading through the galaxy,
	the question "Can man play God and still stay sane?" will
	lose some of its terrors.  We shall be playing God, but
	only as local deities and not as lords of the universe.  
	There is safety in numbers.  Some of us will become insane,
	and rule over empires as crazy as Doctor Moreau's island.  
	Some of us will shit on the morning star.  There will be
	conflicts and tragedies.  But in the long run, the sane
	will adapt and survive better than the insane.  Nature's
	pruning of the unfit will limit the spread of insanity
	among species in the galaxy, as it does among individuals
	on earth.  Sanity is, in its essence, nothing more than
	the ability to live in harmony with nature's laws.  
		Freeman Dyson, 1979, *Disturbing the Universe*

------------------------------

Date: 23 Apr 86 11:24:08 GMT
From: ihnp4!riccb!jmc@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Jeff McQuinn )
Subject: Re:  Fermi-Paradox (one more time)
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> 
> How about 
> 4. After a brief few thousand years of technology we can  relate
> to,  a civilization develops into something neither interested in
> communication with us (we don't send signals  to  jellyfish)  nor
> observable by us.
> 

But we do try to communicate with jellyfish.  In fact we have done our
best to teach language to lower primates!  

How could any advanced civilization miss us with all the 'noise' we
make with our radio emissions and what not.  

Here's a thought.  Space travel is difficult at least.  The best we can 
say about it is that it requires a large time investment to go anywhere
unless you can warp space.  This sort of implies you need a fairly good
reason to go somewhere.  You wouldn't invest years going to some dead
rock if there were better places to go.  
We have only been making all this 'noise' and announcing our existence for
about 65 years.  Since radio waves travel at the speed of light we have 
only announced ourselves to a very small area in the galaxy (65 light years
in radius).  Also one has to remember that we live on a spur of the Milky
Way out on the edge and there aren't a lot of star systems in the area
we've broadcast to.  In order to reply the furthest star system would need
to be no further out then 32.5 light years.
As for them stumbling on us by chance, the odds aren't good because the 
galaxy is a very big place.   Just look at the numbers we use to show how
great the odds are that other intelligent life exists.  
The real question is not if intelligent life exists out there, the question
is does it exist here!

					Jeff McQuinn just VAXing around

------------------------------

Date: 23 Apr 86 06:32:10 GMT
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!usc-oberon!smeagol!earle@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Greg Earle)
Subject: Re: Shuttle schedule
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <[AI.AI.MIT.EDU].27475.860415.KFL>, KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU ("Keith F. Lynch") writes:
> >   Now here's my question:  I was under the impression that Galileo's
> >   launch window was three weeks long every thirteen months;  it was
> >   originally palnned to be launched in May.  May + 13 mo = June '87
> >   != Dec '87.  So what's going on?
> 
>   Is that an official NASA schedule?  Possibly the reporter just made
> it up by adding 18 months to an old schedule.
> 								...Keith

WHAT?  You mean you don't know, Keith?  Jeeze, I thought you knew 
*everything* about *everything*, right?  I mean, you post the most articles
to this newsgroup, so you *must*, right??



What, me sarcastic?  Hey, better that than morally and intellectually
bankrupt ...


Oh, yeah - some Signal to add to the Noise:
I don't know about the Boston Globe, but JPL is still going under the
13 month - June '87 Launch Window for Galileo.  Disbelieve all non-NASA/JPL
claims to the contrary ...

-- 
	Greg Earle		UUCP: sdcrdcf!smeagol!earle
	JPL			ARPA: ia-sun2!smeagol!earle@csvax.caltech.edu

If our behavior is strict, we do not need fun!

------------------------------

Date:         Thu, 24 Apr 86 10:15:58 EST
From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
To: space digest <SPACE-INCOMING@s1-b.arpa>
Subject:      Titan malfunction

     I saw in an editorial in yesterday (Wed. 4/23) 's NYT that Friday a
Titan carrying a KH11 spy satellite malfunctioned on launch.  This was a
replacement for one that failed on launch last August.  Two launch
failures in a row; quite an unlucky coincidence.
    NYT says the cost of the KH11's is over $500M each.  That's a billion
dollars worth of satellites lost in two failures!
     Makes a replacement shuttle look a little bit less expensive.

                   --Geoffrey A. Landis, Brown University
                     Reply to: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA

Random notes:  Just ran across the book "The Mars One Crew Manual", by
Kerry M. Joels, from Ballantine Books.  Neat book on a 1996 Mars mission,
lots of color pictures, $13.  Technology is uprated SSME's,
Earth-Venus-Mars outbound trajectory, aerobraking at target, 24 day stay.
                         --GL

------------------------------

Date: 24-Apr-1986 1909
From: redford%jeremy.DEC@decwrl.dec.com  (John Redford)
To: space@s1-b.arpa, redford%jeremy.DEC@decwrl.dec.com
Subject: Long-term planning


In discussing mining Halley's comet, Frank Adams noted that planning 
76 years into the future was an absurdity.  Tom Courtney replied that
medieval cathedrals also took a great deal of time to build, but had 
very worthwhile results.  Interstellar colonization will also require
very long-term planning.

The issue of long-term planning relates to a lot of space projects, 
so let me discuss it a bit.  Some of the medieval cathedrals 
actually took centuries to build.  The projects outlived their 
architects, their craftsmen, and the bishops and nobles who 
originally funded them.  Such projects are only possible in an 
extremely stable social and technological environment.  You can't 
start a hundred-year cathedral project if the techniques for building 
arches are changing.  If you did, then you would find that the town 
across the river has managed to put up a far larger and more 
magnificent cathedral while you're still struggling with obsolete methods.
Likewise, if you're not sure that people will want cathedrals in a 
hundred years (say, because Martin Luther is inflaming the people 
against you), then it's a waste to start such a project now.

Well, we're in one of the most turbulent and fast-changing periods in 
human history.  No one knows what's going to happen in twenty years, 
much less a hundred.  In my particular field, VLSI design, a 
five-year project is pretty speculative.  By 1991 will we have five 
million transistors on a chip or twenty?  Will we even be using 
silicon FETs, or will everyone have gone to gallium arsenide
ballistic transistors?  

Even projects that look like sure winners can have trouble.  The 
largest project that I know of that was entirely funded by private 
enterprise was the Alaska pipeline.  It cost something like seven 
billion in late Seventies dollars.  How could they lose?  The price 
of oil was constantly rising, and no one is making any more of it.
But now the price of oil has fallen so much that it's barely 
economical to pump it out of Texas, much less Alaska.  Unless they 
have already recovered their investment on the pipeline, they're in serious
trouble.

All this causes big problems for any kind of space work.  You say you 
want to spend fifty billion for solar power satellites?  By the time
you've worked out the technology and gotten it built, some bright boy is
making amorphous silicon solar cells that are cheap enough to use for 
roofing tiles.  You say there's billions of bucks of minerals out in 
the asteroid belt?  By the time you can get it back here they're 
refining everything from seawater for twenty cents a ton.  Or 
recombinant DNA bacteria are eating rocks and excreting copper. Or
(as has recently happened), the Third World mineral 
cartels have collapsed and they're selling it for whatever price 
they can get.  Or everyone has gone to plastics and ceramics and doesn't
care about iron anymore.

The long-term nature of space work is a serious handicap for space 
industrialization.  The only way to get around it is to do things in 
space that absolutely cannot be done on earth.  Micro-gravity 
technology might make it, but I doubt if power and minerals will.

John Redford
DEC-Israel

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #268
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA16500; Tue, 29 Apr 86 03:02:09 PDT
	id AA16500; Tue, 29 Apr 86 03:02:09 PDT
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 86 03:02:09 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8604291002.AA16500@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #269

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 269

Today's Topics:
			    B-1 escape pod
			  Re: Fermi-Paradox
			Re: Re: Fermi-Paradox
		 Re: Challenger accident photography
			  Re: Fermi-Paradox
			  Re: Fermi-Paradox
			   Re: Colonization
		   Re: Lights out for Comet Halley
			  Re: Fermi-Paradox
			 NYT Shuttle Articles
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 24 Apr 86 09:15:41 pst
From: David Smith <dsmith%hplabsc@hplabs.arpa>
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: B-1 escape pod

From the USAF B-1 accident inquiry report:

    During ejection sequence, an explosive bolt mechanism on the left side
    of the capsule failed to function.  The mechanism was designed to
    reposition the parachutes to ensure a level attitude during landing.
    As a result of the failure, the capsule landed in a right nose-down
    position rather than on its impact bags.

    On impact, the copilot's seat failed due to overload stress.  This
    allowed the seat to move uncontrollably along the floor rails.

    ... Mr. Benefield's death was caused by severe head injuries.

Airpower says that the escape capsule was "a concept Benefield disagreed
with from the first."


			David Smith

------------------------------

Date: 18 Apr 86 23:06:48 GMT
From: hplabs!qantel!lll-lcc!lll-crg!seismo!harvard!cmcl2!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Frank Adams)
Subject: Re: Fermi-Paradox
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <3093@reed.UUCP> clyde@reed.UUCP writes:
>This is certainly one plausible explanation.  I also have another.  In
>order for an advanced civilization to completely colonize the galaxy,
>it has to have a large enough population to do so.  The number of planetary
>bodies humans (to name a specific example with which all netters have had
>experience (even though nobody understands humans :-])) may be able to
>colonize in this galaxy may be as many as 100 million (though that's
>being liberal).  I find to hard to believe that a responsible, space faring
>species of beings would allow themselves to populate that many planets.

In order for an advanced civilization to completely colonize the
planet Earth, it has to have a large enough population to do so.  A
quick calculation reveals that a population of several billion would
be required to do so.  I find it hard to believe that a responsible
species of beings would allow its numbers to grow so large.

Seriously, I find it much harder to believe that a species, having
developed the technology, would be able to prevent itself from
populating almost everything available to it.  Remember, human
civilization, from it's roots in Mesapotamia or China to the present,
is only about 10,000 years old.  We are talking about billions of
years here: 100,000 times longer than human civilization has existed.
Can you imagine a culture remaining recognizable for such a long
period of time?  Much less stable enough to enforce a "limits to
growth" policy?  I can't.

Frank Adams                           ihnp4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
Multimate International    52 Oakland Ave North    E. Hartford, CT 06108

------------------------------

Date: 18 Apr 86 23:23:37 GMT
From: hplabs!qantel!lll-lcc!lll-crg!seismo!harvard!cmcl2!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Frank Adams)
Subject: Re: Re: Fermi-Paradox
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <3098@reed.UUCP> clyde@reed.UUCP writes:
>Okay.  Here is the possible resolution that makes the most sense to me.
>(This is a generalization of the simple little example of my last posting.)

(This doesn't seem to me to have much to do with your last posting.)

>Considering the technological advances that our species has made in
>the last few thousand-- nay, even the last few hundred-- years, how
>can we possibly hope to predict what is and what is not ultimately
>possible?  Consider, for example, that only a century ago the whole
>idea of radio communication was unimagined.  Who are we to try and
>second guess what some collection of beings technologically millions
>of years in advance of us (not to mention physically and mentally very
>different to begin with) will need/desire to do with the matter that
>lies about them in the universe?  Quite simply, who are we to assume
>that such entities should colonize the place?  They might not need
>planets at all.  They might not even need space-time anymore, for all
>we know.  There might be an infinite number of universes/dimensions/
>spaces/entity-dwelling-places, for all we know.  In that case, with an
>infinite number of "places" to go, there might be nobody left in our
>universe beyond a certain level of development.  Anything is possible,
>and the "paradox" seems to me to be an artifact of our 20th Century
>human (I might even be more specific and say "Western") point of view
>and body of knowledge.

This is the best argument I have heard on the other side of this
issue.  It is at least realistic about how much time we are talking
about here.  But I still don't buy it.  The problem is that for every
scenario I can think of where "they" don't come here, I can think of
thousands where they do.  It isn't enough that they have other places
to go; those places have to be so much better than here that *none* of
them come here.  I also find it very hard to believe that *every* race
(much less every member of even one race) is going to evolve to the
same kind of transcendent state.  Indeed, how can we guess what an
advanced race will want or need with the matter in our universe; but
the *least* likely thing for them to do with it is "nothing".

I think it is much more plausible to believe that the creation of life
is much less likely than has been estimated, and that Terrestrial life
is the only life in our galaxy; probably in our local group.

Frank Adams                           ihnp4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
Multimate International    52 Oakland Ave North    E. Hartford, CT 06108

------------------------------

Date: 24 Apr 86 01:06:49 GMT
From: tektronix!teklds!dadla!tekla!hankb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Hank Buurman)
Subject: Re: Challenger accident photography
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <2498@decwrl.DEC.COM> fisher@star.DEC (Burns Fisher ZKO1-1/D42 DTN 381-1466) writes:

>1)  There are enhanced photos that show the Challenger crew cabin separating
> . . . 
>it is assumed that the crew was most likely killed by the immense acceleration
>                                                          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>forces immediately after the explosion. . . .

It is now being reported also, that the "explosion" was actually a
fire-ball caused by the ignition of the leaking fuel, with very little
explosive force at all, allowing the crew cabin to fall away
relatively undamaged. This, of course raises the possibility that the
crew was indeed alive when the cabin impacted the ocean.

      "His eyes were yellow and held a certain clean madness."

      Hank Buurman     Tektronix Inc.   ...tektronix!tekla!hankb

------------------------------

Date: 21 Apr 86 02:29:38 GMT
From: hplabs!qantel!lll-lcc!lll-crg!mordor!ut-sally!franklin@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Maurice T. Franklin)
Subject: Re: Fermi-Paradox
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <1289@mmintl.UUCP> franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) writes:
>In article <3098@reed.UUCP> clyde@reed.UUCP writes:
>>Okay.  Here is the possible resolution that makes the most sense to me.
>>Considering the technological advances that our species has made in the last
>>few thousand-- nay, even the last few hundred-- years, how can we possibly
>>hope to predict what is and what is not ultimately possible? ....

I couldn't agree more.  Look at what we've done!  Maybe FTL travel
really is impossible, but given technology we can't even think of yet,
this might be a minor obstacle to intersteller travel.  Besides, we
can always hope that Einstein was wrong and we really can go faster
than light.

	Frank Adams responds:
>This is the best argument I have heard on the other side of this issue.  It
>is at least realistic about how much time we are talking about here.  But I
>still don't buy it.  The problem is that for every scenario I can think of
>where "they" don't come here, I can think of thousands where they do.  It
>isn't enough that they have other places to go; those places have to be so
>much better than here that *none* of them come here.  ....

	Sorry Frank, I hold with the isolation theory.  Anybody
smarter than we would realize the great culture shock involved in
their showing up one day in Times Square.  Not to mention that we have
not shown that we can survive on our own yet, which hardly mades us
canidates for the Galactic Council.  This all assumes that 'they' can
get here, which I already discussed above.

>I think it is much more plausible to believe that the creation of life is
>much less likely than has been estimated, and that Terrestrial life is the
>only life in our galaxy; probably in our local group.
>
>Frank Adams                           ihnp4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka

	As for estimating the creation of life, we don't really know
enough about stellar and planetary formation, much less evolution, to
make estimates.  What's worse is that even if we could say that 1% (or
.1% or .01%) of all stars should support an intelligent race, this
percentage is over the last 10 billion years or so, so how many of
them are currently active in our galaxy is REALLY hard to figure.

	"A sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"
		- Arthur C. Clark (I'm not sure if this is an exact quote)

				Maurice T. Franklin
        			CS Dept University of Texas at Austin
UUCP:    			{ihnp4,seismo,harvard,gatech}!ut-sally!franklin
ARPA Internet and CSNET:    	franklin@sally.utexas.edu
[Disclaimer: The University of Texas at Austin, the Computer Science Dept, nor 
just about anybody else, is to be held responsible for what I say here.]

------------------------------

Date: 24 Apr 86 18:08:49 GMT
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!markb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Mark Biggar)
Subject: Re: Fermi-Paradox
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <310@ll-xn.ARPA> olsen@ll-xn.ARPA (Jim Olsen) writes:
>I can.  Isn't it a little presumptuous to predict the behavior of all
>billion-year-old . . . 
>  -Jim Olsen

You don't have to predict the behaviour of ALL these civilizations,
just the probability that at least ONE of them would behave this way.
ONE advaced civilization that wanted to expand will fill the galaxy in
under 500000 yrs, even assuming no FTL travel.  Any such civilization
would too large by the time it ran into any stay-at-home races to do
any thing about.

Mark Biggar
{allegra,burdvax,cbosgd,hplabs,ihnp4,akgua,sdcsvax}!sdcrdcf!markb

------------------------------

Date: 18 Apr 86 22:02:21 GMT
From: hplabs!qantel!lll-lcc!lll-crg!styx!lognet2!seismo!umcp-cs!aplcen!jhunix!ins_akaa@ucbvax.berkeley.
Subject: Re: Colonization
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>The Earth has only microscopic prokaryotic life for most of its history.
>*One* alien landing party being careless with its garbage would have
>changed that.

Maybe that's where the microscopic prokaryotic life came from... :-)

"We are going to give a little something, a few little years more, to
socialism, because socialism is defunct.  It dies all by iself.  The
bad thing is that socialism, being a victim of its... Did I say
socialism?" -Fidel Castro

Kenneth Arromdee
BITNET: G46I4701 at JHUVM and INS_AKAA at JHUVMS
CSNET: ins_akaa@jhunix.CSNET              ARPA: ins_akaa%jhunix@hopkins.ARPA
UUCP: {allegra!hopkins, seismo!umcp-cs, ihnp4!whuxcc} !jhunix!ins_akaa

------------------------------

Date: 18 Apr 86 22:08:24 GMT
From: hplabs!qantel!lll-lcc!lll-crg!styx!lognet2!seismo!umcp-cs!aplcen!jhunix!ins_akaa@ucbvax.berkeley.
Subject: Re: Lights out for Comet Halley
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>I was very disappointed by Halley's show.  . . .

Actually the problem is that this appearance of Halley's Comet is one of
the worst possible, unlike that on 1910--the comet doesn't _really_ get
that close to the Earth.  As far as I have heard, its absolute magnitude
hasn't changed that much.

Kenneth Arromdee
BITNET: G46I4701 at JHUVM and INS_AKAA at JHUVMS
CSNET: ins_akaa@jhunix.CSNET              ARPA: ins_akaa%jhunix@hopkins.ARPA
UUCP: {allegra!hopkins, seismo!umcp-cs, ihnp4!whuxcc} !jhunix!ins_akaa

------------------------------

Date: 24 Apr 86 16:45:12 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-lcc!lll-crg!mordor!ut-sally!utastro!ethan@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Ethan Vishniac)
Subject: Re: Fermi-Paradox
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <310@ll-xn.ARPA>, olsen@ll-xn.ARPA (Jim Olsen) writes:
> I can.  Isn't it a little presumptuous to predict the behavior of all
> billion-year-old . . 

Therein lies the crux of the problem.  We have no idea what aliens
would be like.  This is a serious weakness in the Fermi paradox.
However, much of the discussion I`ve seen here falls into the category
of imagining how aliens would act.  This is silly.  No one on this
net, with the possible exception of Ms. Kirsten, has any idea what
aliens would be like.  The only thing we can do is try to stick with
the consequences of all possible kinds of alien behavior.  One obvious
point is that self-limiting aliens are not going to show up in the
solar system, but those interested in unlimited expansion are.  If
intelligence is common in the galaxy then the Fermi paradox returns to
haunt us.

I think this discussion would benefit from a moratorium on projecting
our desires for a utopian civilization on hypothetical aliens.

Ethan Vishniac                 {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan
                               ethan@astro.UTEXAS.EDU
                               Department of Astronomy
                               University of Texas

------------------------------

Posted-Date: Fri 25 Apr 1986 08:02:47 EST
Date: Fri 25 Apr 1986 08:02:47 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: NYT Shuttle Articles
To: space@s1-b.arpa

The NY Times just printed a scathing two-part story on waste and
mismanagement in the shuttle program.  According to government
auditors, NASA wasted at least $3.5 billion during the shuttle program
(this is a lower bound).  At the same time, NASA cut $500 million from
safety related development, which probably explains why the SRB
problems were never fixed.

The NYT Friday leadoff editorial came out strongly against more
orbiters or the confirmation of Fletcher as new NASA head.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #269
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA00985; Wed, 30 Apr 86 03:02:05 PDT
	id AA00985; Wed, 30 Apr 86 03:02:05 PDT
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 86 03:02:05 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8604301002.AA00985@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #270

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 270

Today's Topics:
			  RE: your comments
			 Re: Guilty engineers
			 Game Show Knowledge
		       Re: Terraforming Planets
			   Re: Colonization
			the greening of Venus
			  Re: Fermi-Paradox
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted-Date: Fri 25 Apr 1986 08:17:55 EST
Date: Fri 25 Apr 1986 08:17:55 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: RE: your comments
To: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
In-Reply-To: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET's message of Wed, 23 Apr 86 20:23:56 EST
Cc: dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa, space@s1-b.arpa

>>  You say that Frank Adam's estimate of the distance to the nearest
>>  civilization is wildly conservative.  I don't see how this opinion
>>  can be scientifically justified ...
>     Of course it can't be scientifically justified.  I said
>     "conservative", not "wrong".  However, there
>     are 100,000,000,000 stars in the galaxy.  Life has to be not
>     merely unlikely, but very very very unlikely for it to be true
>     that we are the only civilization in our galaxy; it has to
>     be very very very very unlikely for us to be the only one
>     in not only our galaxy, but all of the local group.

Agreed.  The question is: how plausible would it be for civilizations
to be extremely rare?  At best, our existence can be used to
argue that the frequency of civilizations is at least one per universe.

>  However, the argument I was rebutting
>was that if there were *ANY* civilizations within "billions of
>light years" that they would *certainly* already be here, since
>they have had many billion years since the beginning of the
>universe to come here, and therefore they don't exist.

Also agreed.  The farther you go the less convincing the argument
is.  Within the galaxy the technology doesn't appear very demanding,
though.

>>  Why can't the colonies also produce ships when their
>>  populations have been built up sufficiently to support the effort?
>   Why should they?  After the first ten, or a hundred, or a thousand
>stars have been explored, at great expense, what is the point in
>keeping on?  What do they get out of it?  Are you so willing to
>argue that the return is so great, that not only *might* they do
>it, but it is so absolutely certain that they will do it
>that by observing that they have not colonized every habitable star
>within a billion light years, we can conclude they don't exist?

It is of course not possible to say with any certainty what a
civilization will do.  However, it seems to me implausible in the extreme
that a civilization with the motivation to colonize ~1000 stars would
then stop.  Such a cessation of colonization would have to apply uniformly
to 1000 independent cultures, 999 of which would not even exist
had not their ancestors colonized their respective star systems.

>>  Your argument would also make small-scale SETI experiments
>>  pointless, since they cannot detect "leakage", only high power
>>  beacons.  Maintaining such beacons would require maintenance
>>  and energy over periods long compared to that needed for starship
>>  construction.
>     I think it is much easier to build radio transmitters than to
>build starships.  However, let me assure you that if the nearest
>other civilization is a billion light years away, then small-scale SETI
>is *for sure* impossible.

I disagree.  It is hard to build radio transmitters that will be
detected by distant receivers unless the transmitter emits a very tight
beam or is very powerful.  Building millions of antennas in space
and operating them over millions of years would be a major effort
compared to building a starship.

Also, a distant star-colonizing race can afford the energy needed to
broadcast over billions of light years, if they are so motivated.
If a civilization uses a constant fraction of its available energy
for broadcasting then a type III civilization (using all energy of
a galaxy) is as detectable at ~1E9 light years as a type I
civilization (using all energy of a planet) at 4E-4 light years
(Gott, J. R., in "Extraterrestrials: Where Are They? Pergamon Press,
1982, page 132).

>>  Some material goods may be economically shipped over
>>  interstellar distances -- for example, microorganisms based on
>>  an entirely new biochemistry could be extremely valuable.
>     A good point.  However, if you argue that there are NO
>civilizations at all about any of the nearest 100,000,000,000
>stars, then I doubt that you will find any microorganisms at all
>until you have searched many thousands or even millions of stars.
>Searching at 1% of lightspeed, I think that many, if not most,
>civilizations would give up well before a thousand stars have been
>searched.

You don't have to search 1000 stars one by one.  A colonization wave
would expand in parallel.  No individual star would have to launch
more than a few starships for the wave to sustain itself.

Energy may be a useful export from star systems.
Intense electromagnetic beams can, in principle, be beamed over
interstellar distances and converted to electricity with high
efficiency.  You need large transmitters and receivers, and highly
accurate guidance, of course.

Rare elements may also be useful exports, even if shipped at low speeds.
The solar system is old enough that most U-235 has decayed away,
but in a younger star system it would be much more plentiful (perhaps
the races that evolve in those systems blow themselves up quickly?).

------------------------------

Date: 24 Apr 86 21:31:21 GMT
From: tektronix!tekgen!tekred!joels@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Guilty engineers
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <6600@utzoo.UUCP>, henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
> Joel Swank claims that the Morton Thiokol engineers were totally free
> of any responsibility for the disaster ...
>                              So the blame is 100.0000% (not just, say,
> 90%, which is the number I'd pick) on the NASA and M-T management,

 I certainly did not mean to say that the engineers were free of
blame.  My impression of Henry's articles were that he felt they were
100% to blame, and this is what I was arguing about. Actually Henry
and I are close to agreement on this; I would have said 95%
management. I still think that they had no place resigning or going
public the day before launch. They should have been raising hell about
going on months or years with a known erosion problem with no serious
program to find/fix it. (Of course I have no way of knowing that they
hadn't been protesting , and had been ignored by management, just as
they were in this incident) But this should not have been carried out
in the public arena. I also think that a significant part of the
problem is Congress's refusal to properly fund the program (SRB tests
gotta be EXPENSIVE). This, along with press hype calling NASA paranoid
and berating the STS for not being commercially competitive with
Europe at launching those mini satellites, created the atmosphere that
allowed the accident to happen.

Joel Swank
Tektronix, Redmond, Oregon

------------------------------

Date: 23 Apr 86 14:59:37 GMT
From: ihnp4!mmm!bngofor@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (MKR)
Subject: Game Show Knowledge
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

	My wife was watching the $X0000 Pyramid game show last night,
and I was forced to watch with her :-). This (for the uninitiated) is
a game where one person sees a word (along with the audience) that the
other does not, and then the first person gives clues to help the
other guess the word.

	One of the words last night was "planets". The clue that the
first person gave was "there are 7 of them". I thought that was funny,
but even funnier was.... the other person *guessed the word
correctly!*

Sheeesh!

	Reminds me of a similar incident on Family Feud many years ago
when they had some guy on who was obviously a mechanic. In whatever
they call the part where the contestant has to guess what the "survey
SAYS", the question was: "Name a type of nut." The contestant said
"hexagonal". The next question was "Name something brushes are made
of." The guy said "steel".

Sheeesh!


					--MKR
"There's nothing wrong with shooting, as long as the right people get shot."
					-"Dirty" Harry Callahan

------------------------------

Date: 24 Apr 86 02:34:22 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-lcc!lll-crg!caip!seismo!rochester!bullwinkle!uw-beaver!fluke!ssc-vax!eder@ucbvax.berkeley  (Dani Eder)
Subject: Re: Terraforming Planets
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> You really have to get rid of a lot of the atmosphere.  Probably the
> easiest way to do that is to detonate extremely large nuclear explosives
> and eject the atmosphere into space.  Many billions of tons of fusion
> fuel would be needed (probably deuterium).

     Possibly an easier way is to use mirrors to heat up Venus.
Assume that you have lightsail type mirrors with an area 10000 times
the cross section of the planet.  They live in large orbits about
venus and focus all their light on it.  The equilibrium temperature
will rise to ten times what it is now (neglecting changes in albedo).
The atmosphere will boil off into space.  Not rapidly, probably on the
order of 100-100000 years (I am not an atmosphere modeler).  The total
volume of the mirrors would be equal to a 13 km diameter asteroid,
assuming one micron thick mirrors.

     For planetary engineering scale project, this does not seem out
of line.  Also, you have a large quantity of lightsails and/or solar
concetrators to use for your space industry when you are done.  The
key is that 2.7 tons of aluminum spread into a lightsail can relay
2836 MegaWatts of sunlight.  This equals 1 kg of energy per year
(conversion factor of mc-squared).  Over 2700 years, the lightsail
will have processed as much energy as converting the entire sail mass
to energy at 100% efficiency.  Long before that you will have beat the
power available from fusion reactions.

Dani Eder/Boeing/Advanced Space Transportation/ssc-vax!eder

------------------------------

Date: 23 Apr 86 22:31:52 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-lcc!lll-crg!seismo!harvard!cmcl2!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Frank Adams)
Subject: Re: Colonization
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <2121@uwmacc.UUCP> john@uwmacc.UUCP writes:
>Right.  All the real estate in the galaxy is an awful lot.  I admit to not
>knowing the figures, but I bet that with 100.000 light years diameter we wont
>ever visit all of them before we mutate (through natural or induced radiation)
>into plants or computers or sentient rocks.

The human race will not mutate into something else.  It will mutate into a
lot of different something elses.  And some of those will continue to spread
out.

Frank Adams                           ihnp4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
Multimate International    52 Oakland Ave North    E. Hartford, CT 06108

------------------------------

Date: 23 Apr 86 23:55:20 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-lcc!lll-crg!seismo!harvard!cmcl2!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Frank Adams)
Subject: the greening of Venus
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <6602@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP writes:
>There was a paper in JBIS a while ago which came up with a better way,
>albeit an expensive one.  Venus has another problem:  its spin is far
>too slow.  A "day" of hundreds of Earth-days is distinctly awkward
>for agriculture, for example.

Is this really a problem?  I suspect not.  A day this long means you
can grow whatever you want to grow in half to two-thirds of the
elapsed time required on Earth (assuming growing time proportional to
daylight hours) in a single "day", and then shut down the farm for the
"night", thereby saving on overhead.

Of course, current Earthly crops may not do well under such a regimen.
(Or they might do just fine -- who knows?)  This is not a problem.  By
the time we are ready to start terraforming Venus, genetic engineering
will have advanced far enough that such a change is no problem.

Frank Adams                           ihnp4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
Multimate International    52 Oakland Ave North    E. Hartford, CT 06108

------------------------------

Date: 23 Apr 86 23:45:50 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-lcc!lll-crg!seismo!harvard!cmcl2!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Frank Adams)
Subject: Re: Fermi-Paradox
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <4465@dartvax.UUCP> agroh@dartvax.UUCP writes:
>This still makes space travel difficult.  We need a large power source to
>supply these ships and it would seem to me that probably living conditions on
>these ships would not be as pleasant as on the home planet.  If this is the
>case then it would be hard to convince people to get on these ships.  The
>point I am trying to make is that by using occum's razor,  the simplest
>assumption is that space travle is difficult, not that there are not many
>places where intelligence has developed.

You underestimate *how* difficult space travel has to be to defuse the
paradox.  It is not enough that it be "hard to convince people to get
on these ships".  It has to be damn near impossible.  Basically, it
has to be the case that it requires an investment comparable to an
all-out war for the entire population of the solar system to launch a
single starship before one would *not* expect "them" to be here.
There are half a dozen technologies forseeable now that have at least
an odds on chance of enabling cheaper interstellar travel than that.
The chance of all them failing to pan out is minute.  (One in
particular, the ion drive, is almost certain to be viable at this
level.  This is not my guess for the technology that will actually be
used, because I expect better alternatives to be developed.)

In other words, Occam's razor gives exactly the opposite conclusion
from the yours.  Since we know very little about how life originated,
it is quite possible that it was a one-in-a-trillion event.  On the
other hand, it is extremely unlikely that star travel is sufficiently
difficult to keep intelligent, technological species from using it.

Frank Adams                           ihnp4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
Multimate International    52 Oakland Ave North    E. Hartford, CT 06108

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #270
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA03710; Thu, 1 May 86 03:02:07 PDT
	id AA03710; Thu, 1 May 86 03:02:07 PDT
Date: Thu, 1 May 86 03:02:07 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8605011002.AA03710@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #271

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 271

Today's Topics:
			  Re: catch a comet
	      How Many Interstellar Colonies is Enough?
			  Re: Fermi-Paradox
		    Distance to Habitable Planets
		       Re: Interstellar travel
			Re: Life on earth idea
			  Re: Fermi paradox
		      Frequency of Civilizations
			  Re: Fermi Paradox
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 23 Apr 86 22:53:38 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-lcc!lll-crg!seismo!harvard!cmcl2!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Frank Adams)
Subject: Re: catch a comet
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <284@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU> vis@trillian.UUCP (Tom Courtney) writes:
>Why not? I know several medieval cathedrals took 25+ years to build, and they
>left us with something which was very worthwhile. Imagine what could have
>happened it people started contributing to the Halley Fund in the 1910s
>instead of the 1980s (probably having to restart after the Depression, of
>course).

Things are changing much faster now than they did in the middle ages.
Back then, it *was* reasonable to plan projects generations ahead.
Today, it is not.  (It *does* make sense to plan more than one quarter
ahead, but that's another topic entirely.)

A fund relating to the next return of Halley's comet started in 1910
would probably have been to build a *real good* observatory to watch
it when it came back.  Only a small fraction of the population would
have conceived of the possibility of going out to meet it; the portion
which would have thought this might actually be practical was minute.

>If we actually end up colonizing the stars in a big way, such long range
>planning will not be absurd, it will be required.

Not really.  Building the spaceships will take a relatively short
time.  After that, you get two different scenarios.  If you have a
"slow" ship (< .1c), the people who get on are committing themselves
(and their descendants) for decades.  But you still aren't planning a
technical project for decades later -- the passengers will deal with
that when they get there.

(Actually, such a trip probably *would* have a detailed plan for what
to do on arrival.  For a 40 year trip to Alpha Centaurus, I would
expect that plan to be completely rewritten at least 6 or 8 times in
the course of the journey, and quite likely dozens of times.  I think
such an eventuality would justify my claim that the original plan was
absurd.)

Alternatively, one can have a fast spaceship (1g acceleration to >
.9c).  In this case, the trip to Alpha Centaurus takes about 6 years
(5 for the passengers).  (In this case, the original plan probably
only gets completely rewritten once.)  Personally, I think this
scenario is much more probable.

Frank Adams                           ihnp4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
Multimate International    52 Oakland Ave North    E. Hartford, CT 06108

------------------------------

Date:         Sat, 26 Apr 86 17:46:59 EST
From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
To: space digest <SPACE-INCOMING@s1-b.arpa>
Subject:      How Many Interstellar Colonies is Enough?


> However, it seems to me implausible in the extreme that a civilization
> with the motivation to colonize ~1000 stars would then stop.

I'm questioning their motivation to colonized 1000 stars in the first
place.  After the first few, what do you get out of it?  Why do it?
Well, maybe they have a fanatic religion which says they must fill the
universe with their own kind.  In that case, OK.  But as for beings
more like us, I think that the argument that if they don't have
something to gain, they won't devote a large fraction of their economy
to doing it, is a very powerful one.

>a type III civilization (using all energy of a galaxy) is...
>detectable at ~1E9 light years...

     The fact that somebody has given such a civilization a name does
not imply any such civilizations exist, and I find it extremely hard
to believe that they do.  That's a LOT of energy, and I have no idea
what they would want it for.

>Energy may be a useful export from star systems.
>Intense electromagnetic beams can, in principle, be beamed over
>interstellar distances and converted to electricity with high
>efficiency.  You need large transmitters and receivers, and highly
>accurate guidance, of course.

    By "large", you mean antennae comparable to 100 km in diameter.
by "highly accurate guidance" you mean positional accuracy of a few
centimeters over the antenna size of 100 km.  This is for optical
frequencies, where the efficiencies run probably 10-20%.  For
microwave, where efficiencies are higher, then the antennae have to be
tens of thousands of km across.  This, again, is going to a huge
amount of effort to ship something that is available at home--eg.,
energy.  Anybody who can do interstellar colonization is already able
to produce energy in copious amounts at home.  I can't possibly see
their shipping it home from 4 light years.

>Rare elements may also be useful exports, even if shipped at low speeds.
>The solar system is old enough that most U-235 has decayed away,
>but in a younger star system it would be much more plentiful

Few things are rare enough to be worth the cost of shipping 20
trillion miles.  What do you want U-235 for?  Certainly not as an
energy source; you use more energy to ship it than you get back.

------------------------------

Date: 26 Apr 86 22:28:04 GMT
From: nike!topaz!bentley!kwh@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (KW Heuer)
Subject: Re: Fermi-Paradox
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <1289@mmintl.UUCP> mmintl!franka (Frank Adams) writes:
>I think it is much more plausible to believe that the creation of life is
>much less likely than has been estimated, and that Terrestrial life is the
>only life in our galaxy; probably in our local group.

Do you really mean the *only* life, or just the only *intelligent*
life?  I suspect that life itself is ubiquitous.  On Earth, life has
been found under all sorts of conditions, even beyond the normal
temperature range of liquid water; and I remember hearing reports that
someone had detected what may be extraterrestrial bacteria.

However, intelligence is not the goal of evolution; it is merely one
out of many survival traits.  I see no reason to believe that a
significant fraction of life-bearing worlds should house intelligence
(unless intelligent life was created by God, see net.origins for
further discussion), especially a high enough (by our measurements)
intelligence to desire and build starships.

This doesn't resolve the paradox, which assumes that starfaring
intelligence (rare as it may be) should have already colonized the
galaxy.  Maybe we really will be the first.

Or maybe, several centuries from now, as our radio and TV signals
reach the rest of the galactic civilization, we'll receive a *lot* of
nasty messages for posting "I Love Lucy" to the galactic net.general!
:-)

Karl W. Z. Heuer (ihnp4!bentley!kwh), The Walking Lint

------------------------------

Date:         Sat, 26 Apr 86 19:39:36 EST
From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
To: space digest <SPACE-INCOMING@s1-b.arpa>
Subject:      Distance to Habitable Planets

From: <mooremj@eglin-vax>:
> How about posting the derivation of your figure of 30 light years
> between stars with habitable planets?

     Of course, the figure should be taken as being no more than an
educated guess.  The "derivation", however, follows:
    In the sphere of 17.2 Ly around the sun, there are 51 star systems
(counting multiples once).  Discard the 15 multiples (it IS possible
to have stable orbits around multiple star systems, if the stars are
either far enough apart, or close enough together, but there are FEWER
orbits, and it is not clear that planets would form about multiple
star systems in the first place.  Discard the stars of type OBA as
being too bright and short-lived (Only one star, Altair, was
discarded.)  Discard the type M stars as being too dim (planets close
enough to be warm enough for life would be tidally locked).  This
leaves only four stars left, three type K (dimmer than the sun, but
not too too dim), and one type G.  This is Tau Ceti, which
unfortunately is a flare star, so toss it out too.  Thus: three
possibles in 21,000 cubic LY: one per 7000 LY3.  (four if you count
the sun).  The average distance between them is roughly 20 LY.
     So much for the science.  At this point, I just guess: Suppose
one in three of the possible targets actually has a habitable planet?
The requirements are that it have a planet in the right distance
range, with an orbit not too eccentric, the mass be high enough but
not too high, etc.  (I did, however, assume that the probability that
a non- binary star class G or K has planets of some kind is high.)
This puts the distance to the nearest habitable planet 30 LY.
     Stephen Dole, in _Habitable Planets for Man_, lists the expected
distance from a star with a habitable planet to another star with a
habitable planet as 24 LY; my guess doesn't seem to be much off.  (on
the other hand, he lists the probability that a random F2-K1 star has
a habitable planet as only 3.7%, much lower than my 33% guess.  If you
use his percentage of target stars that have habitable planets with my
spacing of target stars, you get 60 LY between habitable planets.  So
we should obviously use the figures for rough calculations only,
actual figures may vary.  )

     Figures on nearby stars from _The Observer's Handbook 1984_.
Also see _Habitable Planets for Man_, Second edition, Stephen Dole,
American Elsever NY 1970.

                   --Geoffrey A. Landis, Brown University
                     Reply to: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA

------------------------------

Date: 24 Apr 86 21:37:51 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Interstellar travel
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> It does prove the absurdity of this statement:
> 
> "If we can send a man to the moon, why can't we XXX?"

The statement is, alas, absurd for another reason.  We can't send a
man to the moon.  Fifteen years ago we could.

Support the International
League For The Derision		Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
Of User-Friendliness!		{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 24 Apr 86 22:30:42 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Life on earth idea
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> How about if an alien civilization came here a LONG time ago,
> noticed that the planet's air was not overly breathable, or something,
> then left, ACCIDENTLY dropping off a few bacteria or something...

The idea is plausible, although essentially impossible to prove without
calling them up and asking them whether they were ever here.  The hard
part is explaining why they, or their relatives, or their neighbors with
different ideas about preferred atmospheres, haven't been back since.

Support the International
League For The Derision		Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
Of User-Friendliness!		{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 24 Apr 86 23:00:22 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Fermi paradox
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> One of the more interesting theories I have heard on "where are they?"
> is that all creatures (including intelligent ones) have a built in
> self-destruct mechanism and are destined to obliterate themselves...

There is a vaguely related theory which is one of the more
unpleasantly plausible ones: the Berserker theory.  One of the more
interesting ways to explore a galaxy is self-replicating probes.  An
effective way to sterilize a galaxy is self-replicating
planet-killers.  This theory lacks a major weakness in the
self-destruct theory, to wit the assumption that *all* intelligent
races must work the same way.  It only takes *one* race building
self-reproducing planet-killers, *once*, to keep the galaxy silent and
lifeless for billions of years.

Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology

------------------------------

Date: 27 Apr 86 01:53:16 GMT
From: brahms!desj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (David desJardins)
Subject: Frequency of Civilizations
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <8604252346.AA02756@s1-b.arpa> dietz@slb-doll.CSNET (Paul Dietz)
writes:

>Agreed.  The question is: how plausible would it be for civilizations
>to be extremely rare?  At best, our existence can be used to
>argue that the frequency of civilizations is at least one per universe.

   I don't agree at all.  I happen to believe that the frequency of
civilizations is much less than one per universe.
   Suppose the frequency of civilizations were 10^-1000 per universe.
With an infinite number of universes, there would still be an infinite
number of civilizations.  By your reasoning they would all incorrectly
conclude that the frequency is 1 or greater.

   The reason I believe that the frequency is so small is that I
simply have no idea what it is, except for a feeling that it is small,
and an observed upper bound of 10^-3 per star or so.  The range from
10^-1000 to 10^-20 per star (less than 1 per universe) is much larger
than the range from 10^-20 to 10^-3 (more than 1 per universe), so it
seems more likely to me that the probability is in that range.  Our
existence, a posteriori, yields no infor- mation one way or another
about this probability.

   -- David desJardins

------------------------------

Date: 27 Apr 86 02:22:22 GMT
From: brahms!desj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (David desJardins)
Subject: Re: Fermi Paradox
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <24200003@siemens.UUCP> steve@siemens.UUCP writes:
>... Duncan Lunan suggests that the dangerous galactic cosmic radiation
>(composed of high-energy atomic nuclei) that is present today is actually
>rare on a galactic time-scale.  He suggests that there is at best one chance
>in 300 that there would be any dangerous "cosmic rays" at any random place
>and time, so it would be quite normal for a spacefaring civilization to
>develop unaware of the possibility, and then be wiped out when hit
>unprepared by a front of high-energy particles.
>
>Is this theory a bunch of crap, or do none of the people discussing
                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>the Fermi paradox read Analog?

   Right the first time!

   Not only does his suggestion seem wildly unlikely (after all, why we we
happen to exist just at a time of high radiation) but his conclusion seems
absurd.  After all, wouldn't *changes* in the cosmic radiation also take
place on a "galactic time-scale," i.e. millions of years?  It seems that
there would be plenty of time to adapt.
   And, by the time we are ready to travel to other stars, I think that we
will understand the universe well enough that we won't be caught by surprise
by relatively ordinary cosmological events.

   -- David desJardins

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #271
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA02919; Fri, 2 May 86 03:02:04 PDT
	id AA02919; Fri, 2 May 86 03:02:04 PDT
Date: Fri, 2 May 86 03:02:04 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8605021002.AA02919@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #272

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 272

Today's Topics:
		 History of Skylab #6 - fun in space
			Re: Life on earth idea
			   Re: Colonization
	     Re: Cosmic Quarantine hypothesis persuasive?
		       Re: Interstellar travel
			  Re: catch a comet
		      Re: the greening of Venus
			Re: Re: Fermi-Paradox
			   Re: Alien visits
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 25 Apr 86 14:52:33 GMT
From: ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dave Newkirk)
Subject: History of Skylab #6 - fun in space
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

A holiday on 1 June gave the crew a chance to relax and catch up on
housekeeping chores.  During a 15-minute telecast, the astronauts
performed acrobatic feats and their own `Skylab 500.'  Conrad had
wagered some Houston friends before launch that centrifugal force
would allow him to overcome weightlessness and walk erect on the
storage lockers that circled the upper deck of the workshop.  Starting
on their hands and knees in a slow crawl, they built up speed and moved
to a crouch, then finally walked rapidly on the lockers.  The television
pictures provided the proof.

...

The effect of gravity on flame: in a gravity field, the hot gaseous
products of combustion rise by convection, allowing colder air to mix
with the fuel.  Without convection, a flame's corona is spherical and
the available oxygen is quickly used.  The flame dies down until more
oxygen becomes available.

...

Scientists hypothesized that intraocular light flashes observed on several
Apollo flights were caused by cosmic rays expending their energy in the
retina.  Earlier observations on Skylab, however, suggested a correlation
with the South Atlantic magnetic anomaly, and Pogue's experiment was done
in the hope of confirming that.  Strapped in his sleep restraint, he noted
time, direction and shape of the flashes.  He found an abundance of events
occurring in the South Atlantic anomaly, and the cosmic-ray hypothesis had
to be re-examined.

(Excerpt from "Living and Working in Space - A History of Skylab", NASA
SP-4208, for sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Gov't Printing
Office, Washington, D.C. 20402)
-- 
				Dave Newkirk, ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn

------------------------------

Date: 25 Apr 86 22:11:08 GMT
From: ihnp4!inuxc!inuxm!arlan@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (A Andrews)
Subject: Re: Life on earth idea
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> I hope that this idea hasn't been discussed already, but I just
> thought of this one.
> 
> How about if an alien civilization came here a LONG time ago,
> noticed that the planet's air was not overly breathable, or something,
> then left, ACCIDENTLY dropping off a few bacteria or something.
> Any comments? or have I been reading too much Sci-Fi?
> -cory

Of course, my favorite short story as a young teen was that aliens
landed here, picnicked, crapped on the ground, and started the whole
show.  (My first story -- still unpublished!)

--arlan andrews

------------------------------

Date: 25 Apr 86 22:35:15 GMT
From: ihnp4!mmm!bngofor@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (MKR)
Subject: Re: Colonization
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <15700069@uiucdcsb> carroll@uiucdcsb.CS.UIUC.EDU writes:

>The point is that, no reason is seen why an advanced civilization, even
>one limited to moving at light speed, couldn't have colonized the entire
>galaxy by now. . . . 

	I've seen this question many times, and I've never really
understood it. I mean, yeah, it's an interesting question, but it
doesn't carry any weight as far as making an argument for whatever its
posers points usually are. The simplest answer, which negates any
so-called proof that life elsewhere doesn't exist is: some
civilization has to be the first to travel between planets and solar
systems and galaxies. Maybe *we* are that first civilization.

	I suppose that it argues against other *advanced*
civilizations (advanced to the point of interstellar travel) to an
extent, but it really doesn't say much there, either. There are many
reasons why a civilization might not visit the earth, many of which
have been posted here. And then again, maybe they *have* been here
(right, Mr. Von Daniken?).

	Personally, I think the answer to the question "why haven't
they visited us?" is: "because they haven't visited us."

		--MKR

------------------------------

Date: 25 Apr 86 22:54:44 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Cosmic Quarantine hypothesis persuasive?
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> So it would appear that the intelligence required to develop space travel
> comes only to warlike, aggressive species like ours, and that other
> technogical developments of lesser difficulty (e.g., nuclear weapons)
> usually destroy those races before they have a chance to move off their home
> planets...
> 
> Maybe this is a defeatist theory, but I still find it persuasive because it
> fits the observations.  Science isn't based on wishful thinking.

It isn't based on cynicism either.  Even you felt compelled to say
"usually"; note that that is not enough to resolve the Fermi Paradox.
If we had pursued spaceflight vigorously after WW2, we would quite
possibly have independent space colonies by the year 2000.  There is a
fair chance that we will survive to the year 2000.  So if our ability
to mess up this planet has outrun our alternatives, it hasn't outrun
them by much.  And it is reasonable to expect that at least some small
fraction of species would luck out and get it the other way round.

Support the International
League For The Derision		Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
Of User-Friendliness!		{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 25 Apr 86 23:03:00 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Interstellar travel
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> ...  I believe Sagan goes on to conjecture
> that the very traits which cause a race to evolve the ability to exploit
> technology and travel into space are the same traits which cause them to
> destroy themselves before they get much of a chance.
> 
> I find this theory very persuasive.

It should not be forgotten that Sagan has strong political
(pro-disarmament) motives for pushing this theory.  I don't find it
very persuasive, actually.  It makes too many assumptions about the
order in which developments occur.  Rocketry is not that hard.  The
"V-2" could have been built in the late 19th century if anyone had
thought to try hard.	 There is no automatic relationship between
space-travel technology and nuclear technology.

Nor is there a self-evident automatic relationship between nuclear
weapons and self-destruction.  A correlation, yes, most likely, but
not an "A implies B" relationship.  It is possible to handle them
better than we have, and it is not even self-evident that we aren't
going to survive.  (Our survival can reasonably be considered
doubtful, but not impossible.)  (Unless you are a pro-disarmament
propagandist trying to scare people, that is.  One wonders what Sagan
*really* thinks, privately.)

Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology

------------------------------

Date: 26 Apr 86 22:14:52 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-lcc!lll-crg!topaz!harvard!think!mit-eddie!mit-trillian!vis@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Tom Courtney)
Subject: Re: catch a comet
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <1312@mmintl.UUCP> franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) writes:
>
>Things are changing much faster now than they did in the middle ages.  Back
>then, it *was* reasonable to plan projects generations ahead.  Today, it is
>not.

Yet people persist in planning for coming generations. Folks pay extra
money for solidly constructed post & beam houses because they expect
them to be standing for their children's children to use; people try
to put things like nuclear reactors in places that aren't likely to
have an earthquake in a hundred years; Theodore Roosevelt decided to
make all the Grand Canyon a national treasure for future generations.
> >(Actually, such a trip probably *would* have a detailed plan for
what to do >on arrival.  For a 40 year trip to Alpha Centaurus, I
would expect that plan >to be completely rewritten at least 6 or 8
times in the course of the >journey, and quite likely dozens of times.
I think such an eventuality >would justify my claim that the original
plan was absurd.)

I wasn't even thinking about what to do on arrival yet. You have to do
enough planning to keep these folks alive for forty years. Your first
plan better be right enough so there's a good chance that will happen.
Furthermore, we had to do something to figure out that Alpha Centaurus
had a habitable planet around it. (This is also true in the fast ship
scenario). How about scout ships (maybe unmanned) doing a grand tour
of the area?

Besides, why does the need to rework a plan several times make the
original planning absurd? I would think the early workings are
neccesary just to get far enough to do the later ones.

------------------------------

Date: 27 Apr 86 02:30:32 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-lcc!qantel!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Tom Keller)
Subject: Re: the greening of Venus
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <1314@mmintl.UUCP>, franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) writes:
> >too slow.  A "day" of hundreds of Earth-days is distinctly awkward
> >for agriculture, for example.
> 
> Is this really a problem?  I suspect not. . . .

   I'm no botanist, but my experiences and reading in the area of
botany and gardening tell me that you are incorrect, Frank.

   As I understand it, the plants spend the daylight hours collecting
energy and storing it via phtosynthesis, and the dark hours performing
the various biological processes that result in growth.  Continuous
sunlight is not good for growing plants.

Disclaimer:  I hereby disclaim any and all responsibility for disclaimers.

tom keller
{ihnp4, dual}!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020

(* we may not be big, but we're small! *)

------------------------------

Posted-Date: Sun 27 Apr 1986 11:29:50 EST
Date: Sun 27 Apr 1986 11:29:50 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Re: Re: Fermi-Paradox
To: D Rickert <ihnp4!inuxc!inuxa!rmrin@ucbvax.berkeley.edu>
In-Reply-To: ihnp4!inuxc!inuxa!rmrin's message of 22 Apr 86 22:44:10 GMT
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa

>Consider the following assumptions:
>
>Most intelligent races do not have the strong sexual drive of humans. 
>(Most terrestrial animals only attempt to breed in certain seasons or
>once in their lives.)
>
>The Universe is full of diverse intelligent species who are in
>contact with one another.
>
>The drive for territory of these species is small, either through
>instinct, training, or the natural selection of being exposed
>to other, more powerful (but not unfriendly) species who frown
>on strong territorial imperatives.
>
>Under these assumptions, the Earth could well be a quarantined
>planet, either awaiting the presumed inevitable self-destruction
>or a self-imposed change in the dominant species' behavior.

I don't understand what "sexual drive" has to do with it.  Any species
will exponentially increase its population under the proper conditions
(and I presume an intelligent species would maintain comfortable
living conditions).  The lack of breeding by some animals in all but
one season is not because those animals are trying to restrain their
numbers, but rather because the chance of survival of one's offspring
is highest if they are born at certain times (in early spring, for
example).

Your quaratine scenario doesn't explain why the solar system wasn't
colonized billions of years ago before anything larger than
single-celled animals existed.  Nor do you explain how civilizations
that don't colonize can suppress those that do (the colonizers
presumably have much larger populations and productive capacities).

I don't see how quarantines could be implemented except by either a
homogenous galaxy spanning culture or by some sort of magical
faster-than-light transportation system, since differential motion of
stars in the galaxy replaces neighboring stars frequently.  A 10
km/sec velocity difference will separate two stars by the diameter of
the galaxy in the lifetime of the solar system.  Also, I don't
understand how we could be quarantined unless all nearby star systems
were closely guarded; i.e., colonized.

------------------------------

Date: 25 Apr 86 19:34:58 GMT
From: tektronix!tekig5!tekigm!tekigm2!timothym@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Timothy D Margeson)
Subject: Re: Alien visits
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <479@3comvax.UUCP> michaelm@3comvax.UUCP (Michael McNeil) writes:
>Perhaps, but if so the alien landing took place a *long* time ago.  
>It's been demonstrated that life has existed on Earth for more than
>3.5 billion years; therefore, the alien expedition must have arrived
>less than a billion years after Earth's formation (a time when Earth
>was very unlike the world we know and love today).  If any subsequent
>aliens visited, none of their life can have taken hold on Earth, since
>all life presently living on Earth is *very* closely interrelated.  
>
>Michael McNeil

What if carbon has not decayed at the same rate for all these years?

How can we prove if it has?

How can we prove if it hasn't?

Just a thought for you scientific types who argue about when aliens
have been here on Earth depositing garbage (probly to take on water as
fuel is my guess).

Seriously, how do we know that the universe is stable enough for the
assumption that carbon isotopes have and always will decay at the same
rate?

Thanks, and any followup answers or speculations will be appreciated.

Tim Margeson (206)253-5240
tektronix!tekigm2!timothym                   @@   'Who said that?'  
PO Box 3500  d/s C1-937
Vancouver, WA. 98665

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #272
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA02293; Sat, 3 May 86 03:02:07 PDT
	id AA02293; Sat, 3 May 86 03:02:07 PDT
Date: Sat, 3 May 86 03:02:07 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8605031002.AA02293@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #273

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 273

Today's Topics:
			Re: Life on earth idea
		      Re: AN Astronomers' Burden
		       Re: Game Show Knowledge
		     Interplanetary Habitat/Venus
	 Expoential increase of life...Re: Re: Fermi-Paradox
			      jellyfish
			  Re: Fermi-Paradox
	     Re: Silver detected in Halley's Comet: Why?
			 Re: Guilty engineers
			  Re: Fermi-Paradox
			Re: Long-term planning
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 27 Apr 86 07:21:57 GMT
From: nike!caip!seismo!riacs!jim@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Jim Houston)
Subject: Re: Life on earth idea
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> . . . then left, ACCIDENTLY dropping off a few bacteria or something. . .
> -cory

reminds me of a poem I came across a few years ago.

	Once upon a planet dreary
	came a rocket engine cheery
	on a flight to test a theory
	on Mar's frigid desert floor.
	Did life arise spontaneous
	or some alien's trash extraneous
	seed the globe that now contains us?
	Quoth the lander, "Either/or."

			- John Carroll  ( Analog, I think? )

------------------------------

Date: 25 Apr 86 20:19:36 GMT
From: tektronix!teklds!dadla!tekla!robertv@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Robert Vetter)
Subject: Re: AN Astronomers' Burden
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <8604220002.AA07561@s1-b.arpa> WELTYC@rpicie.CSNET (Sonny Crockett) writes:
>
>Dear Abby;
>	[...]
>                                              "I found it!!!" I
>shouted.  We spent the next hour or so looking at it, and then packed
>up an went home.  They told everyone how they had seen Halley's comet.
>Well, I feel a little guilty about it, now.  And I wonder: should I
>tell them?  Or is it the burden of the  Astronomer to let it go?
>
>					-A confused Chris Welty

Dear Confused;

	You are not alone in your experience.  My grandmother spent
	many nights at dusk viewing the comet.  (Best viewing time
	for us was at 4:00am).  After explaining to her several times
	that the comet would not be the brightest thing in the sky,
	that we wouldn't be able to see it for at least another 6
	hours, and that what she was viewing was VENUS, we stopped
	and let her believe what she wanted to.

	There is nothing wron with a little white lie, as long as
	a real attempt is made to tell the truth.

					- Abby

------------------------------

Date: 28 Apr 86 07:07:05 GMT
From: brahms!jablow@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Eric Robert Jablow)
Subject: Re: Game Show Knowledge
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <720@mmm.UUCP> bngofor@mmm.UUCP (MKR) writes:
>	My wife was watching the $X0000 Pyramid game show last night, and

Then there was the show long ago where William Shatner gave as an
example of "Famous Liars"  RICHARD NIXON.  This was right after Watergate.
Everyone collapsed in laughter.  The contestant finally won the $10000
after thirteen(!) tries.  Best game show since (original) Art Fleming
went off the air.

			Respectfully,
			Eric Robert Jablow
			MSRI
			ucbvax!brahms!jablow

------------------------------

Date:         Sat, 26 Apr 86 23:49:28 EST
From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
To: space digest <SPACE-INCOMING@s1-b.arpa>
Subject:      Interplanetary Habitat/Venus

     For repeated manned missions to other planets, it might be a good
idea to put "interplanetary habitats" on the trajectories between the
planets.  Thus you do not need to accelerate a living quarters every
time you want to send somebody to the target; instead you put them in
a small transfer ship which rendezvouses with the interplanetary
habitat from Earth, the people hang out in the habitat for the time it
takes to get there, and they then take the transfer ship and brake for
the destination.
     A minor problem is that the planets are not in neat orbits with
periods that are integral submultiples of the interplanetary hohmann
orbits, so that a habitat which goes from, say, Earth to Venus during
one opposition will not, in general, be at the right place at the
right time for the next.
     Or?
     I've been thinking about interplanetary orbits.  I'm not sure if
this will work, but...  Suppose you have an interplanetary habitat
that starts out just a little faster than an Earth-Venus Hohmann.  It
takes 143 days, say, to get there.  At Venus it does a gravity
slingshot maneuver.  Arrange your slingshot to put you in an orbit
with period 150 days.  The third time you get back to Venus' orbit,
Venus has made two revolutions and is in place to meet you.  Now you
make the reverse slingshot maneuver to put you back into a Hohmann
orbit to Earth.  It takes you 5 months to get there, and Earth is back
in position for you.  Now, do yet another slingshot to go into a long
elliptical orbit that intersects Earth again in 436 days, at which
time Earth and Venus are back in the same relative positions they were
in at the beginning...
     Is this totally crazy, or could you make such a thing work?  Does
anybody know a good handbook for orbital dynamics?  (And think of a
good reason for going to Venus...)
                   --Geoffrey A. Landis, Brown University
                     Reply to: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA

------------------------------

Posted-Date: Mon 28 Apr 1986 10:09:52 EST
Date: Mon 28 Apr 1986 10:09:52 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Expoential increase of life...Re: Re: Fermi-Paradox
To: space@s1-b.arpa
In-Reply-To: 's message of 28 Apr 86 08:00:00 EST (Mon)

>Exponential increase of population may be only a phenomena of earth based
>life.

I don't believe it.  The ability to breed more descendants than
parents is a necessary precondition for natural selection to work
(otherwise, the population will go to zero!).  I think we can safely
assume that any species produced by natural selection can
exponentially increase its numbers until its local environment is
filled.  (Whether they will or not is another matter; the one
intelligent species we can observe, ourselves, has.)

>  [Too] much space opera
>makes the leap - get to the stars, own the galaxy.  People were
>happily sailing around the Mediteranean for millenia before
>they took on the really big Ocean.  There was quite a bit
>of technology that had to be developed to make the transistion,
>not to mention important changes in the culture as well.

I really don't see the point of this analogy.  If in the next
3000 years technology advances as far as it has in the last 3000
then starships should be easy to build.  And a few millenia is
instantaneous on an astronomical timescale.

------------------------------

Date: 28 Apr 86 10:38:00 PST
From: <art@acc.arpa>
Subject: jellyfish
To: "space" <space@mc.lcs.mit.edu>
Reply-To: <art@acc.arpa>



Just some idle speculation...

> But we do try to communicate with jellyfish.  In fact we have done our
> best to teach language to lower primates!  

I doubt that the jellyfish comprehend the nature of our communications
or the technologies involved.  There is the possibility that we are
being addressed and that we can not comprehend it until we evolve or
develop further.  Other primates are the closest lifeforms to us on
this planet and it is open debate whether we can really "communicate"
with them.

Also, on a different track, timescale should be considered in
communication problems.  If information is arriving at a rate VERY
different than we are accustomed to dealing with it, would we notice
it?

						<Art@ACC.ARPA>

------------------------------

Date: 24 Apr 86 20:55:00 GMT
From: hplabs!hpfcdc!hpfcla!ajs@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Fermi-Paradox
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> ...Earth could well be a quarantined planet, either awaiting the presumed
> inevitable self-destruction or a self-imposed change in the dominant
> species' behavior.

While this seems abhorrent, it does make some sense.  Consider the
generalization that "the more of anything, the less the value of each
instance".  If there is a lot of intelligent life out there, one
planetload of barely-conscious (*) anthropoids may not mean much, so
contact or intervention might not be worthwhile.

Then again, if intelligent life is a rare commodity, we might be better-
received by other species, but it's less likely we'll cross paths to
start with.

Alan Silverstein

(*) Regarding "barely conscious", recent readings, such as "The Origins
of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind", have convinced
me that human levels of consciousness are not really so staggering as we
tend to assume. 

We are quite hardware-limited.  There is a lot of room for basic
improvements.  For instance, we receive far more sensory input than we
can be wholly aware of; we can't hold very much in short-term memory
or manipulate many mental objects at once; our abstractions are pretty
tightly tied to being metaphors of our sensory channels; etc.

------------------------------

Date: 28 Apr 86 18:32:10 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-lcc!pyramid!hplabsb!bl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Bruce T. Lowerre)
Subject: Re: Silver detected in Halley's Comet: Why?
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>     Or maybe Halley's Comet is 10% silver.    (-:

I guess that makes it a sterling comet.  :-)

------------------------------

Date: Mon 28 Apr 86 14:39:20-PDT
From: Wilkins  <WILKINS@sri-warbucks.arpa>
Subject: Re: Guilty engineers
To: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Cc: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa
In-Reply-To: Message from
	     "ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)"
	     of 17 Apr 86 18:34:58 GMT

You are missing the point on why the engineers are not guilty.  They
DID put up a fuss and they DID try to stop the launch by recommending
against it.  They simply did it within the channels that had been set
up for their input to the decision making process.  People who want to
blame them seem to be claiming they should have tried to subvert the
decision process that had been implemented by going to the press, etc.
To also expect the engineers to subvert beauricratic structures when
they see them making a poor decision seems to be asking quite a bit of
the engineers . . .  (In a similar vein, do any of use have the duty
to subvert the decision making process of the US Government when we
think it is making a poor decision?)

David

------------------------------

Date: 25 Apr 86 16:18:33 GMT
From: uwvax!harvard!cmcl2!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Frank Adams)
Subject: Re: Fermi-Paradox
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>	Sorry Frank, I hold with the isolation theory.  Anybody smarter than we
>would realize the great culture shock involved in their showing up one day
>in Times Square.  Not to mention that we have not shown that we can survive
>on our own yet, which hardly mades us canidates for the Galactic Council.
>This all assumes that 'they' can get here, which I already discussed above.

You've got your time scales wrong.  Times Square is not the issue;
primordial ooze is the issue.  If other intelligent life exists, one
would expect the first visitors (colonists) to have shown up
*billions* of years ago.  Nothing here then but single-cell creatures,
if that.

>	As for estimating the creation of life, we don't really know enough
>about stellar and planetary formation, much less evolution, to make estimates.
>What's worse is that even if we could say that 1% (or .1% or .01%) of all
>stars should support an intelligent race, this percentage is over the last 10 
>billion years or so, so how many of them are currently active in our galaxy
>is REALLY hard to figure.

A single successful race (and its descendants) would be expected to
fill the whole galaxy, and to continue to fill the whole galaxy.  They
might wipe themselves out here and there, but their neighbors would
relatively quickly recolonize.

Now, I can imagine scenarios in which a life form spreads through the
galaxy, and then wipes itself out totally.  What I can't imagine is
either (1) the Earth being left alone in the advance, or (2) life on
Earth not being wiped out by the catastrophe.  ("Can't imagine" is too
strong a term here.  Substitute "find extremely implausible".)

Frank Adams                           ihnp4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
Multimate International    52 Oakland Ave North    E. Hartford, CT 06108

------------------------------

Date: 28 Apr 86 18:28:00 GMT
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiucdcsb!kenny@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Long-term planning
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa


/* Written  9:09 pm  Apr 24, 1986 by redford@JEREMY.DEC.COM in uiucdcsb:net.space */
/* ---------- "Long-term planning" ---------- */

[ ... ]
The issue of long-term planning relates to a lot of space projects, 
so let me discuss it a bit.  Some of the medieval cathedrals 
actually took centuries to build.  The projects outlived their 
architects, their craftsmen, and the bishops and nobles who 
originally funded them.  Such projects are only possible in an 
extremely stable social and technological environment.  You can't 
start a hundred-year cathedral project if the techniques for building 
arches are changing.  If you did, then you would find that the town 
across the river has managed to put up a far larger and more 
magnificent cathedral while you're still struggling with obsolete methods.
[ ... ]
John Redford
DEC-Israel
/* End of text from uiucdcsb:net.space */

On the other hand, look at the cathedral at Chartres, which was
started in Romanesque style and completed, a few generations later, in
High Gothic.  The difference is not just one of architectural taste,
but one of technology: the transference of loads from the walls to the
buttresses was what allowed Gothic-style buildings to be constructed.
Even in the Romanesque period, the architects wanted high arches,
light, and space; they just didn't have the technology to achieve
them.

Of course, the change in styles resulted in a mismatched (some even
say ugly) appearance, but oh, the glass in the magnificent clerestory!
(Made possible, of course, by the shift to Gothic construction
techniques.)

I think that this demonstrates, at least in part, the possibility of
adapting an existing project to new techniques as they come on line
and still getting a head start from what you've already done.

Kevin Kenny
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
UUCP: {ihnp4,pur-ee,convex}!uiucdcs!kenny 
CSNET:	kenny@UIUC.CSNET
ARPA:	kenny@B.CS.UIUC.EDU	(kenny@UIUC.ARPA)

"Yes, understanding today's complex world is a bit like having bees
live in your head, but there they are."

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #273
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA04902; Sun, 4 May 86 03:02:01 PDT
	id AA04902; Sun, 4 May 86 03:02:01 PDT
Date: Sun, 4 May 86 03:02:01 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8605041002.AA04902@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #274

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 274

Today's Topics:
			Re: The Fermi paradox
		    Re: Frequency of Civilizations
			  Long-term planning
		       Re: Terraforming Planets
	 Re: Challenger accident photography (NASA B*LLSH*T)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 29 Apr 86 11:03:22 GMT
From: decwrl!magic!stolfi@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Jorge Stolfi)
Subject: Re: The Fermi paradox
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Someone in a previous message said:

> >Exponential increase of population may be only a phenomena of earth based
> >life.

In article <8604281514.AA12253@s1-b.arpa> Paul Dietz replied:

> I don't believe it.  The ability to breed more descendants than parents
> is a necessary precondition for natural selection to work (otherwise,
> the population will go to zero!).  I think we can safely assume that
> any species produced by natural selection can exponentially increase
> its numbers until its local environment is filled.  (Whether they will
> or not is another matter; the one intelligent species we can observe,
> ourselves, has.)

I would not be so sure.  Note that in many developed nations the birth
rate is falling, to the point that in some countries (W.  Germany, if
I am not mistaken) the population is actually decreasing.  Moreover,
those countries are generally trying hard to convince the Third World
ones to reduce their population growth, too.

The instinct to reproduce may be a logical consequence of natural
selection, but it is just that --- an instinct, not a goal that can be
justified by reason alone.  There is no evidence that once a
civilization that becomes advanced enough to tinker with its own brain
and senses will still let that instinct to guide their future. In
fact, our own behavior makes me believe the opposite.

Consider how that instinct is implemented in our own species.  Our
senses are hard-wired to send our brain a particular sort of signal
--- "pleasure" --- when we engage in sexual activity.  Parents get
pleasure out of nurturing, raising, and educating their children;
grandparents get pleasure out of their grandchildren; patriarchs get
pleasure from watching their clan grow; and so on.

The brain in turn is hard-wired so as to maximize pleasure; in fact,
that is the very definition of "pleasure".  All other brain functions,
including intelligence, are merely devices to help the brain achieve
this goal.  People don't spend their energies in sex and marriage and
child-rearing because they have concluded, through cold objective
reasoning, that that is the logical thing to do.  They do it because
they WANT to --- that is, because doing so gives them pleasure.

This hard-wired feedback loop is the necessary result of natural
evolution, of course.  Species where this loop is defective simply
cannot exist.  However, natural evolution does not guarantee that a
species that has survived in the past will continue to do so in the
future.  In fact, it is quite possible that a trait that was
responsible for a species past success be the cause of its extinction.
There are lots of examples of such self-inflicted extinction; for
instance, many of the first photosynthetic species must have been
wiped out when oxygen began to accumulate in the atmosphere.

Well, I think the evidence is there to support the thesis that
intelligence itself is one such self-defeating trait.  Note that any
species acts so as to maximise its PLEASURE --- not its numbers, its
power, or its survival.  Again, this is not a theory, it is a
tautology --- that is the very definition of pleasure.  And as soon as
a species gets advanced enough to tinker with its own brain and
senses, it will inevitably try to short-circuit the pleasure pathway
by all possible means.  Sooner or later the species will have the
power to choose between reproduction OR pleasure, and inevitably it
will choose the latter.

Birth control, porno movies, and varous other mechanical devices have
already enabled us to divert a lot of our energy from child-rearing to
the pursuit of pure sexual pleasure.  I do not have to tell you how
this alternative has become popular.  If human reproduction has not
ceased entirely, it is largely because there are still no effective
substitutes for the non-sexual pleasures of reproduction, such as the
maternal/paternal instinct (pets and teaching are still not as good as
the real thing).  But that is only a matter of time.

In the same way, we use artificial flavors, sweeteners, and colorings
because they give us most of the pleasures of good food at a fraction
of the cost.  Watching football on TV gives the pleasure of winning a
tribal war while slumped on a sofa.  Even when we use a bright poster
or a flower pot to brighten an otherwise drab room, or turn on the
music to cover up the lack of conversation, or send flames to the net
as a substitute for normal social interaction, we are ultimately using
technology to foil our survival instincts, and thus walk little by
little on the road to extinction.

As if those hints of doom were not enough, the most effective
short-circuiting device is already being sold in the streets, and its
sucess seems unstoppable.  Drugs (or direct electrical stimulation of
the brain) have the potential of causing pure, complete pleasure,
completely independent of all sensory input.  If such a perfect drug
becomes available, it would be infinitely tempting, and by necessity
it would be instantly and permanently addictive.  It is hard to see
how a technologically liberated civilization could avoid it
indefinitely.

In summary, I think the self-destruct hypothesis quite plausible
solution to Fermi's paradox.  Well before a civilization is advanced
enough to colonize the galaxy, it will be able to get all the pleasure
that they could get from the real world by cheap, guaranteed, and
totally artificial means.  Why look for adventure in outer space, if
you can the same pleasure out of a pill right now?  Why work hard to
allow your granchildren to colonize the galaxy, if your portable brain
zapper can make you believe you have already done so?

  (From the semi-degenerate feedback loops of j. stolfi)
-- 
DISCLAIMER: The above opinions are not the sort of stuff my employer, 
my teachers, my friends, or my mother would like to be associated with.

------------------------------

Date: 28 Apr 86 20:01:12 GMT
From: tektronix!tekig5!tekigm!tekigm2!timothym@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Timothy D Margeson)
Subject: Re: Frequency of Civilizations
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <13440@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> desj@brahms.UUCP (David desJardins) writes:
>In article <8604252346.AA02756@s1-b.arpa> dietz@slb-doll.CSNET (Paul Dietz)
>writes:
>>
>>Agreed.  The question is: how plausible would it be for civilizations
>>to be extremely rare?  At best, our existence can be used to
>>argue that the frequency of civilizations is at least one per universe.
>
>   I don't agree at all.  I happen to believe that the frequency of
>civilizations is much less than one per universe.
>   Suppose the frequency of civilizations were 10^-1000 per universe.  With
>an infinite number of universes, there would still be an infinite number of
>civilizations.  By your reasoning they would all incorrectly conclude that
>the frequency is 1 or greater.
>
>   The reason I believe that the frequency is so small is that I simply have
>no idea what it is, except for a feeling that it is small, and an observed
>upper bound of 10^-3 per star or so.  The range from 10^-1000 to 10^-20 per
>star (less than 1 per universe) is much larger than the range from 10^-20 to
>10^-3 (more than 1 per universe), so it seems more likely to me that the
>probability is in that range.  Our existence, a posteriori, yields no infor-
>mation one way or another about this probability.
>
>   -- David desJardins

Of course when talking about the ratio or races to galaxies (I am
assuming you mean galaxy when you say universe), have you ever thought
about the result of the equation (or is it inprobability?)

		       oo - 10^1000 (or any other number) = oo

Oh well, enough for today. This all brought back how a grade school
teacher tried to convince the class that you can always add 1 to a
number to make the number bigger. Therefore you can also subtract 1
from a number and make it smaller. All is well and good until you talk
about indefinite numeration.

If there are less than 1 (or even 1^-10^100^100) races per galaxy,
there are still an infinite number of races. But then if we're the
only one, then there are no more (how clairvoyent :-)

Tim Margeson (206)253-5240
tektronix!tekigm2!timothym                   @@   'Who said that?'  
PO Box 3500  d/s C1-937
Vancouver, WA. 98665

------------------------------

Posted-Date: Tue 29 Apr 1986 13:25:41 EST
Date: Tue 29 Apr 1986 13:25:41 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Long-term planning
To: John Redford <redford%jeremy.DEC@decwrl.dec.com>
In-Reply-To: redford%jeremy.DEC's message of 24-Apr-1986 1909
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa

>All this causes big problems for any kind of space work.  You say you 
>want to spend fifty billion for solar power satellites?  By the time
>you've worked out the technology and gotten it built, some bright boy is
>making amorphous silicon solar cells that are cheap enough to use for 
>roofing tiles.  You say there's billions of bucks of minerals out in 
>the asteroid belt?  By the time you can get it back here they're 
>refining everything from seawater for twenty cents a ton.

After reading this I was tickled to read about (a) a recently
developed silicon single layer solar cell from Stanford with an
efficiency of 27.5% (they hope to push to 30%) that operates with 500x
concentrated sunlight, and (b) large cobalt deposits in seabed crusts
in US coastal waters.

------------------------------

Date: 29 Apr 86 00:59:07 GMT
From: tektronix!teklds!dadla!tekla!robertv@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Robert Vetter)
Subject: Re: Terraforming Planets
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa


	Just out of curiosity, why are we terraforming Venus or
	Mars.  Could we attempt terraforming (ie removing smog,
	and other environmental pollutants) Earth first ?

	Seems easier, cheaper, quicker, and of more benefit to more
	people.


	(No flames --- just playing Devil's advocate)



Rob Vetter
(503) 629-1291
[ihnp4, ucbvax, decvax, uw-beaver]!tektronix!tekla!robertv

"Waste is a terrible thing to mind" - NRC
  (Well, they COULD have said it)

------------------------------

Date: 28 Apr 86 17:19:39 GMT
From: sdcsvax!sdcc6!calmasd!jpm@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (John McNally)
Subject: Re: Challenger accident photography (NASA B*LLSH*T)
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <504@tekla.UUCP>, hankb@tekla.UUCP (Hank Buurman) writes:
> In article <2498@decwrl.DEC.COM> fisher@star.DEC (Burns Fisher)
> >However, it is assumed that the crew was most likely killed
> >by the immense acceleration
> >forces immediately after the explosion.  The worst-case scenario is that
> >one or more of the crew survived until ocean impact, but was unconcious 
> >thoughout the fall.
> 
> It is now being reported also, that the "explosion" was actually a
> fire-ball caused by the ignition of the leaking fuel, with very little
> explosive force at all, allowing the crew cabin to fall away
> relatively undamaged. This, of course raises the possibility that the
> crew was indeed alive when the cabin impacted the ocean.

I have been patient with NASA up to now, but I am fed up with the
patronizing behavior they are demonstrating to the American people.
They have consistently dragged their feet on releasing any information
to the public concerning the shuttle tragedy, apparently to "spare us
the shock of it all at once".  As evidence I offer:

1.  The resistance to media coverage of the recovery efforts.

2.  Their resistance and hostility to the President's commission
investigating the accident.

3.  The photos (subject of original posting) were obtained ONLY after
the news media sued for their release under the Freedom of Information
Act.

4.  NASA still has in their possesion photos showing the impact of the
shuttle on the ocean and subsequent breakup - they will NOT release
these photos.

5.  They have not released the results of the autopsies on the
astronauts.  These autopsies must be complete, because NASA will
release the crew's remains to the families on 4/29.  These autopsies
will show WHEN the astronauts died because they will reveal the
presence of gases in the bodies that could only be there due to
breathing at certain points after the explosion.

6.  NASA has released no video of the interior of the crew cabin up to
the explosion and after takeoff.  Certainly, there must be some form
of crew compartment video record up to the point of crew cabin
separation.

7.  NASA has recovered computer and flight recorder equipment that
must provide some evidence of the conditions inside the crew
compartment after the explosion - no such information has been
released.

NASA has slowly but surely changed its position from "they were killed
instantly" to "they survived a few seconds" to "they may have been
killed by the impact but were certainly unconscious during the fall".

Well, I have personally contended all along that the astronauts died
from the crew cabin impact on the ocean and were fully conscious
during the terrifying 9 mile free-fall.  I think that NASA has known
this from the day of the accident and has been consistently trying to
soften the public impact of such a horrible thought.

It is one thing to have a mechanical accident.  It is even
understandable that a government agency is full of budget
mismanagement, waste, and over-spending.  It is completely
unacceptable for NASA to think that it knows what is best for us and
dribble the truth out in easily swallowed packets.

Its time for NASA to release ALL information relating to the shuttle
accident.  If they do not do so willingly, the implications of coverup
will destroy the space agency.

-- 
John McNally  GE/Calma  9805 Scranton Rd. San Diego CA 92121
...{ucbvax | decvax}!sdcsvax!calmasd!jpm      (619)-587-3211

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #274
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA08899; Mon, 5 May 86 03:02:07 PDT
	id AA08899; Mon, 5 May 86 03:02:07 PDT
Date: Mon, 5 May 86 03:02:07 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8605051002.AA08899@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #275

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 275

Today's Topics:
		       Entropy and Black Holes
		       Re: the greening of Mars
			  Re: Fermi Paradox
		     Space Shuttle Tile Material
			 Re: Berserker Theory
	    Interstellar Travel by Fusion Pulse Propulsion
			 Re(n): Fermi Paradox
		      Interstellar communication
			   the fateful memo
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 30 Apr 86 05:50:26 GMT
From: brahms!gsmith@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Gene Ward Smith)
Subject: Entropy and Black Holes
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <13518@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> weemba@brahms (Matthew P. Wiener) writes:

>In article <232@spar.UUCP> Michael Ellis packs a lot of nonsense:

>>                            (A tangent: If there is any validity to the
>>    sci-fi scenario wherein advanced civilizations undo the thermal death of
>>    the universe using black holes as cosmic vacuum cleaners -- perhaps
>>    Einstein was right. Can any GR wizards provide assistance here?)

>Glad to.  I don't know what you are talking about.

   I think a more informative answer would be to say "no". The size of
the black hole is a kind of entropy in itself. A classical black hole
never shrinks (entropy never decreases). A quantum black hole is
subject to the Hawking effect. An open universe expanding forever
should end up with *very slowly* shrinking black holes. When they
radiate their mass as energy (very low frequency radio) they
manifestly are increasing entropy even more.

ucbvax!brahms!gsmith    Gene Ward Smith/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720
          "There are no differences but differences of degree 
            between degrees of difference and no difference"

------------------------------

Date: 29 Apr 86 15:41:11 GMT
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Stanley Friesen)
Subject: Re: the greening of Mars
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <710@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>
>Actually, terraforming Venus would be a lot easier.  I remember reading
>a proposal some years ago to drop blimps into the Venerian atmosphere
>at a level that would be cool enough for algae to operate at.  They
>would photosynthesize like mad in Venus' high carbon dioxide atmosphere,
>and in a few thousand years might produce enough free oxygen to produce
>an ozone layer, and reduce the carbon dioxide content enough to lower
>temperatures.

	AAAaahhh, finally a solution to the problem of keeping the
algae high enough in the atmosphere! I have been playing with the idea
for some time now, but I couldn't come up with a good way to keep the
stuff in the upper atmoshpere. I was relying on natural buoyancy,
which is really very unlikely to be workable.  --

				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)

UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen
ARPA: ??

------------------------------

Date: 29 Apr 86 14:26:57 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-lcc!lll-crg!mordor!ut-sally!utastro!ethan@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Ethan Vishniac)
Subject: Re: Fermi Paradox
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> 
>    Not only does his suggestion seem wildly unlikely (after all, why we we
> happen to exist just at a time of high radiation) but his conclusion seems
> absurd.  After all, wouldn't *changes* in the cosmic radiation also take
> place on a "galactic time-scale," i.e. millions of years?  It seems that
> there would be plenty of time to adapt.
> 
>    -- David desJardins

Well, it does seem unlikely but your objection is incorrect.  High
energy particles and photons seem to typically come from small,
compact objects.  This includes supernovae and the core of active
galaxies.  Both kinds of objects can vary dramatically on very short
time scales.  Supernovae turn on in a matter of days.  Quasars can
vary over time scales as short as a day (actually, my memory fails me
on this but I think they can actually change faster).  We recently
discussed the probability of getting fried by a supernova in this
group.  Quasars are quite rare at the present epoch in the universe
and in any case our galaxy's core seems not to contain a black hole of
sufficient mass to become (or ever have been) a quasar.

"Ma, I've been to another      Ethan Vishniac
 planet!"                      {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan
                               ethan@astro.UTEXAS.EDU
                               Department of Astronomy
                               University of Texas

------------------------------

Date: 29 Apr 86 15:54:40 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-lcc!lll-crg!seismo!brl-adm!brl-smoke!wmartin@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Will Martin )
Subject: Space Shuttle Tile Material
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Is the space shuttle tile material available commercially? Anyone have
any info on vendor(s), stock numbers, prices, sizes and shapes
available from stock, etc? Can it be bought in "sample" sizes for a
reasonable price from some source, so an individual could buy a single
chunk or slab of it, or would it only be available via industrial or
wholesale-quantity purchases?

Is it being used in any commercial products? I think it would be a
neat selling feature to have a fireplace lined with it in an upscale
house, as opposed to ordinary firebrick. (Would it work well in such
an application, or is the material too fragile?)

Regards,
Will Martin

UUCP/USENET: seismo!brl-bmd!wmartin   or   ARPA/MILNET: wmartin@almsa-1.ARPA

------------------------------

Posted-Date: Thu 1 May 1986 07:34:53 EST
Date: Thu 1 May 1986 07:34:53 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Re: Berserker Theory
To: Henry Spencer <ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu>
In-Reply-To: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry's message of 24 Apr 86 23:00:22 GMT
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa

I think we can rule out homocidal self replicating machines.  If they
existed they would already be here, having colonized the solar system
many millions of years before, and would likely have destroyed us
after we started emitting detectable radiation (or earlier if their
eyes are good).

------------------------------

Date:         Thu, 01 May 86 12:24:40 EDT
From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
To: space digest <SPACE-INCOMING@s1-b.arpa>
Subject:      Interstellar Travel by Fusion Pulse Propulsion

     Re: Paul Dietz's comments on the mass ratio of fusion pulse
('Orion' style) interstellar transport, and the possibilities of
interstellar colonization.
     I looked up Dyson's article "Interstellar Transport" in _Physics
Today_, October 1968, where he gives some of the parameters of a
H-bomb powered "Orion" type starship.  For a total mission delta-V of
10,000 km/sec--ie, 1.6% of the speed of light--he estimates a mass
ratio of 3:1 (total mass including fuel:mass excluding fuel).  His
example ship carries 50,000 tons of structure plus payload, and is
fueled by 150,000 tons of deuterium which he estimates will cost
$60,000,000,000 (in 1968 dollars, presumably; multiply by ^3 for 1986
dollars).
     He may have been conservative about the performance; he did not
assume a bomb optimized for propulsion.  However, this will probably
have an impact on the performance of less than an order of magnitude.
     1.6% of c means about 250 years to get to a-centauri; it means
2000 years to go 30 LY.  As with all rocket propulsion systems,
increased speed has a drastic effect on mass ratio: for 5% of c, mass
ratio increases from 3:1 to 20:1.  8% of c requires over 100:1, and
10% of c about 400:1.
  He also notes that, if the GNP increases at 4% per year, he expects
the first such voyages in about 200 years.
     The practicality of such voyages can be debated.  If the nearest
colonizable star is ^5 LY away, my guess would be that it certainly
is, and will be, done.  If, on the other hand, the nearest colonizable
star is 30 light years away, I think it is impractical, and probably
will not.  A critical question is whether it is possible, and
desirable to colonize stars which do not have a habitable planet.  In
the absence of having yet built space colonies, this question remains
open.  I might point out, though, that it will be a lot easier to set
up a space colony having a planet to support the initial stages, than
it will be to set one up from scratch, with the nearest support 250
years away.
     In the absence of such demonstration, I would argue that it is
*probably* possible, and even, if we survive that long as a high-tech
culture, that it probably will, eventually, be done.  However, I think
that it cannot be justifiably argued that it *certainly* is possible
and will be done.
                   --Geoffrey A. Landis, Brown University
                     Reply to: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA

------------------------------

Date:  Thu, 1 May 86 18:04 EDT
From: Mark Purtill <Purtill@mit-multics.arpa>
Subject:  Re(n): Fermi Paradox
To: space@s1-b.arpa

My favorite reason why "they" haven't come to visit is as follows:  A
long time ago, dinosaurs died out under mysterious circumstances, and
these furry warm blooded animals took their place.  Maybe this didn't
happen anywhere else, so all other intellegent races are reptilian (if,
indeed, reptiles can evolve into intellegent beings.)  They find furry,
warm blooded animals repulsive and/or dangerous and are quite happy to
have us light years away.  Alternatively, due to the slight head start
they have on us, they evolved into something unrecognizable or even
nonmaterial.

^.-.^ Mark
 MIT-MULTICS

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 1 May 86 20:58:10 edt
From: Paul Rodman <mfci!rodman%UUCP@yale.arpa>
Subject: Interstellar communication
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa


    Various people have been discussing the possibility and costs of 
 a civilization setting up beacons to announce their presence to the
 universe.
    
    Being a former astronomy type (many, many moons ago) I have always wondered
 about the possibility of using water masers for such a purpose.  Water masers 
 occur naturally but has anybody ever looked at some of the non-saturated
 masers to see if somebody is modulating them?  The size of the maser (a few light
 days, I think.) makes the bit rate pretty low, but having the nearby star 
 supplying all the energy to pump the maser makes it a very cheap method 
 of transmission. It's omnidirectional and has LOTS of range, after all we have
 been studing the natural ones around our galaxy with the current crop of 
 radio telescopes.

    Futhermore, other critters like us with curiosity are VERY likely to be 
 looking around  at masers anyway. A civilization that happened to live
 close enough could send a solar powered,  automated probe over to the  
 nearest maser that would act as a modulation source.  Nothing fancy, perhaps
 just a simple pattern like 1,2,3... that would be difficult to explain without 
 external modulation. Of course, if you are too far away from any masers (like us)
 it's probably not worth the trouble to send a probe so far.

    Perhaps one could CREATE a maser by blowing up large chunks of ice with a fusion
 bomb?  Then wait around until the density is correct for masing and go to it. 
 Perhaps other masers might be more practical. (CO or some other molecule?)

    I had these thoughts many years ago, but never found anyone that knew 
 enough about water masers, especially their time variation.

    Any comments?

                                                 Paul K. Rodman
                                                 Multiflow Computer Inc.
                                                 
-------

------------------------------

Date: 29 Apr 86 16:53:12 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: the fateful memo
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

The latest issue of World Spaceflight News is a technical blow-by-blow of
the Challenger disaster, including a lot of interesting background info
about the SRBs and such.  One thing of particular interest is a reduced
facsimile of the memo from Morton Thiokol to NASA.  In case people are
interested, here's what it says, verbatim ("~" is used for the degree
sign; "SRM-15" refers to 51C, the previous coldest launch):

------------------
MTI Assessment of Temperature Concern on SRM-25 (51L) Launch

o Calculations show that SRM-25 o-rings will be 20~ colder than SRM-15 o-rings

o Temperature data not conclusive on predicting primary o-ring blow-by

o Engineering assessment is that:

	o colder o-rings will have increased effective durometer ("harder")

	o "harder" o-rings will take longer to "seat"

		o more gas may pass primary o-ring before the primary seal
			seats (relative to SRM-15)

			o demonstrated sealing threshold is 3 times greater
				than 0.038" erosion experienced on SRM-15

	o if the primary seal does not seat, the secondary seal will seat

		o pressure will get to secondary seal before the metal
			parts rotate

			o o-ring pressure check places secondary seal in
				outboard position which minimizes sealing time

o MTI recommends STS-51L launch proceed on 28 January 1986

	o SRM-25 will not be significantly different from SRM-15


(signed)
Joe C. Kilminster, Vice President
Space Booster Programs
------------------
-- 
Support the International
League For The Derision		Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
Of User-Friendliness!		{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #275
*******************


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 AA02548; Tue, 6 May 86 03:01:58 PDT
	id AA02548; Tue, 6 May 86 03:01:58 PDT
Date: Tue, 6 May 86 03:01:58 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8605061001.AA02548@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #276

*** EOOH ***
Date: Tue, 6 May 86 03:01:58 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #276

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 276

Today's Topics:
		       Re: the greening of Mars
			 Where are they? etc.
			Space Shuttle Reaction
			Re: Old Topic/New News
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 29 Apr 86 22:02:11 GMT
From: ihnp4!mecc!sewilco@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Scot E. Wilcoxon)
Subject: Re: the greening of Mars
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa


(Sorry, don't have original author)
>Actually, terraforming Venus would be a lot easier.  I remember reading
>a proposal some years ago to drop blimps into the Venerian atmosphere
>at a level that would be cool enough for algae to operate at.  They
>would photosynthesize like mad in Venus' high carbon dioxide atmosphere,
>and in a few thousand years might produce enough free oxygen to produce
>an ozone layer, and reduce the carbon dioxide content enough to lower
>temperatures.

That's an interesting idea.  I propose it go one step further: Cover
the sky with blimps, to also stop and reflect sunlight.  Grow the
blimps.  Create a plant which floats in Venusian atmosphere.

Several plants currently have bladders (usually for floating on water).
Plants consume CO2 and sunlight, and produce sugars and O2.  A bacteria
in the bladder can produce methane.  Methane is less dense than CO2
(according to the Ideal Gas Law)..what is the density of the atmosphere
of Venus at a "cool" altitude?

Other problems:
Water: Some plants can live in air.  These things would need water
	from Venus atmosphere...
Minerals: Probably need some calcium for rigidity. What's floating in
	the upper atmosphere? (Anyone got an atmospheric analysis?)
Reproduction: free-floating pollen and/or budding (budding allows
	symbiotes to be passed on).  Note that seeds will have
	great difficulty germinating safely :-)
Flying too low: release ballast at night or when temp gets too hot, to
	maintain a high altitude (many plants/flowers close at
	night..the movement can tip pitcher-like containers of water)
	Hmm..if pitcher contains oxygen-fixing critters, some O2 would
	be removed from being a future fire hazard (need calcium, or
	use sulphur?  True acid rain...).
Flying too high: Plant functions might slow down..but lift might not
	decrease fast enough to keep plant at a safe level
Fragility: Must survive storms, but die off when Venus is somewhat tamed.
	Scattered clouds of plants can continue to exist, but probably some
	sun should reach the surface after it has cooled.

A side effect of the plants would be organic matter (dead plants) falling
to surface.  This would be cool carbon.  As two people have pointed out,
if O2 climbs too high this may catch fire (sigh..back to CO2), until
oxygen is locked in rocks (perhaps with help by O2 fixers in ballast).

From: dietz@slb-doll.CSNET (Paul Dietz)
>...  This is important; even with no atmosphere Venus will take
>centuries to cool enough to live on (because heat diffuses up slowly
>from hot subsurface rocks); a greenhouse atmosphere would slow this
>cooling process greatly.
>...
Well, a lot of shade would avoid greenhouse effect.  I can't think of
anything to cool the rocks other than liquid H2O rain..which will take
quite a while to achieve.  Although the suggestion of increasing the
spin of the planet by hitting it with asteroids would certainly
also increase the convection of the rocks..although more heat would
also be added.  Can we find and throw water ice instead?
-- 

Scot E. Wilcoxon  Minn. Ed. Comp. Corp.            quest!mecc!sewilco
45 03 N / 93 08 W   (612)481-3507  {ihnp4,mgnetp}!dicome!mecc!sewilco
"When the elevator doors close, do the hallway lights go off?"

------------------------------

Date: 2 May 86 15:39:50 EDT
From: BIESEL@red.rutgers.edu
Subject: Where are they? etc.
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa
Cc: biesel@red.rutgers.edu

There seem to be a few factors relating to the evolution of intelligent
spacefaring species which have gone ignored in the discussion so far.
The universe is commonly thought to be about 15 billion years old, our
solar system about 4 billion years. That leaves
 about 11 billion years
of (potential) evolutionary time for some more advanced species. 
The first few billion years were inhospitable to the formation of life,
primarily because the right kind of mix of light and heavy elements
required for our kind of life needed to be cooked in successive generations
of novae. Exactly how long this process takes before a sufficient 
concentration of heavier elements becomes available I don't know, but
assume to be billions of years. 

Further, evolution does not progress at the same rate everywhere. Some 
factors will accelerate it, others slow it down. Over time life will 
arise on less and less favorable planets. The concentration of advanced
species will thus increase in time (assuming no (self)destructive
events). Consequently, the more advanced the evolutionary stage of
a species, the fewer species will be at that stage. 

Finally, any species sufficiently advanced to travel routinely over
interstellar distances will have the means to completely hide its
presence from the natives. In fact, one could use this as the
definition of an advanced race: they will be observed *ONLY* insofar
as they wish to be observed.

The question now becomes: Why would any advanced species wish to be
observed by the indigenous fauna ?(and/or flora; no biases against
plants here.)

One more thought: the more we learn about chemical and biological
evolution, the more it becomes apparent that the Earth is an almost
ideal reactor for biochemiical evolution. Axial tilt to create
seasons, moderate environmental stresses, diverse habitats etc.
Moderate tectonic activity to create temporary ecological niches,
followed by isolation on moving tectonic plates, ultimately leading
to confrontation between divergent evolutionary paths when the
plates collide again. A *LARGE* moon to stir the primeval soup,
creating intertidal zones. Large quantities of water to create
both support and barriers for species. One could go on and on.

The point is that the Earth is a favored place; we may be among the first
few species in the Galaxy to reach sentience. There are rather few
species further along than we are, and they don't want to be observed.
The few that have visited have left no mark; current visitors are
incognito. No need to conquer, there is still plenty of real estate
left, occupied by nothing more complex than liver flukes.

Or consider scenario 2: all sufficiently advanced life has gone through
two pre-evolutionary stages:
	Stage 1) Chemical evolution, leading from simple light atoms
	to complex mixtures of amino acids and the like in the
	primordial soup.

	Stage 2) Biological evolution, leading from simple unicellular
	forms to complex forms capable of creating the precursors of, and
	conditions for the emergence of *TRUE* life. 

There are robots watching this planets, observing us with the robotic
equivalent of religious reverence, waiting for the magical moment when
crude biology gives rise to the emergence of true intelligence. A moment
somewhat like watching a butterfly emerge from its cocoon, or observing
the first crude lungfish flopping about on the beach.

Or consider scenario 3: ...

The universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we
*CAN* imagine.


	Heiner Biesel@Rutgers.ARPA
-------

------------------------------

Date: Fri 2 May 86 18:12:05-EDT
From: Richard A. Cowan <COWAN@xx.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: Space Shuttle Reaction
To: space@mc.lcs.mit.edu
Cc: cowan@xx.lcs.mit.edu, prog-d@oz.ai.mit.edu


The 16th volume of the magazine "Processed World" from San Francisco
just came out with a special editorial section reacting to the media
and popular reaction about the shuttle disaster.  If the magazine
doesn't make it to your part of the world (subscription is about
2000), send me mail and I'll tell you the address for a $10, 1-year
subscription if you're interested.  Here's a passage from one of the
six differing viewpoints on the disaster:

   "Since the Russians sent up Sputnik in 1957, the U.S. quest in space
has always been primarily a military one.  "National security" and the
attempt to gain first-strike capability have underlain most satellite
developments, and are at the root of the shuttle/space/SDI plans.

   "The US space shuttle program is portrayed not as humanity's
progress or accomplishment, but that of the Best Country in the World,
the United States.  As such it becomes a major prop in the spectacle
of patriotism and also fits into to the historical pattern of US
reliance on the rhetoric of expansion across new frontiers.

   "But the apeal of the space program goes deeper than militarism and
nationalism.  The exploration of space holds a powerful fascination.
Decades of science fiction literature, film and art, combined with 25
years of space shots, have fired the popular imagination.  As space
proponents convincingly argue, curiosity and striving to understand
the universe are essential to our humanity and creativity.  The
problem arises when fantasies and the desire for knowledge serve to
justify or obscure the contemporary reality of the space exploration.
Many who support the space program close their eyes to its militarist
function, proclaiming the main purpose of NASA to be the pursuit of
pure knowledge -- despite the by now well-known fact that funding for
the shuttle was only attained by NASA's compromises with the Pentagon,
compromises not likely to be undone as long as the government remains
intact.  With the installation of the Navy's head of space operations
at the helm of NASA, and joint appeals from NASA and the AIR Force for
a replacement shuttle, the real purpose is clear.

   "Like the H-bomb designers of the 40's, the scientists and
technicians who create the necessary technology are either unaware of,
or psychologically detached from the results of their labor.  While
erecting the essential building blocks of global annihilation,
technicians enjoy the thrill of making their toys work and comfort
themselves with fantasies of utopian space colonies where the
conflicts and problems of life on Earth will be left behind.

   "The transcendence of social problems through "escape" into space
hooks remarkable numbers of people on space exploration.  Establishing
space colonies or homesteading on some heretofore unknown hospitable
planet, would require giant leaps in scientific understanding.  And
yet space enthusiasts advocate moving into space as a panacea for
Earth's problems of overpopulation and pollution -- a solution
requirinf far more sophistication than would have been needed to avoid
the problems in the first place.  Let the Earth and most of its
inhabitants rot, and let us smart, future-looking (probably white)
people move on to clean living in space!  In the model colonies
problems that abound on Earth miraculously disappear; families live
happily with problems no more serious than the daily squabbles of
Dagwood and Blondie.

   "Less grandiose but equally fantastic proposals include flushing
our toxic and radioactive wastes into space.  One hopes that the
shuttle explosion has shaken our faith in such technical fixes, but it
probably hasn't.  Under the guise of ecoconsciousness, these
suggestions actually represent a "logical" extension of the
late-capitalist use-it-up-and-throw-it-away mentality, in this case
applied to the whole planet.  We may have turned the Earth into a
dangerous garbage dump, but there's plenty of room out there, so let's
just move on.

   "The problem is not that the space exploration inspires flights of
fantasy or awakens the desire for knowledge, nor even that it is a
waste of resources.  If fewer rewources were spent on definsing new
means of destruction, and on making wasteful, redundant commodities
and packaging, there would be plenty of wealth and time available for
space exploration.  But not a space exploration which is a patriotic
smoke-screen for a military campaign.  Un-peopled space probes have
already provided us with much of what we've learned about the universe
-- the Voyager mission through the solar system and the probes of
Venus and Mars.  Many astronomers claim that manned expeditions are a
terrible waste at this point, since perhaps ten robot space shots
could be financed by the cost of one peopled shot.

  "The gnarly problems of living with humans and nature will never be
solved by sending a few hundreds or thousands off in metal containers
floating in the vacuum of space.  In the meantime, understanding how
people come so readily to see this techno-fantasy as a solution to
these problems may help us to penetrate the logic of the social system
that got us into this mess!

  - by "Lucius Cabins/ Maxine Holz"

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 2 May 86 18:34:42 PDT
Ppath: vista!crash!noscvax!space@angband
From: pnet01!victoro <Victor>
To: vista!crash!noscvax!space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Re: Old Topic/New News

While reading this digest, I happened to view a video dealing with the
shuttle disaster.  Jean-Michael Jarre's 'Tribute IV (A Rememberence)'
aired on MTV.  I didn't catch the entire video (But I did want to
bring it to the attention of this audience) but it seemed quite
positive.

The video ended with the statement 'Astronaut Ron McNail would have
played Sax on this album.'  That suggests the entire album has a
pro-space theme.

---> Let's get this video on the the countdown! ( Why not? ;-) )

--> Victor [Currently Moving] O'Rear

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #276
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA07477; Wed, 7 May 86 03:01:57 PDT
	id AA07477; Wed, 7 May 86 03:01:57 PDT
Date: Wed, 7 May 86 03:01:57 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8605071001.AA07477@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #277

*** EOOH ***
Date: Wed, 7 May 86 03:01:57 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #277

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 277

Today's Topics:
	 Re: Challenger accident photography (NASA B*LLSH*T)
			       NASA BS
		    Fermi paradox, killer messages
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 2 May 86 21:12:19 GMT
From: uwvax!harvard!cmcl2!philabs!linus!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Challenger accident photography (NASA B*LLSH*T)
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> 1.  The resistance to media coverage of the recovery efforts.

Have you considered that (a) there normally isn't much in the way of
media facilities on the vessels being used, and (b) they don't want the 
National Enquirer publishing photographs of half-decayed corpses?

> 2.  Their resistance and hostility to the President's commission
> investigating the accident.

The blanket condemnation of NASA for this seems inapt.  SOME people
within NASA have been uncooperative.  And how cheerful would you feel
if your boss appointed a commission to investigate charges that you
had been incompetent and criminally negligent?	(I'm not saying that
lack of cooperation is excusable, just that a certain unhappiness is
not indicative of anything sinister or unethical.)

> 3.  The photos (subject of original posting) were obtained ONLY
> after the news media sued for their release under the Freedom of
> Information Act.

NASA very properly took steps early on to safeguard all possible evidence,
including photos taken by non-NASA cameras.  They then proceeded to botch
the job of releasing them.  Not well done, but not indicative of a coverup.
"Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity."

> 4.  NASA still has in their possesion photos showing the impact
> of the shuttle on the ocean and subsequent breakup - they will NOT
> release these photos.

If you mean impact of an intact shuttle, they won't release them because
they almost certainly don't exist.  Which just makes certain people all
the more convinced that it's a Sinister Conspiracy.  Even when there are
far too many people involved to keep something like that secret.

> 5.  They have not released the results of the autopsies on the
> astronauts...

See above for comments on National Enquirer.

> These autopsies will show WHEN the astronauts died because they will
> reveal the presence of gases in the bodies that could only be
> there due to breathing at certain points after the explosion.

After a month underwater?!?  Come off it.  Note that NASA has been careful
to refer to them as "remains" rather than "bodies" -- I'd be surprised if
they are much more than bones.

> 6.  NASA has released no video of the interior of the crew cabin
> up to the explosion and after takeoff.  Certainly, there must be
> some form of crew compartment video record up to the point of crew
> cabin separation.

Please justify this assertion.  I'm not aware of a video transmission from
the cabin during launch on normal shuttle launches, and I don't think they
bother recording it either.  There's really very little to see:  the crew
in their seats, instruments that would be difficult to read off a video
image (and are covered by telemetry anyway) and a very occasional control
movement by the crew (also covered by telemetry).

> 7.  NASA has recovered computer and flight recorder equipment that
> must provide some evidence of the conditions inside the crew
> compartment after the explosion - no such information has been
> released.

Probably because it was underwater for a month and they're still trying
to sort it out.  Shuttles do not carry airliner-style armored crash
recorders; what recorders were running aboard Challenger were never built
to fall out of a disintegrating shuttle, hit water at terminal velocity,
and then soak in seawater for a month.  Remember, everything considered
immediately important goes to the ground in real time by telemetry anyway.

> NASA has slowly but surely changed its position from "they were
> killed instantly" to "they survived a few seconds" to "they may
> have been killed by the impact but were certainly unconscious
> during the fall".

I suspect that if you look up the original text of those positions --
what NASA said, not what the National Enquirer printed -- you'll find
them hedged about with "probably" and "appears" and "must have" and
"looks like".  The reason why investigations are done is that first
impressions are often wrong.  Would you have preferred that NASA simply
say nothing until the investigation was over and they could draw
reliable conclusions?

> Well, I have personally contended all along that the astronauts
> died from the crew cabin impact on the ocean and were fully
> conscious during the terrifying 9 mile free-fall.

I don't recall you saying so until the newspapers started suggesting it,
actually.  Can you cite dates and Message-IDs for this claim, so that it
can be checked against archives?

> I think that NASA has known this from the day of the accident...

Evidence?  Also, please specify who you mean by "NASA".  NASA is a large
organization which is not linked by mental telepathy.

> ...and has been
> consistently trying to soften the public impact of such a horrible
> thought.

This is curious, since the people on board a crashing airliner --
something that happens often enough -- go through the same experience
without a massive public outcry.

> Its time for NASA to release ALL information relating to the
> shuttle accident.  If they do not do so willingly, the
> implications of coverup will destroy the space agency.

And if they do, and it doesn't match some peoples' preconceptions, they
will inevitably scream "coverup" anyway.  We've already seen some pretty
silly allegations, and there will probably be more.  Nor is this a new
thing -- remember the character who claimed there was a nuclear reactor
on board Skylab?  He said it just before Skylab crashed, of course, and
was not heard from afterwards when the facts didn't bear him out.

Join STRAW: the Society To	Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
Revile Ada Wholeheartedly	{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 5 May 86 14:17:00 EDT
From: Hank.Walker@unh.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: NASA BS
To: BBoard.Maintainer@a.cs.cmu.edu

5. According to the New York Times, Richard Truly stated that they
hadn't gotten much from the autopsies.

6. To my knowledge, cockpit video during takeoff and landing is not
standard on the shuttle.  This isn't American Airlines.

7. Someone I know at the IBM plant with the tapes and core says they
are still cleaning it.  You only get one chance to read the core.  It
looks like there won't be much of use anyway since they weren't in
great condition.  Don't say something must be so if you have no
information on which to base that statement.

------------------------------

Date: 5 May 86 19:41:26 EDT
From: Hans.Moravec@ius2.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: Fermi paradox, killer messages
To: BBoard.Maintainer@a.cs.cmu.edu

Hi. Here's a new Fermi paradox explanation (from forthcoming book
"Mind Children" to appear 1Q 1987 - Buy One!). It occurs in a chapter
discussing free living, authorless, computer viruses that inhabit
data nooks and crannies, whose primary function is quiet reproduction.

\section{A Caveat for SETI}
	SETI is an acronym for the Search for Extra-Terrestrial
Intelligence. The goal of the effort is so exciting that it proceeds
steadily despite any hard evidence that its quarry exists.  At its leading
edge presently are impressive spectrum analysing receivers connected to
radio telescopes that are able to separately tune in and examine millions of
frequency channels at the same time.  Proposals exist for systems able to
this and also look in thousands of distinct directions at once. All the
better to find a needle in a haystack - an artificial message in a universe
naturally noisy in radio frequencies.

	But what to do if a message is detected and decoded? The discussion
of this question usually centers on the intent of the senders.  They may be
benign, and, like the peace corps, be doing well by doing good. They may be
traders trying to foster new markets, to much the same effect (but be
careful when it gets to the horsetrading stage). They may simply be curious,
and looking for pen pals. They may have dark designs on the rest of the
universe, and be seeking to eliminate some of the competition in a cheap
way. Or, their motives may be fundamentally incomprehensible. Simply
examining the message is not enough - it is not in general possible to
deduce the effect of general instructions without actually carrying them
out. In any case a message with nasty intent would be disguised, by master
deceivers, to look benign. In both Fred Hoyle's classic novel {\bf ``A for
Andromeda''} and Carl Sagan's recent {\bf ``Contact''}, an interstellar
message contains plans for a mysterious machine of unknown purpose. In both
books the characters decide, after some debate, to go ahead with
construction despite the risks.  In {\bf Contact} a major argument is that
the origin of the message (the star Vega) is so close to our solar system
that the senders could rapidly arrive here physically in any case, should
their intentions be malign. Building the machine would be unlikely to make
us any worse off in the long run. On the other hand, if the message were
begnin it represented an opportunity not to be missed.

	Our information parasite discussion opens some new possibilities
that suggest greater caution. Intelligent individuals and civilizations are
not exactly like computing and genetic machinery - they won't mindlessly
carry out just any old program you insert into them. But if you make the
prospect appear attractive enough, you can often talk them into it. In
fact, given this ``pretty please, with sugar on top'' preamble, they
might as well be programmable. General intelligence has its downside.

	A ``rogue'' message from no one in particular to no one in
particular could survive and thrive like a virus, using technological
civilizations as hosts. It might be as simple as ``Now that you've received
and decoded me, broadcast me in at least ten thousand directions with ten
million watts of power. {\it Or else}.'' A cosmic chain letter and a cosmic
joke, except for the message which is making a living doing what it does
like any other living creature. Since we can't be sure the {``\it or else''}
isn't backed by some real authors with a peculiar sense of right and wrong,
we may play safe and pass it on as it requests. Perhaps we didn't hear it
very well; maybe it said a hundred million watts, maybe it mutated. You can
envision a universe populated by millions of such messages, evolving,
competing for scarce gullible civilizations.

	The survivability of a message may be enhanced if it carries some
real information. Perhaps it does contain blueprints for a machine. The
machine is likely to be built if it promises to benefit its hosts. If part
of the machine's  action is to rebroadcast copies of the message itself,
that seems only fair.  Like a bee carrying pollen for a flower's sake in
return for nectar for itself, the technological host civilization has a
symbiotic relationship with such a message. But the analogy suggests darker
possibilities. Some carnivorous plants attract bees with nectar, only to
trap them.  The message may promise a benefit, but when the machine is built
it shows no self restraint, and feindishly co-opts all the resources of its
hosts in its message sending, leaving behind a dead husk of a civilization.
It's not too hard to imagine how such a virulent form of a free-living
message might gradually evolve from more begnin forms. A ``reproduction
effort parameter'' in the message (too subtle for the victims to catch and
alter) may get garbled in transmission, with the higher settings resulting
in more successful variants.

	The ``Fermi paradox'' is an observation by the famous Manhattan
project physicist Enrico Fermi that if technological civilizations have even
a slight probability of evolving, their effects should be visible throughout
the universe - given its great age there's been plenty of time for them to
spread.  They do have some probability of evolving - our own is proof. But
their effects are not apparent. A number of unsatisfactory explanations for
this contradiction have been offered - at the height of the cold war a
leading one was that high tech leads rapidly to self-destruction by nuclear
holocaust or worse. But every single time?

	Our autonomous message story adds another possibility to the list.
Perhaps there are killer messages lurking in the universe like wolves in the
forest. In the absence of civilizations they lie dormant, in multi-million
year trips between galaxies or even inscribed in more solid form on rocks.
A newly evolved, country bumpkin, technological civilization is no match for
the sophistication and ruthlessness (eons old, developed over the bodies of
countless past victims) it finds when it stumbles across one and naively
acts on it. The activated message makes and propagates astronomical numbers
of copies of itself, and technological life is again nipped in the bud. The
new copies of the message patiently wait for the next victim to arise - they
can do nothing else.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #277
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA11727; Thu, 8 May 86 03:02:08 PDT
	id AA11727; Thu, 8 May 86 03:02:08 PDT
Date: Thu, 8 May 86 03:02:08 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8605081002.AA11727@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #278

*** EOOH ***
Date: Thu, 8 May 86 03:02:08 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #278

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 278

Today's Topics:
 Fermi paradox not explained by idle pleasure replacing reproduction
		 Newspaper cartoonist reading SPACE?
	 Re: Challenger accident photography (NASA B*LLSH*T)
	    The greening of Venus, and the length of days
			  Terraforming Venus
		      Re: the greening of Venus
			  Re: Fermi Paradox
		   Folks, we are in serious trouble
		       Re: Terraforming Planets
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 1986 May 05 11:01:10 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@su-ai.arpa>
To: decwrl!magic!stolfi@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Cc: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Fermi paradox not explained by idle pleasure replacing reproduction

JS> Date: 29 Apr 86 11:03:22 GMT
JS> From: decwrl!magic!stolfi@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Jorge Stolfi)
JS> Subject: Re: The Fermi paradox

(Summary: any species that survives long must have instinct to
reproduce faster than replacement would require, thus in absense of
controls would exponentially increase to fill environment. But would
an intelligent species such as humans or ETI continue that instinct or
negate it somehow?)

JS> Our senses are hard-wired --- "pleasure" --- when we engage in sexual
JS> activity.  Parents get pleasure out of nurturing, raising, ...
JS> The brain in turn is hard-wired so as to maximize pleasure; ...
JS>  People don't spend their energies in sex and marriage and
JS> child-rearing because they have concluded, through cold objective
JS> reasoning, that that is the logical thing to do.  They do it because
JS> they WANT to --- that is, because doing so gives them pleasure.

(Summary: Just because a trait enhanced survival in the past doesn't
mean it will continue to enhance survival under new curcumstances in
the future. Some traits may in fact create the very situation where
the species can no longer survive.)

JS> Well, I think the evidence is there to support the thesis that
JS> intelligence itself is one such self-defeating trait.  Note that any
JS> species acts so as to maximise its PLEASURE ...  And as soon as
JS> a species gets advanced enough to tinker with its own brain and
JS> senses, it will inevitably try to short-circuit the pleasure pathway
JS> by all possible means.  Sooner or later the species will have the
JS> power to choose between reproduction OR pleasure, and inevitably it
JS> will choose the latter.

The species doesn't choose, individuals choose, and we aren't
identical clones, we are very different individuals. Some of us will
choose reproduction rather than idle pleasure, and those of us will
reproduce while those who choose idle pleasure will not reproduce. To
whatever extent the tendancy to make that choice is genetically
determined, the fraction of the population that chooses reproduction
will be increased relative to choosing idle pleasure.

JS> or send flames to the net as a substitute for normal social interaction,
JS> we are ultimately using technology to foil our survival instincts, and
JS> thus walk little by little on the road to extinction.

Cute, so we on the net are tending towards idle pleasure (of flaming)
instead of reproduction? Maybe it's true. I'm 41 and still don't have
children, but I'm working on it...

JS> In summary, I think the self-destruct hypothesis quite plausible
JS> solution to Fermi's paradox.  Well before a civilization is advanced
JS> enough to colonize the galaxy, it will be able to get all the pleasure
JS> that they could get from the real world by cheap, guaranteed, and
JS> totally artificial means.  Why look for adventure in outer space, if
JS> you can the same pleasure out of a pill right now?  Why work hard to
JS> allow your granchildren to colonize the galaxy, if your portable brain
JS> zapper can make you believe you have already done so?

Some of us, even on the net, are adamently against drugs and other
self-destructive idle pleasure, including myself. I don't like
spectator sports, and although I flame on the net I try to direct the
topics towards constructive thought along new paths or to correct
false information rather than just idle flaming for the sake of
flaming. I suspect that with sexual reproduction to mix the genes
around extensively and maintain variety of genotype, there will be a
variety of expression of those genes in regard to the reproduction vs.
idle pleasure decision, so that as technology gradually makes
available more effective means for idle pleasure the individuals who
are resistant to the lure of idle pleasure will reproduce more than
others, and eventually the species will be almost totally resistant to
idle pleasure lure. The only problem seems to be that technology is
advancing faster than evolution. There may be a crisis where virtually
everybody stops breeding except a very few, and after one generation
the breeding-age population drops to a very low level (a few million
perhaps), but I doubt the human race will go extinct or stagnate due
to the lure of idle pleasure.

As for evidence that significant numbers of individuals (one million
or more) will choose reproduction instead of idle pleasure, I cite two
items: (1) lots of "third world" people don't have access to the idle
pleasure, or don't have time for it because they have to work hard to
stay alive, so they go ahead and reproduce "like animals" even while
the affluent people sit around contemplating their navels etc. I don't
think technology can hit everybody fast enough to provide effective
idle pleasure to the whole world's population uniformly. (2) some
people understand the Selfish Gene etc. evolutionary principles and
may consciously choose to reproduce as I do. As education about the
nature of evolution reaches large numbers of the populace, replacing
archaic religious belief in supreme beings, many of those educated
enlightened people will as I do choose reproduction and abstain from
any idle pleasure that interferes with reproduction.

In conclusion, in any intelligent species that uses sexual
reproduction and has the science to discover the principles of
evolution and lives on a planet large enough to support a diverse
population, there are too many arguments in favor of continued
reproduction among some groups of individuals, for me to agree that
the idle-pleasure theory could explain lack of exponential growth.
Short of some disaster (thermonuclear war), each such species should
expand into space and fill the galaxy. The lack of even one such
species at present cannot be explained by the idle pleasure theory.

------------------------------

Date:  5 May 1986 2345-PDT
From: Rem@imsss
Subject: Newspaper cartoonist reading SPACE?
To: SPACE%Angband@su-score.arpa

This is the second time a newspaper cartoonist has used an idea
that I came up with on SPACE previously. I'm beginning to suspect
that newspaper cartoonists are reading this digest to get new ideas.

Recall I suggested dinosaurs became technological and wiped themselves
out by nuclear war after first going to space, but fossil record is
so coarse there are virtually no fossils extant from such a short time
period during their brief technological period before cretaceous extinction.

The comic strip "Orbit" today showed dinosaurs lining up for free vacations
to Andromeda galaxy via rocket ships.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 6 May 86 11:59 PDT
From: David E. Wilkins <WILKINS@sri-ai.arpa>
Subject: Re: Challenger accident photography (NASA B*LLSH*T)
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Date: Tue  6 May 86 11:40:09-PDT
From: Paul Martin <PMARTIN@SRI-WARBUCKS.ARPA>
Subject: Re: [: Re: Challenger accident photography (NASA B*LLSH*T)]
To: WILKINS@SRI-AI.ARPA

I agree with him that NASA has been as bad as PRAVDA in releasing info...
they wonder why they move so slowly with the wagons always in a circle!
I doubt that the astronauts were conscious for the fall, as the air pressure
was surely lost in the original breakup, and they weren't even wearing
pressure suits.  I still think the video up to the last moment is an
important record and should (thank God for the FOIA) be made public.

Sigh... Nobody seems to believe in just tellling the truth and counting
on the judgment and intelligence of their audience to make "the right thing"
happen...

Paul

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 06 May 86 15:22 PST
From: Dave Platt <Dave-Platt%LADC@hi-multics.arpa>
To: decvax!ihnp4!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020@decwrl.dec.com,
        decvax!ihnp4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka@decwrl.dec.com
Really-To: decvax!ihnp4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka%decwrl.dec.com@arpa,decvax!ihnp4!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020%decwrl.dec.com@arpa
Cc: Space@s1-b.arpa
Real-Cc: Space%S1-B@ARPA
Subject: The greening of Venus, and the length of days
Randomness: There are always at least two ways to program the same thing.

Well, from what I understand of plants (strictly an amateur at these
matters), it depends alot on the species of plant.  Some will do just
fine under 24-hour illumination;  the vine in my office (green leaves with
purple hairs on the leaves & stems) has been thriving [running amok] for
over 5 years under 24-hour fluorescent illumination.  Many species,
however, are strongly photoperiod-sensitive... they depend on the length
of the day (or the length of unbroken darkness) to trigger their flowering
and maturation;  under 24-hour illumination, they produce only vegetative
growth (leaves & stems) and will never flower or produce seeds.  Such
plants would have to be shielded from light in order to permit
maturation and harvest, if they were being grown for seed or fruit.
[some such plants are so sensitive that a one-second flash of moderately
intense light in the middle of the night is sufficient to fool them into
thinking that it's still summer, and inhibiting their maturation].

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 6 May 86 12:26:23 PDT
From: Murray.pa@xerox.com
Subject: Terraforming Venus
In-Reply-To: <8605061002.AA02562@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Cc: Murray.pa@xerox.com

Assume that you installed a magic mirror that reflected all the incoming
sunlight but didn't dusturb anything outgoing. How long would it take
for Venus to cool off?

What portion of the heat of a planet is sun? Gravity? Radioactivity?
Anything else?

------------------------------

Date: 7 May 86 03:20:32 GMT
From: cad!richter@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Adam J. Richter)
Subject: Re: the greening of Venus
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <1362@mmintl.UUCP> franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) writes:
>In article <204@gilbbs.UUCP> mc68020@gilbbs.UUCP writes:

>>   I'm no botanist, but my experiences and reading in the area of botany
>>and gardening tell me that you are incorrect, Frank.

>>   As I understand it, the plants spend the daylight hours collecting energy
>>and storing it via phtosynthesis, and the dark hours performing the various
>>biological processes that result in growth.  Continuous sunlight is not good
>>for growing plants.

>Frank Adams                           ihnp4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
>Multimate International    52 Oakland Ave North    E. Hartford, CT 06108

	I know even less, but I did come across an interesting paper
on growing wheat in space* and all of the following comes from it.

	There are at least two different kinds of photosynthesis,
called c4 and c3.  One of them needs the dark; the other doesn't.
Wheat doesn't, but exposing it to continuous light, while making it
grow faster, currently makes it produce less edible mass per mass of
the plant.  However, continous sun shine is still a big win, just not
as big as it could be.

	The researches are pretty confident that they can overcome
even this problem by selective breeding, playing with the atmosphere
and temperature, etc.

* (Some paper in:) _Lunar Bases and Space Activities of the
	Twenty-first Century_  W. W. Mendell, editor.
	Lunar and Planetary Institute.  Houston, TX.
	1984 (?)

------------------------------

Posted-Date: Wed 7 May 1986 13:30:24 EST
Date: Wed 7 May 1986 13:30:24 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Re: Fermi Paradox
To: Ethan Vishniac <ucdavis!lll-lcc!lll-crg!mordor!ut-sally!utastro!ethan@ucbvax.berkeley.edu>
In-Reply-To: ucdavis!lll-lcc!lll-crg!mordor!ut-sally!utastro!ethan's message of 29 Apr 86 14:26:57 GMT
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa

I think Ethan is being misleading here.  While a supernova can turn on
in a few days, the charged particles from a supernova are stored by
the galactic magnetic field for millions of years.  We have a new
supernova every century or so, so the accumulated cosmic ray flux
shouldn't change dramatically (unless one is very close to the
supernova when it explodes).  Similarly, all but the very highest
energy particles from a compact source are stored for long periods of
time, destroying any time structure in the original radiation source.
This doesn't apply to neutral particles like photons or neutrines, but
gamma photons make up only a small fraction of cosmic radiation (and
many of those come from collisions between charged cosmic radiation
and interstellar atoms) and neutrinos are sufficiently weakly
interacting to be ignored.

------------------------------

Date: 6 May 86 01:57:57 GMT
From: nike!caip!seismo!umcp-cs!mangoe@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Charley Wingate)
Subject: Folks, we are in serious trouble
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

With the Delta failure, we have exactly three (that's right, three) sizeable
launch vehicles.  (There are ~16 scouts, which are VERY small.)  That's
three Atlas-Centaurs, all of which are committed.  Even when they get the
Delta and Titan-III problems resolved, there are still only a handful of
each.  Leadtimes quoted in theWash. Post for production are on the order of
a year and a half for Deltas and Atlases.  We all know how bad the Ariane
booking problem is.

This is truly awful.  Outside of what's already slated for Ariane, and the
three Atlases, we aren't going to launching anything of any size for a good
long while.

Comments?


C. Wingate

------------------------------

Date: 3 May 86 05:24:04 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-lcc!lll-crg!seismo!harvard!cmcl2!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Frank Adams)
Subject: Re: Terraforming Planets
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <524@tekla.UUCP> robertv@tekla.UUCP (Robert Vetter) writes:
>
>	Just out of curiosity, why are we terraforming Venus or
>	Mars.  Could we attempt terraforming (ie removing smog,
>	and other environmental pollutants) Earth first ?
>
>	Seems easier, cheaper, quicker, and of more benefit to more
>	people.

Well, the problem is that the techniques of terraforming tend to be rather
risky (genetically altered bacteria which are *supposed* to have a large
effect on the environment) or even directly harmful (impacts with asteroids)
to any life forms already existing on the planet.  If you don't mind, I
would try them somewhere *else* first.

Frank Adams                           ihnp4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
Multimate International    52 Oakland Ave North    E. Hartford, CT 06108

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #278
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA03616; Fri, 9 May 86 03:02:11 PDT
	id AA03616; Fri, 9 May 86 03:02:11 PDT
Date: Fri, 9 May 86 03:02:11 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8605091002.AA03616@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #279

*** EOOH ***
Date: Fri, 9 May 86 03:02:11 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #279

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 279

Today's Topics:
			    Administrivia
		       barium cloud experiment
			  Re: catch a comet
			  Re: Fermi-Paradox
			Re: The Fermi paradox
	 Re: Challenger accident photography (NASA B*LLSH*T)
			  Re: catch a comet
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 8 May 86 16:32:56 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@s1-b.arpa>
To: space
Subject: Administrivia

I have received many complaints recently that the Space Digest is
becoming much less useful and interesting.  This seems to be almost
entirely due to the fact that for many people it is becoming more
trouble than it is worth to sift through the Digests for the
relatively rare submissions of interest.  It is not that the absolute
number of interesting and well considered messages is decreasing but
that the ratio to general flaming and garbage has dropped.  Not only
are we losing good readers because of this, we are also losing good
contributors.  I think it is time for the list to become moderated in
the traditional sense of the word.  I am afraid I will be unable to
take on this additional task.

So the Space-Digest is urgently seeking a moderator.  This has been a
fairly big job.  Making the needed improvements is going to be an even
bigger job.  Someone considering this position should probably bet on
a 10 hour per week commitment.  Because of real or perceived conflict
of interest problems someone with a close connection to NASA or one of
the major space contractors would probably not be ideal.  The most
important qualification, however, is a strong interest in the general
topic of Space and especially space development.

If anyone is interested in taking on this responsibility or finding
out more about what is involved please get in touch with me by net
mail at ota@s1-b.ARPA.

	-Ted Anderson ("Moderator")

------------------------------

Date: 7 May 86 15:09:09 GMT
From: nike!topaz!harvard!bbnccv!koolish@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Richard Koolish)
Subject: barium cloud experiment
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa


There  is  a  barium  cloud  experiment  scheduled  for  Thursday
morning, May 8th.  The launch is at 3:47 AM from Wallops  Island,
VA.   The barium will be released six minutes later and should be
ionized by a shaped charge.  If it isn't ionized then, it will be
when illuminated by the sun about 30 minutes after release.   The
launch will take place only if the east coast observing sites are
clear.   The cloud should be visible all along the east coast and
as far inland as Ohio.  From Boston it will be  at  azimuth  190,
elevation  30. If postponed, the launch will be on the next clear
day up through May  20.   The  launch  window  starts  2  minutes
earlier each day.

------------------------------

Date: 3 May 86 05:14:40 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-lcc!lll-crg!seismo!harvard!cmcl2!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Frank Adams)
Subject: Re: catch a comet
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

All Tom's examples are of things which are intended to *last* for
generations.  None involve planning to *do* something generations from
now.  It is this latter concept I believe to be nonsensical in the modern
world.

>>(Actually, such a trip probably *would* have a detailed plan for what to do
>>on arrival.  For a 40 year trip to Alpha Centaurus, I would expect that plan
>>to be completely rewritten at least 6 or 8 times in the course of the
>>journey, and quite likely dozens of times.  I think such an eventuality
>>would justify my claim that the original plan was absurd.)
>
>I wasn't even thinking about what to do on arrival yet. [...]
>How about scout ships (maybe unmanned) doing a grand tour of the area?

Again, this is something you do today, and when you have the results, *then*
you decide what you are going to do about it.  (Incidently, it probably makes
more sense to send a separate probe to each system.  Unlike the planets in
the 70's, the stars aren't neatly lined up.)

>Besides, why does the need to rework a plan several times make the original
>planning absurd?

Let me give you an example of the kind of thing I have in mind.  Assuming
for the moment a 2040 launch toward Alpha Centauri, trip time to be 40 years.
Making some plausible assumptions about the state of bio-technology, the
colonists will likely pack numerous fertilized egg cells for a wide variety
of species, to be raised in vitro when they get there.  By the time they
get there, it is likely that the folks on Earth will be able to radio them
instructions and data, such that they can *create* the fertilized egg cells
from raw chemicals, complete with modifications to enable better adaptation
to the world they will be colonizing.  At this point, the original plan is
completely irrelevant.

The next step is to design a whole new set of critters, instead of using
Earth-based genotypes at all ...

Frank Adams                           ihnp4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
Multimate International    52 Oakland Ave North    E. Hartford, CT 06108

------------------------------

Date: 3 May 86 16:06:51 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-lcc!lll-crg!seismo!cmcl2!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Frank Adams)
Subject: Re: Fermi-Paradox
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <675@riccb.UUCP> jmc@riccb.UUCP writes:
>I certainly believe that there is life out there.

Why?

>We simply don't have enough data.  Any argument you might put forth can be 
>true.  Who knows?

Anything is possible, but only a few things actually happen.  One can not be
sure what the odds are on these things, but one can guesstimate.  And every
time I do that, I conclude that by far the most likely explanation is that
life is very rare.

Frank Adams                           ihnp4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
Multimate International    52 Oakland Ave North    E. Hartford, CT 06108

------------------------------

Date: 3 May 86 16:44:17 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-lcc!lll-crg!seismo!cmcl2!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Frank Adams)
Subject: Re: The Fermi paradox
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <466@magic.DEC.COM> stolfi@magic.UUCP (Jorge Stolfi) writes:
>Consider how that instinct is implemented in our own species.  Our senses
>are hard-wired to send our brain a particular sort of signal --- "pleasure"
>--- when we engage in sexual activity.
>
>The brain in turn is hard-wired so as to maximize pleasure; in fact, that
>is the very definition of "pleasure".

Beware of any arguments about physical systems based on definitions.  You
have stated above that pleasure is a particular sort of signal.  Now you
want to claim that pleasure is by definition what the brain seeks to
maximize.  This definition may not be consistent with your earlier statement.
In fact, there may not be *any* aspect of the brain which meets your
definition.

>All other brain functions, including
>intelligence, are merely devices to help the brain achieve this goal.

This is true from one point of view, but not from others.  From an
evolutionary point of view, the goal is survival.

>Well, I think the evidence is there to support the thesis that intelligence
>itself is one such self-defeating trait.  Note that any species acts so as
>to maximise its PLEASURE --- not its numbers, its power, or its survival.
>Again, this is not a theory, it is a tautology --- that is the very
>definition of pleasure.

Well, but a species or subspecies which maximizes its pleasure at the
expense of its survivability does not long survive.  Subspecies is an
important concept here: if only a small percentage of the population is
able to resist direct induction of pleasure, humanity survives.  This
resistance can easily take the form of a cultural refusal to try such
techniques.

Frank Adams                           ihnp4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
Multimate International    52 Oakland Ave North    E. Hartford, CT 06108

------------------------------

Date: 4 May 86 16:36:44 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-lcc!lll-crg!seismo!rochester!rocksanne!sunybcs!kitty!larry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Larry Lippman)
Subject: Re: Challenger accident photography (NASA B*LLSH*T)
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

	What do you want to see, the astronauts' remains being carried up
to the recovery ship?  And WHY do you want to see it?

> 4.  NASA still has in their possesion photos showing the impact
> of the shuttle on the ocean and subsequent breakup - they will NOT
> release these photos.

	What do you want to see, dismembered astronauts being ejected from
the crew cabin upon impact with the water?  And WHY do you want to see that?

> 5.  They have not released the results of the autopsies on the
> astronauts.  These autopsies must be complete, because NASA will
> release the crew's remains to the families on 4/29.  These
> autopsies will show WHEN the astronauts died because they will
> reveal the presence of gases in the bodies that could only be
> there due to breathing at certain points after the explosion.

	The general public is not entitled to see any actual records pertaining
to any autopsy under any circumstances, unless a government authority WILLINGLY
decides there is a compelling need to release such information.  Under the laws
of most (if not all) states, medico-legal autopsy records become part of the
"public domain" under ONLY two circumstances: (1) the records are admitted as
evidence in a criminal prosecution, or (2) the records are obtained by court
order during civil litigation.  Otherwise such records are exempt from FOI
disclosure by virtue of being medical records and/or investigative records of
a law enforcement agency.  There is no way in which the autopsy records of
the astronauts can be justifiably released through any FOI request.
	Forensic examination of the astronauts' remains is going to reveal 
little.  The remains were immersed in relatively warm seawater for several
weeks and not only underwent "natural" decomposition, but I can assure you 
that the remains were significantly digested by aquatic animal life during
that period of immersion.  Is this the kind of gory detail that the public
has a "right" to know?
	There is virtually no probability of being able to conduct any blood
gas or alveolar (lung) tissue analysis after such a long period of immersion.
It is improbable that any determination can be made as to "when" the astronauts
died.  The forensic pathologists working on the case will be lucky just to:
(1) identify remains based upon anthropological techniques, (2) identify
remains based upon serology, and (3) possibly gather some information on the
cause of death by virtue of bone fracture study.  Any non-volatile "foreign"
material which was forced by impact into bone and remaining tissue may be able
to be identified - for whatever worth such information may provide. That's it.

> 6.  NASA has released no video of the interior of the crew cabin
> up to the explosion and after takeoff.  Certainly, there must be
> some form of crew compartment video record up to the point of crew
> cabin separation.

	What is that going to tell you?  Loss of telemetry occured less than a
second following the "primary explosion".

> 7.  NASA has recovered computer and flight recorder equipment that
> must provide some evidence of the conditions inside the crew
> compartment after the explosion - no such information has been
> released.

	While I admit that I do not have firsthand knowledge of the electrical
design of the shuttle, speaking as an engineer I find it improbable to believe
that any electrical power existed to operate any instrumentation following the
"primary explosion".  The massive electrical faults which must have occured
within a second or two following the primary explosion would have surely
have tripped overcurrent devices and removed any backup batteries from any
instrumention power busses - if in fact any backup batteries survived more
than a few seconds.  Fuel cells are too complex to have survived more than a
second or two, so they would have immediately ceased power production.
	So the point is, WHAT information is there to release?

> NASA has slowly but surely changed its position from "they were
> killed instantly" to "they survived a few seconds" to "they may
> have been killed by the impact but were certainly unconscious
> during the fall".

	So what?

> Well, I have personally contended all along that the astronauts
> died from the crew cabin impact on the ocean and were fully
> conscious during the terrifying 9 mile free-fall.  I think that
> NASA has known this from the day of the accident and has been
> consistently trying to soften the public impact of such a horrible
> thought.

	You would not hold the above "contention" if you had any knowledge
of: (1) how low the air temperature is at 50,000 feet, (2) how little oxygen
there exists at that altitude, and (3) the effects of explosive decompression
on the human body.  This is without even considering the effects of G forces
or other mechanical injury to the astronauts following the explosion.

> Its time for NASA to release ALL information relating to the
> shuttle accident.  If they do not do so willingly, the
> implications of coverup will destroy the space agency.

	My gripe with your article pertains to release of DETALIED information
about the astronauts themselves.  That is personal information which reflects
personal trajedy, and the general public has no right to its disclosure.
	Having had some personal experience in the area of forensic science,
I can ASSURE YOU that you would not want to know the gory details anyhow.

==>  Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp., Clarence, New York
==>  UUCP    {decvax|dual|rocksanne|rocksvax|watmath}!sunybcs!kitty!larry
==>  VOICE   716/688-1231                {rice|shell}!baylor!/
==>  FAX     716/741-9635 {G1, G2, G3 modes}        seismo!/
==>  "Have you hugged your cat today?"             ihnp4!/

------------------------------

Date: 5 May 86 18:09:24 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-lcc!lll-crg!seismo!harvard!think!mit-eddie!mit-trillian!vis@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Tom Courtney)
Subject: Re: catch a comet
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <1378@mmintl.UUCP> franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) writes:

>>Yet people persist in planning for coming generations. Folks pay extra money
>>for solidly constructed post & beam houses because they expect them to be
>>standing for their children's children to use [...]
>
>All Tom's examples are of things which are intended to *last* for
>generations.  None involve planning to *do* something generations from
>now.  It is this latter concept I believe to be nonsensical in the modern
>world.

In this restricted form I totally agree with Frank. It is absolutely
correct that if an event is going to happen 76 years from now, and we
need only 10 years to respond to it, there is no need to worry for the
next 50 years or so.

However, I wasn't thinking of abstract planning for a far away date,
but seeing a goal off in the future somewhere and doing positive
things to work towards that goal. That neccesarily means doing things
now with the expectation that their effects survive for quite a while.
That's probably why I count sending unmanned probes to look for
habitable planets before sending colony ships an example of long range
planning.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #279
*******************


1,forwarded,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA07796; Sat, 10 May 86 03:02:04 PDT
	id AA07796; Sat, 10 May 86 03:02:04 PDT
Date: Sat, 10 May 86 03:02:04 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8605101002.AA07796@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #280

*** EOOH ***
Date: Sat, 10 May 86 03:02:04 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #280

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 280

Today's Topics:
	       please pass this to appropriate parties
		    Voyager power supply lifetime
			     Delta launch
			  Re: Fermi-Paradox
			Re: The Fermi paradox
		    Re: Frequency of Civilizations
		    Re: Frequency of Civilizations
	     Re: Cosmic Quarantine hypothesis -- new idea
	 History of Skylab #7 - rescue mission for 2nd crew?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed,  7 May 86 23:58:29 EDT
From: Richard Barth <BARTH@mc.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: please pass this to appropriate parties
To: ARPANET-BBOARDS@mc.lcs.mit.edu, SPACE@mc.lcs.mit.edu,
        info-graphics@aids-unix.arpa, info-micro@brl.arpa,
        intro%umass.bitnet@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Cc: MBECK@mc.lcs.mit.edu, BARTH@mc.lcs.mit.edu

   This message doesn't fit the pattern of mail you normally get from
this group. I am sending it-  once only-  because I think the people
who will read this are in a position to get this information to those
who need it badly. If this doesn't concern you directly, pass
it along. If you're affiliated with a college or university, please
send a hard copy to the E.E. and meteorology departments.

                   ------------------------------

    The TIROS-N meteorological satellites are operated by NOAA
to track storms and provide other environmental information.
The data collected are sent down to earth on radio frequencies
of 1700-1710 MHz, among others. These data can be received by
anybody who cares to listen to them, and a number of colleges,
weather forecasters, and private individuals listen regularly.
No license and no permission are needed.

   The Federal Communications Commission is now considering a
proposal to allow into this band a new type of radio device
which could seriously interfere with the reception of these
satellite signals. The satellite receivers are legally entitled
to protection, but before they can be protected they have to be
identified. If you are receiving these signals, or expect to be
receiving them in the future, please contact NOAA for information
on how your reception can be protected. There is no charge for
this information, and you incur no obligation by asking for it.

   Whether or not you identify your receiver to NOAA, you're 
at liberty to continue listening to these signals. If you don't
register your receiver, however, you run the risk of not being
able to hear them much longer.

   For details, write:

       U.S. Dept. of Commerce
       Office of Radio Frequency Management
       Room 6106, Main Commerce Building
       Washington DC 20230

Or call (202) 377-0635

Or send the name and address of an appropriate contact to:

      BARTH@MIT-MC via the net, or
      RBARTH  via MCI Mail

------------------------------

Date: 7 May 86 17:05:01 GMT
From: decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-star!fisher@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Burns Fisher ZKO1-1/D42 DTN 381-1466)
Subject: Voyager power supply lifetime
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>> Don't worry about the power supply.  I think it will be running long
>> after the Voyagers and Pioneers are too far away for us to receive simply
>> because of the inverse square law.
> 
>There was a paper in JBIS not long ago examining this.  The power supply
>does turn out to be the limiting factor:  early in the next century (2030?
>I forget) the isotopes in the Voyager generators will have decayed to the
>point where they cannot support housekeeping load, communications, and those
>instruments which return useful data in open space.  Things can be stretched
>a bit longer by turning off the instruments one by one.

I accept (with some surprise) your and the JBIS article's assertion that the
RTGs run out first (but what is the 1/2 life of Pu?), however I don't see
why turning instruments off stretchs the time?  Don't RTGs work by
using Plutonium decay to produce heat which in turn runs some thermocouples?
If the thermocouples are supplying more current, I assume that they absorb
more heat, but surely this simply reduces the waste heat radiated from the
RTG rather than causeing the Pu to decay faster?

Burns

decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-star!fisher

------------------------------

Date: 5 May 86 21:09:58 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-lcc!lll-crg!mordor!ut-sally!ut-ngp!osmigo1@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Ron Morgan)
Subject: Delta launch
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

I just watched a tape of the Delta blowup on CNN. Something came to my
mind, and I'd like your opinions.

Do you think there is the *REMOTEST* possibility that these launches
were, uh, "related"? That they were somehow rigged to blow up? I know,
I know, a lot of you are going to hold up your palms and slap at the
air in incredulity, and I agree the idea is somewhat far-fetched. What
keeps coming to my mind, though, is the Soviets' well-documented
paranoia regarding SDI. It's known, for example that we only have
*ONE* satellite currently in operation capable of verifying Soviet
compliance with nuclear treaties, and that it has a remaining life of
about 18 months. Its replacement was destroyed in one of the recent
launch failures, and getting another one up in time (we like to have
*TWO* up at any given time) is a tenuous proposition at best. If the
Soviets DID, in some way, engineer these failures for the purpose of
delaying implementation of the Strategic Defense Initiative (and God
knows they have the motivation for that), they certainly did a good
job of it. Some engineers have stated that the Delta blowup was
"mysterious" in the manner in which it occurred, that is, a sudden,
total engine shutdown, which was described by one technician as
appearing "almost as if it were command-activated." The only analysis
I've heard from our side so far was a few minutes ago on CNN, where
somebody said it might have been caused by a "short."

Again, this is all conjecture on my part, based mainly on what I
perceive to be the Soviets' attitude toward SDI implementation. What
do you think? How easy would it be for them to have pulled this off?
As one senator said this morning, "If we had to launch tomorrow in the
name of national security, we couldn't do it."

Ron Morgan

osmigo1, UTexas Computation Center, Austin, Texas 78712
ARPA:  osmigo1@ngp.UTEXAS.EDU
UUCP:  ihnp4!ut-ngp!osmigo1  allegra!ut-ngp!osmigo1  gatech!ut-ngp!osmigo1
       seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!osmigo1  harvard!ut-sally!ut-ngp!osmigo1

------------------------------

Date: 5 May 86 18:13:30 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-lcc!lll-crg!seismo!cmcl2!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Frank Adams)
Subject: Re: Fermi-Paradox
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <9838@ucsfcgl.UUCP> arnold@ucsfcgl.UUCP (Ken Arnold) writes:
>>Comparable
>>mechanisms for societies act faster than those for species (by several orders
>>of magnitude).
>
>Well, yes, but less relevant, since all the different societies still
>were made up of homo sapiens sapiens.  When one talks about
>spacefaring creatures, it is not terribly important which society within
>the species group gets out.  Societal evolution is fast compared to
>species evolution, generally speaking, but it doesn't have much to do
>with the Fermi Paradox.

You've missed the point here.  Societies aren't going to stop evolving
when they "get out".  The attitudes of that society aren't
particularly important, because they will keep evolving.  And *all*
the variations they go through will have to decide to leave us alone.

And societal evolution being faster than biological evolution is not a
coincidental property of Homo sapiens.  It is, I believe, an
instrinsic property of societies composed of intelligent individuals.
I will argue even more strongly that it is an intrinsic property of
societies which develop technology.

Frank Adams                           ihnp4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
Multimate International    52 Oakland Ave North    E. Hartford, CT 06108

------------------------------

Date: 2 May 86 15:15:43 GMT
From: ihnp4!ihuxy!ejbjr@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Branagon)
Subject: Re: The Fermi paradox
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

I've been hesitant to get involved in this discussion, but there is
one possibility I haven't seen mentioned yet.  We have co-evolved with
quite a variety of micro-organisms and viruses which we (as a species)
are thus able to survive.  Maybe this is a fairly tough problem,
requiring visiting ETI's to be very careful about exposure to our
environment, and hence they only colonize lifeless, `safe' planets?
Even if they could visit us, protected by spacesuits, they probably
wouldn't want to live that way forever.

Ed Branagan
ihnp4!ihuxy!ejbjr

------------------------------

Date: 5 May 86 22:57:30 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-lcc!lll-crg!seismo!cmcl2!philabs!polaris!herbie@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Herb Chong)
Subject: Re: Frequency of Civilizations
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <630@tekigm2.UUCP> timothym@tekigm2.UUCP (Timothy D Margeson) writes:
>>>Agreed.  The question is: how plausible would it be for civilizations
>>>to be extremely rare?  At best, our existence can be used to
>>>argue that the frequency of civilizations is at least one per universe.
>>   I don't agree at all.  I happen to believe that the frequency of
>>civilizations is much less than one per universe.
>>   Suppose the frequency of civilizations were 10^-1000 per universe.  With
>>an infinite number of universes, there would still be an infinite number of
>>civilizations.  By your reasoning they would all incorrectly conclude that
>>the frequency is 1 or greater.

define universe.  do you mean observable universe?  or how abut
sticking to plain galaxy (i.e. milky way sized).  there is a formula (i
remember it as Sagan's formula although i'm certain that is not its
name) that people like Project Seti used to estimate the number of
technological civilizations capable of communicating with us in the
Milky Way.  depending on whose number you use, you end up with anywhere
between 10^3 and 10^-3 civilizations capable of communcating across the
Milky Way at any given instant with about 3 orders of magnitude error
on the bounds.

i posted a long article about 10 months ago on this topic in
net.startrek.  i used rather ballpark figures for the various terms in
the formula and cam up with a figure of 2 (i.e. there is one other
civilization in existence at this time in the Milky Way which has
sufficient technology to communicate with us across the Milky Way).

Herb Chong...

I'm still user-friendly -- I don't byte, I nybble....

VNET,BITNET,NETNORTH,EARN: HERBIE AT YKTVMH
UUCP:  {allegra|cbosgd|cmcl2|decvax|ihnp4|seismo}!philabs!polaris!herbie
CSNET: herbie.yktvmh@ibm-sj.csnet
ARPA:  herbie@ibm-sj.arpa, herbie%yktvmh.bitnet@wiscvm.wisc.edu
========================================================================
DISCLAIMER:  what you just read was produced by pouring lukewarm
tea for 42 seconds onto 9 people chained to 6 Ouiji boards.

------------------------------

Date: 8 May 86 11:38:43 GMT
From: brahms!gsmith@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Gene Ward Smith)
Subject: Re: Frequency of Civilizations
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

    Any yo-yo can come up with a bunch of factors, make wild guesses
as to various probabilities, and make such a claim. But it is still
next to meaningless, because it suffers from GIGO disease. The fact is 
we don't know anything about alien technological civilizations other
than that we haven't found any. Sagan could be right, or he could be
way off.

ucbvax!brahms!gsmith    Gene Ward Smith/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720

------------------------------

Date: 2 May 86 18:06:16 GMT
From: ihnp4!ihwpt!knudsen@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (mike knudsen)
Subject: Re: Cosmic Quarantine hypothesis -- new idea
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> > So it would appear that the intelligence required to develop space travel
> > comes only to warlike, aggressive species like ours, and that other
> > technogical developments of lesser difficulty (e.g., nuclear weapons)
> > usually destroy those races before they have a chance to move off their home
> > planets...

> ...  So if our ability to mess up this planet has outrun our
> alternatives, it hasn't outrun them by much.  And it is reasonable to expect
> that at least some small fraction of species would luck out and get it the
> other way round.
> Support the International
> League For The Derision		Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology

More optimism can be had by combining the above with another posting
that suggested a younger star system would have more uranium in its
planets' crusts.  Now reverse that -- suppose life on some planet
doesn't reach intelligence until the radioactive elements in the crust
have decayed down to where uranium is extremely rare.  Perhaps its
scientists, at great expense, scraped together enough U235 to do one
self-sustaining chain reaction for a few minutes just to prove the
theory, but production of nuke weapons (or power reactors) was simply
out of the question due to fuel scarcity.  Not even enuf to make
triggers for H-bombs.h (hope they don't try lasers).

So, in a world where nuke war is impractical (!), a civilization could
get extra breathing room to get into space.
	-- mike k

PS: Wish we could go back to the 60's where our "war" with Russia was
the space-race.  If we both put our nuclear defense budgets into space
instead...  We went to the Moon for the "wrong" reasons, but, hey, we
got there!

------------------------------

Date: 2 May 86 22:14:02 GMT
From: ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dave Newkirk)
Subject: History of Skylab #7 - rescue mission for 2nd crew?
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

The crew's first EVA was delayed again on 2 August by a faulty steering
rocket that, for a while, threatened the entire mission.  Apollo's
reaction control system consisted of four independent sets of rockets
spaced 90 degrees apart around the service module.  Each set had four
thrusters, hence the common designation, `quad'. ... It came as a
surprise when quad B developed a leak on launch day - the reaction
control system had been among Apollo's most reliable systems.  Skylab
procedures, however, provided for spacecraft operations with one quad
shut down.
	Surprise turned to alarm six days later when temperatures in
quad D fell below normal limits.  The drop triggered a master alarm,
alerting Mission Control and waking the crew.  At first the malfunction
seemed minor, and the problem was not immediately connected with the
first day's leak.  Crewman activated heaters in the reaction control
system and turned to other duties.  During the next hour, Mission
Control received positive indications of a second leak ...
	JSC engineers assumed the worst - that the two leaks represented
a generic problem in the oxidizer portion of the reaction control system,
possibly contamination of the nitrogen tetroxide. ... The astronauts could
maneuver the spacecraft with two quads, or perhaps even one, but it was
a situation to avoid if possible. ... Skylab's rescue capability, added
three years earlier, suddenly looked like a good investment.  ...
	Within three hours, preparations for a rescue were under way.
By eliminating subsystem tests at the Operations and Checkout Building,
the spacecraft could be mated with its Saturn launch vehicle the following
week.  At the pad, storage lockers could be removed from the command
module to make room for additional couches.  Foregoing the traditional
countdown demonstration test, the Launch Operations Office expected to
have a vehicle ready in early September.
	Tensions eased considerably when JSC engineers concluded that
the two thrusters did not share a common problem. ... JSC officials
believed the two quads were still serviceable; if not, simulator
operations indicated that the spacecraft could return safely without
them.  ...
	A subsequent investigation attributed the failure in quad D to
loose fittings in the oxidixer lines which had gone undetected during
two years of tests. .. The mission continued.

(Excerpt from "Living and Working in Space - A History of Skylab", NASA
SP-4208, for sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Gov't Printing
Office, Washington, D.C. 20402)

				Dave Newkirk, ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #280
*******************


1,forwarded,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA10442; Sun, 11 May 86 03:02:04 PDT
	id AA10442; Sun, 11 May 86 03:02:04 PDT
Date: Sun, 11 May 86 03:02:04 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8605111002.AA10442@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #281

*** EOOH ***
Date: Sun, 11 May 86 03:02:04 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #281

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 281

Today's Topics:
		    Re: Serious launcher troubles
			  Re: Fermi-Paradox
			    Fermi Paradox
			 Re: Guilty engineers
	     Re: Cosmic Quarantine hypothesis -- new idea
			       Boosters
			   density of stars
			Re: Re: Fermi-Paradox
----------------------------------------------------------------------

To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Re: Serious launcher troubles
Cc: nike!caip!seismo!umcp-cs!mangoe@ucbvax.berkeley.edu, cb@mitre-bedford.arpa
In-Reply-To: Your message of Thu, 8 May 86 03:17:04 PDT.
             <8605081017.AA11984@s1-b.arpa>
Date: Thu, 08 May 86 09:12:15 -0500
From: Christopher Byrnes <cb@mitre-bedford.arpa>

  With almost every class of NASA and Air Force rocket grounded due to
recent accidents, I'm wondering what ever happened to those guys in
Texas who were starting a commercial rocket launching business?  Last I
heard of them, they had launched a sub-orbital test rocket (Conestoga
I) and were planning a larger version for a commercial flight.  This
unfortunate series of accidents has given alternative launch services a
"marketing window" that may remain open for some time.

  I recall reports that other countries such as Japan and China were
thinking about marketing their locally-grown launch services.  With
the current launch backlog, almost any additional launch capability
would be welcome.  Do these various alternative launch services really
exist now, or are they just long range plans?  I'm concerned that with
our dwindling supply of weather and intelligence satellites, we should
start looking at almost any launching alternative.

					Christopher Byrnes

(the usual disclaimers apply)		cb@Mitre-Bedford.ARPA
					...!decvax!linus!mbunix!cb.UUCP

------------------------------

Date: 6 May 86 22:28:59 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-lcc!lll-crg!caip!seismo!cmcl2!philabs!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Wayne Throop)
Subject: Re: Fermi-Paradox
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams)
>> kwh@bentley.UUCP
>>> mmintl!franka (Frank Adams)

>>>I think it is much more plausible to believe that the creation of life is
>>>much less likely than has been estimated, and that Terrestrial life is the
>>>only life in our galaxy; probably in our local group.
>>Do you really mean the *only* life, or just the only *intelligent* life?
>> [...]
> Yes, I mean the only life.  [...]

While I'll agree that the only-life hypothesis is not *less* plausible
than alternatives, I don't think it is *more* plausible than
alternatives either.  The only grounds upon which it might be thought
more plausible is that it tends to "cut off" the whole question "sooner"
than competing notions.  If there isn't any life out there, there's no
particular reason to expect it to be here.  However, this theory doesn't
justify the difficulty of life starting, and there are some reasons to
suppose it might be quite easy.

It is interesting to note that Fermat-paradox-explanation theories form
a spectrum along a "how soon does something prevent the aliens from
getting here" spectrum.  The only-life hypothesis is at one end of this
spectrum, and the quarantine or preserved-for-study hypotheses are at
the other.

        alien life didn't develop
        alien intelligence/currosity/whatnot didn't develop
        alien agression is universally too high (blowed up good)
        spacefight is too hard/dangerous/whatnot
        alien expansion was curbed by benignity/went to higher plane/etc
            (on-planet, in solar system, after N stellar colonies, etc)
        aliens were here, but didn't leave definitive tracks
        aliens are here, but hide well (quarantine)
    (and for completeness...  (on the material plane, anyhow :-))
        aliens were here, and X,Y and Z is the evidence (von Daniken)
        aliens are here, and X,Y and Z is the evidence (UFOlogists)

Frank's position is distinguished by being at one end of this spectrum,
but I don't find that end to be terribly more persuasive than other
points along it (uh... excepting the last two, thank you very much).  I
think "we" simply don't know enough about how life developed on earth
or how intelligence developed or may develop from here to make
reasonable choices among these alternatives.

>> [...] I see no reason to believe that a significant fraction
>>of life-bearing worlds should house intelligence [...]
> I read the evolutionary record rather differently.  There is a nearly monotonic
> increase in the ratio of intelligence (admittedly a vague concept) to body
> mass, in the development of any species or genus of animals.

This doesn't affect Frank's argument, since the end result is the same,
but I don't think it is quite right to say that intelligence/body-mass
increases monotoically over time in any developmental thread.  Rather,
the spectum of intelligence (from "zero" to "most intelligent") broadens
over time.  The difference is subtle and significant (but yeilds the
same result in this case).  In particular, a species may become less
intelligent over time as easily as it might become more intelligent.
But assuming that there is no particular bias towards more intelligence,
even random fluctuations in intelligence level ought to produce a
broader and broader spectrum.  Since less-than-zero intelligence is (for
the most part) out of the question, this broadening means that the
"average intelligence" ought to "go up" over time.

> In short, after careful consideration, I find the idea that life might exist
> for many billions of years on a planet but not develop intelligence
> implausible.

Ditto.  And probably for about the same reasons.  I just wanted to
clarify that there is no particular "trend" to higher intelligence
needed to make this happen.
-- 
Wayne Throop      <the-known-world>!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw

------------------------------

To: space
Date: Thu, 8 May 86 08:06:10 edt
From: amsler@mouton.arpa (Robert Amsler)
Sender: ota
Subject: Fermi Paradox


I would assume an advanced civilization had virtually eliminated
non-directed broadcasting of communication energy. It is an
inefficient use of energy to fling it out in all directions.
We wouldn't broadcast anything if we knew how to direct the messages 
to their recipients. Further, we are already beginning to scramble 
communication signals as well--for business and security. 
Perfect scrambling would render an alien signal nearly indistinguishable 
from noise. Bursts of directed energy might be all there is to
detect and rather hard to spot unless you happened to find yourself
inbetween the sender and the recipient.

If we don't assume an advanced civilization is spending funds just
to generate signals to be picked up by an inferior civilization--which
strikes me as highly unlikely--then imagining them broadcasting
intelligible communication signals in all directions would seem
more a sign of another immature civilization at our own level of
development. 

I fear we don't know enough about `natural' vs. `artificial' patterns
of energy consumption to spot what may actually be genuine evidence of
alien civilizations, evidenced in terms of energy absorption or generation
by-products on a cosmic scale.

------------------------------

Date: 6 May 86 12:14:54 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-lcc!lll-crg!seismo!gatech!akgua!akguc!codas!peora!jer@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (J. Eric Roskos)
Subject: Re: Guilty engineers
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> The question:  Would the Challenger astronauts agree?

Either this is an appeal to the emotions (it certainly reappears in these
discussions a lot), or it should be easy to check: just ask some of the
surviving astronauts, who should have the same values regarding

> The concepts:  Ethics.  Duty.  Honor.

as the Challenger astronauts.
-- 
E. Roskos

------------------------------

Date: 7 May 86 14:15:00 GMT
From: decwrl!magic!stolfi@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Jorge Stolfi)
Subject: Re: Cosmic Quarantine hypothesis -- new idea
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <848@ihwpt.UUCP> knudsen@ihwpt.UUCP (mike knudsen) writes:
> More optimism can be had by combining the above with another
> posting that suggested a younger star system would have more
> uranium in its planets' crusts.  Now reverse that -- suppose
> life on some planet doesn't reach intelligence until the
> radioactive elements in the crust have decayed down to where
> uranium is extremely rare.  Perhaps its scientists, at great expense,
> scraped together enough U235 to do one self-sustaining
> chain reaction for a few minutes just to prove the theory,
> but production of nuke weapons (or power reactors) was
> simply out of the question due to fuel scarcity.

This scenario may be even more likely than what you think.  I vaguely
remember having read in Scientific American a few years ago that all
significant uranium deposits have biological origin.  Primeval uranium
existed on earth only in igneous rocks such as granite, in extremely
diluted form.  Eons ago it was leached out of those rocks by rain, and
concentrated by bacteria on a few places along rivers where pH and oxygen
were just right.  Can anyone confirm this?  

If that is true, then your average extraterrestrial civilization would have
a hard time trying to get into the nuclear age.  (Come to think of it, coal
and oil deposits may be even more unlikely than uranium ones.
Could this be the answer to the Fermi paradox?...) 
-- 
DISCLAIMER: The above opinions are not the sort of stuff my employer, 
my teachers, my friends, or my mother would like to be associated with.

------------------------------

Date: 6 May 86 05:35:08 GMT
From: ihnp4!ltuxa!we53!wucs!wuphys!jmc@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Boosters
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa



	The Delta booster exploded over the weekend.
Before that the Titan exploded.  Before that it was
the Shuttle.  Now, before anyone thinks I'm going to
talk about exploding booster rockets, I want to say
your wrong.  What I want to know is what are the
boosters available to the U.S. and the rest of the
world and what are their weight class?  I understand
the Titan and the Shuttle are heavyweights, capable of
lifting a large payload.  But, what is the Delta?

	On that track, what are the current weight
class for payloads.  I think the current heavyweights
are military spy satellites, weighing in the low tens of
tons.  What does the typical communication satellite
weigh?  What about the Landsat types?

Can anyone out there email me a ranking of the boosters
and the payloads?  I'd like it to include:

Boosters:	Atlas-Centaur
		Delta
		Long March
		Minuteman	| I know some of these are
		MX		| consider missiles and
		Proton		| not boosters per se.
		Saturn V	| But, what the hell,
		STS		| they're still used to
		Titan		| throw things into the sky.
		Trident
		Zeus

Payloads:	Spacelab, Skylab, TDRS, Landsat, GEOS

Thanks.


			-Jimmy Chen (ihnp4!wuphys!jmc)
-- 
		"Oh, but to be young and dessicated in America"

------------------------------

Date: 7 May 86 14:45:58 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!watnot!watvlsi!wateng!watale!wpallen@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Warren P. Allen @ U of Waterloo X 3868)
Subject: density of stars
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Does anyone know what the average separation is between stars in
the galactic arms? ..the nucleus? ..between the arms?

I would be greatful for any info, I've heard answers from 4 light-years
to 8 ly.

thanx...

------------------------------

Date: 6 May 86 19:21:09 GMT
From: sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Stanley Friesen)
Subject: Re: Re: Fermi-Paradox
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <675@riccb.UUCP> jmc@riccb.UUCP (Jeff McQuinn ) writes:
>
>  When I see these
>comments that another intelligent species has had billions and billions (read
>that with a Carl Sagan TV Scientist accent) of years to colonize the galaxy I 
>see a BIG assumtion.  Who knows how long life has been possible.  It may very
>well be that only third generation suns are small enough for planets to have
>a chance to colaese out of the stuff the star was made from.  (Thats bogus but
>the point is is that we don't know all and we certainly don't know how long
>life has been possible in the universe).  

	Well, change that to "maybe only third generation stars formed
out of a cloud rich enough in Carbon, Silicon, Iron and such to form
properly solid planets like the Earth" and it *isn't* so bogus. Then
you add in the 3 Billion or so years it took the Earth to evolve
skeletalized, multicellular life and the idea of an advanced culture
evovlong billions of years ago seems less plausible. Now millions is
still a reasonable guess!
-- 

				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)

UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen
ARPA: ??

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #281
*******************


1,forwarded,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA13624; Mon, 12 May 86 03:02:03 PDT
	id AA13624; Mon, 12 May 86 03:02:03 PDT
Date: Mon, 12 May 86 03:02:03 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8605121002.AA13624@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #282

*** EOOH ***
Date: Mon, 12 May 86 03:02:03 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #282

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 282

Today's Topics:
		       Cosmonaut vs. Astronaut
			Re: Image enhancement
		       Re: Terraforming Planets
		    Re: Instinct and Intelligence
			    Fermi-Paradox
		     Re: barium cloud experiment
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 7 May 86 14:32:35 GMT
From: decvax!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Wayne Throop)
Subject: Cosmonaut vs. Astronaut
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> kwh@bentley.UUCP (KW Heuer)
>> ti-csl!khill (Ken Hill)

> [quoting from _International_Space_Law_, Moscow, 1976]
>>"[...] The term `cosmonaut' is however broader in its meaning, since
>>it applies to persons who make any type of flights in outer space, whereas
>>the term `astronaut' is narrower and less definite (meaning `a person who
>>flies to the stars')." [there follows an exhortation to use the term
>>"cosmonaut"]
>>
>>Take the source into account, and attribute what value you will to this
>>description of the differences.
>
> Does this mean that the USA invented the word "astronaut" first, and then
> the USSR objected because "astro" means "star"?  Or did the USSR invent the
> word "cosmonaut", after which the USA used "astronaut" for silly political
> reasons? I'd be interested in finding the earliest references.  (I heard
> a sci-fi [sic] radio program once that refered to the American protagonist
> as a "cosmonaut".)

I don't think it plausible to suppose that "cosmonaut" should be
prefered to "astronaut" for the reasons in the passage from ISL above.
In particular, "cosmos" is more general than "astros" all right, but the
term would them be applicable to anybody at all... I mean, I *am* living
in the cosmos, am I not?  Also, if you want to pick nits as the ISL does
above, we are all "among the stars" just as much as we are "in the
cosmos".  Worse still, any "<foo>naut"-like word implies "sailor", and
none of our spacecraft are powered by wind, nor do they travel on water.
Face it, the root meanings are intrinsically metaphorical.

Thus, I'd say that argument about the legitimacy of the words based on
literal root meanings is silly and essentially meaningless.  Argument
based on "who published first" is only slightly better, and can be just
as non-productive.  Especially if, as I suspect, both were published
independantly, without malice, and "simultaneously" (that is, separated
by a spacelike interval with respect to the speed of standardization:-).
As Bette Middler says "wye bothah?".

> Personally, I think there should be a single generic word, and I don't care
> which one (cosmonaut, astronaut, spacenaut).

I suppose you think there ought to be a single term for "black hole"
also, and so on.  Well, I suppose I do too.  But ideals aren't always
realized, and effort can better be invested in other places than trivial
language usage.  (I mean, as opposed to the non-trivial, important
language issues normally discussed in net.nlang. :-)
-- 
Wayne Throop      <the-known-world>!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw

------------------------------

Date: 7 May 86 20:45:00 GMT
From: sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!psivax!mc0!garyf@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (gary friedman)
Subject: Re: Image enhancement
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <17701@rochester.ARPA> sher@rochester.UUCP (David Sher) writes:
>Most of the images that Nasa has been publishing and seem to be using
>have undergone some form of enhancement.  Now I've been working on
>...
>I am more worried
>that by putting expectations on what an image should look like we may 
>unintensionally create spurious data or destroy interesting information.
>How can we have expectations about things never before seen?
>
>I know this article contains some oversimplifications but I think
>this issue is interesting.  Anyone agree?
>
>-- 
>-David Sher
>sher@rochester
>seismo!rochester!sher

I don't know about how NASA does it, but here at JPL the photos are enhanced 
to show what we know to exist from the (literally) billions 
and billions of data points relating position, chemical breakdown, 
magnetic fields, and images seen by the spacecraft.  
	Most color photos of planets are advertised as being false color,
and in this case it is done to give a clearer understanding of what we know
to be out there rather than to show how an observer might see it.  Using this
process, no data (spurious or otherwise) is created or destroyed.  It is
merely manipulated much like the "what-if" process of a spreadsheet in 
the interest of revealing information that otherwise might be hidden.

 
-- 

Gary L. Friedman
The Jet Propulsion Laboratory
UUCP: {sdcrdcf,ihnp4,bellcore}!psivax!mc0!garyf
ARPA: ...mc0!garyf@cit-vax.ARPA

------------------------------

Date: 7 May 86 23:09:52 GMT
From: tektronix!tekcrl!teklabs!donch@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Don Chitwood)
Subject: Re: Terraforming Planets
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

It strikes me as incredibly arrogant of us as a race to consider
terraforming another planet.  Talk about possible eco-disaster!

My point is:  how can we ever be totally convinced that we wouldn't be
committing genocide to beings that were entirely out of our realm
of experience and knowledge?  I envision an "environmental impact
statement" on planet X that completely misses a native subterranean
lifeform, for example.  

We assume that Venus has no life on it because "we" couldn't live there, 
"we" being any earth lifeform.  However, we don't really know anything 
about the place with any local detail.

At the very least, any plans for terraforming ought to be  considered
from an extremely conservative mindset.

------------------------------

Date: 7 May 86 19:27:25 GMT
From: ulysses!mhuxr!aluxp!danhart@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (HART)
Subject: Re: Instinct and Intelligence
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <1278@umcp-cs.UUCP> mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) writes:
>Jorge Stolfi writes:
>
>>Birth control, porno movies, and varous other mechanical devices have
>>already enabled us to divert a lot of our energy from child-rearing to the
>>pursuit of pure sexual pleasure.  I do not have to tell you how this
>>alternative has become popular.  If human reproduction has not ceased
>>entirely, it is largely because there are still no effective substitutes
>>for the non-sexual pleasures of reproduction, such as the maternal/paternal
>>instinct (pets and teaching are still not as good as the real thing).
>>But that is only a matter of time.  
>
>THe flip side of this, of course, is that these same devices allow rational
>people to control the population without having to override the mental
>pressures placed upon us by the reproductive system.  So it's really a
>question of whether humanity can control its population rationally when
>given the opportunity.
>
>
>>In summary, I think the self-destruct hypothesis quite plausible solution
>>to Fermi's paradox.  Well before a civilization is advanced enough to
>>colonize the galaxy, it will be able to get all the pleasure that they
>>could get from the real world by cheap, guaranteed, and totally artificial
>>means.  Why look for adventure in outer space, if you can the same pleasure
>>out of a pill right now?  Why work hard to allow your granchildren to
>>colonize the galaxy, if your portable brain zapper can make you believe you
>>have already done so?  
>
>I'm not convinced.  The same independence from instinct is what makes
>rational thought possible, and the history of alcohol abuse, among other
>things, indicates that the rational observation of drunkeness (among other
>factors) tends to control the incidence of drinking.  I think Mr. Stolfi
>seriously underestimates just how detached we are from instinct; rationality
>makes it possible to overrule virtually every message the senses try to send
>to us, and even our emotions.  Responsible human beings simply are not
>controlled by what is pleasurable; they have learned that they have to do
>things that are not pleasurable, but which are necessary.  The same
>detachment which makes the pain-pleasure system useful to the mind is the
>system which makes it possbile to ignore those signals.  THat which gives us
>our great destructive potential is what also provides our tremendous
>adaptability.
>

	Note please the victory of civilized society over primitive in
South Africa. Note that as birth rates go down in more 'advanced'
societies, they go up in the backward ( read oppressed ) segments.
The result is obvious. Eventually the advanced segments of society
become too small to effect the whole, a dictatorial regime arises, the
elite are elevated, slave labor is used to open new frontiers, the
planets are colonized by any available means.
	Of course the advanced segments of society could become
enlightened and promote population growth and colonization, thus
improving everyones standard of living and opening up the planets.
	Obviously planetary colonization and space travel are the
natural results of technological civilization therefore there's
no one out there and the universe is waiting for us.
-- 


				________
				--------

Dan Hart	AT&T:Bell Labs  1247 So. Cedar Crest Blvd.  Allentown  PA
		aluxp!aloft!danhart   215-770-3657
					My opinions are mine alone, usually.

------------------------------

Date: 7 May 86 18:12:03 GMT
From: tektronix!teklds!dadla!tekla!dant@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dan Tilque)
Subject: Fermi-Paradox
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa


> jmc@riccb.UUCP (Jeff McQuinn ) writes:
 [unreferenced prior posting]
>> 
>> This doesn't resolve the paradox, which assumes that starfaring intelligence
>> (rare as it may be) should have already colonized the galaxy.  Maybe we
>> really will be the first.
>> 
>
>I think this is an entirely plausible explanation.  Assume the Big Bang theory
>is correct.  Then it can be assumed that the universe has been a most 
>inhospitable place for a signficant percentage of it's history.  Looking at the
>percentage of earths history that past before it became cool enough for life to
>start would indicate that the fraction would approach 1.  When I see these

	Actually, life started when the Earth was only about 1 billion years
	old which was fairly early in its lifetime.  However, vertebrates
	did not appear until the Earth was about 4 billion years old, rather
	late in its lifetime.

>comments that another intelligent species has had billions and billions (read
>that with a Carl Sagan TV Scientist accent) of years to colonize the galaxy I 
>see a BIG assumtion.  Who knows how long life has been possible.  It may very
>well be that only third generation suns are small enough for planets to have
>a chance to colaese out of the stuff the star was made from.  (Thats bogus but
>the point is is that we don't know all and we certainly don't know how long
>life has been possible in the universe).  

	This is a good point about aliens not having **billions and billions**
	(it's hard to get a good accent on the terminal) of years to
	colonize the galaxy.  Your point about early stars being too large
	is indeed bogus.  However, it's likely that early stars
	(Population II and III) would mainly have gas giant planets simply
	because there were not enough metals (to astronomers a metal is
	any element heavier than helium) to form a reasonably sized 
	terrestrial type planet. 

	Thus, life may not have formed until Population I stars were formed.
	And, if earth is a typical case, evolution would take at least 4
	billion years to produce intelligence.  So, while there may be 
	other intelligent races out there, they may not have had enough
	time to completely colonize the galaxy.
>
>I certainly believe that there is life out there.  I also believe there's a
>reasonably good chance that we are the most technologically advanced species
>within our corner of the galaxy.  Nothing we have so far accomlished has 
>rippled out far enough to be detected by anyone else.  Planet Earth is indeed
>the proverbial needle in the galactic haystack.  
>
>I don't believe the Fermi Paradox is a Paradox at all.  A paradox is a set of
>well defined quanities which don't add up to a rational sum.  This paradox
>doesn't have very many well defined quantities (many are in fact ill defined
>assumptions) and it can add up to many quite rational answers none of which
>violate any of the presumptions of this Paradox.
>
>We simply don't have enough data.  Any argument you might put forth can be 
>true.  Who knows?
>
>                          Jeff McQuinn just VAXing around
>
>
	Hear! Hear!  While I enjoy a good bull session as much as the 
	next man, I think we should all keep in mind that in the 
	absence of enough data, that's what this discussion is. 


			Dan Tilque
			Tektronix


P.S.  Why is it that astronomers tend to count backwards.  Besides star
populations (note above that Pop II are younger than Pop I), magnitudes
of stars are also counted wrong (magnitude 1 are brighter than mag 2).

There are two theories as to why this is done:

	1) Astronomers work at night and sleep in the day and thus 
	   get things mixed around.

	2) They just do it to annoy the physicists and engineers.

Does anyone else have a better theory?

===========================================================================
"Everything you know is wrong."  (I think this is from Firesign Theater.)
				Dan Tilque
				Tektronix
===========================================================================

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 9 May 86 04:47:58 PDT
From: Murray.pa@xerox.com
Subject: Re: barium cloud experiment
In-Reply-To: <8605091003.AA03631@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Cc: Murray.pa@xerox.com

What does who learn by watching ionized barium?  They aren't doing it
just to put on a pretty show. What's different about this time? (I seem
to remember other similar shots.)

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #282
*******************


1,,
Received: from S1-B.ARPA by H.CS.CMU.EDU; 13 May 86 06:10:00 EDT
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA17026; Tue, 13 May 86 03:11:08 PDT
	id AA17026; Tue, 13 May 86 03:11:08 PDT
Date: Tue, 13 May 86 03:11:08 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@s1-b.arpa>
Message-Id: <8605131011.AA17026@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #283

*** EOOH ***
Date: Tue, 13 May 86 03:11:08 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #283

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 283

Today's Topics:
			habitable star systems
		   predation and population control
	   Architecture for Space Exploration & Development
			Re: Terraforming Venus
			  Re: Fermi paradox
		       Re: Interstellar travel
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:         Fri, 09 May 86 11:50:26 EDT
From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
To: space digest <SPACE-INCOMING@s1-b.arpa>
Subject:      habitable star systems

I recently came across an article by M.J. Fogg, in the
_Journal of the British Interplanetary Society_ Vol 39, March 1986.
Based on (obviously unsubstantiated) star and planet formation theory
computer codes, he claimed that Earthlike planets could form around
stars of mass 0.8 to 1.2 times solar mass, and most probably about
stars 0.95 to 1.05 times solar mass.  Based on this, and probabilities
of various sizes of planets forming, he estimated 50 Ly between
habitable planets.  This is a long way to travel, but note that
it still implies that there are 90 million targets in the galaxy.
     I also recently went to a lecture by David Black, an astronomer
at NASA Ames.  An interesting thing he stated is that with recent
increases in observational astronomy, it looks like at least 70%, and
probably as many as 90%, of all stars are multiples.  This is a large
increase over the old observations which said that about 50% are
multiples--many stars previously thought to be single have recently
been revealed to have hithertofore unobservable companions.
     Most current theories of planet formation (although not all)
suggest that it won't happen in multiple star systems, so this
decreases the number of stars with planets by quite a bit.
     Astronometric telescopes to fly on the space station will be able
to detect planets of the mass of Jupiter at a distance of about a
thousand parsecs, which should settle the question of what the probability
is of planet formation!  Unfortunately, the Earth is so much less massive
and on such a shorter moment arm, that a planet the size of earth orbiting
a G star would be detectable only for a distance of about 1 parsec.
So if alpha C has a planet, we'll know by the end of the millenium.
     The Europeans also plan to fly a astronometric telescope,
Hipparchus, slightly sooner; however, it will not have as much resolution.
     I also asked about something I've wondered about for quite a while,
namely the old "discovery" of planets around Barnard's star.  He said
that this turned out to be an artifact.  The telescope which "discovered"
it was operating right at its limits of resolution, and nobody else
detected the variation in position.  The nail was really driven in, though,
when a student noticed that the periodicity in the orbit of the "planet"
correlated to the time between removals of the lense for cleaning.
As of the moment, NO detection of extrasolar planets has been confirmed.


                   --Geoffrey A. Landis, Brown University
                     Reply to: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA

     Comments re 8 May "Administrivia":  I agree, there are a lot of
messages recently which I skip over because they have only trivial
connection to space.  However, most of the contributors to the net
seem to be rather nice people.  It would probably suffice if,
when a particular topic begins to degenerate into Flaming, the
moderator would post a note stating that the discussion has begun
to stray, and asking people interesting in further discussion to
do so via direct e-mail rather than by posting.  This would take some
amount of the moderator's time, but probably no more than an hour or
so a week.  (A good candidate for such currently is discussions
of the sociology of alien beings, re the Fermi paradox.)
                                           --GL

------------------------------

Date: 8 May 86 20:32:49 GMT
From: decvax!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Wayne Throop)
Subject: predation and population control
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate)
> [...] For almost all animals the controller is predation; in some
> ecosystems, we even see periodic explosions of population which are brought
> down by a corresponding overabundance of predators.  In some large predators
> predation upon their own kind is an important factor.

Hmmmm.  Somthin' amis here.

In particular, populations are *not* controlled by predation in many (or
maybe even most) cases, but by resource starvation in one form or
another.  In the prey-bloom-followed-by-predator-boom-followed-by-
prey-bust scenario, the predators don't increase and cut back the prey
population at all.  It's just that the predators were resource (in this
case prey) limited, and so were the prey.  The prey bloomed (for
whatever reason), and so so did the predators.  Then the prey went bust
(again, for whatever reason, probably oversubscription of resources),
and the predators would soon follow suit.

Not that this invalidates the rest of the argument, of course.
I agree with most all of that.

--
Hmmmm.  Somthin' amis here.  Let's run through it
    "Ho."  "Ha."  "Guard."  "Turn."  "Parry."  "Spin."  "Thrust." <katwang>
Got it!
                        -- Daffy Duck
-- 
Wayne Throop      <the-known-world>!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw

------------------------------

Date: 8 May 86 05:28:17 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-lcc!lll-crg!seismo!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!ius2.cs.cmu.edu!ralphw@ucbvax.berkeley.  (Ralph Hyre)
Subject: Architecture for Space Exploration & Development
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Suppose you were appointed director of NASA, given $200 Billion/year.
What would you plans be, what sort of vehicles/systems would you build to
achieve those plans, and why?  This is just an excercise to examine the
possibilities assuming we weren't politically motivated to go to the moon
first.  Assume an October 1957 starting date. 

Here's an example scenario, "Ralph's 10-step plan to the stars"
Please feel free to coment publicly on feasibility of goals or dates.
(For example, one would probably want a mostly non-ablative thermal protection
system similar to the shuttle for the TAV, since it should be a resubable 
vehicle, is this feasible in 1970?  I have also left out the useful planetary
probes - energy/technology-wise it's probably best to launch them from the GSO
station; 1975 sensing technology is probably adequate but one will want an 
earlier look at the Moon and Mars.)

Acronymns:
LEO	Low Earth Orbit		GSO	GeoStationary Orbit
TAV	Trans-Atmospheric Vehicle

Date	System					Mission			
1965	expendable unmanned boosters		Lift stuff into orbit
	 (space station pieces to low earth orbit, satellites into geosync)
1968	men in near space with TAV orbital tests, x-15 type technology
1970	Low Earth Orbit space station		Toehold in space
	 (SkyLab/Salyut type-vehicle suitable for TAV docking & Hohmann 
	 transfers to the GSO station.)
1970	TAV					EARTH <-> LOE
	 (Now being proposed by the President for SDI maintenance)

1975	GSO space station			Foothold in space
 	(for comsat repair, deploy solar sattelites, get to L-points easier)
1975	More versatile manned vehicle		Earth<->GSO<->Moon
 (a bit beefier than the shuttle, can get directly to GSO)
 (also serves as orbiter portion of Moon/Planet systems)
1975	Planetary Lander			Shuttle <-> Moon,Mars,Asteroids
 (equivalent to lunar module)

1980	Moon Base				Prepare for Mars Base
 (also provide materials for Solar Power Satellites & space stations)

1985 	Mars Base				Start terraforming:-)
 (way station for asteroid ships)
1985	Asteroid mining ships/systems		supply mars & moon bases
 (also supply material for space colonies, get started to Jupiter)

1985-99	Outer Planets, Solar power satellites, 
	fast unmanned probe arrives at Proxima Centauri
	
2000 	Space colonies				Finally there
    report from fast unmanned probe arrives   
-- 
					- Ralph W. Hyre, Jr.

Internet: ralphw@c.cs.cmu.edu (cmu-cs-c.arpa)	Usenet: ralphw@mit-eddie.uucp
Fido: Ralph Hyre at Net 129, Node 0 (Pitt-Bull) Phone: (412)CMU-BUGS

------------------------------

Date: 9 May 86 09:14:23 GMT
From: decwrl!magic!stolfi@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Terraforming Venus
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <860506-122631-482@Xerox> Murray.pa@XEROX.COM writes:
> Assume that you installed a magic mirror that reflected all the incoming
> sunlight but didn't dusturb anything outgoing. How long would it take
> for Venus to cool off?

Consider how quickly the temperature drops on the Earth after
nightfall.  Venus' atmosphere is much thicker and less transparent to
infrared, but even so I expect that in a few months the surface would
be freezing cold.

> What portion of the heat of a planet is sun? 

For inner planets the equilibrium temperature at the surface is
maintained largely by sunlight; without it, the surface would
eventually cool down to almost absolute zero (We get -60 Celsius at
the poles in winter, even though there is molten rock a few hundred km
below).

The effects of sunlight are magnified by a thick atmosphere.  If I am
not mistaken, the equilibrium temperature near the top of the
atmosphere is roughly determined by the power/area of sunlight at that
distance from the sun.  Temperature and pressure then grow almost
exponentially as you go deeper into the atmosphere.  The actual T/P
numbers depend somewhat on the composition and more on the planet's
gravity.

On Venus's surface, for example, temperature is ~600F, pressure is
more than 50 atms (I forgot the exact number).  At ~50km altitude
conditions are roughly Earth-like (-: including smog and acid rain
:-).

Basically, the pressure p(h) at altitude h is determined by the weight
of the atmosphere above h.  The temperature difference T(h1)-T(h2)
between two altitudes is how much the air at h2 would get hotter if it
were compressed from p(h1) to p(h2) in an isolated container.  (This
assumes the atmosphere is relatively opaque and well-mixed, as seems
to be the case in Venus, and does not apply to the outer layers.)

DISCLAIMER: The above opinions are not the sort of stuff my employer, 
my teachers, my friends, or my mother would like to be associated with.

------------------------------

Date: 7 May 86 17:32:08 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Fermi paradox
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> >... the Berserker theory...self-replicating planet-killers...
> 
> Quite so, but really the same objection applies: where are they?  Or to put
> it more sharply, why are we still here?

One can postulate that (a) they don't get around to visiting
individual solar systems all that often, or (b) we have not yet
reached the threshold of their attention.  (As I suggested to a friend
in private mail, maybe they are sitting out in the asteroid belt
arguing about whether we are worth the trouble of exterminating yet!)
I agree that this is a weak spot in the theory.

Join STRAW: the Society To	Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
Revile Ada Wholeheartedly	{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 7 May 86 17:54:54 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Interstellar travel
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> >It should not be forgotten that Sagan has strong political (pro-disarmament)
> >motives for pushing this theory.  
> 
>   Actually, I think Sagan proposed this many years ago...

Probably, but he hasn't really been leaning hard on it until recently.
This is not to say, mind you, that the theory is wrong (although I
think it is, see below), but just that Sagan is acting as a political
advocate rather than an unbiased observer here.

> ... I don't recall him exploiting it for disarmament motives. It's hard
> to see how the idea can be (convincingly) used to that purpose anyway.

"See how dreadful our chances are if we don't disarm -- nobody else in
the galaxy has survived this stage of cultural evolution!"  Sure it
can be used for that purpose.  Scaring people has become a major
element of strategy for the pro-disarmament faction.

> >Rocketry is not that hard.  The "V-2" could have been built in the late
> >19th century if anyone had thought to try hard...
> 
>   Any viable interstellar craft must have reasonable navigation and control
> systems. Vacuum tubes could serve this purpose but... [they have problems]

We don't need interstellar craft to make our civilization much more
resistant to wiping itself out; space colonies would do.  I agree that
interstellar operations improve things further, but they are not
required yet.

I also note that microminiature vacuum tubes are being seriously
examined as a radiation-resistant technology for space-based military
electronics.  This approach would greatly reduce problems like low
speed and high power demand.  However, we don't need to resort to
vacuum tubes...

>   If you assume modern electronics, then you must also assume some 
> knowledge about atoms and "how they work". A great deal of this knowledge
> is gained by taking atoms apart to see what makes them tick...

Atoms, yes, nuclei, no.  Semiconductor electronics is based on the physics
of the electrons in solids, not on nuclear physics.

> Given enough time after the invention
> of electronics, it is almost certain that the door will be opened.

I agree that it is unlikely that a civilization would be deep into solid-
state physics and ignorant of nuclear physics for long periods, but it
doesn't *take* that long to get out into space!

>   It is also most likely that nuclear technology would be discovered prior
> to any viable space colonizing mission. ie. many years (centuries) would
> pass from the point of the first space mission to the development of a 
> colony space craft...

How so?  We could have space colonies by the end of the century if we
tried hard; we could be damn close to having them now if we'd started
trying hard 15 years ago.  I agree that *interstellar* colonization is
a bigger job, but it's not necessary to get us past the immediate
worries.  Truly long-term stability may require it, but even
Earth-orbit colonies would improve the odds a lot.

> I think that the initial point is still valid. Namely, that at some
> point in a civilizations history it's technology will probably exceed 
> its wisdom.  One could convincingly argue that this has always been 
> the case on earth :-). It's just that in the past our technology was 
> too feeble to permit total self destruction.

The key word is "total".  In the past, technology *was* capable of
totally destroying nations as functioning cultures, and sometimes did.
The crucial fact was that mankind was spread too widely to all be
drawn into such a disaster.  It is not necessary that our wisdom
exceed our technology for the rest of eternity; it is merely necessary
that we be spread out enough that the area of active involvement in
conflict does not encompass our entire civilization.  We have recently
acquired weaponry capable of actively involving the whole planet in a
major conflict, but we have also recently acquired the technology to
expand our civilization beyond one planet.  The two do in fact share
some technology, notably long-range rocketry.  It is still an open
question which of the two factors will come into play first here.  It
seems doubtful that one factor would *always* dominate elsewhere.

	Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #283
*******************



1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA23991; Thu, 15 May 86 03:01:59 PDT
	id AA23991; Thu, 15 May 86 03:01:59 PDT
Date: Thu, 15 May 86 03:01:59 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8605151001.AA23991@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #284

*** EOOH ***
Date: Thu, 15 May 86 03:01:59 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #284

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 284

Today's Topics:
		    Re: Instinct and Intelligence
		    The public's "right" to Know?
		    History of Skylab #8 - The End
 Some plans are still the best years later, new tech hasn't caught up
			 re: density of stars
		  "If we had to launch tomorrow..."
			  Re: Fermi Paradox
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 9 May 86 19:17:32 GMT
From: hplabs!pesnta!epimass!oliveb!barb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Barb Jernigan)
Subject: Re: Instinct and Intelligence
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> Dan Hart:
> 	Obviously planetary colonization and space travel are the
> natural results of technological civilization....
                    ^
                  _our_  [and _that_ may be a maybe]
I won't speak for you -- and we shouldn't speak for Them That Might
Be Out There.  We can speculate -- but I don't think we should dare
be so ego-centric to say This is How it Really Is because it's how
We do it.  

Which is to say:  keep speculating folks, it's been entertaining.  But
never forget, we don't really Know.

Barb

------------------------------

Date: 9 May 86 19:07:45 GMT
From: hplabs!pesnta!epimass!oliveb!barb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Barb Jernigan)
Subject: The public's "right" to Know?
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> Wait a minute.  Why be so *afraid* of the National Enquirer?
> What a lame excuse!

Where do you draw the line between the need/right to know and sensationalism
to sell a paper?  Is it critical to the Space Program [etc.] that our personal 
curiosity/morbidity be assuaged?  Do we trust NASA and its related governing
boards so little?  I personally (silly me) would just as soon wait until the
evidence is sifted by EXPERTS than be pelted by a lot of knee-jerk speculation.

NASA has been accused of hiding facts.  I applaud their restraint to wait
until they know what the FACTS really are.  Heaven knows, they're not perfect --
though better than most government agencies, I'd warrant, if only because
they're a Smaller Operation -- but I really don't believe they're trying to
hoodwink _anybody_.  Trying to make durn sure they don't look like absolute
idiots (which means be certain your foot is NOT in your mouth when you talk),
yes.  

Maybe I'm naive -- but I doubt it.

Barb

------------------------------

Date: 9 May 86 20:37:45 GMT
From: ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dave Newkirk)
Subject: History of Skylab #8 - The End
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa


	Early in July [1979] the end was approaching rapidly.  The
workshop became harder to control as it dropped into the denser
atmosphere, and power supplies were increasingly difficult to manage.
On 9 July 1979 the Skylab Coordination Center opened in NASA
Headquarters.  With direct telephone lines to NORAD, NASA field
centers, the State and Defense departments, and the FAA, the center
was capable of relaying information and orders almost instantly.  A
closed-circuit TV display from Houston pictured Skylab's ground track
for several orbits, as well as the current position.  Newsmen and
other nonessential personnel were kept out of the operations room
itself, but the closed-circuit TV, tracking charts, and periodic
briefings kept the crowd in the larger newsroom informed.  On opening
day the center issued the prediction that Skylab would come down on 11
July between 2:10 a.m. and 10:10 p.m. EDT, most probably on its 34,
981st orbit.  It was then at an altitude of 190 kilometers.  The
following day it dropped 17 km and the reentry time was bracketed
between 7:02 a.m.  and 5:02 p.m. EDT on the 11th.

	In Houston, Charles Harlan and his team stood by to make their
last decision.  For some hours before reentry the computers gave the
same prediction: the workshop was coming down on 11 July.  The only
question that remained was the timing of the final tumbling maneuver.
During the last hours of 10 July it appeared that Skylab would reenter
on the best possible orbit of the day on the 11th, an orbit passing
across southern Canada and the east coast of the United States and
then over a long strech of open ocean to Australia, the next landfall.
But early calculations of the debris pattern showed that if tumbling
were initiated at 140 kilometers as planned, the westen end of the
`footprint' would slightly overlap North America.  JSC officials then
recommended, and Headquarters concurred, that the cluster be tumbled
sooner, to move the predicted impact downrange.  Harlan picked an area
about 1300 kilometers south-southeast of Cape Town, South Africa,
halfway between North America and Austalia and south of the shipping
lanes, which would require tumbling at 148 kilometers.  The command
was executed at 3:45 a.m. EDT, and the workshop went into an
end-to-end spin.

	Skylab had one more trick up tis sleeve, however - one that
gave flight controllers some anxious moments on the last orbit.  They
expected the cluster to come apart before it passed over the east
coast of the U.S., but radar operators at Bermuda reported only a
single image.  Over Ascension Island the workshop still had not broken
up; a NORAD imaging radar clearly showed that even the fragile solar
arrays were still intact.  But the telemetry was faltering and stopped
entirely as the craft passed south of Africa.  It's unexpected
tenacity had shifted the impact ellipse considerably to the east,
however, and there was a possibility that Australia would catch some
of the heavy fragments, which would fall at the east end of the
ellipse.

	NORAD computed the impact occurred at 12:37 p.m. EDT.  Shortly
before 1 p.m., the Washington control center received word that the
area southeast of Perth, Austalia, had indeed been showered with
pieces.  Spectacular visual effects were reported and many residents
heard sonic booms and whirring noises as the chunks passed overhead in
the early morning darkness.  Officials waited anxiously for news of
injury or property damage, but none came.  Skylab was finally down and
NASA had managed it without hurting anyone.

	One Australian, in fact, profited handsomely from the overshoot.
A San Francisco newspaper had offered $10,000 for the first authenticated
piece of Skylab brought to its office within 48 hours of reentry, and on
the morning of 13 July a claimant appeared.  Stan Thornton, a 17 year old
beer truck driver from the small coastal community of Esperance, had found
some charred objects in his backyard, bagged them up, and caught the first
plane for California.  He arrived without passport and with only a shaving
kit for luggage, but the pieces were identified as remains of plastic or
wood insulation from Skylab, and Thornton got his prize.
...
	Meanwhile, just three days after SKylab's reentry, two Soviet
cosmo- nauts aboard Salyut 6 established a new record for endurance in
earth orbit.  The record they broke was not Skylab's but one that had
been set only the year before by another Soviet crew.

(Excerpt from "Living and Working in Space - A History of Skylab", NASA
SP-4208, for sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Gov't Printing
Office, Washington, D.C. 20402)

				Dave Newkirk, ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn

------------------------------

Date: 1986 May 11 01:59:57 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@su-ai.arpa>
To: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Some plans are still the best years later, new tech hasn't caught up

FA> Date: 3 May 86 05:14:40 GMT
FA> From: ucdavis!lll-lcc!lll-crg!seismo!harvard!cmcl2!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!fran
ka@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Frank Adams)

FA> Let me give you an example of the kind of thing I have in mind.
FA> Assuming for the moment a 2040 launch toward Alpha Centauri, trip time
FA> to be 40 years.  Making some plausible assumptions about the state of
FA> bio-technology, the colonists will likely pack numerous fertilized egg
FA> cells for a wide variety of species, to be raised in vitro when they
FA> get there.  By the time they get there, it is likely that the folks on
FA> Earth will be able to radio them instructions and data, such that they
FA> can *create* the fertilized egg cells from raw chemicals, complete
FA> with modifications to enable better adaptation to the world they will
FA> be colonizing.  At this point, the original plan is completely
FA> irrelevant.

You can't predict how hard basic science such as genetic engineering
will be until you actualy do it. Maybe after all that time hardly any
progress will have been made and the foolish colonists who followed
your advice and DIDN'T pack the eggs are upa creek with no eggs. Maybe
you'll be lucky and radioing complete egg-building instructions will
indeed be practical. I'd rather take the eggs and find them not really
needed, than not pack them and be 40 years from supplies with no eggs.

Remember how unpredictable computer technology has been. In the 50's
who'd dream that one month salary of somebody on welfare would be
sufficient to buy a computer more powerful than the largest computer
then in existance? Would would have believed children who can't even
read would get computers as toys for Christmas? On the other hand, who
would have believe that voice recognition was as hard as it turned out
to be, that not in 1970 nor even in 1980 do we have talk-into
typewriters, that we still type these messages into keyboards instead
of just dictating them to our voice-input typewriters? Suppose the
Voyager had been set up to need voice input by the time it got to
Uranus because of course the problem would be solved by 1985 and we
just transmit the voice-recognition program and then talk it around
Uranus? Or maybe we set it up to need artificial intelligence, and
again AI didn't happen as soon as predicted?

I personally thought sending Voyager to Uranus and Neptune would be a
bit of a waste because during the intervening years we'd get the ion
rocket working and be able to send a much better spacecraft that would
arrive while Voyager was still en route, in fact the obsolete Voyager
would be an obstacle to be avoided (collision or radio interference)
and might have to be destroyed. Sadly, we went so slow on R&D due to
budget restrictions and lack of national enthusiasm that even now
after Voyager has passed Uranus we haven't gotten the ion rocket
operational and we're unlikely to make a craft to beat Voyager to
Neptune. I'm glad NASA had the good sense to send Voyager so that we
got to see wonderful Miranda and all those other curious moons of
Uranus, and if Voyager continues to perform and we don't blow
ourselves up or turn off our transceivers we'll get equally
interesting pictures of Neptune's moons in 1989. (I'm glad nobody like
me was running NASA when Voyager was being planned, I was too
optimistic then.)

------------------------------

Date:         Sun, 11 May 86 13:08:59 EDT
From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
To: space digest <SPACE-INCOMING@s1-b.arpa>
Subject:      re: density of stars

Re Warren P. Allen's query on density of stars, there are 51 star
systems within 17 light years of the sun.  This works out to
approximately one star system per 400 cubic light years. (I use the
word "system", not "star" since many of these are multiples.)
     If you assume stars are distributed in a "closest packed"
arrangement, this works out to a distance of 8 LY between
neighbors.  Actually, stars are close to randomly distributed,
and the distance between nearest neighbors is much less, more like
4-6 LY.
     Stars are much more closely packed in globular clusters, where the
typical distances between stars can be light weeks, not light years.
These clusters typically contain very old, metal-poor dwarf stars.

                   --Geoffrey A. Landis, Brown University
                     Reply to: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA

------------------------------

Date: 9 May 86 01:03:04 GMT
From: amdcad!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!mangoe@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: "If we had to launch tomorrow..."
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <3343@ut-ngp.UUCP> osmigo1@ut-ngp.UUCP (Ron Morgan) writes:

[with respect to the possibility of sabotage]
>Again, this is all conjecture on my part, based mainly on what I perceive to
>be the Soviets' attitude toward SDI implementation. What do you think? How
>easy would it be for them to have pulled this off? As one senator said this
>morning, "If we had to launch tomorrow in the name of national security, we
>couldn't do it."

This senator is a twit.  This is nearly always true; a space launch
requires lots of planning, and orientation with the sun affects many
launches.

As to sabotage, I rather doubt it.  I'd bet on bad luck.

C. Wingate

------------------------------

Date: 6 May 86 21:08:56 GMT
From: sdcsvax!ncr-sd!ncrcae!ncsu!mcnc!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Fermi Paradox
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <7666@cca.UUCP> g-rh@cca.UUCP (Richard Harter) writes:
>Frank Adams has argued that it is plausible (or at least
>scientifically respectable) that the resolution of the Fermi
>paradox is that life is very improbable and that Earth may
>be the only planet in our Galaxy with life.  (Do I have that
>right, Frank?)

Yes.

>However we can make some inferences.  One of these is based
>on the rule of six.  If we have an event of very low probability
>and a large number of trials, the first occurrence of the event
>will lie in the interval between 1/6th of and 6 times the 
>expected value of the occurence of the event.  (I.e. if an
>event occurs, on average, once every billion years the first
>time we will see it will be between 160 million years and
>6 billion years.)
>
>Now there are two major events in the history of life on Earth.
>These are (a) the origin of life itself, and (b) the development
>of the Eukaryotic cell.  According to the latest data life
>started within a few hundred million years after conditions were
>suitable.  Even if Earth represents a fringe case where life
>developed, by chance, extremely early, the expected time for
>life to develop should be no more than a few billion years.

This assumes that life "could have" developed at any time after the
creation of the Earth.  This is not necessarily the case.  Most of the
speculation about the creation of life assumes that there were rather
unusual circumstances involved, circumstances which did not persist
for much more than a few hundred million years.  If this is the case,
your argument does not work.

>On the other hand, the Eukaryotic cell came into being 2.5 to
>3 billion years have life itself.  It is within the normal range
>of probabilities that the mean time for this development is on
>the order of 15 billion years.  If this is the case, then it is
>entirely possible that life itself is quite common but that
>complex life is very rare.

The main question I have is, how much of a single event is the
development of the Eukaryotic cell?  In other words, was there a
sequence of events over that 3 billion years, which eventually lead to
the Eukaryotic cell; or were the life forms little changed from
shortly after the beginning of life until a sudden mutation (to
possibly oversimplify) produced a Eukaryotic life form?  I doubt we
can do any more than speculate about this question.  Again, if a
sequence of events is involved, this argument fails.

In any event, a mean time of 15 billion years *per planet* isn't good
enough.  With (at least) millions of possible planets, some
substantial number of them would have the development in the first
billion years.  You have to assume that the mean waiting time is
billions of years for the whole galaxy; i.e., quadrillions of years
for any one world.  I don't know if such high odds against the
development of Eukaryoticity are plausible; if they are, this is a
reasonable alternative to my suggestion.

Frank Adams                           ihnp4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
Multimate International    52 Oakland Ave North    E. Hartford, CT 06108

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #284
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA01562; Fri, 16 May 86 03:02:04 PDT
	id AA01562; Fri, 16 May 86 03:02:04 PDT
Date: Fri, 16 May 86 03:02:04 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8605161002.AA01562@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #285

*** EOOH ***
Date: Fri, 16 May 86 03:02:04 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #285

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 285

Today's Topics:
		Re: Alien visits, Cesium Clocks & Such
			Re: Terraforming Venus
			  Re: Fermi-Paradox
		Re: Alien visits, Cesium Clocks & Such
		     Re: Response to <623@fritz>
	       Re: Soviet Sabotage of US Space Flights
			   Voyager lifetime
			  Re: Fermi paradox
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 9 May 86 19:19:13 GMT
From: tektronix!tekig5!tekigm!tekigm2!timothym@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Alien visits, Cesium Clocks & Such
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <1366@mmintl.UUCP> franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) writes:
>In article <621@tekigm2.UUCP> timothym@tekigm2.UUCP (Timothy D Margeson) writes:
>>
>>What if carbon has not decayed at the same rate for all these years?
>>
>>Seriously, how do we know that the universe is stable enough for the
>>assumption that carbon isotopes have and always will decay at the same rate?
>
>Estimates of the age of the Earth and of life on Earth do not depend on
>a single factor like carbon dating.  Sources for estimates include the
>dating of rocks in which fossils are found.  These estimates are based
>mostly on various radioactive decay rates, which all give consistent
>
>Another independent check is the analysis of minor mutations, which happen
>at a fairly constant rate as far back as we have been able to measure.
>
>It is asking too much of coincidence for the laws of the universe to change
>in such a way that the rate of radioactive decay and everything else we
>have been able to measure has changed in proportion.  (It is possible that
>they have changed as regard to things like the gravitational constant.
>
>Frank Adams                           ihnp4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
>Multimate International    52 Oakland Ave North    E. Hartford, CT 06108

  Einstein once pointed out that within a given frame, one cannot tell
if the frame is moving or not. It seems to me that our dependence on
the decay rate of radioactive compounds for age detection (although
it's the best way we know to do) leaves something to be desired.

  Cesium clocks and such do work for time envelopes as what we humans
are used to dealing with, but over billions of years? We can't answer
that question, so we make gross assumptions (best guesses, if you
will) about the world around us. This sort of decision process has led
the world into many dark ages. The world is flat, otherwise we'd fall
off the other side is a good example of the masses leading the way of
science.

 It's true that the above example was overcome, but haw many hundreds
of years did it take to convince everyone. I'm sure you can remember
others, lasting far longer than the flat world concept (the Earth
being the center of it all).

I'm not a good soapbox spokesman, but when I see that something as
simple as deviation in atomic decay rates is possible (prove me wrong
if you can, or rather, prove to me that the decays have been constant
forever), I tend to react rather violently. People who take the stance
that this IS THE TRUTH can be easily compared to several 'lion food'
types.

Science, having no better way of accounting for certain things that do
not fit into prescribe models, tends to say that these things are
flukes, or anomalies, and that the model is good anyway. I ask, how
many theories have come and gone in the past fifty years, giving way
to better theories?

Okay, what am I saying?  When talking about time, especially when the
values discussed are greater than 10,000 years, we really don't know
what we are talking about. We are making gross assumptions that really
don't bear any relationship with reality as we know it.

If I'm wrong, then take your Cesium clock, orbit it around the moon a
few times, compare it to an identical clock left on earth. If the two
times are the same, I'll believe you that radioactive decay is
constant. Otherwise, explain to me which clock has the correct time.
Simple? Good. BTW, I believe just a test was done by NASA a few years
ago, the clocks proved one of the relativity claims by Einstein,
something about time dialation. The clocks were different when they
returned, so I ask, whivh one IS the correct time? And which one do we
use as a standard for figuring how old we are?

Thanks for listening, any comments will be read, and appreciated.

Tim Margeson (206)253-5240
tektronix!tekigm2!timothym                   @@   'Who said that?'  
PO Box 3500  d/s C1-937
Vancouver, WA. 98665

------------------------------

Date: 8 May 86 20:40:17 GMT
From: hplabs!qantel!lll-lcc!lll-crg!mordor!ut-sally!utastro!ethan@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Terraforming Venus
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <860506-122631-482@Xerox>, Murray.pa@XEROX.COM writes:
> Assume that you installed a magic mirror that reflected all the incoming
> sunlight but didn't dusturb anything outgoing. How long would it take
> for Venus to cool off?
> 
> What portion of the heat of a planet is sun? Gravity? Radioactivity?
> Anything else?

Gravity is a completely negligible source of energy for any terrestrial
planet.  In fact, only the Jovian planets even have stored energy from
their initial gravitational collapse.

Venus and the Earth get about equal amounts of heat from the radioactive
decay of atoms in their core.  In both cases that amount of energy alone
is negligible compared to the sun in determining surface temperature.

The real difficult part of this caluclation is determining the rate at
which the crust of Venus will cool off.  I suspect that the surface would
be cool long before the crust relaxes to thermal equilibrium.  On the
newly terraformed Venus it would probably be a bad idea to dig.

"Ma, I've been to another      Ethan Vishniac
 planet!"                      {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan
                               ethan@astro.UTEXAS.EDU
                               Department of Astronomy
                               University of Texas

------------------------------

Date: 9 May 86 19:51:07 GMT
From: hplabs!qantel!lll-lcc!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!seismo!ll-xn!olsen@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Fermi-Paradox
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <1407@mmintl.UUCP>, franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) writes:

>...Societies aren't going to stop evolving when they "get out".  The attitudes
>of that society aren't particularly important, because they will keep
>evolving.  And *all* the variations they go through will have to decide to
>leave us alone...

Suppose that interstellar colonization turns out to be a transitory
phase in societal evolution, i.e., a society is unlikely to bother
with interstellar colonization, and if it does, is unlikely to
continue doing so.  Then your societies can boil and churn in a
million different ways, yet spread only very slowly through the
universe.

Jim Olsen ARPA:olsen@ll-xn
UUCP:{decvax,lll-crg,seismo}!ll-xn!olsen

------------------------------

Date: 11 May 86 21:12:55 GMT
From: brahms!desj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (David desJardins)
Subject: Re: Alien visits, Cesium Clocks & Such
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In <661@tekigm2.UUCP> timothym@tekigm2.UUCP (Timothy D Margeson) writes:
>[...] take your Cesium clock, orbit it around the moon a few
>times, compare it to an identical clock left on earth. If the two times are
>the same, I'll believe you that radioactive decay is constant. Otherwise,
>explain to me which clock has the correct time. Simple?

   Yes.  Both are correct (obviously).

>Good. BTW, I believe just a test was done by NASA a few years ago, the
>clocks proved one of the relativity claims by Einstein, something about
>time dialation. The clocks were different when they returned, so I ask,
>which one IS the correct time? And which one do we use as a standard for
>figuring how old we are? 

   And I say again, they are both correct.  The clock on Earth keeps the
time on the Earth, and the clock on the ship keeps the correct time on the
ship.  Since they are measuring different things, it is not surprising that
they give different results...
   Obviously, we use the clock that is measuring our time (i.e. the one in
our frame) to measure our own time.

   -- David desJardins

------------------------------

Date: 7 May 86 22:44:00 GMT
From: hplabs!hpfcdc!hpfcla!hpfcmt!ron@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Response to <623@fritz>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Also note that the individual ejection seat is a smaller percentage of
the escape system which MUST function as compared to the pod system.
In a combat craft, simplicity has a lot going for it.

Besides, some advantages like pressurization are relatively slight.
Ejection seat systems let the rider free fallon the seat down to
survivable altitudes using a small ("bailout bottle") oxygen tank.
When the combination is down to survivable temperatures and pressures,
THEN the main chute comes out, the seat structure is jettisoned and
the rider is on his own.

Ron Miller
Ft. Collins Colo.
{ihnp4}hpfcla!ron

------------------------------

Date: Sun 11 May 86 22:13:51-EDT
From: Richard A. Cowan <COWAN@xx.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Soviet Sabotage of US Space Flights
To: osmigol@ngp.utexas.edu
Cc: space@mc.lcs.mit.edu, cowan@xx.lcs.mit.edu

>... I agree the idea is somewhat far-fetched...
> If the Soviets DID, in some way, engineer these failures for the
> purpose of delaying implementation of the Strategic Defense Initiative
> (and God knows they have the motivation for that), they certainly did
> a good job of it...
> Again, this is all conjecture on my part, based mainly on what I
> perceive to be the Soviets' attitude toward SDI implementation. What
> do you think? How easy would it be for them to have pulled this off?

   Why do you say that the idea of the Soviets sabotaging the US space
program is far-fetched?  It seems quite reasonable to me.  Everybody
knows that the anti-nuclear movement in the US is a big Soviet plot
that began when Carter scrapped the B1 bomber, and that all the
scientists on university campuses who oppose SDI are merely pawns of
the Kremlin.

The only problem with what you say is the assertion that the Soviets
would benefit from a delay in the Strategic Defense Initiative.  I
don't understand how the Soviets could be harmed by a mass
mobilization of US scientists on an effort that would, at best, result
in an incredibly intricate and vulnerable network of objects in space.

After all, the SDIO's own report on computers and battle management
indicated that SDI computers would be destroyed by a little EMP, and
even Bernard O'Keefe, chairman of nuclear weapons contractor EG&G,
pointed out that SDI mirrors would be rendered useless with a little
black paint, that we rely on our satellites much more than the Soviets
rely on theirs and would therefore be hurt more by weapons in space,
and that "Everybody knows that you can shoot down for a penny what you
can put up for a buck."

The Kremlin may not realize it, but the best thing the Soviets could
do to advance the demise of the United States is to get our
military-industrial complex all fired up about SDI so that we'll waste
all our technical resources on it and suffer economically.

-rich

------------------------------

Date: 12 May 86 10:02:07 PDT (Monday)
From: Wedekind.ES@xerox.com
Subject: Voyager lifetime
To: decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-star!fisher@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Cc: Space@s1-b.arpa, Wedekind.ES@xerox.com


>> Don't worry about the power supply.  I think it will be running long
>> after the Voyagers and Pioneers are too far away for us to receive
simply
>> because of the inverse square law.
> 
>There was a paper in JBIS not long ago examining this.  The power
supply
>does turn out to be the limiting factor:  early in the next century
(2030?
>I forget) the isotopes in the Voyager generators will have decayed to
the
>point where they cannot support housekeeping load, communications, and
those
>instruments which return useful data in open space...


2 days ago I saw a talk on the Uranus results by Richard Terrile, a
planetary scientist at  JPL.  He said the limiting factor would be the
sun's brightness as seen from the spacecraft.  After about 30 years, the
sun will be too dim to lock onto and Voyager's tight beam will drift.

It seems easy to check this number by assuming a frequency weighting and
a brightness threshold safely above that of the brightest non-solar
objects.  Is it practical/worthwhile to think of extending this limit
with a focused high-energy laser?

cheers,
Jerry

------------------------------

Date: 9 May 86 21:33:56 GMT
From: sdcsvax!ncr-sd!ncrcae!ncsu!mcnc!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Frank Adams)
Subject: Re: Fermi paradox
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <6664@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP writes:
>> >... the Berserker theory...self-replicating planet-killers...
>> 
>> Quite so, but really the same objection applies: where are they?  Or to put
>> it more sharply, why are we still here?
>
>One can postulate that (a) they don't get around to visiting individual
>solar systems all that often, or (b) we have not yet reached the threshold
>of their attention.  (As I suggested to a friend in private mail, maybe
>they are sitting out in the asteroid belt arguing about whether we are
>worth the trouble of exterminating yet!)  I agree that this is a weak spot
>in the theory.

As long as you admit that, I will admit that this is more plausible than the
idea that a race of intelligent beings is "out there" but has decided to
leave us alone.  I still don't find it all that plausible.

Frank Adams                           ihnp4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
Multimate International    52 Oakland Ave North    E. Hartford, CT 06108

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #285
*******************


1,forwarded,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA03905; Sat, 17 May 86 03:02:08 PDT
	id AA03905; Sat, 17 May 86 03:02:08 PDT
Date: Sat, 17 May 86 03:02:08 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8605171002.AA03905@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #286

*** EOOH ***
Date: Sat, 17 May 86 03:02:08 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #286

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 286

Today's Topics:
			  Re: catch a comet
			    Fermi Paradox
			  Re: Fermi paradox
			Re: Image enhancement
			  Re: Fermi paradox
		       Re: Terraforming Planets
		       John Young's memorandum
		     Gagarin was not the first!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 11 May 86 19:57:00 GMT
From: decvax!ima!inmet!janw@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: catch a comet
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa


[franka@mmintl.UUCP]
>Things are changing much faster now than they did in the middle ages.  Back
>then, it *was* reasonable to plan projects generations ahead.  Today, it is
>not.

>(Actually, such a trip probably *would* have a detailed plan  for
>what  to  do on arrival. For a 40 year trip to Alpha Centaurus, I
>would expect that plan to be completely rewritten at least 6 or 8
>times  in  the  course of the journey, and quite likely dozens of
>times. I think such an eventuality would justify  my  claim  that
>the original plan was absurd.)

An important exception: what if things on earth are deteriorating?

At times like this, people make time capsules of various
kinds, to preserve what can be preserved. A star trip
may well serve the same purpose: especially a colonization
trip.

		Jan Wasilewsky

------------------------------

Date: 12 May 86 02:52:00 GMT
From: decvax!ima!inmet!janw@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Fermi Paradox
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa


The idea that Earth life is the first in the galaxy to evolve  to
its  present  stage  seems implausible, for the following reasons
(and may any  paleontologists  or  astrophysicists  out  there
correct my assumptions):

(1) Sol is an ordinary kind of star, not rare at  all.   If  life
originated  on  one of its planets (or was brought here in spores
and grew) then *a priori* this  should  be  considered  a  likely
event in many places.

(2) Earliest fossils are about 3.4 billion years old, so life had
billions of years to evolve, here and, presumably, elsewhere.

(3) Rate of evolution varies very much depending on various  fac-
tors,  e.g.  temperature, chemicals, particular choice of genetic
endowment, and geography.  Consider  the  last:  South  America
lagged  behind  Eurasia  and Africa, preserving older life forms,
and Australia lagged far behind that. All because  of  vicissi-
tudes  of  continental drift. It seems that factors like that can
slow down or speed up evolution  by,  conservatively,  a  decimal
order.

(4) If so, billions of years on one planet may be equivalent to
hundreds  of  millions  on  another.  There should then be a wide
diversity in the highest level achieved at this moment.

A priori, we should consider ourselves in the middle of this dis-
tribution,  with  half the galaxy ahead of us, most of them ahead
by hundreds of millions years.

Should they have arrived here by now ? If they expanded rapidly,
they should. Apparently they did not.

That in itself is not surprising: with civilization changing at a
quasi-exponential  rate,  we  should  not  presume  to  judge our
seniors in it. They may be dead; or  may  be  not  alive  in  our
sense,  transcending the distinction somehow; may not be rational
in our sense any more; not civilized in our sense. 

We cannot fathom their motives at all;  using  motives  allegedly
common to Earth species is unfair for several reasons: even *our*
motives differ a lot from all other Earth species, and  we  are
nearer their level, and their close relatives to boot. Can you
extrapolate behavior of multicellular organism from protozoa ?
Even if you could - it helps being multicellular yourself when
you do it: there is hindsight involved. The jump involved in
the explosive growth of sapient civilizations may be even greater.

E.g., our descendants (if any)  in  just  a  few  thousand  years
(perhaps sooner) will probably be self-created genetically and/or
bionically.  They will be more different from us than we are from
macaques.   And  that will be near the *beginning* of a bootstrap
evolution.

To expect the beings out there to simply keep adding lightyear to
lightyear  of  expansion  argues lack of imagination. 
If they do expand, it will be in a universe they understand but
we do not.

Attempts at radio communication seem even more futile. Radio  has
been  with  us for a few decades. A few centuries from now, we'll
be into something else. Yet we expect  beings  randomly  picked
from  a billion years of evolution - theirs, not ours, it may not
go in the same direction - to send beepbeeps to us.

                Jan wasilewsky

------------------------------

Date: 12 May 86 20:45:23 GMT
From: sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!lwall@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Larry Wall)
Subject: Re: Fermi paradox
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <327@dg_rtp.UUCP> throopw@dg_rtp.UUCP (Wayne Throop) writes:
>Wait a minute.  You are saying that "the aliens haven't visited us
>because the Berserkers ate 'em".  So... why aren't the Berserkers here?
>So, have a crack at the Saberhagen Paradox... Were are the Berserkers?

You guys have it all wrong.  We're just at the bottom of the predator-prey
cycle.  Every 26 million years or so the prey fills up the galaxy, and then
the Berserkers start reproducing like mad, eat up all the larger life forms,
and proceed to die of starvation, for the most part.  See the WATOR world
simulation from Sci Am about a year ago.

Why does everyone seem to think Berserkers would be made out of iron and
silicon?  Carbon seems to be a more flexible medium, as long as you can
find the raw materials, like dinosaurs.  The engineering of carbon-based
Berserkers that don't leave fossils is left as a research topic for the
reader.

Larry Wall
sdcrdcf!lwall

------------------------------

Date: 11 May 86 00:05:49 GMT
From: amdcad!lll-crg!seismo!rochester!sher@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Image enhancement
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <267@mc0.UUCP> garyf@mc0.UUCP (gary friedman) writes:
>I don't know about how NASA does it, but here at JPL the photos are enhanced 
>to show what we know to exist from the (literally) billions 
>and billions of data points relating position, chemical breakdown, 
>magnetic fields, and images seen by the spacecraft.  
>	Most color photos of planets are advertised as being false color,
>and in this case it is done to give a clearer understanding of what we know
>to be out there rather than to show how an observer might see it.  Using this
>process, no data (spurious or otherwise) is created or destroyed.  It is
>merely manipulated much like the "what-if" process of a spreadsheet in 
>the interest of revealing information that otherwise might be hidden.
>
> 
>-- 
>
>Gary L. Friedman
>The Jet Propulsion Laboratory
>UUCP: {sdcrdcf,ihnp4,bellcore}!psivax!mc0!garyf
>ARPA: ...mc0!garyf@cit-vax.ARPA

Actually most simple techniques used today are either provably benign
or their danger is known.  However as more sophisticated techniques get used
the danger grows worse.  

To get to the point I would like some clarification.
What is the picture doing if you already know the phenomena to exist?
If you know all about what you are looking at why look?  If you don't
but apply some transformation how do you know if the result is an effect
of the transformation or of the data?  It is quite possible to introduce
order into chaos by using deceptively simple transformations.
Too clever false color algorithms that use spacial frequencies may well
fall into this category.  

Anyway thank you for your authoritative response ( I mean it really!).
I was hoping someone in the know could answer.

The rest of this message is garbage to make inews happy.
G
a
r
b
a
g
e
Sorry for this rediculous interuption but garbage software prompts 
garbage response.

-- 
-David Sher
sher@rochester
seismo!rochester!sher

------------------------------

Date: 8 May 86 14:40:32 GMT
From: sdcsvax!ncr-sd!ncrcae!ncsu!mcnc!philabs!cmcl2!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!prometheus!pmk@ucbvax.berkeley  (Paul M Koloc)
Subject: Re: Fermi paradox
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>> From: henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer)
>> There is a vaguely related theory which is one of the more unpleasantly
>> plausible ones:  the Berserker theory.
>
In article <327@dg_rtp.UUCP> throopw@dg_rtp.UUCP (Wayne Throop) writes:
>Wait a minute.  You are saying that "the aliens haven't visited us
>because the Berserkers ate 'em".  So... why aren't the Berserkers here?
>So, have a crack at the Saberhagen Paradox... Were are the Berserkers?


They're disquised as comets and are sleeping waiting to be
activated by some high technology event.  Let's say ... waiting for
someone to bounce a laser beam (lidar) off them.  Then they will
fire up their fusion engines, shake off the ice covering  and come 
and sterilize the earth's surface,  go back into oort obit and park 
for an eon, or so then move back into the cometary "patrol" track, 
waiting for the next "sap" with a laser.  

Zap one and see.  Maybe it'll be just a chunk of rock and may be a 
			B E R S E R K E R 


	Even berserkers depend on fusion!
+---------------------------------------------------------+--------+
| Paul M. Koloc, President: (301) 445-1075                | FUSION |
| Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222        |  this  |
| {umcp-cs | seismo}!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP  | decade |
+---------------------------------------------------------+--------+

------------------------------

Date: 8 May 86 09:29:53 GMT
From: sdcsvax!ncr-sd!ncrcae!ncsu!mcnc!philabs!cmcl2!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!prometheus!pmk@ucbvax.berkeley  (Paul M Koloc)
Subject: Re: Terraforming Planets
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>> You really have to get rid of a lot of the atmosphere.  ... detonate
>> extremely large nuclear [fusion] explosives and eject the atmosphere 
>> into space.  

In article <722@ssc-vax.UUCP> eder@ssc-vax.UUCP (Dani Eder) writes:
>     Possibly an easier way is to use mirrors to heat up Venus.  

The easiest way is to simply get rid of the CO-2 which constitutes
most of the atmosphere and use it for something useful.  That's
what the earth did.  Just react the atmosphere with Calcium and
Magnesium (lithospheric) metals to generate a lovely layer of limestone.  

It's good stuff and it's selzer action can handle alot of abuse
from the later acid rain providers.       :-)   

>of aluminum spread into a lightsail can relay 2836 MegaWatts of sunlight.
>Long before you will have beaten the power from fusion reactions.

We could provide such power with compact (fusion) multigigawatt engines 
to get you up there in the first place as well as drive high specific 
thrust units after you are in space.  The catch is the clock doesn't start 
until the funding does.  Oh by the way.. our sun operates on
fusion reactions ....   :-)        Gotcha!

	Put your photon sail in space with fusion engines!
+---------------------------------------------------------+--------+
| Paul M. Koloc, President: (301) 445-1075                | FUSION |
| Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222        |  this  |
| {umcp-cs | seismo}!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP  | decade |
+---------------------------------------------------------+--------+

------------------------------

Date:         Tue, 13 May 86 21:30 SET
From: Alessandro Berni
  <EINAUDI%ICNUCEVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu>
Subject:      John Young's memorandum
To: Space digest <SPACE@s1-b.arpa>

Is there anybody who can tell me exactly the containt of the memo signed by
J. Young that was cause of such intense discussion on the press?
I look forward to your replies.

---Alessandro Berni
   EINAUDI%ICNUCEVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu

------------------------------

Date:         Tue, 13 May 86 21:34 SET
From: Alessandro Berni
  <EINAUDI%ICNUCEVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu>
Subject:      Gagarin was not the first!!
To: Space digest <SPACE@s1-b.arpa>

yIn their book edited in Turin in 1962, 'Voci dallo Spazio' (Voices from space),
the two brothers Giovanni and Achille Iudica-Cordiglia reported of their work
as promotors of the center for space radio-listening.
In this book there is the description of a listening occurred February 2, 1961
of a cosmonaut (or astronaut or spacenaut or what else you like) surely sof-
fering of a lack of O2 that brought him to death.
In the tape recording you could clearly distinguish heartbeats and the sound
of an affaticated breathing.
The diagnosis was confirmed by cardiologists at the university clinic in Turin.
The Soviet press attacked the Iudica-Cordiglias as 'death-makers' as soon as
they revealed the fact.
Now, 25 years later, the same Soviet press has given reason to the Cordiglias.
In fact they released the name of cosmonaut Konstantin Bondarenko, aged 24,
as first cosmonaut died in space, in 1961.

Cronology ----------

2 Feb 1961/22:30 heard 'biological sounds' (heart at 80-90 beats per min)

5 Feb 1961/14:07 as before

6 Feb 1961       The Sovien news agency TASS informs that a Sputnik has been
                 launched. For the FIRST time they did not report about the
                 payload.

---Alessandro Berni
   EINAUDI%ICNUCEVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #286
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA06576; Sun, 18 May 86 03:02:12 PDT
	id AA06576; Sun, 18 May 86 03:02:12 PDT
Date: Sun, 18 May 86 03:02:12 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8605181002.AA06576@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #287

*** EOOH ***
Date: Sun, 18 May 86 03:02:12 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #287

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 287

Today's Topics:
		  Re: Voyager power supply lifetime
		       Re: Terraforming Planets
			Re: The Fermi paradox
			  Re: catch a comet
			     Re: Boosters
	       Re: Newspaper cartoonist reading SPACE?
		   Re: Gagarin was not the first!!
	     Re: Cosmic Quarantine hypothesis -- new idea
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 11 May 86 01:22:29 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Voyager power supply lifetime
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> I accept (with some surprise) your and the JBIS article's assertion that the
> RTGs run out first (but what is the 1/2 life of Pu?), however I don't see
> why turning instruments off stretchs the time?  ...

The half-life of the Pu-238 used in the isotope generators is quite
short.  Don't remember the number offhand, but it's measured in years,
not centuries.  Necessarily so: long half-life means low release of
energy per unit time.

[86 years.  -David desJardins]

You are correct in thinking that turning off some instruments doesn't
make the generators last longer.  Their power output at any given time
is pre-ordained by the isotope half-life; any unused power simply
becomes heat.  The curve of power-output decline is fixed.  Voyager
dies when that curve hits the horizontal line marking the minimum
power needed to keep it alive.  But by turning some things off, that
line can be lowered a bit.

Join STRAW: the Society To	Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
Revile Ada Wholeheartedly	{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 11 May 86 01:38:32 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Terraforming Planets
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> My point is:  how can we ever be totally convinced that we wouldn't be
> committing genocide to beings that were entirely out of our realm
> of experience and knowledge?  ...

We can't.  But the same applies to almost any human activity.  Perhaps
the very rock under our feet is intelligent, on a time-scale far too slow
for us to notice it, and quarrying is murder.  Perhaps there was intelligent
electromagnetic life in our ionosphere, and our radio transmissions wiped
it out.  The fact is, our decisions are necessarily and inevitably based
on "our realm of experience and knowledge".  Given the known incompleteness
of that experience and knowledge, caution is in order.  But one never has
complete information, and decisions must be made.  The most one can do is
to assess the areas of ignorance, and try to guess whether one is likely
to have overlooked something important.
-- 
Join STRAW: the Society To	Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
Revile Ada Wholeheartedly	{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 7 May 86 22:58:50 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!linus!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Frank Adams)
Subject: Re: The Fermi paradox
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <1359@ihuxy.UUCP> ejbjr@ihuxy.UUCP writes:
>I've been hesitant to get involved in this discussion, but there is one
>possibility I haven't seen mentioned yet.  We have co-evolved with quite
>a variety of micro-organisms and viruses which we (as a species) are thus
>able to survive.  Maybe this is a fairly tough problem, requiring
>visiting ETI's to be very careful about exposure to our environment,
>and hence they only colonize lifeless, `safe' planets?  Even if they 
>could visit us, protected by spacesuits, they probably wouldn't want
>to live that way forever.

Several problems here.  First, why didn't they "terraform" Venus or Mars,
and move in there?  For that matter, why didn't they wipe out the Earthly
life, and then colonize?  Finally, I don't believe that this will be a
difficult problem for a technically advanced race.  It seems likely that
genetic engineering techniques that would enable us to deal with such a
problem will be available within a few decades.  Even if this estimate is
wildly optimistic, or the problem is much more difficult for some alien
biochemistry, I find it unbelievable that such a development would remain
out of reach for billions of years.

Frank Adams                           ihnp4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
Multimate International    52 Oakland Ave North    E. Hartford, CT 06108

------------------------------

Date: 7 May 86 22:31:15 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!linus!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Frank Adams)
Subject: Re: catch a comet
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <406@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU> vis@trillian.UUCP (Tom Courtney) writes:
>In article <1378@mmintl.UUCP> franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) writes:
>>
>>All Tom's examples are of things which are intended to *last* for
>>generations.  None involve planning to *do* something generations from
>>now.  It is this latter concept I believe to be nonsensical in the modern
>>world.
>
>In this restricted form I totally agree with Frank. It is absolutely correct that 
>if an event is going to happen 76 years from now, and we need only 10 years to
>respond to it, there is no need to worry for the next 50 years or so.
>
>However, I wasn't thinking of abstract planning for a far away date, but seeing a
>goal off in the future somewhere and doing positive things to work towards that 
>goal. That neccesarily means doing things now with the expectation that their
>effects survive for quite a while. That's probably why I count sending unmanned probes
>to look for habitable planets before sending colony ships an example of long range
>planning. 

OK.  To return to the original question: what sorts of things might
reasonably be done now relating to the next return of Halley's Comet?  I
can't think of any.

I still think that the next encounter between a human-built spacecraft and
the Comet can be expected considerably sooner than 76 years from now.

Frank Adams                           ihnp4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
Multimate International    52 Oakland Ave North    E. Hartford, CT 06108

P.S. Please limit your lines to 77 characters or so.  Your quoted text above
is quite hard to read.

------------------------------

Date: 11 May 86 03:04:36 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Boosters
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> ... What I want to know is what are the boosters available to the U.S.
> and the rest of the world and what are their weight class?  ...

As this may be of general interest, I'm posting this.  The numbers are
from Flight International's "Satellite launcher directory", latest edition,
in the 11 Jan 1986 issue.  I've exercised some judgement on what to include.
Data on the Saturns is from The Observer's Spaceflight Directory, 1978.

Weight classes are expressed in metric tons to a specific orbit.  Popular
orbits are:

	LEO	Low Earth Orbit.  Generic satellite orbit.
	GEO	Geostationary Orbit.  Comsats etc.
	GTO	Geostationary Transfer Orbit.  Satellite must carry its
		own apogee-kick motor to get it into GEO, causing some
		weight penalty.
	LPO	Low Polar Orbit.  Weather and spy satellites.  Not as
		easy as generic LEO.

Numbers are always for the latest/last version; even the Saturn V improved
considerably during its 13-flight history.  The Shuttle would look better
if it carried its 35-ton external tank into orbit, which can be done without
payload penalty for LEO, but similar conclusions apply to other heavy
boosters:  nominal Saturn V LEO capacity is 152 tons, but that doesn't
include the 100-ton Skylab-sized empty third stage in the same orbit.

Owner	Name		Load	To	Comments

China	Long March 2	2.2	LEO	Commercial availability planned.
	Long March 3	1.4	GEO	Commercial availability planned.
Europe	Ariane 1	1.8	GTO	Various comsats, Giotto.  Obsolete.
	Ariane 3	2.6	GTO	Ariane 2 is 3 without strap-on
					boosters; it has not yet flown.	
	Ariane 4	4.2	GTO	To fly mid-86.  Several variants.
	Ariane 5	15	LEO	Planned for mid-90s.
			8	GTO
	Hermes		4.5	LEO	Manned orbiter to launch on Ariane 5.
India	ASLV		0.15	LEO	Mid-86; based on successful SLV-3.
Japan	Mu-3SII		0.67	LEO	Launched Japan's Halley probes.
	N-II		0.35	GEO	Distant derivative of Delta.
	H-I		0.55	GEO	N-II derivative; to fly mid-86.
	H-II		9	LEO	Early 90s.  Manned spaceplane a
			2	GEO	possible payload later.
USSR	SL-4 ("A-2")	7.5	LEO	Workhorse of Soviet space program.
	Proton ("D")	5	GTO	Offered commercially.  Several
			1.6	GEO	variants.  Comsats and Salyut space
			19.5	LEO	stations.
	SL-11 ("F-1")	4	LEO	Military.  Several variants, including
					the Soviet antisatellite system.
US	Atlas-Centaur	2.4	GTO	Atlas also used with other 2nd stages.
	Titan 34D	1.9	GEO	ICBM derivative, latest of 8 variants;
			12.5	LPO	CURRENTLY GROUNDED.
	Titan 34D7	4.5	GEO	USAF; planned first flight late 88.
	Shuttle		29.5	LEO	Numbers are specs, not yet proven
			18	LPO	in practice.  Some optimism there.
					Max demonstrated LEO so far maybe 20.
					CURRENTLY GROUNDED.
	Delta		1.3	GTO	Distant derivative of Thor missile.
					Many variants.  CURRENTLY GROUNDED.
	Scout		0.2	LEO
	Saturn 1B	18	LEO	Apollo tests, Skylab, ASTP.  Last 3
					built never used.  NO LONGER AVAILABLE.
	Saturn V	152	LEO	In a class by itself.  Lower two
			53	Moon	stages launched Skylab (100 tons).
					Last 2 built never used.  NO LONGER
					AVAILABLE.
-- 
Join STRAW: the Society To	Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
Revile Ada Wholeheartedly	{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 12 May 86 05:42:00 GMT
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!mcewan@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Newspaper cartoonist reading SPACE?
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa


> This is the second time a newspaper cartoonist has used an idea
> that I came up with on SPACE previously. I'm beginning to suspect
> that newspaper cartoonists are reading this digest to get new ideas.
> 
> Recall I suggested dinosaurs became technological and wiped themselves
> out by nuclear war after first going to space, but fossil record is
> so coarse there are virtually no fossils extant from such a short time
> period during their brief technological period before cretaceous extinction.
> 
> The comic strip "Orbit" today showed dinosaurs lining up for free vacations
> to Andromeda galaxy via rocket ships.

The idea has been used in a few science fiction stories. It's probably been
around for quite a while. The cartoonist could have gotten the idea from
some other source, or thought of it independently, as you did.

		Scott McEwan
		{ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!mcewan

"When everybody is out to get you, paranoid is just good thinking."

------------------------------

Date: 13 May 86 23:08:36 GMT
From: ernie.Berkeley.EDU!mazlack@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Lawrence J. Mazlack)
Subject: Re: Gagarin was not the first!!
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>Now, 25 years later, the same Soviet press has given reason to the Cordiglias.
>In fact they released the name of cosmonaut Konstantin Bondarenko, aged 24,
>as first cosmonaut died in space, in 1961.
>
>---Alessandro Berni
>   EINAUDI%ICNUCEVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu

Do you have a citation for this report??

Larry Mazlack
  UUCP		{tektronix,dual,sun,ihnp4,decvax}!ucbvax!ucbernie!mazlack
  New style	mazlack@ernie.berkeley.edu	
  ARPA | CSNET	mazlack%ernie@berkeley.ARPA
  BITNET   	mazlack@ucbernie.BITNET
  telephone     (415) 528-0496
  snail         CS Dept, 571 Evans, U. California, Berkeley, CA 94720

------------------------------

Date: 13 May 86 10:01:52 GMT
From: decwrl!magic!stolfi@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Cosmic Quarantine hypothesis -- new idea
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <503@magic.DEC.COM>  I wrote

JS> [summary] I remember reading that all significant uranium deposits have
JS> biological origin.  Primeval uranium originally was very diluted in igneous
JS> rocks.  Some of it was dissolved by rain and concentrated by bacteria under
JS> very unlikey conditions.  Can anyone confirm this?  
JS> If that is true, then your average extraterrestrial civilization would have
JS> a hard time trying to get into the nuclear age.

Paul Dietz <ucbvax!CSNET-RELAY.ARPA!dietz> mailed me this reply,
which I gladly pass along:

> I think there are UO2 deposits in igneous rocks (pegmatites) due
> to hydrothermal processes.  These wouldn't be biological.  Also,
> dissolved uranium is present in seawater (in parts per BILLION), but
> is not completely uneconomical as a source in absence of better
> deposits.

> Let's also not forget thorium, which is present in monazite and
> zircons in fairly high concentrations and can be bred to fissile
> U-233.  Once a species got some fissile material by any means (say,
> by laboriously making it with accelerator produced neutrons) they
> could build breeder reactors using U-238 or Th-232, which have halflifes
> of 4.5 and 13.9 billion years, respectively.  You'd need less
> than a kilogram of fissile material to start breeding.

Thanks for the info; I stand corrected.  I now recall also that Radium
(not fissile, but an important step in the development of nuclear physics)
was first extracted from pitchblende (ZnS?), which I believe is of
igneous/hydrothermal origin.  

I also wrote:

JS> (Come to think of it, coal and oil deposits may be even more unlikely
JS> than uranium ones. Could this be the answer to the Fermi paradox?...) 

To which Ethan Vishniac replied, in article <688@utastro.UUCP>:

> Yes.  Provided that intelligence usually evolves on planets with no
> biological activity. :-)

I am not sure what the ":-)" means here. My point is that the industrial
revolution (without which we could hardly think of conquering space)
was made possible by the existence of concentrated, cheap energy sources
-- coal and oil, and free oxygen to burn them. Even if biological activity 
is taken for granted, the creation of such deposits and their preservation
for billions of years seems VERY unlikely to me. 

(-: Aha!  NOW we have a solution for Fermi's paradox!  Namely, with
probability 1 every civilization develops nuclear power before steam power.
Can you imagine a civilization jumping straight from medieval feudalism
into a plutonium-fueled all-nuclear economy?  Talk of Chernobyl...
:-) 

  j. stolfi (stolfi@src.dec.com)

-- 
DISCLAIMER: The above opinions are not the sort of stuff my employer, 
my teachers, my friends, or my mother would like to be associated with.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #287
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA09663; Mon, 19 May 86 03:02:08 PDT
	id AA09663; Mon, 19 May 86 03:02:08 PDT
Date: Mon, 19 May 86 03:02:08 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8605191002.AA09663@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #288

*** EOOH ***
Date: Mon, 19 May 86 03:02:08 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #288

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 288

Today's Topics:
		       Re: Interstellar travel
	  Re: The greening of Venus, and the length of days
	     Re: Cosmic Quarantine hypothesis -- new idea
		       Re: Delta launch failure
	  Re: The greening of Venus, and the length of days
			 re: density of stars
			Colonization of comets
			 Re: Voyager lifetime
			  Gravitational Lens
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 12 May 86 23:28:43 GMT
From: ihnp4!alberta!ken@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Ken Hruday)
Subject: Re: Interstellar travel
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <6665@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
>> >It should not be forgotten that Sagan has strong political (pro-disarmament)
>> >motives for pushing this theory.  
>> 
>> ... I don't recall him exploiting it for disarmament motives. It's hard
>> to see how the idea can be (convincingly) used to that purpose anyway.
>
>"See how dreadful our chances are if we don't disarm -- nobody else in the
>galaxy has survived this stage of cultural evolution!"  Sure it can be used
>for that purpose.  Scaring people has become a major element of strategy
>for the pro-disarmament faction.

   "..nobody else in the galaxy has survived this stage of cultural
evolution". :-) Surely, you don't think that this "arguement" :-)
could sway any thinking human being? Clearly, we have no knowlege of
other galactic civilizations - his speculation is quite clearly
speculation and can't be used (convincingly) to promote disarmament.

>>   It is also most likely that nuclear technology would be discovered prior
>> to any viable space colonizing mission. ie. many years (centuries) would
>> pass from the point of the first space mission to the development of a 
>> colony space craft...
>
>How so?  We could have space colonies by the end of the century if we tried
>hard; we could be damn close to having them now if we'd started trying hard
>15 years ago.  I agree that *interstellar* colonization is a bigger job,
>but it's not necessary to get us past the immediate worries.  Truly long-term
>stability may require it, but even Earth-orbit colonies would improve the
>odds a lot.

  Well, I have to agree that it is feasible to have space colonies
prior to the development of nuclear weapons, but it is quite unlikely
that these colonies would be interstellar. This brings about 2 more
points.

  First, any colonies in planetary orbit would certainly be considered
fair game in all out nuclear exchange. If a civilization has the
necessary technology to put them there, they also have the technology
to bring them down. A colony on a nearby satellite (the moon in our
case) would be safer but still not far enough away from planetary
politics. Another planet would be safer yet but the time to establish
a viable (self-contained) colony is much greater ... meanwhile the
wonders of nuclear technology are being explored.

  The second, and more important point, is that there are many ways a
civilization could commit suicide. Biological warfare is a splendid
way of accomplishing this ( and is more likely to lead to total
destruction of the civiliztion) - chemical weapons are another. The
self-destruction hypothesis doesn't need to limit itself to any 
particular technology like nuclear weapons. There are probably many
other ways of doing this that we may get the chance to discover.

>> I think that the initial point is still valid. Namely, that at some
>> point in a civilizations history it's technology will probably exceed 
>> its wisdom.  One could convincingly argue that this has always been 
>> the case on earth :-). It's just that in the past our technology was 
>> too feeble to permit total self destruction.
>
>The key word is "total".  In the past, technology *was* capable of totally
>destroying nations as functioning cultures, and sometimes did.  The crucial
>fact was that mankind was spread too widely to all be drawn into such a
>disaster.  

  Our weaponry in the past required human operation, thus at least one
human being would be left to pull the last trigger or pull the last
bow string (we can assume that the gun barrel or arrow is pointed at
someone else). Chemical, biological, and nuclear technology increases
the probability that none will survive since these agents act
indescriminantly and without human intervention. It was never before
feasible that both nations could *simultaneously* destroy each other.
Now the "rule" of one survivor is violated.

>It is not necessary that our wisdom exceed our technology for
>the rest of eternity; it is merely necessary that we be spread out enough
>that the area of active involvement in conflict does not encompass our
>entire civilization. We have recently acquired weaponry capable of actively
>involving the whole planet in a major conflict, but we have also recently
>acquired the technology to expand our civilization beyond one planet.  The
>two do in fact share some technology, notably long-range rocketry.  It is
>still an open question which of the two factors will come into play first
>here.  It seems doubtful that one factor would *always* dominate elsewhere.

  This is a good point. But establishing colonies outside of a planet
is a daunting technological barrier. Much must be known before this
can be done and it is probable that that the capabililty of
self-destruction is achieved in the process.
  
  Another arguement for this hypothesis is that technical and cultural
evolution is orders of magnitude faster than physical evolution.
Hence, any instincts or primitive mental tendencies (that were useful
survival traits in the past) will be present in a technologically
advanced civilization. Unfortunately, these traits are likely to be a
liability since they are adapted and honed for the situation of
one-on-one combat and not for all out nuclear exchanges. Thus the
logic of "he who strikes first strikes best" does not necessarily
hold.

  I don't argue that this always happens, but it could be a
significant reason why we haven't heard from any civilizations so far.
Another point that no one has brought up (also due - I think - to Carl
Sagan) is that the absence of inadvertent radio communication could be
explained by more advance technology.

  Specifically, civilizations could go through a short phase of "radio
brightness" before all communication becomes very tight. This is the
experience of our civilization. In the middle of this century
intra-planet communication was carried out almost totally by radio
broadcast - a wasteful and relatively primitive method. Now most
communication is carried out by very tightly directed microwave links,
fiber optics - etc. so there is less waste of energy and a dramatic
reduction in leakage into space.  There is a greater trend towards
these types of communication too. This leaves a very, very, narrow
window of time in which "accidental" communications are spilt into
space. Thus, the chances of overhearing another civilization is
incredibly small unless they are purposefully trying to communicate
with us.

  Considering this later possibility, would you like to extend an open
invitation for *anyone* in the universe to come and visit us? The idea
of having a vastly superior (technically) civilization stop in for a
visit might not be the smartest thing we've ever come up with! It
would require a huge act of faith on the benevolence of an unknown and
totally alien culture. Other civilizations (if they truly are
intelligent :-)) would weigh this factor quite heavily before trying
to make contact.

  In passing, I'd like to point out that the experience of our
civilization is very narrow in terms of time and space. We have only
been around for the tiniest fraction of the history of the universe
and we only occupy a splinter of galactic space. This sample is far
too small to conclude that there is no life out there.

                                        Ken Hruday
                                  University of Alberta

------------------------------

Date: 12 May 86 01:05:52 GMT
From: tektronix!reed!omssw2!ogcvax!sequent!brian@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Brian Godfrey)
Subject: Re: The greening of Venus, and the length of days
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa


   Arctic tundra grows very well in the summer under 24 hour sunshine. It
doesn't seem to need a light/dark cycle. 

--Brian

------------------------------

Posted-Date: Wed 14 May 1986 16:33:39 EST
Date: Wed 14 May 1986 16:33:39 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Re: Cosmic Quarantine hypothesis -- new idea
To: Jorge Stolfi <decwrl!magic!stolfi@ucbvax.berkeley.edu>
In-Reply-To: decwrl!magic!stolfi's message of 7 May 86 14:15:00 GMT
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa

I looked up some information on the occurence of uranium oxide
deposits in igneous rocks.  It apparently is concentrated into
ore bodies there by medium and high temperature hydrothermal processes.
These processes involve the dissolution and redeposition of minerals by
hot high pressure fluids at great depth, and therefore cannot be
biological.  This is not to say that some deposits (in sedimentary rocks,
for example) are not biological, but uranium ore bodies would exist in
the absence of life as long as water and large enough temperature
differences are present.

By the way, why should uranium deposits being biological be a detriment
to alien civilizations using nuclear power?  This recalls the first law
of genetics:  if your parents didn't have any children, chances are you
won't either.

------------------------------

Date: 11 May 86 09:35:29 GMT
From: bellcore!petrus!sabre!zeta!epsilon!mb2c!umich!msudoc!drexel!hvrford!k_lim@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Kian-Tat Lim)
Subject: Re: Delta launch failure
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <115@petrus.UUCP>, karn@petrus.UUCP writes:
> Initial reports are that the main engine shut down very suddenly and cleanly,
> almost as though it had been commanded to shut down. The reason is as yet
> unknown.

Is there any chance that it *was* commanded to shut down?  Either by accident
or intentionally by some mysterious nefarious entity?

-- 
Kian-Tat Lim, Haverford College, Haverford, PA
BITNET: K_LIM@HVRFORD   UUCP: ...!{allegra, burdvax}!sjuvax!hvrford!k_lim

------------------------------

Date: 14 May 86 19:09:22 GMT
From: hplabs!oliveb!barb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Barb Jernigan)
Subject: Re: The greening of Venus, and the length of days
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> --Brian:
>    Arctic tundra grows very well in the summer under 24 hour sunshine. It
> doesn't seem to need a light/dark cycle. 

Unless, of course, you consider it a 12-month light/dark cycle.  Besides,
just how nutritious are lichens and liverworts?  Could one manage on a
_steady_ diet of them?  Assuming a body-mass bigger than a rabbit?

Barb

------------------------------

Posted-Date: Thu 15 May 1986 08:15:38 EST
Date: Thu 15 May 1986 08:15:38 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: re: density of stars
To: space@s1-b.arpa
In-Reply-To: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET's message of Sun, 11 May 86 13:08:59 EDT
Cc: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu

It's probably no accident that stars around here are about 4-6 light
years apart. If they were much closer (say, < 1 ly?) the mean time
between close stellar encounters would be less than 4.5 billion years,
the age of the solar system.  Such an encounter would cause all planets
around both stars to be thrown into eccentric or hyperbolic orbits,
probably destroying any life there.  This suggests that globular clusters
are lousy places to look for earthlike life, as is the dense inner part of
the galaxy.

------------------------------

Posted-Date: Thu 15 May 1986 08:30:36 EST
Date: Thu 15 May 1986 08:30:36 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Colonization of comets
To: space@s1-b.arpa

Freeman Dyson has suggested that comets could provide stopping points
for interstellar journeys.  Comets are likely to be plentiful in
interstellar space, with an average spacing on the order of a light day
rather than light years.  Paradoxically, if short journeys between
comets were the prefered mode of travel then colonization might be
greatly slowed, since much more time would now be spent building
up populations at the way stations.  A small fraction of travellers
willing to travel between stars would invalidate that argument, however.

------------------------------

Date: 14 May 86 13:52:02 GMT
From: ihnp4!poseidon!brent@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Brent P. Callaghan)
Subject: Re: Voyager lifetime
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>2 days ago I saw a talk on the Uranus results by Richard Terrile, a
>planetary scientist at  JPL.  He said the limiting factor would be the
>sun's brightness as seen from the spacecraft.  After about 30 years, the
>sun will be too dim to lock onto and Voyager's tight beam will drift.
>
>It seems easy to check this number by assuming a frequency weighting and
>a brightness threshold safely above that of the brightest non-solar
>objects.  Is it practical/worthwhile to think of extending this limit
>with a focused high-energy laser?


I assume that Voyager uses momentum wheels for attitude control.
Surely the propellant for unloading the wheels is due to be
exhausted some time well within the next 30 years ?
-- 
				
Made in New Zealand -->		Brent Callaghan
				AT&T Information Systems, Lincroft, NJ
				{ihnp4|mtuxo|pegasus}!poseidon!brent
				(201) 576-3475

------------------------------

Date: 14 May 86 19:39:15 GMT
From: allegra!princeton!zabetia@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Mahboud Zabetia)
Subject: Gravitational Lens
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Could someone out there try to clarify this for me and some of my friends?
Apparantly, this is how a gravitational lens works:


				pulsar
				/   \
			       /     \
			      /       \
			     /         \
			    (   Mass    )
    			     \         /
    			      \       /
    			       \     /
    			        \   /
				  us

If that is true, why doesn't it work in all dimensions?  I mean, why don't we 
see a circle of light instead of just two images? or at least, why don't we get
more than two (half a dozen?) images?

Thank you for your time.
-Mahboud Zabetian
...{allegra, ihnp4, siesmo...} !princeton!zabetia

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #288
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA13813; Tue, 20 May 86 03:02:16 PDT
	id AA13813; Tue, 20 May 86 03:02:16 PDT
Date: Tue, 20 May 86 03:02:16 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8605201002.AA13813@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #289

*** EOOH ***
Date: Tue, 20 May 86 03:02:16 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #289

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 289

Today's Topics:
		    Re: Frequency of Civilizations
	     Re: Cosmic Quarantine hypothesis -- new idea
		 PBS 'space race' telecast, questions
	       Re: PBS 'space race' telecast, questions
	     Re: Cosmic Quarantine hypothesis -- new idea
			      re: admin
			  NASA as scapegoat
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 12 May 86 22:42:21 GMT
From: hplabs!qantel!lll-lcc!lll-crg!styx!nike!topaz!harvard!cmcl2!philabs!polaris!herbie@ucbvax.berkeley
Subject: Re: Frequency of Civilizations
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <13696@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> gsmith@brahms.UUCP (Gene Ward Smith) writes:
>In article <518@polaris.UUCP> herbie@polaris.UUCP (Herb Chong) writes:
>> there is a formula (i
>>remember it as Sagan's formula although i'm certain that is not its
>>name) that people like Project Seti used to estimate the number of
>>technological civilizations capable of communicating with us in the
>>Milky Way.  depending on whose number you use, you end up with anywhere
>>between 10^3 and 10^-3 civilizations capable of communcating across the
>>Milky Way at any given instant with about 3 orders of magnitude error
>>on the bounds.
>
>    Any yo-yo can come up with a bunch of factors, make wild guesses
>as to various probabilities, and make such a claim. But it is still
>next to meaningless, because it suffers from GIGO disease. The fact is 
>we don't know anything about alien technological civilizations other
>than that we haven't found any. Sagan could be right, or he could be
>way off.

you missed the point of the posting.  the part that you trimmed off was
discussing someone making the meaningless claim on the number of
sufficiently advanced civilizations in the UNIVERSE that we could
communicate with and proceeded to show that there had to be an infinite
number.  since there is still disagreement on the size of the universe
let alone on the more philosophical point of what is beyond the edge of
the theorectically observable universe, any answer could be argued.

restricting the discussion to the Milky Way galaxy leaves a finite
number of stars whose number is known to roughly an order of
magnitude.  actually, it is Drake's formula, now that i have had some
time to remember.  most of the SETI papers i have read derive numbers
between the bounds i give above within the error margins i state.
there are a lot of physical principles that would have to be revoked if
the bounds were exceeded greatly in either direction or else a particularly
improbable event in the stochastic processes that drive the formation
of stellar systems..

Herb Chong...

I'm still user-friendly -- I don't byte, I nybble....

VNET,BITNET,NETNORTH,EARN: HERBIE AT YKTVMH
UUCP:  {allegra|cbosgd|cmcl2|decvax|ihnp4|seismo}!philabs!polaris!herbie
CSNET: herbie.yktvmh@ibm-sj.csnet
ARPA:  herbie@ibm-sj.arpa, herbie%yktvmh.bitnet@wiscvm.wisc.edu
========================================================================
DISCLAIMER:  what you just read was produced by pouring lukewarm
tea for 42 seconds onto 9 people chained to 6 Ouiji boards.

------------------------------

Date: 14 May 86 02:10:53 GMT
From: nbires!isis!scicom!galyen@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Cosmic Quarantine hypothesis -- new idea
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <503@magic.DEC.COM>, stolfi@magic.DEC.COM (Jorge Stolfi) writes:
> 
> This scenario may be even more likely than what you think.  I vaguely
> remember having read in Scientific American a few years ago that all
> significant uranium deposits have biological origin.  Primeval uranium
> existed on earth only in igneous rocks such as granite, in extremely
> diluted form.  Eons ago it was leached out of those rocks by rain, and
> concentrated by bacteria on a few places along rivers where pH and oxygen
> were just right.  Can anyone confirm this?  
> 
As a former uranium exploration geologist, I have had some experience in
locating and determining the mode of occurrence of various uranium deposits
in the western U.S.  The vast majority of U.S. deposits occur in sedimentary
rocks, mainly sandstone, and were deposited by oxidized uranium bearing
groundwater upon contact with reduced sediments.  In some instances carbona-
ceous matter may be contained in the sediments, which dissolved, oxidized
uranium will readily precipitate on.  These types of deposits are obviously
secondary in that the uranium was leached from other rocks, usually igneous
(as you suggested), of very low concentration.  Some deposits are of
primary origin and occur in sufficient concentration to be mined.  These
types of deposits are uncommon in the U.S, however.

Basically all that is required for sedimentary uranium deposits is oxidized
uranium bearing groundwater passing into permeable reduced sediments, the
presence or absence of organic matter is not important.

------------------
What is mine is mine.  Would anybody else want to claim this?

------------------------------

Date: 15 May 86 14:03:20 GMT
From: decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-oblio!earle@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: PBS 'space race' telecast, questions
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa



I watched the PBS 'Space Race' telecast last night (May 14).  Very interesting.
Brought back some of my high school astronomy.  But we sure didn't have any of 
the latest information on Uranus, black holes, etc.  Very enlightening.

I have a question or two for you astronomers or whoever.  They mentioned the
black hole phenomenom but didn't say too much because not much is known.  But
they did say this (they interviewed a couple of astronomers/researchers at JPl
and some CA schools);  that black holes are very dense concentrations of
gravity (you include what you think is in the center) where light and matter go
in and doesn't come out.  That the matter accelerating towards the center gets
so hot that X-rays are emitted.  Now comes the interesting part.  There are
many of these black holes supposedly.  That possibly there is another side
where the stuff comes out (illustrated with pretty good graphic resolution
animation) and is inverted? antimatter? whatever called worm holes.  That where
we see light 'disappearing' and matter 'disappearing' on the other side (I'll
get to that later) there would be stuff (light, matter) appearing out of
'nowhere'.   They suggested that these might be entrances to 'other universes',
twist of space and time. 

Now my *really* speculative questions (since us human LOVE to speculate).  One,
they talked about the big bang and how supposedly in the beginning of 'this' 
universe, matter wasn't really organized (remember Entropy you EE's out there,
yuch.),  that there was just alot of disorganized electrons, quarks, and just 
a general 'high energy physics lab' type of environment.  And no explaination
of where the stuff came from (other than the yoyo theories of constantly ex-
ploding and imploding universes).  Could this be the end product of a black
hole?  I.e. a black hole in another universe plowing stuff into ours in one spot
until there was enough stuff to cause an explosion here (and our univ. having 
black holes causing other universes to fill up [more about this later])?
If so, this might explain how universes don't die.  I.e.  IF our universes 
matter keeps expanding and DOESN'T contract, that sooner or later all the suns
will die out.  No more sunbathing--dead universe? unless the black holes by 
my previous definition cause other universes to form.  Sort of like conservation
of energy across time dimensions -- and yes I know, sooner or later there would
have to be a limit to the no of time dimensions otherwise the matter/energy 
would get used up this way.

What is a 'universe'?  This might seem elementary, but to me it is the
space/volume that stars/planets/comets/etc. fill up.  What is meant by the 
finite universe?  If the definition of universes is matter than I can except
that.  If it is the space/volume I can't.  Before the big bang,  there was no
universe?  No, the matter just exploded into it.  How can we be so presumptuious
(sp.?) to suggest that the universe is not infinite?  What in the world is
beyond the end of it?

With all of the discussions of whether there is life out there or not it simply
(to me anyway) comes down to: whether we think life is that wierd a phenomenom 
or just intelligent life is.  After the reports on Mars and Venus (I hope it
is Venus, boy my lack of planetary science is showing now...), of how Mars is 
mostly like a big desert except for the atmosphere and the 'dry riverbeds'? and
how Venus is like it (water) all boiled off?  One to hot, one to cold, ours 
just right (that thought occured to me while I was watching it).  I even ap-
preciate the book/movie 2010 now more than ever; they suggested that Jupiter
was like a sun that couldn't sustain itself, that IO was a violent planet with
active volcanos and Europa was a ice planet with some kind of premature life
underneath it...just some thoughts.

As far as ETs go, why should we see them all of a sudden?  We have been looking
rationally for all that long considering the time scale of space; maybe a 100
years?  It has also bothered me (and I guess the author of 2010-2001) why earth
has only one simple little moon.  Look at the other planets.  If I was to get
real speculative (is that possible?) I'd say someone/thing set this up for us.
I mean, two dead-maybe once alive planets next door, seeming perfect climate on
this planet (pretty stable environment),  good orbit, one little simple-not too-
far away moon (look how far away moons are from the other planets in relation to
us) a couple of unsuccessfull tries (?) around Jupiter, a nice comet that comes
around every once in a while to keep our interest up, hardly any damaging meteor
storms anymore, coincedence?? Hmmm.

So let me here it...hope this wasn't tooo long.

	
					George Earle
					DECVAX!DECWRL!RHEA!OBLIO!EARLE

................................................................................

------------------------------

Date: 16 May 86 03:51:44 GMT
From: brahms!desj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (David desJardins)
Subject: Re: PBS 'space race' telecast, questions
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <2989@decwrl.DEC.COM> earle@dec-oblio.UUCP writes:
>How can we be so presumptious [as] to suggest that the universe is not
>infinite?  What in the world is beyond the end of it?

   How can we be so presumptious as to suggest that the world is not
infinite?  What is beyond the edge of it??

   -- David desJardins

------------------------------

Date: 15 May 86 15:47:46 GMT
From: decwrl!magic!stolfi@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Cosmic Quarantine hypothesis -- new idea
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <8605142120.AA23236@s1-b.arpa> Paul Dietz writes:
> I looked up some information on the occurence of uranium oxide
> deposits in igneous rocks.  It apparently is concentrated into ore
> bodies there by medium and high temperature hydrothermal processes.

In <453@scicom.UUCP> galyen@scicom.UUCP (Robert Galyen) writes:
> The vast majority of U.S. deposits occur in sedimentary
> rocks, mainly sandstone, and were deposited by oxidized uranium bearing
> groundwater upon contact with reduced sediments. [...]  Some deposits are of
> primary origin and occur in sufficient concentration to be mined.  These
> types of deposits are uncommon in the U.S, however.
> Basically all that is required for sedimentary uranium deposits is oxidized
> uranium bearing groundwater passing into permeable reduced sediments, the
> presence or absence of organic matter is not important.

Thanks for the info. I should know better than trust my memory...

Paul Dietz:
> By the way, why should uranium deposits being biological be a detriment
> to alien civilizations using nuclear power?  This recalls the first law
> of genetics:  if your parents didn't have any children, chances are you
> won't either.

IF my original assumptions about the origin of uranium deposits were true,
then such deposits should be EXTREMELY rare, EVEN AMONG THE PLANETS WITH
LIFE.  For uranium deposits to exist (so I thought) the planet should have
a life form with the right metabolism, plus continuously exposed igneous
rocks (hence continents and tectonic processes), plus abundant rain
(hence a warm atmosphere and oceans), plus rivers with the right chemical
and temperature profile --- that is, a bunch of peculiar circumstances that
would be quite unikely to occur all at once, even if the planet is assumed 
a priori to harbor life.

Well, from what you say it seems that uranium deposits have more varied and
less fortuitous origins, so they may not be uncommon after all.
However, I still don't think they may be taken for granted.  I believe that
most hydrothermal activity on Earth is caused by liquid water seeping into
the crust and being heated by lava deposits close to the surface, or by
water-rich sediments being drawn into subduction zones.  Water may be
assumed (as a prerequisite for life), but it is not clear how many planets
will have a thin enough crust to support those processes.  (If Venus, Mars,
Mercury, or the Moon had oceans, would they have hydrotermal cycles?
It doesn't seem obvious to me.) 

Similarly, it is not obvious that uranium deposits of the type described by
Robert Galyen are common.  They may not require fixating bacteria, but they
still require erosion (=> continents warm atmosphere, rain) in an oxydizing
atmosphere, and a reducing environment somewhere downstream.  (Europa has
an ocean that might well support some life, but will it have uraniferous
sediments?) 

  j.






-- 
DISCLAIMER: The above opinions are not the sort of stuff my employer, 
my teachers, my friends, or my mother would like to be associated with.

------------------------------

Date: 12 May 86 18:34:14 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: re: admin
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>    If people can continue to use a little restraint, like not replying to
> messages after several others have already replied...

You misunderstand the problem; duplicate replies arise because many of
the readers and contributors are not on real-time networks like the Arpanet.
There is enough time lag between various parts of Usenet, for example, that
simultaneous replies are a well-known problem.  This is one important reason
for a human moderator.
-- 
Join STRAW: the Society To	Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
Revile Ada Wholeheartedly	{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 12 May 86 18:13:41 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: NASA as scapegoat
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In net.columbia we have an article (about the Delta failure) with the
slightly-overblown heading:

> Subject: ARG! Can't NASA Do Anything Right?

This view is unpleasantly possible in the near future.  Increasingly, the
slant that things are taking is that the Challenger disaster is All NASA's
Fault.  The Morton-Thiokol engineers and management were perfectly innocent,
since they were pressured by NASA.  And the continuing pressure on NASA from
Congress and the administration to cut costs (hence increase launch rate, to
get maximum benefit from fixed overhead costs) is irrelevant, immaterial,
and not what people want to hear about.  It's All NASA's Fault.  Which means:

There will, of course, be no replacement orbiter.  NASA can't even manage
what they've got competently.  Why throw good money after bad?

There will be no special appropriation for the considerable expenses incurred
by the 51L investigation and the necessary design changes.  NASA screwed up,
so it's only fair that they should have to find the money from their normal
budget.  After all, we've got to cut the deficit.

Naturally, requests for funding for boondoggles like the space station from
such a fouled-up agency will be looked on with disfavor.

And the report of the National Commission on Space is obviously	a silly
fantasy and not to be taken seriously.


If you don't *like* this... for heaven's sake tell your Congressthing so!
You might also want to join the L5 Society, which will be telling your
Congressclod about it in an organized way; $30/yr ($15/yr students and
seniors), 1060 E. Elm, Tucson, Arizona 85719.
-- 
Join STRAW: the Society To	Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
Revile Ada Wholeheartedly	{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #289
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA18357; Wed, 21 May 86 03:02:09 PDT
	id AA18357; Wed, 21 May 86 03:02:09 PDT
Date: Wed, 21 May 86 03:02:09 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8605211002.AA18357@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #290

*** EOOH ***
Date: Wed, 21 May 86 03:02:09 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #290

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 290

Today's Topics:
	 Re: Architecture for Space Exploration & Development
	    Cesium clocks, radioactive decay, etc. (long!)
			 Plutonium Half-Lives
		  Re: Voyager power supply lifetime
	Freeman Dyson's "The World, The Flesh, and The Devil"
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 12 May 86 18:30:25 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Architecture for Space Exploration & Development
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> 1975	GSO space station			Foothold in space
>  	(for comsat repair, deploy solar sattelites, get to L-points easier)

You probably don't want a permanent manned presence in GSO, because it is
in the fringe of the outer Van Allen belt (now there's an apt name for a
deadly hazard to manned spaceflight!) and is unhealthy for humans.  Also,
getting from a GSO station to the other side of GSO is awkward and expensive;
it's probably simpler to do this from LEO.

> 1975	More versatile manned vehicle		Earth<->GSO<->Moon
>  (a bit beefier than the shuttle, can get directly to GSO)
>  (also serves as orbiter portion of Moon/Planet systems)

You don't want to carry things like wings and Earth-liftoff engines any
farther than you have to; making the Earth-to-LEO vehicle a specialist
design makes sense, unless your propulsion technology is so good (e.g.
advanced nuclear) that you don't care much about extra mass.  The basic
concept of the Shuttle as a specialized system that does not go further
out than LEO is sensible.

> 1975	Planetary Lander		Shuttle <-> Moon,Mars,Asteroids
>  (equivalent to lunar module)

A single spacecraft for all these missions will be a bit of a camel.  There
is no need for any specialized design for landing on most asteroids, because
"landing" on them consists of sliding up next to them.  Mars and the Moon
are fairly different, since Mars has an atmosphere and rather more gravity.

> 1985-99	Outer Planets, Solar power satellites, ...

Remember that outer-planet missions are lengthy simply because of travel
times; the Voyagers have been in flight for a decade now, and they've been
taking a seldom-available express route.

> ...[also 85-99]	fast unmanned probe arrives at Proxima Centauri

This is, um, ambitious.  Even with a really hard push on antimatter engines,
flight times of early starprobes probably wouldn't be good enough to meet
that timetable.
-- 
Join STRAW: the Society To	Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
Revile Ada Wholeheartedly	{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 16 May 86 11:16 PDT
From: Dave Platt <Dave-Platt%LADC@hi-multics.arpa>
To: tektronix!tekigm2!timothym@hplabs.arpa
Really-To: tektronix!tekigm2!timothym%hplabs@arpa
Cc: Space@s1-b.arpa
Real-Cc: Space%S1-B@ARPA
Subject: Cesium clocks, radioactive decay, etc. (long!)
Randomness: By failing to prepare, you are preparing to fail.

Well, as David desJardins pointed out, both cesium clocks are correct
and consistent in their own frames of reference.  Since the two frames
of reference diverged for some time (due to their different velocities,
and their different positions in Earth's gravity well), the two time
scales diverged also.

One of the things that you must remember about Einstein's formulations
is that they explicitly _deny_ that there's any such thing as one
"preferred" frame of reference (the "correct time").  Instead, time
_appears_ to each individual observer as a metric which is consistent
_within_ that observer's frame of reference... but different observers
do see things differently, and (when their frames of reference are
sufficiently different) can't always agree on the rate at which things
are happening (or, sometimes, even on the order of events!).

However... Einsteinian time-dilation is essentially irrelevant when
we're talking about carbon dating (or plutonium/lead dating, or any
other radioisotope dating).  Why?  Because _very_ high velocities (or
other forms of energy density) are required to cause even a slight drift
in the time-scale!  At speeds less than (say) 5% of light-speed, very
little time dilation occurs; it requires extremely sensitive and
accurate tools (such as a cesium clock) to measure it.

                     ----------------------

I'd like to make some comments about the issues that you've raised
concerning long-term variation in radioactive decay rates.  It's
absolutely true that we haven't directly measured *any* radioactive
decay rates for a period of more than 150 years (and I'm being generous
here!), and so we don't _know_ that the decay scales are valid outside
of that time frame.  But... by analogy... neither you or I (personally)
_know_ that Christopher Colombus traveled to the New World in the late
15'th century... or that the sun will rise tomorrow.  Yet I do believe
that both of these probably did/will occur.

Science (and scientific theory) are based on the ability to examine the
real world (by gathering data), constructing hypotheses, testing them,
and then (if they pass lots of tests) calling them "theories".  In order
to test a hypothesis, it is absolutely _necessary_ to extrapolate beyond
the facts that one currently has (thus making a "gross assumption", to
use your words).  It's part of the nature of the game.  IF, and ONLY IF
a hypothesis can be used to _accurately_ extrapolate into new areas
("predict"), can it be considered to be a useful theory.

You ask "how many theories have come and gone in the past fifty years,
giving way to better theories?"  Lots.  The older theories haven't
simply "gone out of style";  they were proven to be inadequate because
they failed to accurately predict new data.

There's a _big_ difference between using "making gross assumptions that
really don't bear any relationship with reality as we know it", and
extrapolating based on a theory that has passed many rigorous tests
_based_ on "reality as we know it!"  Although we may not be able to test
this new extrapolation (yet), it's far more than a "gross assumption".

I'm not claiming that we fully understand atomic & nuclear physics.  No
way... the work currently being done on a Grand Unification scheme
demonstrates that quite clearly.  Nor do I claim that radioactive decay
is _necessarily_ an accurate ruler.  All that I can claim is that as far
as we have been able to determine, the rate of radioactive decay of
isolated unstable atomic particles appears to be _extremely_ consistent
(within those particles' frames of reference) and that we know of _no_
physical process that can alter the basic decay rate of such particles.
Based on this fact, I feel safe in assuming that we can use these decay
rates as a very _practical_ measuring tool.

There's no way I can _ever_ meet your requirement for proof ("that the
decays have been constant forever").  Nor do I think I should have to.
All that I can (or need) say is that as far as I am aware, no one has
provided a repeatable and testable example to the contrary... and that a
number of experiments that have attempted to identify long-term
variations in some of the "universal constants" (such as "g", the
gravitational constant) have been unable to identify any such variation.
Should someone be able to demonstrate such a variation, I'd listen with
wide-open ears... and this might lead to a major reformulation of our
theories of nuclear physics.  It _might_ also lead us to redefine the
radioisotope-dating scales used in anthropology, _IF_ it could be shown
that the variations would affect the timescales.

If you're looking for the Proof of Universal Truth, then I'm afraid
you're in for a disappointment.  Godel demonstrated early in this
century (I think it was...) that there's simply _no_ way to ever prove
your basic axioms... and that there are guaranteed to be some things
that are true but are also unprovable.  Some things you just have to
take on faith... and then keep your eyes open for any _facts_ that would
contradict your basic assumptions.  If you see any, _then_ it's time to
go back and re-evaluate!  But... until you see such facts, it's not
very productive to start spinning off new hypotheses when the ones that
you already possess are adequate to explain the existing data & predict
new data.

------------------------------

Date: 16 May 86 18:56:04 GMT
From: hplabs!hplabsb!bl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Bruce T. Lowerre)
Subject: Plutonium Half-Lives
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Pu-238 is 92 years according to my handbook.
Pu-239 has a half life of 24,100 years (this is the stuff made in reactors).

------------------------------

Date: 13 May 86 04:44:57 GMT
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!usc-oberon!smeagol!elroy!cit-vax!ll-xn!caip!andromeda!njitcccc!ken@ucbvax.berkeley.
Subject: Re: Voyager power supply lifetime
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Half lives: Plutonium 238: 89.6 years
		      239: 24,400 years
		      240: 6,600 years
		      241: 13.2 years

Now: does anyone know which plutonium is used on the RTG?

Kenneth Ng: unpredictable: ihnp4!allegra!bellcore!ken
	    reliable:      ken@njitcccc.bitnet

------------------------------

Date: 16 May 86 20:10:56 GMT
From: hplabs!felix!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Michael McNeil)
Subject: Freeman Dyson's "The World, The Flesh, and The Devil"
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

A great deal of discussion has been taking place in net.space on
Fermi's Paradox ("Where are they?") and on such ideas as Dyson Spheres.  
Freeman Dyson is, of course, the internationally recognized physicist
at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, and -- in addition
to originating the Dyson Sphere concept -- I believe he has much to
contribute on the subject of Fermi's Paradox as well.  To introduce
some of Dyson's ideas into this discussion, I'm herewith submitting
the text of the Third J. D. Bernal Lecture, which Dyson delivered at
Birkbeck College, London, on May 16, 1972.  The lecture was printed
for private circulation by Birkbeck College in 1972, and reprinted
as Appendix D in the book *Communication with Extraterrestrial
Intelligence (CETI)*, edited by Carl Sagan, published in 1973
by MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, and London, England.  

I've divided the text, in accordance with Dyson's original chapter
headings, into a series of six articles.  Because his talk has much
to say on the subject of biology, I am crossposting the series of
articles to net.bio.  Because I believe these ideas should be
known to every science fiction lover, I'm also crossposting the
series to net.sf-lovers.  Unless the responder specifies otherwise,
however, replies will be directed only to net.space.  

*Communications with Extraterrestrial Intelligence*, by the way,
is the proceedings of a conference, held in Soviet Armenia, and
sponsored jointly by the Soviet and American academies of science.  
Participants included such notables as I. S. Shklovsky, C. Sagan,
F. D. Drake, P. Morrison, F. Dyson, T. Gold, M. Minsky, G. Stent,
C. Townes, F. H. C. Crick, and many others.  It's packed full of
fascinating speculation, and carefully considers the problems in
estimating the probable number of communicating technological
civilizations in the Galaxy.  *Very* highly recommended.  (Note
that this book is not the same as another book entitled *CETI*
on the same subject -- sorry, I don't recall the author's name.)  

I would also like to recommend the recent book by Freeman Dyson
entitled *Weapons and Hope*, which is the most thoughtful and
sympathetic to all points of view discussion of arms control
and the current dilemma for humankind that I've ever read.  

Now, on to "The World, The Flesh, and The Devil".  Enjoy!  

-- 

Michael McNeil
3Com Corporation     "All disclaimers including this one apply"
(408) 970-1835
	{hplabs|fortune|idi|ihnp4|tolerant|allegra|glacier|olhqma}
	!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm

	When we are a million species spreading through the galaxy,
	the question "Can man play God and still stay sane?" will
	lose some of its terrors.  We shall be playing God, but
	only as local deities and not as lords of the universe.  
	There is safety in numbers.  Some of us will become insane,
	and rule over empires as crazy as Doctor Moreau's island.  
	Some of us will shit on the morning star.  There will be
	conflicts and tragedies.  But in the long run, the sane
	will adapt and survive better than the insane.  Nature's
	pruning of the unfit will limit the spread of insanity
	among species in the galaxy, as it does among individuals
	on earth.  Sanity is, in its essence, nothing more than
	the ability to live in harmony with nature's laws.  
		Freeman Dyson, 1979, *Disturbing the Universe*

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #290
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA04114; Thu, 22 May 86 03:02:06 PDT
	id AA04114; Thu, 22 May 86 03:02:06 PDT
Date: Thu, 22 May 86 03:02:06 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8605221002.AA04114@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #291

*** EOOH ***
Date: Thu, 22 May 86 03:02:06 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #291

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 291

Today's Topics:
	   Freeman Dyson's "TW,TF,&TD" -- I.  Bernal's Book
	 Freeman Dyson's "TW,TF,&TD" -- II.  The Double Helix
     Freeman Dyson's "TW,TF,&TD" -- III.  Biological Engineering
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 16 May 86 20:19:48 GMT
From: hplabs!felix!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Michael McNeil)
Subject: Freeman Dyson's "TW,TF,&TD" -- I.  Bernal's Book
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

THE WORLD, THE FLESH, AND THE DEVIL

Freeman J. Dyson
Institute for Advanced Study
Princeton, New Jersey

I.  Bernal's Book

*The World, The Flesh and the Devil; and Enquiry into the Future of
the Three Enemies of the Rational Soul*, is the full title of Bernal's
first book which he wrote at the age of 28.  Forty years later he said
in a foreward to the second edition, "This short book was the first I
ever wrote.  I have a great attachment to it because it contains many
of the seeds of ideas which I have been elaborating throughout my
scientific life.  It still seems to me to have validity in its own
right."  It must have been a consolation to Bernal, crippled and
incapacitated in the last years of his life, to know that this work
of his spring-time was again being bought and read by a new generation
of young readers.  

Bernal's book begins with these words:  "There are two futures, the
future of desire and the future of fate, and man's reason has never
learnt to separate them."  I do not know of any finer opening sentence
of a work of literature in English.  Bernal's modest claim that his
book "still seems to have validity in its own right" holds good in
1972 as it did in 1968.  Enormous changes have occurred since he wrote
the book in 1929, both in science and in human affairs.  It would be
miraculous if nothing in it had become dated or superseded by the
events of the last forty years.  But astonishingly little of it has
proved to be wrong or irrelevant to our present concerns.  

I decided that the best way I can do honor to Bernal in this lecture
is to use his book as a point of departure for my own speculations
about the future of mankind.  I shall not expound or criticize the
book in detail.  I hope that much of what I shall say will be fresh
and will go in some directions beyond Bernal's horizons.  But it will
be obvious to those of my audience who have read Bernal that my ideas
are deeply influenced by him.  To those of you who have not read
Bernal I hope that I may provide a stimulus to do so.  

Bernal saw the future as a struggle of the rational side of man's
nature against three enemies.  The first enemy he called the World,
meaning scarcity of material goods, inadequate land, harsh climate,
desert, swamp, and other physical obstacles which condemn the majority
of mankind to lives of poverty.  The second enemy he called the Flesh,
meaning the defects in man's physiology that expose him to disease,
cloud the clarity of his mind, and finally destroy him by senile
deterioration.  The third enemy he called the Devil, meaning the
irrational forces in man's psychological nature that distort his
perceptions and lead him astray with crazy hopes and fears, overriding
the feeble voice of reason.  Bernal had faith that the rational soul
of man would ultimately prevail over these enemies.  But he did not
foresee cheap or easy victories.  In each of these struggles, he saw
hope of defeating the enemy only if mankind is prepared to adopt
extremely radical measures.  

Briefly summarized, the radical measures which Bernal prescribed were
the following.  To defeat the World, the greater part of the human
species will leave this planet and go to live in innumerable freely
floating colonies scattered through outer space.  To defeat the Flesh,
humans will learn to replace failing organs with artificial substitutes
until we become an intimate symbiosis of brain and machine.  To defeat
the Devil, we shall first reorganize society along scientific lines,
and later learn to exercise conscious intellectual control over our
moods and emotional drives, intervening directly in the affective
functions of our brains with technical means yet to be discovered.  
This summary is a crude oversimplification of Bernal's discussion.  
He did not imagine that these remedies would provide a final solution
to the problems of humanity.  He well knew that every change in the
human situation will create new problems and new enemies of the
rational soul.  He stopped where he stopped because he could not see
any farther.  His chapter on "The Flesh" ends with the words:  "That
may be an end or a beginning, but from here it is out of sight."  

How much that was out of sight to Bernal in 1929 can we see from the
vantage point of 1972?  The first and most obvious difference between
1929 and 1972 is that we have now a highly vocal and well-organized
opposition to the further growth of the part that technology plays in
human affairs.  The social prophets of today look upon technology as
a destructive rather than a liberating force.  In 1972 it is highly
unfashionable to believe as Bernal did that the colonization of space,
the perfection of artificial organs and the mastery of brain physiology
are the keys to man's future.  Young people in tune with the mood of
the times regard space as irrelevant, and they consider ecology to be
the only branch of science that is ethically respectable.  However, it
would be wrong to imagine that Bernal's ideas were more in line with
popular views in 1929 than they are in 1972.  Bernal was never a man
to swim with the tide.  Technology was unpopular in 1929 because it
was associated in people's minds with the gas warfare of the first
World War, just as now it is unpopular by association with Hiroshima
and the defoliation of Vietnam.  In 1929 the dislike of technology was
less noisy than today but no less real.  Bernal understood that his
proposals for the remaking of man and society flew in the teeth of
deeply entrenched human instincts.  He did not on that account weaken
or compromise his statement.  He believed that a rational soul would
ultimately come to accept his vision of the future as reasonable, and
that for him was enough.  He foresaw that mankind might split into two
species, one following the technological path which he described, the
other holding on as best it could to the ancient folkways of natural
living.  And he recognized that the dispersion of mankind into the
vastness of space is precisely what is required for such a split of
the species to occur without intolerable strife and social disruption.  
The wider perspective which we have gained between 1929 and 1972
concerning the harmful effects of technology affects only the
details and not the core of Bernal's argument.  

Another conspicuous difference between 1929 and 1972 is that men have
now visited the moon.  Surprisingly, this fact makes little difference
to the plausibility of Bernal's vision of the future.  Bernal in 1929
foresaw cheap and massive emigration of human beings from the earth.  
He did not know in detail how it should be done.  We still do not know
how it should be done.  Certainly it will not be done by using the
techniques that took men to the moon in 1969.  We know that in
principle the cost in energy or fuel of transporting people from Earth
into space need be no greater than the cost of transporting them from
New York to London.  To translate this "in principle" into reality
will require two things: first a great advance in the engineering of
hypersonic aircraft, and second the growth of a traffic massive enough
to permit large economies of scale.  It is likely that the Apollo
vehicle bears the same relation to the cheap mass-transportation
space-vehicle of the future as the majestic airship of the 1930s
bears to the Boeing 747 of today.  The airship R101 was absurdly
large, beautiful, expensive, and fragile, just like the Apollo
Saturn 5.  If this analogy is sound, and I believe it is, we shall
have transportation into space at a reasonable price within about
fifty years from now.  But my grounds for believing this are not
essentially firmer than Bernal's were for believing it in 1929.

------------------------------

Date: 16 May 86 20:23:26 GMT
From: hplabs!felix!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Michael McNeil)
Subject: Freeman Dyson's "TW,TF,&TD" -- II.  The Double Helix
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

THE WORLD, THE FLESH, AND THE DEVIL

Freeman J. Dyson
Institute for Advanced Study
Princeton, New Jersey

II.  The Double Helix

The decisive change that has enabled us to see farther in 1972 than we
could in 1929 is the advent of molecular biology.  Bernal recognized
this in the 1968 foreword to his book, where he speaks of the double
helix as "the greatest and most comprehensive idea in all science."  
We now understand the basic principles by which living cells organize
and reproduce themselves.  Many mysteries remain, but it is inevitable
that we shall understand the chemical processes of life in full detail,
including the processes of development and differentiation of higher
organisms, within the next century.  I consider it also inevitable and
desirable that we shall learn to exploit these processes for our own
purposes.  The next century will see a completely new technology
growing out of the mastery of the principles of biology in the same
way as our existing technology grew out of a mastery of the principles
of physics.  

The new biological technology may grow in three distinct directions.  
Probably all three will be followed and will prove fruitful for
particular purposes.  The first direction is the one that has been
chiefly discussed by biologists who feel responsibility for the human
consequences of their work; they call it "genetic surgery."  The idea
is that we shall be able to read the base-sequence of the DNA in a
human sperm or egg-cell, run the sequence through a computer which will
identify deleterious genes or mutations, and then by micromanipulation
patch harmless genes into the sequence to replace the bad ones.  It
might also be possible to add to the DNA genes conferring various
characteristics to the resulting individual.  This technology will
be difficult and dangerous, and its use will raise severe ethical
problems.  Jacques Monod in his recent book *Chance and Necessity*
sweeps all thought of it aside with his customary dogmatic certitude.  
"There are," he says, "occasional promises of remedies expected from
the current advances in molecular genetics.  This illusion, spread by
a few superficial minds, had better be disposed of."  Although I have
a great respect for Jacques Monod, I still dare to brave his scorn by
stating my belief that genetic surgery has an important part to play
in man's future.  But I share the prevailing view of biologists that
we must be exceedingly careful in interfering with the human genetic
material.  The interactions between the thousands of genes in a human
cell are so exquisitely complicated that a computer program labeling
genes "good" or "bad" will be adequate to deal only with the grossest
sort of defect.  There are strong arguments for declaring a moratorium
on genetic surgery for the next hundred years, or until we understand
human genetics vastly better than we do now.  

Leaving aside genetic surgery applied to humans, I foresee that the
coming century will place in our hands two other forms of biological
technology which are less dangerous but still revolutionary enough
to transform the conditions of our existence.  I count these new
technologies as powerful allies in the attack on Bernal's three
enemies.  I give them the names "biological engineering" and "self-
reproducing machinery."  Biological engineering means the artificial
synthesis of living organisms designed to fulfill human purposes.  
Self-reproducing machinery means the imitation of the function and
reproduction of a living organism with nonliving materials, a computer
program imitating the function of DNA and a miniature factory imitating
the functions of protein molecules.  After we have attained a complete
understanding of the principles of organization and development of a
simple multicellular organism, both of these avenues of technological
exploitation should be open to us.

------------------------------

Date: 16 May 86 20:26:03 GMT
From: hplabs!felix!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Michael McNeil)
Subject: Freeman Dyson's "TW,TF,&TD" -- III.  Biological Engineering
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

THE WORLD, THE FLESH, AND THE DEVIL

Freeman J. Dyson
Institute for Advanced Study
Princeton, New Jersey

III.  Biological Engineering

I would expect the earliest and least controversial triumphs of
biological engineering to be extensions of the art of industrial
fermentation.  When we are able to produce microorganisms equipped
with enzyme systems tailored to our own design, we can use such
organisms to perform chemical operations with far greater delicacy
and economy than present industrial practices allow.  For example,
oil refineries would contain a variety of bugs designed to metabolize
crude petroleum into the precise hydrocarbon stereo-isomers which are
needed for various purposes.  One tank would contain the n-octane
bug, another the benzene bug, and so on.  All the bugs would contain
enzymes metabolizing sulphur into elemental form, so that pollution
of the atmosphere by sulphurous gases would be completely controlled.  
The management and operation of such fermentation tanks on a vast
scale would not be easy, but the economic and social rewards are so
great that I am confident we shall learn how to do it.  After we have
mastered the biological oil refinery, more important applications of
the same principles will follow.  We shall have factories producing
specific foodstuffs biologically from cheap raw materials, and
sewage-treatment plants converting our wastes efficiently into
usable solids and pure water.  To perform these operations we shall
need an armamentarium of many species of microorganisms trained to
ingest and excrete the appropriate chemicals.  And we shall design
into the metabolism of these organisms the essential property of
self-liquidation, so that when deprived of food they disappear by
cannibalizing one another.  They will not, like the bacteria that
feed on our sewage in today's technology, leave their rotting
carcasses behind to make a sludge only slightly less noxious
than the mess they have eaten.  

If these expectations are fulfilled, the advent of biological
technology will help enormously in the establishment of patterns of
industrial development with which human beings can live in health and
comfort.  Oil refineries need not stink.  Rivers need not be sewers.  
However, there are many environmental problems which the use of
artificial organisms in enclosed tanks will not touch.  For example,
the fouling of the environment by mining and by abandoned automobiles
will not be reduced by building cleaner factories.  The second step in
biological engineering, after the enclosed biological factory, is to
let artificial organisms loose into the environment.  This is
admittedly a more dangerous and problematical step than the first.  
The second step should be taken only when we have a deep understanding
of its ecological consequences.  Nevertheless the advantages which
artificial organisms offer in the environmental domain are so great
that we are unlikely to forego their use forever.  

The two great functions which artificial organisms promise to perform
for us when let loose upon the earth are mining and scavenging.  The
beauty of a natural landscape undisturbed by man is largely due to the
fact that the natural organisms in a balanced ecology are excellent
miners and scavengers.  Mining is mostly done by plants and
microorganisms extracting minterals from water, air, and soil.  For
example, it has been recently discovered that organisms in the ground
mine ammonia and carbon monoxide from air with high efficiency.  To the
scavengers we owe the fact that a natural forest is not piled as high
with dead birds as one of our junk yards with dead cars.  Many of the
worst offenses of humanbeings against natural beauty are due to our
incompetence in mining and scavenging.  Natural organisms know how to
mine and scavenge effectively in a natural environment.  In a man-made
environment, neither they nor we know how to do it.  But there is no
reason why we should not be able to design artificial organisms that
are adaptable enough to collect our raw materials and dispose of our
refuse in an environment that is a careful mixture of natural and
artificial.  

A simple example of a problem that an articial organism could solve is
the eutrophication of lakes.  At present many lakes are being ruined
by excessive growth of algae feeding on high levels of nitrogen or
phosphorus in the water.  The damage could be stopped by an organism
that would convert nitrogen to molecular form or phosphorus to an
insoluble solid.  Alternatively and preferably, an organism could
be designed to divert the nitrogen and phosphorus into a food chain
culminating in some species of palatable fish.  To control and harvest
the mineral resources of the lake in this way will in the long run be
more feasible than to maintain artificially a state of "natural"
barrenness.  

The articial mining organisms would not operate in the style of human
miners.  Many of them would be designed to mine the ocean.  For
example, oysters might extract gold from seawater and secrete golden
pearls.  A less poetic but more practical possibility is the artificial
coral that build a reef rich in copper or magnesium.  Other mining
organisms would burrow like earthworms into mud and clay, concentrating
in their bodies the ores of aluminum or tin or iron, and excreting the
ores in some manner convenient for human harvesting.  Almost every raw
material necessary for our existence can be mined from ocean, air or
clay, without digging deep into the earth.  Where conventional mining
is necessary, artificial organisms can still be useful for digesting
and purifying the ore.  

Not much imagination is needed to foresee the effectiveness of
artificial organisms as scavengers.  A suitable microorganism could
convert the dangerous organic mercury in our rivers and lakes to a
harmless insoluble solid.  We could make good use of an organism
with a consuming appetite for polyvinyl chloride and similar plastic
materials which now litter beaches all over the earth.  Conceivably
we may produce an animal specifically designed for chewing up dead
automobiles.  But one may hope that the automobile in its present
form will become extinct before it needs to be incorporated into an
artificial foodchain.  A more serious and permanent role for scavenging
organisms is the removal of trace quantities of radioactivity from the
environment.  The three most hazardous radioactive elements produced
in fission reactors are strontium, cesium, and plutonium.  These
elements have long half-lives and will inevitably be released in small
quantities so long as mankind uses nuclear fission as an energy source.  
The long-term hazard of nuclear energy would be notably reduced if we
had organisms designed to gobble up these three elements from water or
soil and convert them into indigestible form.  Fortunately, none of
these three elements is essential to our body chemistry, and it
therefore does us no harm if they are made indigestible.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #291
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA08602; Fri, 23 May 86 03:02:03 PDT
	id AA08602; Fri, 23 May 86 03:02:03 PDT
Date: Fri, 23 May 86 03:02:03 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8605231002.AA08602@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #292

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 292

Today's Topics:
	    Freeman Dyson's "TW,TF,&TD" -- IV.  Big Trees
    Freeman Dyson's "TW,TF,&TD" -- V.  Self-Reproducing Machinery
       Freeman Dyson's "TW,TF,&TD" -- VI.  Devils and Pilgrims
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 16 May 86 20:28:35 GMT
From: hplabs!felix!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Michael McNeil)
Subject: Freeman Dyson's "TW,TF,&TD" -- IV.  Big Trees
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

THE WORLD, THE FLESH, AND THE DEVIL

Freeman J. Dyson
Institute for Advanced Study
Princeton, New Jersey

IV.  Big Trees

I have spoken about the two first steps of biological engineering.  
The first will transform our industry and the second will transform
our earth-bound ecology.  It is now time to speak of the third step,
which is the colonization of space.  I believe in fact that biological
engineering is the essential tool which will make Bernal's dream of
the expansion of mankind in space a practical possibility.  

First I have to clear away a few popular misconcpetions about space
as a habitat.  It is generally considered that planets are important.  
Except for Earth, they are not.  Mars is waterless, and the others are
for various reasons basically inhospitable to man.  It is generally
considered that beyond the sun's family of planets there is absolute
emptiness extending for light years until you come to another star.  
In fact it is likely that space around the solar system is populated
by huge numbers of comets, small worlds a few miles in diameter, rich
in water and the other chemicals essential to life.  We see one of
these comets only when it happens to suffer a random perturbation of
its orbit which sends it plunging close to the sun.  It seems that
roughly one comet per year is captured into the region near the sun,
where it eventually evaporates and disintegrates.  If we assume that
the supply of distant comets is sufficient to sustain this process
over the thousands of millions of years that the solar system has
existed, then the total population of comets loosely attached to the
sun must be numbered in the thousands of millions.  The combined
surface area of these comets is then a thousand or ten thousand times
that of Earth.  I conclude from these facts that comets, not planets,
are the major potential habitat of life in space.  If it were true
that other stars have as many comets as the sun, it then would follow
that comets pervade our entire Galaxy.  We have no evidence either
supporting or contradicting this hypothesis.  If true, it implies
that our Galaxy is a much friendlier place for interstellar travelers
than it is popularly supposed to be.  The average distance between
habitable oases in the desert of space is not measured in light years,
but is of the order of a light day or less.  

I propose to you then an optimistic view of the Galaxy an an abode of
life.  Countless millions of comets are out there, amply supplied with
water, carbon, and nitrogen, the basic constituents of living cells.  
We see when they fall close to the sun that they contain all the
common elements necessary to our existence.  They lack only two
essential requirements for human settlement, namely warmth and air.  
And now biological engineering will come to our rescue.  We shall
learn how to grow trees on comets.  

To make a tree grow in airless space by the light of a distant sun is
basically a problem of redesigning the skin of its leaves.  In every
organism the skin is the crucial part which must be most delicately
tailored to the demands of the environment.  The skin of a leaf in
space must satisfy four requirements.  It must be opaque to far-
ultraviolet radiation to protect the vital tissues from radiation
damage.  It must be impervious to water.  It must transmit visible
light to the organs of photosynthesis.  It must have extremely low
emissivity for far-infrared radiation, so that it can limit loss of
heat and keep itself from freezing.  A tree whose leaves possess such
a skin should be able to take root and flourish upon any comet as near
to the sun as the orbits of Jupiter and Saturn.  Farther out than
Saturn the sunlight is too feeble to keep a simple leaf warm, but
trees can grow at far greater distances if they provide themselves with
compound leaves.  A compound leaf would consist of a photosynthetic
part which is able to keep itself warm, together with a convex mirror
part which itself remains cold but focuses concentrated sunlight upon
the photosynthetic part.  It should be possible to program the genetic
instructions of a tree to produce such leaves and orient them correctly
toward the sun.  Many existing plants possess structures more
complicated than this.  

Once leaves can be made to function in space, the remaining parts
of a tree -- trunk, branches, and roots -- do not present any great
problems.  The branches must not freeze, and therefore the bark must
be a superior heat insulator.  The roots will penetrate and gradually
melt the frozen interior of the comet, and the tree will build its
substance from the materials that the roots find there.  The oxygen
which the leaves manufacture must not be exhaled into space; instead
it will be transported down to the roots and released into the regions
where men will live and take their ease among the tree trunks.  One
question still remains.  How high can a tree on a comet grow?  The
answer is surprising.  On any celestial body whose diameter is of the
order of ten miles or less, the force of gravity is so weak that a
tree can grow infinitely high.  Ordinary wood is strong enough to lift
its own weight to an arbitrary distance from the center of gravity.  
This means that from a comet of ten-mile diameter, trees can grow out
for hundreds of miles, collecting the energy of sunlight from an area
thousands of times as large as the area of the comet itself.  Seen
from far away, the comet will look like a small potato sprouting an
immense growth of stems and foliage.  When man comes to live on the
comets, he will find himself returning to the arboreal existence of
his ancestors.  

We shall bring to the comets not only trees but a great variety of
other flora and fauna to create for ourselves an environment as
beautiful as ever existed on Earth.  Perhaps we shall teach our
plants to make seeds which will sail out across the ocean of space to
propagate life upon comets still unvisited by man.  Perhaps we shall
start a wave of life which will spread from comet to comet without end
until we have achieved the greening of the Galaxy.  That may be an end
or a beginning, as Bernal said, but from here it is out of sight.

------------------------------

Date: 16 May 86 20:31:23 GMT
From: hplabs!felix!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Michael McNeil)
Subject: Freeman Dyson's "TW,TF,&TD" -- V.  Self-Reproducing Machinery
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

THE WORLD, THE FLESH, AND THE DEVIL

Freeman J. Dyson
Institute for Advanced Study
Princeton, New Jersey

V.  Self-Reproducing Machinery

In parallel with our exploitation of biological engineering, we may
achieve an equally profound industrial revolution by following the
alternative route of self-reproducing machinery.  Self-reproducing
machines are devices which have the multiplying and self-organizing
capabilities of living organisms but are built of metal and computers
instead of protoplasm and brains.  It was the mathematician John
von Neumann who first demonstrated that self-reproducing machines are
theoretically possible and sketched the logical principles underlying
their construction.  The basic components of a self-reproducing machine
are precisely analogous to those of a living cell.  The separation
of function between genetic material (DNA) and enzymatic machinery
(protein) in a cell corresponds exactly to the separation between
software (computer programs) and hardware (machine tools) in a self-
reproducing machine.  

I assume that in the next century, partly imitating the processes
of life and partly improving on them, we shall learn to build self-
reproducing machines programmed to multiply, differentiate, and
coordinate their activities as skillfully as the cells of a higher
organism such as a bird.  After we have constructed a single egg
machine and supplied it with the appropriate computer program, the
egg and its progeny will grow into an industrial complex capable
of performing economic tasks of artibrary magnitude.  It can build
cities, plant gardens, construct electric power-generating facilities,
launch space ships, or raise chickens.  The overall programs and their
execution will remain always under human control.  

The effects of such a powerful and versatile technology on human
affairs are not easy to foresee.  Used unwisely, it offers a rapid road
to ecological disaster.  Used wisely, it offers a rapid alleviation of
all the purely economic difficulties of mankind.  It offers to rich and
poor nations alike a rate of growth of economic resources so rapid that
economic constraints will no longer be dominant in determining how
people are to live.  In some sense this technology will constitute a
permanent solution of man's economic problems.  Just as in the past,
when economic problems cease to be pressing, we shall find no lack of
fresh problems to take their place.  

It may well happen that on Earth, for aesthetic or ecological reasons,
the use of self-reproducing machines will be strictly limited and the
methods of biological engineering will be used instead wherever this
alternative is feasible.  For example, self-reproducing machines could
proliferate in the oceans and collect minerals for man's use, but we
might prefer to have the same job done more quietly by corals and
oysters.  If economic needs were no longer paramount, we could afford
a certain loss of efficiency for the sake of a harmonious environment.  
Self-reproducing machines may therefore play on Earth a subdued and
self-effacing role.  

The true realm of self-reproducing machinery will be in those regions
of the solar system that are inhospitable to man.  Machines built of
iron, aluminum, and silicon have no need of water.  They can flourish
and proliferate on the moon or on Mars or among the asteroids, carrying
out gigantic industrial projects at no risk to the earth's ecology.  
They will feed upon sunlight and rock, needing no other raw material
for their construction.  They will build in space the freely floating
cities that Bernal imagined for human habitation.  They will bring
oceans of water from the satellites of the outer planets, where it is
to be had in abundance, to the inner parts of the solar system where
it is needed.  Ultimately this water will make even the deserts of
Mars bloom, and men will walk there under the open sky breathing air
like the air of Earth.  

Taking a long view into the future, I foresee a division of the solar
system into two domains.  The inner domain, where sunlight is abundant
and water scarce, will be the domain of great machines and governmental
enterprises.  Here self-reproducing machines will be obedient slaves,
and men will be organized in giant bureaucracies.  Outside and beyond
the sunlit zone will be the outer domain, where water is abundant and
sunlight scarce.  In the outer domain lie the comets where trees and
men will live in smaller communities, isolated from each other by huge
distances.  Here men will find once again the wilderness that they have
lost on Earth.  Groups of people will be free to live as they please,
independent of governmental authorities.  Outside and away from the
sun, they will be able to wander forever on the open frontier that
this planet no longer possesses.

------------------------------

Date: 16 May 86 20:36:41 GMT
From: hplabs!felix!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Michael McNeil)
Subject: Freeman Dyson's "TW,TF,&TD" -- VI.  Devils and Pilgrims
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

THE WORLD, THE FLESH, AND THE DEVIL

Freeman J. Dyson
Institute for Advanced Study
Princeton, New Jersey

VI.  Devils and Pilgrims

I have spoken much about how we may deal with the World and the Flesh,
and I have said nothing about how we may deal with the Devil.  Bernal
also had difficulties with the Devil.  He admitted in the 1968 foreword
to his book that the chapter on the Devil was the least satisfactory
part of it.  The Devil will always find new varieties of human folly
to frustrate our too rational dreams.  

Instead of pretending that I have an antidote to the Devil's wiles, I
will end this lecture with a discussion of the human factors that most
obviously stand in the way of our achieving the grand designs which I
have been describing.  When mankind is faced with an opportunity to
embark on any great undertaking, there are always three main factors
that devilishly hamper our efforts.  The first is an inability to
define or agree upon our objectives.  The second is an inability to
raise sufficient funds.  The third is the fear of a disastrous failure.  
All three factors have been conspicuously plaguing the United States
space program in recent years.  It is a remarkable testimony to the
vitality of the program that these factors have still not succeeded
in bringing it to a halt.  When we stand before the far greater
enterprises of biological technology and space colonization that lie
in our future, the same three factors will certainly rise again to
confuse and delay us.  

I want now to demonstrate to you by a historical example how these
human factors may be overcome.  I shall quote from William Bradford,
one of the Pilgrim Fathers, who wrote a book called *Of Plimoth
Plantation* describing the history of the first English settlement in
Massachusetts.  Bradford was governor of the Plymouth colony for 28
years.  He began to write his history ten years after the settlement.  
His purpose in writing it was, as he said, "That their children may
see with what difficulties their fathers wrestled in going through
these things in their first beginnings.  As also that some use may be
made hereof in after times by others in such like weighty employments."  
Bradford's work remained unpublished for two hundred years, but he
never doubted that he was writing for the ages.  

Here is Bradford describing the problem of man's inability to agree
upon objectives.  The date is Spring 1620, the same year in which the
Pilgrims were to sail.  

	But as in all businesses the acting part is most difficult,
	especially where the work of many agents must concur, so was
	it found in this.  For some of those that should have gone in
	England fell off and would not go; other merchants and friends
	that had offered to adventure their moneys withdrew and
	pretended many excuses; some disliking they went not to
	Guiana; others again would adventure nothing except they went
	to Virginia.  Some again (and those that were most relied on)
	fell in utter dislike with Virginia and would do nothing if
	they went thither.  In the midst of these distractions, they
	of Leyden who had put off their estates and laid out their
	moneys were brought into a great strait, fearing what issue
	these things would come to.  

The next quotation deals with the perennial problem of funding.  
Here Bradford is quoting a letter written by Robert Cushman, the man
responsible for buying provisions for the Pilgrims' voyage.  He writes
from Dartmouth on 17 August 1620, desperately late in the year, months
after the ships ought to have started.  

	And Mr. Martin, he said he never received no money on those
	conditions; he was not beholden to the merchants for a pin,
	they were bloodsuckers, and I know not what.  Simple man, he
	indeed never made any conditions with the merchants, nor ever
	spake with them.  But did all that money fly to Hampton, or
	was it his own?  Who will go and lay out money so rashly and
	lavishly as he did, and never know how he comes by it or on
	what conditions?  Secondly, I told him of the alteration long
	ago and he was content, but now he domineers and said I had
	betrayed them into the hands of slaves; he is not beholden to
	them, he can set out two ships himself to a voyage.  When,
	good man?  He hath but L 50 in and if he should give up his
	accounts he would not have a penny left him, as I am persuaded.  
	Friend, if ever we make a plantation, God works a miracle,
	especially considering how scant we shall be of victuals,
	and most of all ununited amongst ourselves and devoid of
	good tutors and regiment.  

My last quotation describes the fear of disaster, as it appeared in
the debate among the Pilgrims over their original decision to go to
America.  

	Others again, out of their fears, objected against it and
	sought to divert from it; alleging many things, and those
	neither unreasonable nor improbable; as that it was a great
	design and subject to many inconceivable perils and dangers;
	as, besides the casualties of the sea (which none can be freed
	from), the length of the voyage was such as the weak bodies of
	women and other persons worn out with age and travail (as many
	of them were) could never be able to endure.  And yet if they
	should, the miseries of the land which they should be exposed
	unto, would be too hard to be borne and likely, some or all of
	them together, to consume and utterly to ruinate them.  For
	there they should be liable to famine and nakedness and the
	want, in a manner, of all things.  The change of air, diet,
	and drinking of water would infect their bodies with sore
	sicknesses and grievous diseases.  And also those which
	should escape or overcome these difficulties should yet be
	in continual danger of the savage people, who are cruel,
	barbarous and most treacherous, being most furious in their
	rage and merciless where they overcome; not being content only
	to kill and take away life, but delight to torment men in the
	most bloody manner that may be.  

I could go on quoting Bradford for hours, but this is not the place to
do so.  What can we learn from him?  We learn that the three devils of
disunity, shortage of funds, and fear of the unknown are no strangers
to humanity.  They have always been with us and will always be with us
whenever great adventures are contemplated.  From Bradford we learn
too how they are to be defeated.  The Pilgrims used no technological
magic to defeat them.  The Pilgrims' victory demanded the full range
of virtues of which human beings under stress are capable; toughness,
courage, unselfishness, foresight, common sense, and good humor.  
Bradford would have set at the head of this list the virtue he
considered most important, a faith in Divine Providence.  

I end this sermon on a note of disagreement with Bernal.  Bernal
believed that we shall defeat the Devil by means of a combination of
socialist organization and applied psychology.  I believe that our
best defense will be to rely on the human qualities that have remained
unchanged from Bradford's time to ours.  If we are wise, we shall
preserve intact these qualities of the human species through the
centuries to come, and they will see us safely through the many crises
of destiny that surely await us.  But I will let Bernal have the last
word.  Bernal's last word is a question which William Bradford must
often have pondered, but would not have known how to answer, as he
watched the first generation of native born New Englanders depart
from the ways of their fathers.  

	We hold the future still timidly, but perceive it for the
	first time, as a function of our own action.  Having seen it,
	are we to turn away from something that offends the very
	nature of our earliest desires, or is the recognition of
	our new powers sufficient to change those desires into the
	service of the future which they will have to bring about?

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #292
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA12922; Sat, 24 May 86 03:02:08 PDT
	id AA12922; Sat, 24 May 86 03:02:08 PDT
Date: Sat, 24 May 86 03:02:08 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8605241002.AA12922@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #293

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 293

Today's Topics:
		 Delta Launch Failure engine shutdown
			  Re: Fermi Paradox
			    star densities
		      More Plutonium Half-Lives
			  Re: Fermi-Paradox
		    Re: Sun won't go supernova...
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 15 May 86 19:01:42 GMT
From: ihnp4!ihwpt!knudsen@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (mike knudsen)
Subject: Delta Launch Failure engine shutdown
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Several post-ers have commented on the clean shutdown of the Delta
rocket, "as if ordered to."  May it was ordered to -- not by
saboteurs, not by a ground officer who did some bad coke that morning
-- but by its own internal controlling computer.

An ordinary mechanical malfunction may have caused the shutdown, if
the Delta operates like the Shuttle in one respect:

The Shuttle orbiter engines can be (and on several occasions have
been) shut down by the onboard computers whenever some anomaly has
been detected -- like bearing overheating, excessive pump RPM, etc.
This makes lots of sense on a manned vehicle with two other liquid
engines plus the SRBs; better to shut one engine down early then just
let it run until something catches fire or blows up.

Question: if the Delta has only one engine, the above doesn't make
much sense -- hell, let the pump overheat or whatever, hope maybe it
will hold together and achieve orbit.  So, could someone who KNOWS
tell us whether the Delta engine controller system can act like the
Shuttle's, and substitute a clean shutdown for what would have become
a more spectacular "normal" catastrophic failure?
	mike k

------------------------------

Date: 12 May 86 06:39:01 GMT
From: decvax!cca!g-rh@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Richard Harter)
Subject: Re: Fermi Paradox
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Reprise:

In a previous article I argued that the development of Eukaryotes
rather than life itself is the critical bottle neck.  I included a
statistical argument that we could be 'very early' and that this
event has a much greater mean time for likelihood of occurence
than we experienced here.  Frank Adams comments are:

In article <> franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) writes:
>
>This assumes that life "could have" developed at any time after the creation
>of the Earth.  This is not necessarily the case.  Most of the speculation
>about the creation of life assumes that there were rather unusual
>circumstances involved, circumstances which did not persist for much more
>than a few hundred million years.  If this is the case, your argument does
>not work.
>
>
>The main question I have is, how much of a single event is the development
>of the Eukaryotic cell?  In other words, was there a sequence of events
>over that 3 billion years, which eventually lead to the Eukaryotic cell;
>or were the life forms little changed from shortly after the beginning of
>life until a sudden mutation (to possibly oversimplify) produced a
>Eukaryotic life form?  I doubt we can do any more than speculate about this
>question.  Again, if a sequence of events is involved, this argument fails.
>
>In any event, a mean time of 15 billion years *per planet* isn't good
>enough.  With (at least) millions of possible planets, some substantial
>number of them would have the development in the first billion years.  You
>have to assume that the mean waiting time is billions of years for the whole
>galaxy; i.e., quadrillions of years for any one world.  I don't know if such
>high odds against the development of Eukaryoticity are plausible; if they
>are, this is a reasonable alternative to my suggestion.
>

	We have three separate issues here.  One is an assessment of
the a priori probability of abiogenesis.  The second is an assessment
of the a priori probability of the development of the Eukaroytic cell.
The third is a question of mathematical statistics.

(1)	Assessment of the a priori probability of abiogenesis.

	It is my assessment that the probability of life developing,
GIVEN the conditions of primitive earth, are quite high.  My reasons
for making this assessment is that the necessary precondition events
seem to occur quite naturally.  These include (a) spontaneous generation
of encapsulating spheres, (b) spontaneous generation of complex biochemical
materials, and (c) spontaneous generation of self organizing configurations.

	It is very difficult to assess how likely satisfactory preconditions
are to be found elsewhere.  There have been a number of studies of the
probability of planets occurring in the life-zone under the current theories
of planet formation and some of their probable histories.  (There is a
fairly narrow zone between green-house runaway on one side and runaway
glaciation on the other.)  One issue which I have not seen any thing
on is the likelihood of having the right amount of water -- if you
have too much there is no dry land and no shallows.  If there isn't
enough there aren't large stable shallow bodies of water, which appears
to be a precondition.

	Your point about a limited period of time is (I believe) well
taken.  Critical factors here are (a) the decline of natural radioactivity
and (b) irreversible changes in the environment that occur if life does
not develop to operate on the environment.  An issue which I don't
remember seeing addressed is whether natural radioactives are a necessary
energy source for the development of life.  If this is the case (and it
worth remembering that young Earth was quite radioactive) the question
arises as to whether first and second generation planets would have had
the necessary quota of radioactive elements.  (Has anyone seen any
estimates on the overall concentration of heavy elements over time?)

(2)	Assessment of the a priori development of Eukaryotes.

	The Eukaryote cell differs from the Prokaryote cell in that
(a) it is much larger, (b) it has a central nucleus (capsule within
a capsule), (c) multiple DNA strands (chromosomes) versus a single DNA
strand, and (d) subsidiary structures within the cell with a separate
heredity (mitochondria).  In short, the Eukaryotic cell is a large
complex structure in comparison with the Prokaryotic cell  There has
never been, to my knowledge, any convincing explanation of how the
Eukaryotic cell developed.

	There are some recent and not terribly well credited arguments
that Eukaryotes are older than hitherto believed.  However the current
consensus is that Eukaryotes are only slightly older than multicellular
life (not including blue-algae mats).  Higher life is all Eukaryotic.
Gould, in one of his books, makes the interesting point that, in the
absence of predation, species diversity is low and that the evolution
rate is also low.  Until effective predators at the cellular level
developed, evolution (at the Prokaryotic level) proceded very slowly.

	It is my assessment that the development of the Eukaryotic
cell is an anomalous event in the history of life.  There is no
particular reason that it occurred at the time that it did (the
Oxygen level argument doesn't work.)

(3)	A question of statistics

	Sigh, it's been a while.  However I went through the math
some years ago; I think it's right but I don't want to redo it on
the fly.  Suppose we have a very low probability event that can occur
at any time with equal probability.  Then the distribution for the
occurence of the event is Poisson distributed.  If we look at the
three sigma level we get the rule of six that I quoted.  However
the tails fall off very fast -- I don't have a set of tables at
hand but a few more sigmas drop you down to the ten to the minus
nine level.  In short, you don't need a mean time of quadrillions
of years -- but it might be more like 30 billion rather than 15
billion.

	In any case there is a statistical point that I have not
seen raised before.  Suppose that the development of a star spanning
technology is randomly distributed with an expected mean time of
umpteen billion years.  It is probable that the first occurence of
such an event will be a long time befoe the second and subsequent
occurences.  That is, whatever race is first is going to be first
by a large margin.  Odds are that they are going to discover an
empty galaxy that will remain empty while they explore it.

	This means that the entire subsequent history of the galaxy
hangs on what race #1 decides to do.  This rules out all arguments
of the form -- one race would do one thing and another would do
something else.  Race #1 sets policy.  Period.

	Now either we are number one (more plausible than I had
hitherto thought) or we are living under the policies set by race #1.
A possiblity that I find plausible is that race #1 came out, explored
the whole galaxy, and found no life except a bunch of water worlds
with with single celled Prokaryotic life (or the equivalent.)  They
decided it would be interesting to have other intelligent life forms
about.  They created Eukaryotes (and their equivalents) on the candidate
worlds and sat back to await results.  We are one of those results.
In due course we will go out into space, find and trigger the signal
box (if we haven't done so already) and they will show up in due course
to see what came of it all.  (Shades of 2001.)

	All things considered, I would pick the possibilities in the
following order: (a) Interstellar travel is a LOT harder than people
recognize, (b) we are, in fact, number one, (c) we were seeded.  

	With another wave of my hands, I remain
		Richard Harter, SMDS Inc.

------------------------------

Date: 15 May 86 19:01:17 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!watnot!watvlsi!wateng!watale!wpallen@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Warren P. Allen @ U of Waterloo X 3868)
Subject: star densities
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Does anyone know what the average separation is between stars in
the galactic arms? ..the nucleus? ..between the arms?

I would be greatful for any info, I've heard answers from 4 light-years
to 8 ly.

thanx...

------------------------------

Date: 15 May 86 06:28:02 GMT
From: tektronix!uw-beaver!bullwinkle!rochester!seismo!lll-crg!styx!nike!caip!andromeda!njitcccc!ken@ucbvax  (Kenneth Ng)
Subject: More Plutonium Half-Lives
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Plutonium 238 half life: 89.6 years.
Source: "Trilinear Chart of Nuclides"
Published by Atomic Energy Commission.

Kenneth Ng: uucp(unreliable) ihnp4!allegra!bellcore!njitcccc!ken
	    bitnet(prefered) ken@njitcccc.bitnet

New Jersey Institute of Technology
Computerized Conferencing and Communications Center
Newark, New Jersey 07102

------------------------------

Date: 16 May 86 20:30:37 GMT
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Stanley Friesen)
Subject: Re: Fermi-Paradox
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <1359@mmintl.UUCP> franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) writes:
>
>In short, after careful consideration, I find the idea that life might exist
>for many billions of years on a planet but not develop intelligence
>implausible.
>
	It happened on Earth! It took 3 billion years to go from the
first life to the first complex multicellular animal! And there is no
reason yet to suppose it was anything other than chance that that
advance occured even then. From there it has taken another half
billion yaers to reach intelligence! And again there seems to be no
reason why it might no take longer. In fact, contrary to popular
belief there often are unoccupied "niches". In fact previously
occupied "niches" may become vacant and take many millions of years
before being "refilled".

				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)

UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen
ARPA: ??

------------------------------

Date: 16 May 86 20:18:50 GMT
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Stanley Friesen)
Subject: Re: Sun won't go supernova...
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <210@alliant.UUCP> spain@alliant.UUCP (Dave spain) writes:
>
>>	Michael J. Hartsough writes
>>As I understand it (and I'm certainly no expert), the/our Sun is of the
>>proper size to "go" Nebular (correct terminology?). I believe that I got
>>this info from Carl Sagan's book "Cosmos", but I'm not sure...
>
>From everything I've read or heard on the subject our Sun is supposed to
>go Nova, not Supernova, in some N number of years (N >>>> 1). After which
>the Sun will collapse into a white dwarf star which will gradually cool over
>the eons to form a dark star. A rather mundane and typical death for a main
>sequence star.

	No, the Sun will not go Nova. As far as we can tell at present
novas only occur in close binaries, being triggered by material
transfer between the two stars. The Sun may well go Nebular, that is
it may start to exude a slowly expanding shell of gases called a
Plenetary nebula, but only *after* it has gone through the Red Giant
stage.
>
>(the difference between going Nova and Supernova is not usually
>clearly explained other than in terms of the magnitude of the explosion
>and the remanents left behind) leaving behind either white dwarves, neutron
>stars or black holes depending on their original mass.

>One possible difference between what is considered Nova vs Supernova might
>be the formation of a planetary nebula after the explosion. An even more 
>likely explanation would be the observed visual magnitude of the star at 
>the height of the explosion, relative to others stars have gone Nova.

	The original definition of the difference was indeed the
difference in magnitude of the explosion. In addition novas only lose
thier outer layers, while supernovas result in the loss of most of the
original mass of the star. Now that we understand the mechanisms
better, we know that the twon things are totally different sorts of
events. The mechanism for a nova I have already explained, and in fact
some smaller supernovas may have the same mechanism. However the
classic supernove is caused by a core implosion due to exhaustion of
nuclear fuel in the star, and probably occurs in all stars over a
certain mass. A Planetary Nebula is another thing altogether, there
is(or was last time I looked) little evidence that they are in any way
associated with novas, they seem to form spontaneously by some unknown
mechanism.

				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)

UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen
ARPA: ??

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #293
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA03223; Wed, 28 May 86 03:02:06 PDT
	id AA03223; Wed, 28 May 86 03:02:06 PDT
Date: Wed, 28 May 86 03:02:06 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8605281002.AA03223@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #294

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 294

Today's Topics:
		 need omni-directional broadcast too
			 SPACE Digest V6 #286
	      Fermi Paradox, can't use a priori analysis
       Fermi paradox - we can only find what we can understand
		   Re: Gagarin was not the first!!
		       Re: SPACE Digest V6 #285
		       Re: SPACE Digest V6 #287
		   Re: Gagarin was not the first!!
			    Relative times
		       Re: SPACE Digest V6 #287
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 1986 May 18 06:21:18 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@su-ai.arpa>
To: amsler@mouton.arpa
Cc: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
Subject: need omni-directional broadcast too

RA> Date: Thu, 8 May 86 08:06:10 edt
RA> From: amsler@mouton.arpa (Robert Amsler)
RA> Sender: ota

RA> I would assume an advanced civilization had virtually eliminated
RA> non-directed broadcasting of communication energy. It is an
RA> inefficient use of energy to fling it out in all directions.

If you have nothing but directed beams of communication, then if for
some reason you lose communication you have no way to establish it
because you have no way to figure out what direction to send your
communication signal. Also it takes energy to transmit continuously so
that the station at the other end can track your signal and know where
to aim its signal, so it may be more efficient for sporatic
communication to use an omnidirectional signal when needed to
re-establish directed-communication link rather than hold the
directed-communication link active during periods of nothing useful to
communicate. Also you may collide with another ship if it is not
sending any broadcast signal to warn nearby ships of its location.
Thus although most message traffic may in fact be via beamed signals,
there should be enough navagation and "here I am" signals being
broadcast, each with modulation to identify its source, that should
such a civilization exist in our vicinity (say within 100 lightyears)
we would be able to detect its broadcast from Earth even if they
aren't beaming anything specifically our way.

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 18 May 86 14:56 PDT
From: Alan D. Alters <Alters@vermithrax.sch.symbolics.com>
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #286
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Cc: Alters@vermithrax.sch.symbolics.com

Greetings and Felicitations:

A recent article in TIME magazine talked about a newly discovered
gravitational lens caused by the largest object yet "observed".  One
of the explanations posited concerned something called "cosmic
strings".  The article briefly explained these to be mathematically
derived bodies that were "fossils of the Big Bang".  Does anyone out
there have a more detailed explanation of these phenomena?  [One that
is understandable by a layman such as myself.]  Thanks in advance.

-Al.

------------------------------

Date: 1986 May 18 06:10:21 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@su-ai.arpa>
To: decvax!ima!inmet!janw@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Cc: Space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Fermi Paradox, can't use a priori analysis

J> Date: 12 May 86 02:52:00 GMT
J> From: decvax!ima!inmet!janw@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
J> Subject: Fermi Paradox

J> The idea that Earth life is the first in the galaxy to evolve  to
J> its  present  stage  seems implausible, ...

J> A priori, we should consider ourselves in the middle of this dis-
J> tribution,  with  half the galaxy ahead of us, most of them ahead
J> by hundreds of millions years.

A priori means ignoring all scientific evidence. We must instead use a
posteriori analysis. We start with all the theories, sorted by
descending a priori likelihood, then we dismiss those which don't fit
the evidence, and the first one that remains is the current favorite.
If half the galaxy is ahead of us, they are here already, so we
dismiss that theory (unless we can find a reasonable rebuttal to that
refutation by evidence, the point of the current debate). The
anthropic principle, there are lots of random universes, most
inhospitable to life, but we observe only the very few ones where we
happen to exist so our view of nature is from a preferred universe, is
similar in using a posteriori analysis. In fact, maybe this is a case
of it. There are lots of universes where Earth was taken over by
aliens before intelligence could develop on Earth, and a few where
Earth happened to be first in the Galaxy and thus not molested by
aliens. We of course live in one of those Earth-rare unmolested universes.

------------------------------

Date: 19-May-1986 0910
From: redford%jeremy.DEC@decwrl.dec.com  (John Redford)
To: space@s1-b.arpa, redford%jeremy.DEC@decwrl.dec.com
Subject: Fermi paradox - we can only find what we can understand


Jan wasilewsky writes regarding the Fermi paradox:

>That in itself is not surprising: with civilization changing at a
>quasi-exponential  rate,  we  should  not  presume  to  judge our
>seniors in it. They may be dead; or  may  be  not  alive  in  our
>sense,  transcending the distinction somehow; may not be rational
>in our sense any more; not civilized in our sense. 

Well said.  Could we tell their handiwork if we saw it?  English gardens
are deliberately laid out to look natural; abstract expressionism looks
random to those unfamiliar with it.  Stanislaw Lem once wrote a story 
where the aliens expressed themselves in the structure of physical law.
You could tell that it was artificial because they were still 
tinkering with it, still trying to clean up their mistake in making certain
muon decay reactions asymmetrical.  

>Attempts at radio communication seem even more futile. Radio  has
>been  with  us for a few decades. A few centuries from now, we'll
>be into something else. Yet we expect  beings  randomly  picked
>from  a billion years of evolution - theirs, not ours, it may not
>go in the same direction - to send beepbeeps to us.

Yet radio is all we have.  They could be communicating with modulated 
neutrino beams, or for that matter they could BE modulated neutrino beams,
but we can only discover what we can detect.  You can only search the 
ground where the streetlight shines.  Anyhow, it may not be that unlikely 
that they use radio for some things.  We still build fires a hundred thousand
years after discovering it.  What's certain is that if we don't look 
we'll never find them.

John Redford
DEC-Israel

------------------------------

Date: 15 May 86 07:02:50 GMT
From: uwvax!puff!hammen@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Robert J. Hammen)
Subject: Re: Gagarin was not the first!!
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <8605131956.AA18871@s1-b.arpa>, EINAUDI@ICNUCEVM.BITNET (Alessandro Berni) types:
> In their book edited in Turin in 1962, 'Voci dallo Spazio' (Voices from space),
> the two brothers Giovanni and Achille Iudica-Cordiglia reported of their work
> as promotors of the center for space radio-listening.
> In this book there is the description of a listening occurred February 2, 1961
> of a cosmonaut (or astronaut or spacenaut or what else you like) surely sof-
> fering of a lack of O2 that brought him to death.

If I remember correctly, these are the two people to which James Oberg, author
of 'Red Star In Orbit' (probably the best book on the Soviet space program),
referred to as (paraphrased) 'having claimed the deaths of whole squadrons of
cosmonauts.'  There has never been any real proof that this event occured, 
unless something new has been revealed.

> Now, 25 years later, the same Soviet press has given reason to the Cordiglias.
> In fact they released the name of cosmonaut Konstantin Bondarenko, aged 24,
> as first cosmonaut died in space, in 1961.

Did the Soviets admit that he died in space?  I think not.  It was
well known, through intelligence reports and through discussions with
Soviet astronauts during the Apollo-Soyuz training program, that at
least one cosmonaut died in a training accident (in fact, there exists
a couple of interesting group pictures of Soviet cosmonauts standing
with Sergei Korolyov (the Soviet equivalent to Werner Von Braun).  The
pictures are identical, with the one exception that one person is
missing).  Oberg did not think much of the story of the two Italian
listeners, and while I don't disregard it just because he says so, I
would need to see more evidence proving this rather than just relying
on hearsay.  Are there actual copies of these tapes available for
analysis?

> 2 Feb 1961/22:30 heard 'biological sounds' (heart at 80-90 beats per min)
If this is true, does this necessarily mean that the origin of the sounds
was a human?  Were there voices purported to be on this tape?  And, if such 
voices were heard, were they real-time human voices, or merely recordings?

I am interested to see the facts of this claim.


Robert Hammen   {seismo,allegra,harvard,topaz}!uwvax!gumby!bambam!alfred!zaphod
U. of Wisc. Undergraduate Projects Lab      bambam!alfred!zaphod@gumby.wisc.edu
UW-Madison Plasma Physics Dept.     plasma%wiscpsl.bitnet {@wiscvm.wisc.edu}
---
Experience varies greatly with equipment ruined.

------------------------------

Date: 19 May 1986 03:54-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V6 #285
In-Reply-To: Space's mail message of Fri, 16 May 86 03:12:43 PDT

There is very good reason to believe decay rates are constant. One of
the better pieces of hard evidence for this is the fossil 'natural
reactor' in Africa, dated to Cambrian or Pre Cambrian  I believe. It
was a natural vein of fissionables in which low level fission occured for
some hundreds of millions of years, at somewhere around 500M BP. From
decay products, etc, universal constants have been shown to have been
the same at the time the 'reactor' was live as they are now. This has
limited such hypothesis' to extremely low rates of change.

------------------------------

Date: 19 May 1986 04:08-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V6 #287

Why would any advanced race waste energy and resources dropping into
gigantic gravity wells? Planets are for primitive life forms.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 19 May 86 09:20:20 pdt
From: David Smith <dsmith%hplabsc@hplabs.arpa>
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Re: Gagarin was not the first!!
Cc: einaudi%icnucevm.bitnet@wiscvm.wisc.edu


> ... a cosmonaut (or astronaut or spacenaut or what else you like) surely sof-
> fering of a lack of O2 that brought him to death.
> In the tape recording you could clearly distinguish heartbeats and the sound
> of an affaticated breathing.
> ...
> Now, 25 years later, the same Soviet press has given reason to the Cordiglias.
> In fact they released the name of cosmonaut Konstantin Bondarenko, aged 24,
> as first cosmonaut died in space, in 1961.
> ...

I clipped the following article from the San Jose Mercury News
about 2 to 4 weeks ago (forgot to write the date on the clipping):

		Cosmonaut died in '61, Soviets say

    MOSCOW -- A newspaper has disclosed that a Soviet cosmonaut died
    in a training accident 25 years ago, only 20 days before his
    colleague Yuri Gagarin became the first man in space.

    Valentin Bondarenko, 24, died in a fire fed by an oxygen-rich
    atmosphere -- an accident like the one that killed three American
    astronauts during a simulated launch six years later.

    A group photograph published in the government newspaper Izvestia on
    Tuesday showed the doomed cosmonaut seated next to Gagarin shortly
    before his death, raising the possibility that he had been intended to
    make the historic first flight into space.

    Western space experts said that although rumors of additional Soviet
    accidents have circulated for years, they believe the Soviet Union had
    never previously mentioned anything about the 1961 training accident.

If this is true, it means that the cosmonaut who suffocated in space
(if one did) was someone other than Valentin (Konstantin?) Bondarenko.

			-- David Smith
			   hplabs!dsmith
			   dsmith%hp-labs@csnet-relay

------------------------------

To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Relative times
Date: Mon, 19 May 86 13:41:40 -0400
From: Eric Thayer <thayer@huey.udel.edu>


Tim Margeson writes:

> If I'm wrong, then take your Cesium clock, orbit it around the moon a
> few times, compare it to an identical clock left on earth. If the two
> times are the same, I'll believe you that radioactive decay is
> constant. Otherwise, explain to me which clock has the correct time.
> Simple? Good. BTW, I believe just a test was done by NASA a few years
> ago, the clocks proved one of the relativity claims by Einstein,
> something about time dialation. The clocks were different when they
> returned, so I ask, whivh one IS the correct time? And which one do we
> use as a standard for figuring how old we are?

  I believe that current physical theory maintains that there is no
meaning to the term "absolute time."  As such, each clock (assuming it
is in working order) is telling the correct time with respect to its
frame of reference.
 
  So, I think the answer to your question is that we should use the
clock on the earth to figure how old we are since all other clocks
which are not in the earth's frame of reference cannot be guaranteed
to measure "earth time."  Of course things are complicated slightly by
the fact that there is no such thing as THE earth's frame of reference
since the acceleration and velocity of a body at rest on the surface
of the earth varies over the surface of the earth.  This leads to the
conclusion that clocks at the north pole may run at a different rate
relative to clocks at the equator.  I don't know what the order of
these discrepancies is over a few billion years, but it would be an
interesting thing to find out.
	Any physicists out there who could comment?

------------------------------

Date: 19 May 86 21:45:52 GMT
From: cad!richter@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Adam J. Richter)
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V6 #287
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <516874105.amon@h.cs.cmu.edu> Dale.Amon@H.CS.CMU.EDU writes:
>Why would any advanced race waste energy and resources dropping into
>gigantic gravity wells? Planets are for primitive life forms.

	Because by dropping very deep into one and firing a
small amount of fuel, you can pick up a tremendous amount of velocity.

	How?  Glad you asked:

	As you fall into the well, you are accelerated for a certain
amount of time.  When you fire your engines, this adds to your speed,
so when you come out, gravity HAS LESS TIME TO ACT ON YOU, so you lose
less speed coming out then when you went in.  Therefore, you pick up
not only extra velocity from firing your engines, but you also "steal"
some.  You can use the same trick for braking if, for some reason, you
can't aerobrake.

	Yes, the planet/star/whatever moves slightly in the opposite
direction.

	I think energy is conserved because the fuel that you're
throwing out of the back has less gravitational potential energy, but
I haven't done any sort of a calculation to confirm this.

Adam

P.S.: Does anyone know of any summer aerospace/computer jobs/projects
	around?  Thanks.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #294
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA01553; Thu, 29 May 86 03:02:10 PDT
	id AA01553; Thu, 29 May 86 03:02:10 PDT
Date: Thu, 29 May 86 03:02:10 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8605291002.AA01553@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #295

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 295

Today's Topics:
			  Re: Fermi Paradox
			  Re: Fermi Paradox
		       Re: SPACE Digest V6 #287
		       Re: SPACE Digest V6 #287
			   Re: Tundra life
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 19 May 86 19:03:41 GMT
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Stanley Friesen)
Subject: Re: Fermi Paradox
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <10600026@inmet> janw@inmet.UUCP writes:

>The idea that Earth life is the first in the galaxy to evolve  to
>its  present  stage  seems implausible, for the following reasons
>(and may any  paleontologists  or  astrophysicists  out  there
>correct my assumptions):
>
>(1) Sol is an ordinary kind of star, not rare at  all.   If  life
>originated  on  one of its planets (or was brought here in spores
>and grew) then *a priori* this  should  be  considered  a  likely
>event in many places.

	Agreed, that is why many people find the Fermi Paradox hard to
accept, if life exists *here* it should exist elsewhere.

>(3) Rate of evolution varies very much depending on various  fac-
>tors,  e.g.  temperature, chemicals, particular choice of genetic
>endowment, and geography.  Consider  the  last:  South  America
>lagged  behind  Eurasia  and Africa, preserving older life forms,
>and Australia lagged far behind that. All because  of  vicissi-
>tudes  of  continental drift.

	This is really a misunderstanding of what happened. I would
not say that evolution was any slower in South America or Australia,
rather Iw ould say it went a different direction. Different mechansims
where evolved in each continental area, but the basic rates of
evolution remained comparable. The only factor I know of which can be
demonstrated to effect the rate of evolution to the degree you are
talking about is sexual reproduction, sexually reproducing organisms
evolve *much* faster then asexual ones. This is why the origin of the
Eukaryote cell is so important, it is connected the origin of sexuality.
It took 3 billion years to invent sexuality and multicellularity.

>(4) If so, billions of years on one planet may be equivalent to
>hundreds  of  millions  on  another.  There should then be a wide
>diversity in the highest level achieved at this moment.

	For the resons cited above, I think this is very unlikely.

>A priori, we should consider ourselves in the middle of this dis-
>tribution,  with  half the galaxy ahead of us, most of them ahead
>by hundreds of millions years.

	Well, at least these numbers are more resonable than the
billions some are citing.

				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)

UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen
ARPA: ??

------------------------------

Date: 19 May 86 19:27:12 GMT
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Stanley Friesen)
Subject: Re: Fermi Paradox
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <7787@cca.UUCP> g-rh@cca.UUCP (Richard Harter) writes:

>	We have three separate issues here.  One is an assessment of
>the a priori probability of abiogenesis.  The second is an assessment
>of the a priori probability of the development of the Eukaroytic cell.
>The third is a question of mathematical statistics.
>
>(1)	Assessment of the a priori probability of abiogenesis.
>
>	It is my assessment that the probability of life developing,
>GIVEN the conditions of primitive earth, are quite high.  My reasons
>for making this assessment is that the necessary precondition events
>seem to occur quite naturally.  These include (a) spontaneous generation
>of encapsulating spheres, (b) spontaneous generation of complex biochemical
>materials, and (c) spontaneous generation of self organizing configurations.

	As a biologist, I concur with this reasoning.

>	Your point about a limited period of time is (I believe) well
>taken.  Critical factors here are (a) the decline of natural radioactivity
>and (b) irreversible changes in the environment that occur if life does
>not develop to operate on the environment.  An issue which I don't
>remember seeing addressed is whether natural radioactives are a necessary
>energy source for the development of life.  If this is the case (and it
>worth remembering that young Earth was quite radioactive) the question
>arises as to whether first and second generation planets would have had
>the necessary quota of radioactive elements.  (Has anyone seen any
>estimates on the overall concentration of heavy elements over time?)

	I would take this even further. First generation planets were
likely exclusively jovian gas giants like Saturn. Second generation
non-jovian planets were likely very small, too small to retain an
atmosphere. So only third generation stars would have terrestrial type
planets in the life zone which are large enough to retain an
atmosphere.

>(2)	Assessment of the a priori development of Eukaryotes.
>
>	The Eukaryote cell differs from the Prokaryote cell in that
>(a) it is much larger, (b) it has a central nucleus (capsule within
>a capsule), (c) multiple DNA strands (chromosomes) versus a single DNA
>strand, and (d) subsidiary structures within the cell with a separate
>heredity (mitochondria).  In short, the Eukaryotic cell is a large
>complex structure in comparison with the Prokaryotic cell  There has
>never been, to my knowledge, any convincing explanation of how the
>Eukaryotic cell developed.

	Well, Ms. Margulis' ideas have much to recomend them, but they
still fail to explain the origin of the nuclear envelope and the
multiple strands of DNA. It is interesting to note that it is
apparently the nuclear organization which *allows* Eukaryotes to
become large and complex! A single strand of DNA connected to the cell
wall can only get so large. This severely limits what is possible with
prokaryotic cells.

>  Higher life is all Eukaryotic.
>Gould, in one of his books, makes the interesting point that, in the
>absence of predation, species diversity is low and that the evolution
>rate is also low.  Until effective predators at the cellular level
>developed, evolution (at the Prokaryotic level) proceded very slowly.

	In addition, sexual reproduction, as a mechanism for
mixing the genome up and making new combinations, is an important
prerequisite for rapid evolution. The various prokaryotic attempts at
sex are all very limited and inefficient.

>	It is my assessment that the development of the Eukaryotic
>cell is an anomalous event in the history of life.  There is no
>particular reason that it occurred at the time that it did (the
>Oxygen level argument doesn't work.)

	Especially since it was prokaryotes that caused the Oxygen
level increase in the first place.

>(3)	A question of statistics
>
>	In any case there is a statistical point that I have not
>seen raised before.  Suppose that the development of a star spanning
>technology is randomly distributed with an expected mean time of
>umpteen billion years.  It is probable that the first occurence of
>such an event will be a long time befoe the second and subsequent
>occurences.  That is, whatever race is first is going to be first
>by a large margin.  Odds are that they are going to discover an
>empty galaxy that will remain empty while they explore it.
>
>	This means that the entire subsequent history of the galaxy
>hangs on what race #1 decides to do.  This rules out all arguments
>of the form -- one race would do one thing and another would do
>something else.  Race #1 sets policy.  Period.

	Nice point. Still, there are other models besides Poisson which
are resonable. For instance a model with a long "lead time", that is a
long initial period in which the probability of intelligence is
essentiaslly zero followed by a period in which there is a significant
non-zero probability, or even a progressively increasing probability.
I have not analyzed this in detail, but I believe it might result in a
model in which intelligence life forms tend to evolve at more or less
the same time, in a sort of burst, like the origin of coelomate higher
animals at the base of the Cambrian.

				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)

UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen

------------------------------

Date: 19 May 86 23:22:34 GMT
From: brahms!desj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (David desJardins)
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V6 #287
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <376@cad.BERKELEY.EDU> richter@pavepaws.UUCP (Adam J. Richter)
writes:
>... by dropping very deep into [a gravity well] and firing a small
>amount of fuel, you can pick up a tremendous amount of velocity.
>
>	As you fall into the well, you are accelerated for a certain amount
>of time.  When you fire your engines, this adds to your speed, so when
>you come out, gravity HAS LESS TIME TO ACT ON YOU, so you lose less
>speed coming out then when you went in.

   Wrong.  The work done by gravity depends only on the path you follow
(i.e. the change in gravitational potential), NOT on your velocity as
you move through it.

>Therefore, you pick up not only extra velocity from firing your engines,
>but you also "steal" some.  You can use the same trick for braking if,
>for some reason, you can't aerobrake.

   I don't think so.  Since the whole point is that you are leaving your
fuel at the bottom of the potential well, with less potential energy, it
seems that you would have to leave with more kinetic energy than if you
had just used your fuel to brake in deep space.

>I think energy is conserved because the fuel that you're throwing out
>of the back has less gravitational potential energy, but I haven't done
>any sort of a calculation to confirm this.

   This is true.  In general, the optimal time to burn your fuel is at
the bottom of the gravity well, because you don't have to carry the fuel
out with you.

>Yes, the planet/star/whatever moves slightly in the opposite direction.

   Here you are confusing two separate things.  One is the "slingshot
effect," which you can use to gain velocity *in the direction of motion
of the potential well* (Jupiter, for example, if you want to gain velocity
in the spinward direction of the solar system), *without the expenditure
of fuel*.  The other is the increased efficiency of burning fuel at the
bottom of the potential well, which has nothing to do with the motion of
the body and certainly applies even to a "stationary" object.

   -- David desJardins

------------------------------

Date: 20 May 86 01:47:43 GMT
From: cad!richter@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Adam J. Richter)
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V6 #287
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

David desJardins and I (Adam Richter) had it out, and here's the
consensus.  I'm sure David will correct me where and if I'm wrong.

>> = Me (Adam)
> = David desJardins

>>	As you fall into the well, you are accelerated for a certain amount
>>of time.  When you fire your engines, this adds to your speed, so when
>>you come out, gravity HAS LESS TIME TO ACT ON YOU, so you lose less
>>speed coming out then when you went in.
>
>   Wrong.  The work done by gravity depends only on the path you follow
>(i.e. the change in gravitational potential), NOT on your velocity as
>you move through it.

	I wasn't talking about work; I was talking about change in
velocity, which is not conserved.  We're both absolutely correct.


>>Therefore, you pick up not only extra velocity from firing your engines,
>>but you also "steal" some.  You can use the same trick for braking if,
>>for some reason, you can't aerobrake.
>
>   I don't think so.  Since the whole point is that you are leaving your
>fuel at the bottom of the potential well, with less potential energy, it
>seems that you would have to leave with more kinetic energy than if you
>had just used your fuel to brake in deep space.

	Now he does think so.  When you brake, you give your fuel MORE
kinetic energy.

>>Yes, the planet/star/whatever moves slightly in the opposite direction.
>
>   Here you are confusing two separate things.  One is the "slingshot
>effect," which you can use to gain velocity *in the direction of motion
>of the potential well* (Jupiter, for example, if you want to gain velocity
>in the spinward direction of the solar system), *without the expenditure
>of fuel*.  The other is the increased efficiency of burning fuel at the
>bottom of the potential well, which has nothing to do with the motion of
>the body and certainly applies even to a "stationary" object.
>
>   -- David desJardins

	I was not confusing anything.  David is correct in noting that
there is a completely different manuveur in which you don't need to
fire your engines at the bottom of the gravity well, and which also
changes the momentum of the planet slightly.

	However, David raised an interesting point in our
conversation.  The star/planet/whatever does not always have to move
backwards, and if you arrange things just right, you might be able to
make the planet not move at all.

	How?  Glad you asked.  The fuel is much more massive than the
ship, they both come in with more than escape velocity, and the change
in velocity of the fuel do to it being fired out of the back is not
great enough to reverse its direction relative to the star or even
bring its velocity to less than escape velocity.  I don't know what
the ratios have to be, but you can see what happens if you keep
halving the mass of the ship and doubling its change in velocity at
the bottom of the gravity well.

	zzzZZZzzz....

	Okay, okay.  I'm done.  I assume David will make any
corrections that he sees fit.  Bye now.

Adam

P.S. Hire me.

------------------------------

Date: 19 May 1986 22:36-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Re: Tundra life

The tundra ecosystem is not lichens and liverworts. It is a massive
explosion of life, from algae to vast herds of grazing animals, from
trillions of noseeums to millions of birds that fly there for the
summer. So the example of plantlife adapted to long day night cycle is
well taken.

The facts are that food plants can be found for just about any
variation in seasonal freeze/thaw or day/night cycle that you want.
The genetic pool is rich enough to clone just about any combination
required.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #295
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA04555; Fri, 30 May 86 03:02:04 PDT
	id AA04555; Fri, 30 May 86 03:02:04 PDT
Date: Fri, 30 May 86 03:02:04 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8605301002.AA04555@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #296

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 296

Today's Topics:
			Re: Gravitational Lens
		  Sagan Shift (Re: ken@pembina.UUCP)
		       Re: SPACE Digest V6 #287
		    Near Collisions Between Stars
	 Re: Architecture for Space Exploration & Development
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 24 May 86 04:23:29 GMT
From: brahms!desj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (David desJardins)
Subject: Re: Gravitational Lens
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <716@utastro.UUCP> ethan@utastro.UUCP writes:
>Major point:  you and your friends are right.  If the lens is spherically
>symmetric and the lensed object is directly behind it then the image
>is a circle.  Remove either of these symmetries and you get discrete images.

   Yes.  It is indeed theoretically possible to get a circle from a perfectly
symmetrical arrangement such as you depict above.  But the probability of
such an arrangement is 0.  (It would require the determinant of the Jacobian
matrix of the function mapping rays from Earth to points seen in space be
*exactly* 0.)
   But, what we *should* see are elliptical rather than circular images of
the (presumably spherical) quasar source.  Looking out from Earth we should
see the two images something like this:

                      ___                ___
                     /   \              /   \
                    (  1  )   (lens)   (  2  )
                     \___/              \___/


Can someone confirm this?  Or is it impossible to resolve the images as
anything more than point sources (probable)?
   It also seems that horizontally-polarized light should be affected
differently than vertically-polarized light by the bending, and this
should be detectable.  Or am I confused?

   -- David desJardins

------------------------------

Date: 16 May 86 04:16:02 GMT
From: hplabs!hp-sdd!ncr-sd!ncrcae!ncsu!mcnc!philabs!linus!alliant!spain@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Sagan Shift (Re: ken@pembina.UUCP)
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <908@alberta.UUCP> ken@pembina.UUCP (Ken Hruday) writes:
>...
>Another point that no one has brought up (also due - I think - to Carl Sagan)
>is that the absence of inadvertent radio communication could be explained
>by more advance technology.
>
>  Specifically, civilizations could go through a short phase of "radio
>brightness" before all communication becomes very tight. This is the
>experience of our civilization. In the middle of this century intra-planet
>communication was carried out almost totally by radio broadcast - a 
>wasteful and relatively primitive method. Now most communication is carried 
>out by very tightly directed microwave links, fiber optics - etc. so there 
>is less waste of energy and a dramatic reduction in leakage into space. 
>
>There is a greater trend towards these types of communication too. This 
>leaves a very, very, narrow window of time in which "accidental" 
>communications are spilt into space. Thus, the chances of overhearing another 
>civilization is incredibly small unless they are purposefully trying to 
>communicate with us. 

Perhaps, but this postulate (call it Sagan Shift :-) ) seems to
presuppose a limited amount of spacebound communication. For
Radio/TV/etc broadcast transmittion, the drift towards microwave and
satelite communications seems more likely to put us in contact,
especially if the power and number of transmitters increases over time.
Already we are starting to see this happen and it could grow even more
in the future due to increased demand by UTILITY/COMMERICAL/DBS/PAY-TV
broadcasters or even space colonies!  The energy of these transmittions
goes straight into space with little attenuation. Even a "tightly"
focused microwave beam would be perceived as a "large" wavefront for a
civilization in its path at an interstellar distance. And with enough
transmitters around the Earth beaming signals into space, we would still
have a fairly wide dispersion of radio energy.

In fact it could be argued that rather than measuring our
electromagnetic wavefront from the beginning of the first radio
transmittions it might be more useful to use the dates when VHF/UHF/EHF
RADAR and TV transmittions became continuous. This would pull in our own
electromagnetic wavefront by several light-years.

The reason I say this is not only because more energy is propogated
directly into space, but that such transmittions could reach a larger
number of civilizations due to the possibility that they would be easier
to monitor from the ground. Why?

Given the problems of atmospheric filtering and light pollution in
optical astronomy, I've often wondered whether our own ionosphere
presents similar problems in radio astronomy. Just as our own atmosphere
blocks out UV and X-Ray light, it seems possible that the ionosphere
could be "shielding" us from lower frequency radio energy. Couple that
with the enormous amount of RF emanating from terrestrial and solar
sources and it could be that feeble low-frequency signals from space are
blotted out completely.

I admit that this presupposes a lot. One should not assume that other
worlds have our geomagnetic properties. On the other hand it was exactly
these properties that made long-distance radio communication popular in
the first place.

For a civilization whose own planetary E/M configuration would prevent
long distance radio communication via HF, the idea of receiving radio
signals from outer-space might even be overlooked. At least until they
considered using satellites. Of course they could just as easily build
their first systems using HF designs, good for hearing us but not them!

For any civilization which is doing serious monitoring from space, you
can probably use our lower-frequency wavefront. But this would tend to
favor first contact with civilizations that range from slightly to
highly more advanced technologically than our own.

After the Space Telescope is launched, perhaps we should consider a
Space-Based Radio Telescope. After all, why should we limit our own
search to frequencies above 100 Mhz?

>  Considering this later possibility, would you like to extend an open 
>invitation for *anyone* in the universe to come and visit us? The idea of 
>having a vastly superior (technically) civilization stop in for a visit 
>might not be the smartest thing we've ever come up with! It would require 
>a huge act of faith on the benevolence of an unknown and totally alien
>culture. Other civilizations (if they truly are intelligent :-)) would 
>weigh this factor quite heavily before trying to make contact.

Maybe, athough I tend to believe Arthur C. Clarke's hypothesis that
hostile civilizations would destroy themselves long before they could
get to us. On the other hand, if we TRULY believed in SDI we should get
busy NOW to get everyone on this planet to either ban radio
communication detectable at interstellar distances or to start building
a Faraday Cage around the Earth!!! :-)

>  In passing, I'd like to point out that the experience of our civilization 
>is very narrow in terms of time and space. We have only been around for 
>the tiniest fraction of the history of the universe and we only occupy 
>a splinter of galactic space. This sample is far too small to conclude that 
>there is no life out there.

Agreed.

------------------------------

Date: 20 May 86 10:25:19 GMT
From: brahms!desj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (David desJardins)
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V6 #287
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <13896@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> I wrote:
>In article <376@cad.BERKELEY.EDU> richter@pavepaws.UUCP (Adam J. Richter)
>writes:
>>... by dropping very deep into [a gravity well] and firing a small
>>amount of fuel, you can pick up a tremendous amount of velocity.
>>
>>	As you fall into the well, you are accelerated for a certain amount
>>of time.  When you fire your engines, this adds to your speed, so when
>>you come out, gravity HAS LESS TIME TO ACT ON YOU, so you lose less
>>speed coming out then when you went in.
>
>   Wrong.  The work done by gravity depends only on the path you follow
>(i.e. the change in gravitational potential), NOT on your velocity as
>you move through it.

   I retract my criticism.  Adam's point is based on the observation that
firing a rocket has the effect of imparting some fixed delta-V to your
spaceship, and the resulting change in energy is largest when your ship
is moving quickly (since K = 1/2 mv^2, dK = mv dv ...).  So you produce
a larger change in the energy of your ship (either increase or decrease)
by falling into a potential well (which temporarily increases your
velocity), firing your rockets at the bottom, and then coming back out.

>>I think energy is conserved because the fuel that you're throwing out
>>of the back has less gravitational potential energy, but I haven't done
>>any sort of a calculation to confirm this.

   Of course it has to do with what happens to the fuel, since *total*
energy has to be conserved, but it is a little more complicated than this.
It has more to do with the *kinetic* energy of the fuel.

>>Yes, the planet/star/whatever moves slightly in the opposite direction.

   This can be true or not, depending again on what happens to the fuel.
Total momentum (ship + fuel + planet) is of course conserved.

   -- David desJardins

------------------------------

Date:         Tue, 20 May 86 10:26:04 EDT
From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
To: space digest <SPACE-INCOMING@s1-b.arpa>
Subject:      Near Collisions Between Stars


Re Paul Dietz' comment on distances between stars:
> It's probably no accident that stars around here are about 4-6 light
>years apart. If they were much closer (say, < 1 ly?) the mean time
>between close stellar encounters would be less than 4.5 billion years,
>the age of the solar system.  Such an encounter would cause all planets
>around both stars to be thrown into eccentric or hyperbolic orbits,
>probably destroying any life there....

An interesting question.  Given the density of stars is roughly
1 per 400 cubic light years, how often should we expect a star to
pass close enough to disrupt the orbits of the planets?
     Data needed:  Typical radial velocity of stars (relative to the sun)
in the neighborhood of the sun, 15 to 20 KPS, or about 5E-5 c
(although a few stars, eg Barnard's, move an order of magnitude faster.)
One light year is about 60,000 AU.  Jupiter's closest approach to
Earth is about 4 AU.  Jupiter's mass is about 1/1000 the mass of the sun.
     First: how close would a star have to approach before it would
disrupt the orbits of the planets?  This could be calculated exactly if
you want to quantify exactly how much increase in orbital eccentricity
qualifys as "disrupting", but for a quick calculation we can note that
the perturbation of Jupiter on the orbit of the Earth is not sufficient
to disrupt Earth's orbit.  So let's say that if the star stays far enough
away that tidal effects on Earth's orbit are less than those due to
Jupiter, then it's safe. (This will turn out to be a grossly conservative
estimate, since Jupiter makes a close pass nearly yearly, while the
passing star will only make a single pass.)
    Tidal forces are proportional to the mass, and inversely proportional
to the distance cubed, so if the passing star is the mass of the sun
(the average star is slightly less massive), then we will call it a
potentially disruptive encounter if it approaches to within 40 AU.
    At a velocity of 5E-5 c, one light year every 20,000 years,
the sun will make a closest approach to a new star roughly once every
150,000 years.  The area over which the star could be located is
roughly 50 square light years (ie, 400**(2/3)); it is a potentially
disruptive encounter only if the approach is within a radius of
40 AU, or 7E-4 LY: a circle of area 1.5E-6 LY.  Thus, one out of 3E7
of these closest approaches will be potentially disruptive
encounters.  One potentially disruptive encounter can be expected
every 5 trillion years.
     However, remember that this estimate was very conservative.
For an unconservative estimate, let's instead assume that a passing
star makes a disruptive encounter if it passes so close that the
gravitational force due to it is, say, 10% of the force due to the
sun.  In this case, the critical distance is going to be more like
4 AU than 40, and so disruptive encounters will occur something like
every 500 trillion years.
     So somewhere between 5 and 500 trillion years seems like a good
guess for the time between disruptive encounters
     For stars to experience potentially disruptive encounters once
every 5 billion years, the density of stars would have to be 1000  to
100,000 times as great; and so the average distance between stars 1/10 to
1/100 that of the local neighborhood: on the order of two to twenty light
weeks.
Stars in a globular cluster, with spacing say on the order of one light
week, would experience such encounters every 300,000 to 30 million years.
Fortunately such stars probably wouldn't have planets anyway, since they
were mostly formed before heavy elements like silicon and iron were very
abundant.

                   --Geoffrey A. Landis, Brown University
                     Reply to: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA

------------------------------

Date: 19 May 86 19:50:37 GMT
From: allegra!princeton!puvax2!pucc.BITNET!6106728@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Keith Mancus)
Subject: Re: Architecture for Space Exploration & Development
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>Date    Object                                  Use

>1975    More versatile manned vehicle           Earth<->GSO<->Moon
> (a bit beefier than the shuttle, can get directly to GSO)
> (also serves as orbiter portion of Moon/Planet systems)
>
>1980    Moon Base                               Prepare for Mars Base
> (also provide materials for Solar Power Satellites & space stations)
>
>1985    Mars Base                               Start terraforming:-)
> (way station for asteroid ships)
>1985    Asteroid mining ships/systems           supply mars & moon bases
> (also supply material for space colonies, get started to Jupiter)
>
>1985-99 Outer Planets, Solar power satellites,
>        fast unmanned probe arrives at Proxima Centauri

  Several questions, Ralph. 1) Why give your shuttle the ability
to go from GSO to the Moon? It would be more efficient to design a separate
craft for this.  2) Mars Base only 5 years after Moon Base? I'm very
optimistic, but I think this is stretching it.  3)  It would be
cheaper and more useful in the long run, not to mention easier, to go
visit some nearby (i.e., Earth-grazing) asteroids before going to Mars.
4) Your 'fast' interstellar probe is INCREDIBLY fast given its launch date.
What kind of drive were you planning on?
    I like the idea of your timetable; anyone else have comments on my
comments?

  Keith Mancus <6106278@PUCC>
  The Mad Engineering Student

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #296
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA06877; Sat, 31 May 86 03:02:06 PDT
	id AA06877; Sat, 31 May 86 03:02:06 PDT
Date: Sat, 31 May 86 03:02:06 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8605311002.AA06877@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #297

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 297

Today's Topics:
	     Re: Cosmic Quarantine hypothesis -- new idea
	       Re: PBS 'Space Race' program speculation
		       What to do with Voyager
		  Re: Voyager power supply lifetime
			 re: density of stars
		  Re: Voyager power supply lifetime
		Re: Fermi-Paradox (really Carl Sagan)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 20 May 86 13:43:35 GMT
From: decwrl!magic!stolfi@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Cosmic Quarantine hypothesis -- new idea
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

[Long message]

In article <700@utastro.UUCP# ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) writes:

> Certainly the Industrial Revolution of the 18th century was driven by cheap
> coal.  However there had already been a considerable amount of
> industrialization prior to that based on wind and gravity.  I find it
> difficult to believe that civilization would have ground to a halt without
> coal deposits.  

Huh?  Industrialization doesn't seem to have advanced much (in intensity)
in the four thousand years before the Industrial Revolution, compared to
the three centuries after it.  On several occasions it seems even to have
regressed.  I find it quite believable that, if we had no other energy
sources besides wind and wood, our level of industrialization would
oscillate indefinitely around that of the most advanced agrarian
civilizations of the past --- China, India, Egypt, the Roman Empire.
Would such civilizations ever be able to afford a space program,
energywise?  Would there have been an aerospace industry, a green
revolution, a Manhattan project, a fusion program, etc, etc?  

You may have a point, though --- I forgot about hydroelectric power, which
on Earth might have been enough to sustain an industrial revolution of
sorts.  But rivers too are sort of a lucky accident, arent they?
More on that below.  

> Third, why do you find coal deposits unlikely?  They strike me as inevitable.
> As a general rule I am willing to bet that almost any conceivable
> form of abundant life will include in its various effects on the environment
> the deposition of materials that contain free energy.  Their preservation
> then depends on the exclusion of some other material necessary for life
> to exploit the deposit. This does not seem difficult to achieve in a
> geologic context.

First, it is not obvious that life stuff necessarily contains abundant
stored energy.  Quite on the contrary, I expect natural selection to
strongly favor life forms that use the available sources of energy as
efficiently as possible.  That means using for structural purposes the
least energy-intensive material that will do the job, like calcium
carbonate (shells and corals), calcium phosphate (bones), silicon oxide
(diatoms' shells), water (most tissues).

The reason Earth's life contains a substantial amount of high-energy carbon
compounds is almost certainly evolutionary inertia.  Presumably, when life
started, the atmosphere was reducing; carbon-based life was possible then
precisely because proteins and lipids were almost stable (=had low energy
content.) When the natural supply of those compounds ran out, the basic
DNA/RNA/Protein chemistry was too well established to change.  Life still
prefers to manufacture those compounds from CO2, at very high energetic
costs, for the same reason that so many programers continue to use FORTRAN
and COBOL: not because there is something special about them, certainly not
because they are expensive, but simply because switching to anything else
would be too complicated.

Second, if any life form produces energy-rich residues in significant
quantities, I expect that other life forms will soon evolve to consume
those residues. I am not a geologist either, but I believe that coal and
oil deposits were preserved only as a result of rather exceptional
cirsumstances.  Most coal deposits date from a specific geological era
(the Carboniferous) when plant life first moved into relatively dry land.
The absence of grazing animals and insects presumably allowed dead plant
matter to accumulate for a while.  Moreover, the geography at the time was
such that many of those deposits were quickly buried out of the reach of
organisms and oxygen.  These conditions don't seem to have lasted for long:
In todays tropical forests, for example, dead plant matter does not
accumulate.  

The origin of oil is more remote and obscure, but seems to depend on
similar circumstances: an incompletely evolved ecosystem that allows
organic matter to accumulate on the ocean bottom, and deep burial by
river-carried sediments.  (Nowadays, virtually all dead matter in the
oceans is consumed before reaching the bottom.) 

I can imagine many variations on Earth's history where we would end up with
life but no energy-righ deposits.  (1) the basic chemistry of life could
have different (e.g.  silicon-based) from the start.  (2) reduced carbon
compounds could have been so plentiful (as on Titan) that photosynthesis
never became worth the cost.  (3) there might have been no CO2 (as may be
the case on Europa).  (4) There might have been a geological sink for the
O2, say Fe++ oxides or ammonia.  (5) The ocean may have covered all land
(hence no land for plants to grow undistrubed, and no sediments for rapid
burial) (6) There might have been no rain.  (7) there might have been no
tectonic activity (hence no mountains and no sediment-laden rivers after
the first billion years) (9) The Giant Coal-Eating Earthworm and the
deep-rooted Derrick Tree might have evolved eons ago. And so on.

> I`m not a geologist but at least I have one data point on my side.  You have
> none.  

I don't think so.  On Earth, the rare energy-rich deposits of biologic
origin (oil and coal) are dwarfed by the energy-poor ones (such as
limestone).  If we look at the rest of the solar system, there are several
planets and moons that could conceivably suport earth-like life, or came
quite close to it.  However, in all such cases the formation of
energy-right deposits seems less likely by several orders of magnitude.  

DISCLAIMER: The above opinions are not the sort of stuff my employer, 
my teachers, my friends, or my mother would like to be associated with.

------------------------------

Date: 20 May 86 18:48:26 GMT
From: decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-trco01!steckner@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: PBS 'Space Race' program speculation
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa


I found the bit about the "leaking" black holes to be interesting.
Given what little I know about black holes though, the information you
give is contrary to what I thought was current theory.  As far as a
knew, Steven Hawking pio- neered and developed the idea that only very
small black holes could evaporate.  This idea still remains as a
theoretical construct as there has been no obser- vation of such as
object (evaporation times are on the order of many 10e9 years if I
remember).  Such objects would be observable in the X- and gamma- ray
wavelengths.  I don't understand how this information can be
reconciled with what the TV program said.

Noise: What bugs me about some of these astronomy/physics programs is
the voracious appetite they have for what seems to be
border-line/speculative physics.  The processes (the term is used
guardedly) they describe are poorly understood and usually little more
than sketches on somebody's notepad.  There is nothing wrong with
this, but often a great amount of time is spent on it, using cheap
graphics (as seems *not* to have been the case this time), e.g.
Timothy Ferris - the author of "Galaxies" - had such a program on PBS
(I didn't see 'Space Race').  Even such programs seem to need to use
hype to "sell" the ideas.  Someone coined the phrase "Truth is
stranger than fiction".  Well presented truth can be more interesting
than a lot of golly-gee-whiz speculation and fancy pictures.  And in
the end, I think, those parts of the program are the most forgetable
due to their lack of content.  Enough noise...

Cheers!		Tom Steckner
		DEC
		(416)674-4076

Disclaimer: Often humans have disclaimed me, so my company, dog and cat
		wouldn't claim the ideas in here either.

------------------------------

Date: Mon 19 May 86 19:28:10-EDT
From: Vince.Fuller@c.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: What to do with Voyager
To: space@mc.lcs.mit.edu

Would it be possible to swing it around Neptune and head it back
toward the inner Solar System? Perhaps it could be sent toward Jupiter
until we can figure out where to send it next...

	--Vince

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 20 May 86 09:18:42 pdt
From: king@kestrel.arpa (Dick King)
To: space@mc.lcs.mit.edu

   From: ota@s1-b.arpa@kestrel.ARPA
   Newsgroups: kestrel.space
   Date: 13 May 86 10:15:57 GMT
   Sender: daemon@kestrel.ARPA

   From: Ted Anderson <ota@s1-b.arpa>

   SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 283

   >   If you assume modern electronics, then you must also assume some 
   > knowledge about atoms and "how they work". A great deal of this knowledge
   > is gained by taking atoms apart to see what makes them tick...

   Atoms, yes, nuclei, no.  Semiconductor electronics is based on the physics
   of the electrons in solids, not on nuclear physics.

Alpha particles cause problems for VLSI circuits.  It's hard to
imagine a society that learned solid-state physics that didn't try to
find out where this problem was coming from.

-dick

------------------------------

Date: 21 May 86 01:59:14 GMT
From: ucsfcgl!kneller@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Don Kneller%Langridge)
Subject: Re: Voyager power supply lifetime
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>The half-life of the Pu-238 used in the isotope generators is quite short.
>Don't remember the number offhand, but it's measured in years, not centuries.
>Necessarily so:  long half-life means low release of energy per unit time.

Not necessarily so.  You must consider the energy of the decay
products which is not correlated with the half-life.

	Don Kneller
UUCP:	...ucbvax!ucsfcgl!kneller
ARPA:	kneller@ucsf-cgl.ARPA
BITNET:	kneller@ucsfcgl.BITNET

------------------------------

Date: 17 May 86 16:39:32 GMT
From: hplabs!qantel!lll-lcc!lll-crg!mordor!ut-sally!utastro!ethan@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: re: density of stars
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <8605151315.AA24559@s1-b.arpa>, dietz@slb-doll.CSNET.UUCP writes:
> It's probably no accident that stars around here are about 4-6 light
> years apart. If they were much closer (say, < 1 ly?) the mean time
> between close stellar encounters would be less than 4.5 billion years,
> the age of the solar system.  Such an encounter would cause all planets
> around both stars to be thrown into eccentric or hyperbolic orbits,
> probably destroying any life there.  This suggests that globular clusters
> are lousy places to look for earthlike life, as is the dense inner part of
> the galaxy.

This sounded a little strange to me so I did a quick calculation
(without a calculator so maybe I dropped a decimal point).  In order
for a star to have a probability of order unity of coming within 40 AU
of the sun the mean separation of stars should be about 0.1 light
years.  This is assuming a 20 km/s velocity dispersion for disk stars.
An encounter of 40 AU would not seriously disrupt the orbit of the
Earth.  The encounter time goes as the mean separation to the third
power.  Even in the galactic core the planets would probably do
alright.  Globular cluster stars have mean separations of about 0.1
parsec or less so they may indeed present problems for planets with
large separations from their primaries.  In any case they are poor
places to look for earthlike planets becaue their low metallicities
imply that it may be very unlikely to form terrestrial planets in
globular clusters.

"Ma, I've been to another      Ethan Vishniac
 planet!"                      {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan
                               ethan@astro.UTEXAS.EDU
                               Department of Astronomy
                               University of Texas

------------------------------

Date: 19 May 86 14:32:30 GMT
From: ihnp4!mmm!allen@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Kurt Allen)
Subject: Re: Voyager power supply lifetime
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <6671@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
>Their power output at any given time is
>pre-ordained by the isotope half-life; any unused power simply becomes heat.
>The curve of power-output decline is fixed.  Voyager dies when that curve
>hits the horizontal line marking the minimum power needed to keep it alive.
>But by turning some things off, that line can be lowered a bit.

My knowledge is somewhat sketchy here: correct me if I am wrong, but I
believe fission will increase in a reactor as the neutron flux
increases. In commercial reactors heat generated by the breakdown of
fissionables is controlled by withdrawing or inserting control rods or
fluids from the reactor that absorb the neutrons given off by the
normal breakdown of fissionables. If this is the way the Voyager
reactor is controlled then couldn't the lifespan of the isotopes be
increased by moderating the reactor?

	Kurt W. Allen
	3M Center
	ihnp4!mmm!allen

------------------------------

Date: 12 May 86 14:48:24 GMT
From: ihnp4!cuae2!ltuxa!we53!abstl!wucs!wucec2!ph@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Fermi-Paradox (really Carl Sagan)
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <540@tekla.UUCP> dant@tekla.UUCP (Dan Tilque) writes:
>> jmc@riccb.UUCP (Jeff McQuinn ) writes:
>>						    billions and billions (read
>>that with a Carl Sagan TV Scientist accent)
>
>	This is a good point about aliens not having **billions and billions**
>	(it's hard to get a good accent on the terminal) of years to
>	colonize the galaxy.

	    The last time COSMOS came around on Public Television I paid
	special attention and was amused to find that not once in the
	entire miniseries does Carl once say "BILLyuns and BILLyuns".
	He says BILLyuns a lot, yes, and in the final episode in a sort
	of orgasm of hyperbole he talks about our bodies being made up
	of "a BILLyun BILLyun BILLyun atoms"--but NEVER "BILLyuns and
	BILLyuns".  It rather pleased me to notice this because there
	were all kinds of Sagan parodies flying around for a while, and
	ours (some friends and I made a little home-made film) was the
	only one I ever saw that didn't harp on this little phrase.  (-:
	I'll spare you from having to read "BILLyuns" again. :-)

						--pH
/*
 *	    "Okay ... see ... BILLyuns and BILLyuns of years ago ..."
 *	    "HOW D'YA SPELL `BILLYUNS'?" <tap tap tap tap ...>
 */

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #297
*******************


1,forwarded,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA09082; Sun, 1 Jun 86 03:02:09 PDT
	id AA09082; Sun, 1 Jun 86 03:02:09 PDT
Date: Sun, 1 Jun 86 03:02:09 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8606011002.AA09082@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #298

*** EOOH ***
Date: Sun, 1 Jun 86 03:02:09 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #298

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 298

Today's Topics:
			Congress as scapegoat
			 Re: Voyager lifetime
			  Re: Fermi Paradox
	     Re: Cosmic Quarantine hypothesis -- new idea
			Re: radioactive decay
	       Re: Delta Launch Failure engine shutdown
	       Re: Delta Launch Failure engine shutdown
			Fifth nation in space
		      Re: Fifth nation in space
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted-Date: Wed 21 May 1986 08:34:09 EST
Date: Wed 21 May 1986 08:34:09 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Congress as scapegoat
To: Henry Spencer <ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu>
In-Reply-To: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry's message of 12 May 86 18:13:41 GMT
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa

Suppose I go to a used car salesman.  I say I want a reliable car for
$200.  Of course, he doesn't have a reliable car for $200; for that
price one can only get an old rustbucket.  But he thinks "this guy won't
spend the money he needs to spend to get what he wants; it's either the
rustbucket or nothing."  So he lies to me about its reliability, and
I buy the lemon.  Two months later the car's real nature is painfully
obvious, I go back to the used car salesman and complain.  He retorts
"But its all your fault!  You didn't want to spend the money you needed
to get a reliable car."  But the salesman lied; he is the guilty party.

Congressional staff investigations have been saying for years
that NASA couldn't develop an economical, reliable shuttle on the
budget they requested, but NASA firmly denied this.  Being more lapdogs
than watchdogs, the congressmen went along with NASA.  NASA management
misled congress.  Perhaps if NASA had been more honest congress wouldn't
have funded ANY shuttle.  However, NASA didn't give the choice
of an expensive shuttle or no shuttle; they sold congress a pig in a poke.

The 51L disaster, in my opinion, is a direct consequence of the shuttle's
economic failure.  NASA was caught between its promises and harsh reality.
At any point they could have gone to congress and said "look, the
shuttle is a flop; we need more money to fix our mistakes."  They
didn't, and their mistakes caught up with them.

------------------------------

Date: 16 May 86 19:15:36 GMT
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!usc-oberon!smeagol!jplgodo!steve@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Steve Schlaifer x3171 156/224)
Subject: Re: Voyager lifetime
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <1456@poseidon.UUCP>, brent@poseidon.UUCP (Brent P. Callaghan) writes:
> >2 days ago I saw a talk on the Uranus results by Richard Terrile, a
> >planetary scientist at  JPL.  He said the limiting factor would be the
> >sun's brightness as seen from the spacecraft.  After about 30 years, the
> >sun will be too dim to lock onto and Voyager's tight beam will drift.
> I assume that Voyager uses momentum wheels for attitude control.

Nope.  Voyager uses thrusters to maintain its attitude.

> Surely the propellant for unloading the wheels is due to be
> exhausted some time well within the next 30 years ?

It would probably be possible to conserve attitude control fuel by
switching to a low gain antenna and shutting down the attitude control
system.  At a later time, when you wanted to do some tracking, the
attitude control system could be started back up and the spacecraft
switched back to the high gain antenna.  This kind of thing has been
done in the past (Mariner 9 during the last few days of its orbit
around Mars was operated in a mode similar to this).  I think you
could also save some fuel by loosening the tolerances on the attitude
control.

It also occured to me (actually my office partner) that you might be
able to use the star sensor to locate the Sun.  This combined with the
gyros in the inertial attitude sensors might give enough information to
keep the antenna locked on the Earth (doubtful but it might work).

Even without attitude control, it might be possible to get doppler data
by arraying ground antennas and using an omni-directional antenna on the
spacecraft (if it has one---I will have to poke around and see if I have
any information on that).  No pictures or telemetry worth mentioning but
possibly some interesting data anyway.

...smeagol\			Steve Schlaifer
......wlbr->!jplgodo!steve	Advance Projects Group, Jet Propulsion Labs
....group3/			4800 Oak Grove Drive, M/S 156/204
				Pasadena, California, 91109
					+1 818 354 3171

------------------------------

Date: 20 May 86 17:00:00 GMT
From: decvax!ima!inmet!janw@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Fermi Paradox
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa


[janw]
>Sol is an ordinary kind of star, not rare at  all.   If  life
>originated  on  one of its planets (or was brought here in spores
>and grew) then *a priori* this  should  be  considered  a  likely
>event in many places.

I did not explain why a priori analysis is appropriate here.  Why not
include Fermi Paradox into consideration, and conclude that uniqueness
of life on Earth is likely *a posteriori* ?

The answer is that there are very many *unlikely* explanations for Fermi
Paradox. This argument equally supports them all.  E.g., aliens are
around but just happen to be on everyone's blind spot . Wildly
improbable ? So what ? In all the parallel universes where this does not
happen, they don't argue about the Fermi Paradox.

The way to choose among explanations is to sort them out for their
likelihood in the *absence* of what they explain.

------------------------------

Date: 17 May 86 03:03:17 GMT
From: hplabs!qantel!lll-lcc!lll-crg!seismo!cmcl2!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Cosmic Quarantine hypothesis -- new idea
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <548@magic.DEC.COM> stolfi@magic.UUCP (Jorge Stolfi) writes:
>JS> (Come to think of it, coal and oil deposits may be even more unlikely
>JS> than uranium ones. Could this be the answer to the Fermi paradox?...) 
>
>To which Ethan Vishniac replied, in article <688@utastro.UUCP>:
>
>> Yes.  Provided that intelligence usually evolves on planets with no
>> biological activity. :-)
>
>Even if biological activity 
>is taken for granted, the creation of such deposits and their preservation
>for billions of years seems VERY unlikely to me. 

I think your intuition is faulty here.  Living systems by their vary nature
tend to store energy in chemical form.  Natural events will tend to bury
such stores of energy for long periods of time.

As evidence that this is not rare, consider that there are three different
kinds of such fossils fuels here on Earth: coal, oil, and natural gas.
(BTW, some scientists think that some of the natural gas is *not* of
biological origin.)  If it happens three times on one world, it can hardly
be an unlikely event.

Frank Adams                           ihnp4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
Multimate International    52 Oakland Ave North    E. Hartford, CT 06108

------------------------------

Posted-Date: Wed 21 May 1986 12:59:09 EST
Date: Wed 21 May 1986 12:59:09 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Re: radioactive decay
To: Dave Platt <Dave-Platt%LADC@hi-multics.arpa>
In-Reply-To: Dave Platt's message of Fri, 16 May 86 11:16 PDT
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa

> All that I can claim is that as far
>as we have been able to determine, the rate of radioactive decay of
>isolated unstable atomic particles appears to be _extremely_ consistent
> ... and that we know of _no_
> physical process that can alter the basic decay rate of such particles.

This is not entirely true.  Radioactive decay by K capture (in which an
inner shell electron and a nuclear proton interact, converting the
proton to a neutron with emission of a neutrino) can depend on the
configuration of the atom's electrons, which can depend on temperature,
pressure, and the ionization state of the atom.  I think a change in
the halflife of 3% has been measured in certain radioactive isotopes
that decay by this mechanism.  For some isotopes, such as (I think)
beryllium 7, the related process of positron emission is energetically
impossible, so a fully ionized Be-7 nucleus cannot, by itself, decay.
This is important in calculations of the nuclear reactions in the
solar interior, where Be-7 decay is an important neutrino source
(in that environment the electrons come from the surrounding plasma).

Also, a scheme for gamma ray lasers has been proposed in which
a nuclear isomer (an excited metastable nuclear species) is to be
found that lies just slightly below a very unstable energy level.
Nuclear multiphoton absorption from an intense optical laser
would raise the isomer to the unstable level, from which it would
decay quickly.  The problem with this scheme is finding two such
closely spaced energy levels, which requires extremely accurate
measurement of the gamma ray spectrum.  AWST reports that an SDI
researcher has recently made a breakthough in this area, however.

None of this affects the accuracy of geological clocks.  I suspect
that any change in physical laws that could significantly affect
the decay rates of nuclei would also cause large changes in the
rate of fusion reactions in the sun, which would make life on earth
impossible.

------------------------------

Date: 20 May 86 16:58:36 GMT
From: tektronix!uw-beaver!bullwinkle!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!ius2.cs.cmu.edu!ralphw@ucbvax.berkeley.
Subject: Re: Delta Launch Failure engine shutdown
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <866@ihwpt.UUCP> knudsen@ihwpt writes:
>Several post-ers have commented on the clean shutdown
>of the Delta rocket, "as if ordered to."
>May it was ordered to -- ...  --
>but by its own internal controlling computer.
>
>An ordinary mechanical malfunction may have caused the shutdown,
>if the Delta operates like the Shuttle in one respect:
>
>The Shuttle orbiter engines can be (and on several occasions
>have been) shut down by the onboard computers whenever some
>anomaly has been detected -- like bearing overheating,
>excessive pump RPM, etc.  This makes lots of sense on a manned
>vehicle with two other liquid engines plus the SRBs;
>better to shut one engine down early then just let it run
>until something catches fire or blows up.

It looked to me like the Delta configuration is 6 or 8 solids around
a liquid fuel first stage, but I may not be remembering enough of what I
saw and heard.  The problem with solids is that you can't shut them down. 

Perhaps the liquid-fueled engine did shut down when the anomaly was detected.
This would seem to be a bug in the presense of solids (except for possible
range safety consideration which are unknown to me).  Was the control
software rewritten when the solid boosters were added to the Delta?)

					- Ralph W. Hyre, Jr.

Internet: ralphw@c.cs.cmu.edu		Phone: (412)CMU-BUGS

------------------------------

Date: 22 May 86 07:39:01 GMT
From: amdcad!phil@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Phil Ngai)
Subject: Re: Delta Launch Failure engine shutdown
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa


FLAME WARNING:

Why don't you guys read Aviation Week before cluttering the net with
baseless speculations? Try your public library.
-- 
 Vote Yes on Proposition 51!

 Phil Ngai +1 408 749 5720
 UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!phil
 ARPA: amdcad!phil@decwrl.dec.com

------------------------------

Date: 22 May 86 14:45:38 GMT
From: decwrl!trco01.dec.com!steckner@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Fifth nation in space
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa


I've received a response already from my posting questioning the numbering
of nations into space plus I've done a tiny bit more about looking into
what I said.  Here goes...

First , as was pointed out to me, Anik is in fact a recent satellite series -
the last being either Anik C or D (I can't remember).

Second, Allouette was in fact the first Canadian satellite (Comsat) into
orbit and is, as far as I can remember the first Comsat (but I'll have to
find a launch date).

Third, the numbering scheme for nations into space seemed to include the
ability to launch stuff into space.  Canada doesn't really have in native
booster program to launch anything (unless one considers the Black Brant
rocket used in upper atmosphere and UV work, but this program was just
cancelled a couple of months ago, #*%&#(%&!).  So the question then
becomes if you can build an engine and find some else's car to put it in
and thereby become the third country to do so, were you the third country
into the automotive era, or do you have to build the whole car?  I can see
both points of view.

So, if anyone has any specifics like launch dates, please post/reply.  I
will summarize if there are any answers.

G'day!		Tom Steckner
		DEC
		(416)674-4076

Disclaimer:	Hardly worth disclaiming, would you want to admit to these
		ideas?  Nobody around here does.

------------------------------

Date: 25 May 86 02:59:24 GMT
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!harvard!rclex!adelie!axiom!linus!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Fifth nation in space
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> Second, Allouette was in fact the first Canadian satellite (Comsat) into
> orbit and is, as far as I can remember the first Comsat (but I'll have to
> find a launch date).

Sorry, Alouette was not a comsat.  It was an ionospheric research satellite,
the first to do serious examination of the ionosphere from above.
-- 
Join STRAW: the Society To	Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
Revile Ada Wholeheartedly	{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #298
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA12958; Mon, 2 Jun 86 03:02:10 PDT
	id AA12958; Mon, 2 Jun 86 03:02:10 PDT
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 86 03:02:10 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8606021002.AA12958@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #299

*** EOOH ***
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 86 03:02:10 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #299

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 299

Today's Topics:
		   Re: Gagarin was not the first!!
		Re: Alien visits, Cesium Clocks & Such
	     Re: Cosmic Quarantine hypothesis -- new idea
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 22 May 86 10:17:44 pdt
From: David Smith <dsmith%hplabsc@hplabs.arpa>
To: space-incoming%s1-b.arpa@csnet-relay.arpa
Subject: Re: Gagarin was not the first!!


> ... a cosmonaut (or astronaut or spacenaut or what else you like) surely sof-
> fering of a lack of O2 that brought him to death.
> In the tape recording you could clearly distinguish heartbeats and the sound
> of an affaticated breathing.
> ...
> Now, 25 years later, the same Soviet press has given reason to the Cordiglias.
> In fact they released the name of cosmonaut Konstantin Bondarenko, aged 24,
> as first cosmonaut died in space, in 1961.
> ...

I clipped the following article from the San Jose Mercury News
about 2 to 4 weeks ago (forgot to write the date on the clipping):

		Cosmonaut died in '61, Soviets say

    MOSCOW -- A newspaper has disclosed that a Soviet cosmonaut died
    in a training accident 25 years ago, only 20 days before his
    colleague Yuri Gagarin became the first man in space.

    Valentin Bondarenko, 24, died in a fire fed by an oxygen-rich
    atmosphere -- an accident like the one that killed three American
    astronauts during a simulated launch six years later.

    A group photograph published in the government newspaper Izvestia on
    Tuesday showed the doomed cosmonaut seated next to Gagarin shortly
    before his death, raising the possibility that he had been intended to
    make the historic first flight into space.

    Western space experts said that although rumors of additional Soviet
    accidents have circulated for years, they believe the Soviet Union had
    never previously mentioned anything about the 1961 training accident.

If this is true, it means that the cosmonaut who suffocated in space
(if one did) was someone other than Valentin (Konstantin?) Bondarenko.

			-- David Smith
			   hplabs!dsmith
			   dsmith%hp-labs@csnet-relay

------------------------------

Date: 19 May 86 20:04:04 GMT
From: hplabs!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Michael McNeil)
Subject: Re: Alien visits, Cesium Clocks & Such
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <661@tekigm2.UUCP> timothym@tekigm2.UUCP (Timothy D Margeson)
writes:

>  Cesium clocks and such do work for time envelopes as what we humans
>are used to dealing with, but over billions of years? We can't answer that 
>question, so we make gross assumptions (best guesses, if you will) about the
>world around us. This sort of decision process has led the world into many
>dark ages. The world is flat, otherwise we'd fall off the other side is a
>good example of the masses leading the way of science.  [...]
>
>I'm not a good soapbox spokesman, but when I see that something as simple as
>deviation in atomic decay rates is possible (prove me wrong if you can, or
>rather, prove to me that the decays have been constant forever),

I assume that you are a layperson who doesn't follow the details of
scientific progress (this seems obvious to me from your writing, but
please correct me if I'm wrong).  It is easy to lean back and imagine,
"hey, maybe the rate of radioactive decay changes with time!"  Your
conclusion is then deceptively easy:  "why, those turkey scientists
must be just throwing sheer guesswork at us, calling it fact!"  

No offense intended, but do you really think you can sit back in your
easy chair and out-think the thousands of very smart men and women who
have devoted their lives to investigating these questions?  Scientists
do not close their eyes to obvious show-stoppers!  (Any scientist who
does gets quickly and publicly taken to task by younger Ph.D.s at the
competing university down the road.)  Not only are questions such as
whether physical laws vary with distance or duration scientifically
respectable, but they've been thoroughly investigated time and again!  

And, unlike you, scientists don't just speculate in a vacuum.  It's
possible to *see* if physical laws vary with distance -- just open
your eyes and look out across the universe.  The orbits of stars and
galaxies, the spectra of everything in sight, betray the operation of
fundamental physical laws.  (Among which, in case you weren't aware,
are the laws governing the radioactive decay of elements.)  When we
see the same laws, unaltered by so much as a small factor, operating
half a universe away, a certain confidence is induced in those laws.  

Also, many people in discussions of the past talk as if the past were
inaccessible and unknowable, therefore one can speculate with no risk
of rebuttal.  In fact, we have a direct window on the past, a time
portal if you will, and this is our viewpoint on the universe itself.  
Time in this cosmos of ours is a function of distance, and looking far
away in distance automatically means looking deep into the distant
past.  When we see physical laws operating quite unchanged over those
enormous distances, we are also seeing -- here and now, eyeball to the
telescope -- those laws operating unchanged in the utterly remote past.  

>I tend to react rather violently. People who take the stance that this
>IS THE TRUTH can be easily compared to several 'lion food' types.

I'll risk your getting violent at being contradicted.  (You don't
*have* any lions, do you?)  By the way, you certainly seem to be
taking a dogmatic stance in your article that you have "THE TRUTH."  
And you lack what the scientists you criticize possess in abundance --
*evidence*.  Your case would be stronger if some facts were with you.  

>Science, having no better way of accounting for certain things that do not
>fit into prescribe models, tends to say that these things are flukes, or
>anomalies, and that the model is good anyway. I ask, how many theories
>have come and gone in the past fifty years, giving way to better theories?

There's one thing you're missing.  Yes, theories do come and go.  But
each theory must explain the world at least as well as its predecessors
did -- and no theory can contradict the evidence.  On the other hand,
anyone who's ever taken a scientific measurement knows that flukes and
anomalies *do* occur in the data -- both random and systematic in type.  

Random errors, basically just noise and fluctuations in the data, are
dealt with by well-understood techniques for estimating the accuracy
of measurements and computing standard error deviations for derived
results.  However, when only one method is available, for dating, say,
it is possible for unknown *systematic* errors to reside in the method.  
Systematic errors result from a flaw in our understanding of how a
physical process (used as a measurement tool) works, thus allowing
substantial errors to accompany it, beyond what has been estimated.  

For example, thirty or so years ago inconsistencies began to be noticed
in the carbon-14 dating technique, when its results were compared with
known historical artifacts.  The development of the technique of tree-
ring dating eventually provided enough reliable data points so that the
carbon-14 scale could be precisely calibrated -- accounting for the
variations in the rate of formation (not radioactive decay) of carbon-
14 in the upper atmosphere -- with the result that carbon-14 dating is
now as accurate in practice as it was formerly thought to be in theory.  

The problem with carbon-14 dating only occurred because we had a time
scale for which there was (until the advent of tree-ring dating) only
*one* good dating method available -- carbon-14 dating.  As a result,
lacking a "check," carbon-14 dating was vulnerable to a systematic
error -- which turned out to exist.  (Cosmic rays, which create
carbon-14 in Earth's upper atmosphere, vary in density over time.)  

However, since scientists are aware of the possibility of systematic
error, they attempt to eliminate the problem by finding methodologies
which are independent -- that is, which depend on somewhat different
physical principles for their operation.  If several such independent
lines of evidence can be found, and the results generally agree with
each other, and those results aren't contradicted by other apparently
valid evidence, then and only then do scientists conclude they have a
result which is reliably known -- in this case, the age of the Earth.  

Earth's age wasn't determined by any *single* dating method -- and thus
is not subject to systematic errors.  The various dating methods used,
although they have varying degrees of accuracy, provide checks on each
other and establish upper and lower limits on the overall time frame.  
Consistent corroboration via multiple independent lines of evidence --
that is the goal, and in dating Earth it has been more than achieved.  

>Okay, what am I saying?  When talking about time, especially when the values
>discussed are greater than 10,000 years, we really don't know what we are
>talking about. We are making gross assumptions that really don't bear any
>relationship with reality as we know it.

Why don't you just say *you* don't really know what *you* are
talking about!  I repeat, science has considered this matter very
carefully, and has good reasons for the conclusions it has reached.  

>If I'm wrong, then take your Cesium clock, orbit it around the moon a few
>times, compare it to an identical clock left on earth. If the two times are
>the same, I'll believe you that radioactive decay is constant. Otherwise,
>explain to me which clock has the correct time. Simple? Good. BTW, I believe
>just a test was done by NASA a few years ago, the clocks proved one of the
>relativity claims by Einstein, something about time dialation. The clocks were
>different when they returned, so I ask, whivh one IS the correct time? And
>which one do we use as a standard for figuring how old we are? 

Why, the clock we have kept *with us* has the correct time *for us*!  
Clocks that have gone *elsewhere* will record the correct time for the
path they have followed.  All clocks are equally correct (if they keep
good time), but if they differ in their pathway through space and time,
they may show different results.  This is to be expected; none of the
clocks are incorrect.  Einstein taught us to comprehend this process.  

And if you think Einstein is your ally in this discussion, forget it.  
According to Einstein's theory of relativity, one could, for example,
take some radium-226, say (half-life of 1,622 years), and send it on
a spaceship on a trip around the universe, traveling near the speed
of light.  Billions of Earth years later, the ship returns.  When the
(original!) crew emerges, they don't *appear* to be billions of years
old.  The container holding the radium is examined... and voila!  The
radium hasn't decayed away!  Are we then to conclude that you have
proved your case, and radioactive decay *does* occur at varying rates?  

Not at all!  This phenomenon (relativistic time dilation) is *already
factored into the theory*.  Once again using Einsteinian relativity,
it is possible to compute the effect that an arbitrary pathway through
space and time -- such as that of our spaceship -- would have on the
actual time interval experienced, thus allowing us to correct for the
effects of the ship's movements.  When this computation is performed,
we discover that only a few decades of ship-time have elapsed -- not
coincidentally, precisely matching what the various timepieces aboard,
whether cesium, electromechanical, or human, have registered.  Thus,
we see that the radium has decayed at exactly its expected *constant*
rate.  It is in this sense, and this sense alone, that scientists say
that the rate of radioactive decay is constant over distance and time.  

>Thanks for listening, any comments will be read, and appreciated.
>						Tim Margeson

Sorry if my reply seems strong (but your talk of violence and general
tone of I-know-you're-wrong is strong, too).  All I ask is that you
allow in your imagination for the fact that others have imaginations
too, and unlike you, some have followed through and investigated the
matter -- in all its multitudinous ramifications -- *most* carefully.  

If you want to discuss in detail the various lines of evidence which
are used in dating the Earth, or just why it is that scientists think
that the rate of radioactive decay is constant, I'll be happy to so.  

(I'm directing follow-ups to net.origins, unless specified otherwise
by the responder, as that's where I believe this discussion belongs.)  

-- 

Michael McNeil
3Com Corporation     "All disclaimers including this one apply"
(408) 970-1835
	{hplabs|fortune|idi|ihnp4|tolerant|allegra|glacier|olhqma}
	!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm

	The present investigation [using Cepheid variables for the
	first time as an indicator of distances beyond the Magellanic
	clouds] identifies NGC 6822 as an isolated system of stars
	and nebulae of the same type as the Magellanic clouds,
	although somewhat smaller and much more distant.  A
	consistent structure is thus reared on the foundation of
	the Cepheid criterion, in which the dimensions, luminosities,
	and densities, both of the system [NGC 6822] as a whole and
	its separate members, are of orders of magnitude which are
	thoroughly familiar.  The distance is the only quantity of
	a new order.  The principle of the uniformity of nature thus
	seems to rule undisturbed in this remote region of space.  
		Edwin P. Hubble, "NGC 6822, a remote stellar system,"
		*Astrophys. J. 62*, 409-433.

------------------------------

Date: 22 May 86 14:36:58 GMT
From: decwrl!magic!stolfi@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Cosmic Quarantine hypothesis -- new idea
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <548@magic.DEC.COM> stolfi@magic.UUCP (Jorge Stolfi) writes:
>JS> (Come to think of it, coal and oil deposits may be even more unlikely
>JS> than uranium ones. Could this be the answer to the Fermi paradox?...) 

In article <1467@mmintl.UUCP> franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) replied:
> I think your intuition is faulty here.  Living systems by their vary nature
> tend to store energy in chemical form. 

I disagree --- they tend to use all the energy they can get, as efficiently
as possible.  Plants on Earth started storing energy very late, after it
developed photosynthesis.  Plant-eating life forms promptly evolved to
consume that stored energy.  On the whole, the energy budget of Earth's
life system is admirably balanced.  

> Natural events will tend to bury such stores of energy for long periods of
> time.  As evidence that this is not rare, consider that there are three
> different kinds of such fossils fuels here on Earth: coal, oil, and natural
> gas.  If it happens three times on one world, it can hardly be an unlikely
> event.  

All three seem to have been created by the same mechanism: plant remains
being buried before being eaten.  Let us assume for now that photosynthesis
(or something like it) is a common characteristic of life (why should it
be?), and consider the rapid burial part.  On Earth that depended on the
combination of several unlikely phenomena: an ocean with liquid surface,
continents neither too cold nor too hot, young mountains to be eroded, etc.
A thin crust and plate tectonics may have been necessary to prevent the
continents from being completely eroded before the beginning of life.
Tectonic activity was essential also at several later steps in the
creation, concentration and preservation of oil and gas deposits.  

> (BTW, some scientists think that some of the natural gas is *not* of
> biological origin.) 

But you would still need free oxygen to burn it, and therefore
photosynthesis + carbon burial + no oxygen sinks...
-- 
ARPA: stolfi@src.dec.com
UUCP: ..{..decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4,allegra}!decwrl!stolfi
DISCLAIMER: The above opinions are not the sort of stuff my employer,
my teachers, my friends, or my mother would like to be associated with.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #299
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA16586; Tue, 3 Jun 86 03:02:10 PDT
	id AA16586; Tue, 3 Jun 86 03:02:10 PDT
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 86 03:02:10 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8606031002.AA16586@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #300

*** EOOH ***
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 86 03:02:10 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #300

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 300

Today's Topics:
			   request for help
			    Ariane Failure
  Comet Engineering & known instance of iron-eating bacteria & moss
		      Re: Fifth nation in space
	     Re: Cosmic Quarantine hypothesis -- new idea
		  Antimatter rockets & supersymmetry
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 28 May 86 21:07:11 GMT
From: tektronix!orca!tekecs!jimd@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Jim Deer)
Subject: request for help
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

I am leading a "star gazer's campout", which will occur on the night
of 21 June, at Cove Palisades State Park, near Madras, OR. I would
like to be able to point out objects of interest as we view the night
sky, about 10:30 PM, PDT.  Here is what I need to know (coordinates in
azimuth ;land elevation):

(1) PLANETS: Which are visible, where are they located?
(2) BRIGHT STARS: Name and location.
(3) MAJOR CONSTELLATIONS, particularly Saggitarius.
(4) THE ECLIPTIC.
(5) ANY READILY LOCATABLE GALAXIES AND NEBULAS.
(6) MOON: WHAT TIME DOES IT RISE AND SET?

     I will greatly appreciate any help you can give. I want to make
the participants glad they came. I have visited the local planitarium,
but it was not much help. I have also examined several books on
popular astronomy, but it is difficult to pull out just the
information I need. I know that there will be a full moon, which makes
the seeing poor, but it could not be helped. The campout had to occur
on the night of the solstice. Maybe the moonlight will wipe out the
weaker stars and mage it easier to see the constellations.

------------------------------

Posted-Date: Fri 30 May 1986 21:43:09 EST
Date: Fri 30 May 1986 21:43:09 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Ariane Failure
To: space@s1-b.arpa

I just heard Ariane lost another booster.  The third stage apparently
failed to ignite (didn't they have this problem before?) Their failure
rate is now four in eighteen -- not good, even for expendables.  If the
US aerospace industry had kept developing expendables Arianespace would
be in very serious trouble now.  Thank god the first Geostar transponder
made it up safely last time.

------------------------------

Date:     Fri, 23 May 86 17:34 EST
From: DOURSON%PE8601%gmr.com@csnet-relay.arpa
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa
Subject:  Comet Engineering & known instance of iron-eating bacteria & moss


First, many thanks to Mike McNeil for posting Freeman Dyson's
lecture. I had not encountered it before.  And it's been a while
since I've really __enjoyed__, and been _inspired_ by, a Space
Digest posting.  Let's have more like it! 

I like the idea of comets with giant trees.  I like giant trees,
period.  Even been to Sequoia National Park, or Muir Woods, in
California?  If not, GO!!!!  Life is short.  Don't miss them.

Dyson Spheres?  I would like to suggest "Dyson Bubbles": comets
contained within and at the center of a thin, _transparent_
bubble.  Dyson's giant trees would grow on the surface of the
comet and center the comet within the bubble.  The bubble would
contain a low-pressure atmosphere, perhaps enough to allow human
survival.  In any case the atmosphere would simplify the task of
genetically engineering the trees and other life forms.  Contained
in the bubble, it would also function as a reservoir to store, and
be tapped for, its atmospheric gases and distilled water vapor.
The "forest floor" would be engineered to insulate the comet,
allowing a thin layer of the surface itself, and the space between
the surface and the bubble, to be at a temperature a few degrees
above freezing. If the bubble itself were a living organism, it
could self-repair from events such as small meteor strikes.  Even
lighting could be accomplished by rotating the whole assembly over
some interval of hours, or by rotating it once per orbit and
making the surface of the bubble opposite the sun reflecting. 
Perhaps terra(?)- forming comets is a good way to get started in
the terraforming business... 

The artificial mining organisms Mr. Dyson describes appear to be
quite plausible.  The following is a summary of a Dayton, Ohio,
Dayton Daily News article (I have only the clipping and no date,
but as I recall it was published around 1974) about Brent
Huntsman, a senior hydrologist at Wright State University's Brehm
Laboratory.  Mr. Huntsman is investigating the use of
artificially-constructed bogs to treat acid seepage from coal
mining sites (which are common in Ohio and the Appalachian basin).
He describes his work: 

	"The first work started in 1974 at Lake Hope (in Vinton
	County). We were doing work in mine drainange areas and
	the Ohio Department of Natural Resources pointed out to us
	that there was this area where they had very bad acid mine
	discharge going in, but good water coming out -- which
	shouldn't happen.  We found that it was a bog and that
	plant material in the bog was responsible.  The plant
	material proved to be Sphagnum moss, aquatic plants that
	peat comes from.  The moss precipitates out the iron.  And
	if you can remove the iron, you've got your problem
	licked." 

	"Iron and sulfur, in the form of pyrite, or iron sulfide,
	occur naturally in coal.  The pyrite creates sulfuric acid
	as it is oxidized by iron-eating bacteria.  And this
	occurs naturally; but when we mine, we expose so much more
	coal that we greatly enhance the acid drainage problem. 
	Ohio is particularly damaged by mine acid because we have
	so much high-sulfur coal.  Sphagnum moss literally pulls
	the iron into its stems and leaves and keeps it there,
	clearing the way for limestone to neutralize the acid.  As
	long as acid mine drainange has iron in it, you cannot
	neutralize the acid by running it over naturally occurring
	liestone, or limestone you've put in.  But remove the iron
	first and, boom, it's neutral." 


The key players in this process are the iron-eating bacteria that
break down the iron pyrite, and iron-eating moss that fixes the
bacteria released by the bacteria. Given these examples of
naturally- occurring organisms that scavenge iron, Mr. Dyson's
extrapolation to genetically-engineered organisms that scavenge
other minerals seems to me to be reasonable.  Study of naturally-
occurring examples such as the above can provide clues about how
the process can operate, and can suggest the direction for genetic
engineering R&D. Scavenging is only half the battle, though.
Effort will have to be devoted to what happens after scavenging.
In the case of poisonous or radioactive substances, the organisms
will ultimately have to "fix" them into relatively inert compounds
that are not, in turn, eaten and broken down by other natural or
artificial bacteria or plant agents.  Otherwise the substances
would eventually be picked up by other life, just as the moss
absorbs the iron after the bacteria are finished with it. 


I might also add to this discussion that it pays to challenge
nature, and that _individuals_ can do so without resorting to
large R&D budgets and genetic engineering techniques.  You don't
need a comet, either.  Sometimes all it takes is curiosity and the
followup of trying something a little off-the-wall. 

Since about 1978 I've been growing six different varieties of
bamboo, unprotected, in my yard (poor, dry, gravelly Fox-Urban
soil) here in Dayton, Ohio (winters down to -20F).  I've
encountered a few knowledgeable folks who seemed pretty surprised
that this could be done.  Growth is not optimum, but five
varieties are surviving, and the 6th is busy taking over the whole
place. (Fine with me: less lawn to mow!)  While this is probably
not of much significance in itself, it suggests to me that, A)
nature is more capable than we suspect, and B) can be successfully
challenged. And I'm finding that C) it's fun, and D) pays
dividends, in this case, reduced mowing. 

For bamboo lovers on the net, the six varieties are:
	Phyllostachys Angusta
	Phyllostachys Aurea
	Phyllostachys Aureasulcata
	Phyllostachys Bambusoides
	Phyllostachys Nigra
	Sasa Tesselata


Stephen Dourson
23-MAY-1986 17:19:20 
dourson@gmr.com                  (csnet)
dourson%gmr.com@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA (arpa)

---->	Break up Halley's comet?  Naaa.  I'll just circularize 
	the orbit and create a Dyson Bubble with a forest of 
	genetically engineered giant bamboo!

------------------------------

Date: 23 May 86 07:17:15 GMT
From: bellcore!petrus!karn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Phil R. Karn)
Subject: Re: Fifth nation in space
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

A few statistics from the NASA Satellite Situation Report:

The oldest man-made objects still in earth orbit are those associated with
Vanguard 1 (US, launched 17 March 1958).

The oldest non-American man-made object still in earth orbit is Canadian:
Alouette 1, launched 29 September 1962. (There are two older Soviet objects,
Lunik 1 and Venus Probe, in heliocentric orbit, i.e., orbiting the sun).

However, the third nation to be involved in flying a spacecraft was the UK.
Ariel 1, a joint US/UK project, was launched on 26 April 1962.  It decayed
24 May 1976.

Interestingly enough, the first Oscar (amateur radio) satellite made it into
orbit 12 December 1961, ahead of both Ariel and Alouette.

Phil

------------------------------

Date: 25 May 86 02:57:18 GMT
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!harvard!rclex!adelie!axiom!linus!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Cosmic Quarantine hypothesis -- new idea
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> I can imagine many variations on Earth's history where we would end up with
> life but no energy-righ deposits.  (1) the basic chemistry of life could
> have different (e.g.  silicon-based) from the start.

Doesn't work.  Silicon is not carbon's twin, it is only carbon's first
cousin.  In particular, silicon generally refuses to form the large molecules
necessary to life; it just won't stick to itself in long chains.  Silicones
(which alternate silicon and oxygen, as I recall) will form long chains,
but they are far too stable and unreactive at ordinary temperatures to be
the basis of life.

There are some possible alternate chemistries under unusual conditions, but
nothing that would work well on Earth -- certainly nothing that would work
well enough to win out over carbon-based life.

> (2) reduced carbon
> compounds could have been so plentiful (as on Titan) that photosynthesis
> never became worth the cost.

Unless some other factor limited its spread, any form of fast-reproducing
life could and would grow to the limit of the available resources.  There's
(probably) lots of reduced carbon on Titan because it's been piling up for
eons, not because the production rate is high.

> (3) there might have been no CO2 (as may be the case on Europa).

It's hard to see how that would happen, since carbon and oxygen are both
very common elements for quite fundamental reasons.  With no atmosphere,
maybe, but not on Earth.

> (4) There might have been a geological sink for the
> O2, say Fe++ oxides or ammonia.

I would think it would be difficult to get enough Fe++ given realistic
element abundances.  Ammonia is more plausible, but it's not clear to me
how it would constitute a geological oxygen sink -- can you elaborate?
(My chemistry is a bit rusty...)

> (5) The ocean may have covered all land
> (hence no land for plants to grow undistrubed, and no sediments for rapid
> burial)

Possible.  In fact, one of the more plausible explanations for the Fermi
Paradox is that most habitable worlds are water-covered, which makes it
very difficult to develop fire, metals, electronics, etc.

> (6) There might have been no rain.

This requires a grave shortage of either air or water, I would think.

> (7) there might have been no
> tectonic activity (hence no mountains and no sediment-laden rivers after
> the first billion years)

Possible.  We don't really understand how likely tectonic activity is.
Both Mars and Venus seem to have taken rather different courses from ours
in this regard.

> (9) The Giant Coal-Eating Earthworm and the
> deep-rooted Derrick Tree might have evolved eons ago. And so on.

Maybe... although elemental carbon is not the easiest stuff to work with
biologically.  It's pretty insoluble and pretty inert.

> ... If we look at the rest of the solar system, there are several
> planets and moons that could conceivably suport earth-like life, or came
> quite close to it.  However, in all such cases the formation of
> energy-right deposits seems less likely by several orders of magnitude.  

Yes, but this has no bearing on our own case.  The question is not whether
there are lots of non-Earthlike worlds without such deposits, but of whether
Earthlike worlds are unlikely to have them.
-- 
Join STRAW: the Society To	Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
Revile Ada Wholeheartedly	{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Posted-Date: Sun 25 May 1986 23:19:32 EST
Date: Sun 25 May 1986 23:19:32 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Antimatter rockets & supersymmetry
To: space@s1-b.arpa

The June issue of Scientific American has an interesting article on
supersymmetry, an idea from physics that leads to theories in which all
normal particles (electrons, quarks, etc.) have partners with spins that
differ by 1/2.  An interesting possibility raised by the article is
the possible existence of stable massive supersymmetric particles.

Exactly which supersymmetric particle would be stable is not known
(nor is it known if any even exist).  The article mentions two; the
photino (a spin 1/2 partner of the photon) and the Higgsino (a spin 1/2
partner of the hypothetical Higgs boson).

Both of these are neutral particles.  Fascinating things happen, though,
if there are stable supersymmetric charged particles.  Such particles
and their antiparticles could be stable when interacting with ordinary
matter, so ordinary nuclei and electrons could be used to neutralize
the particles for separate storage.  This would solve the antimatter
storage problem, and might make antimatter rockets possible even
for launchings from the earth's surface.

Aside from other obvious applications of storable antimatter (nuclear
hand grenades?), stable massive negatively charged particles would
make possible room temperature fusion and the synthesis of ultradense
matter with densities a billion times greater than normal matter.
Perhaps searching for such particles would be a good job for the SSC.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #300
*******************


1,forwarded,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA19779; Wed, 4 Jun 86 03:02:11 PDT
	id AA19779; Wed, 4 Jun 86 03:02:11 PDT
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 86 03:02:11 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8606041002.AA19779@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #301

*** EOOH ***
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 86 03:02:11 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #301

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 301

Today's Topics:
		  Re: Voyager power supply lifetime
		  Re: Voyager power supply lifetime
		     Re: What to do with Voyager
			 Re: Voyager lifetime
	     Re: Oil/coal production; Wait a minute.....
	 Do life systems always produce energy-rich deposits?
	Gravity well maneuvers (was Re: SPACE Digest V6 #287)
   Re: re-send, nice explanation of increasing average intelligence
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 23 May 86 16:54:02 GMT
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!harvard!rclex!adelie!axiom!linus!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Similar-Info-From: cad!nike!caip!andromeda!njitcccc!ken@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Kenneth Ng)
Subject: Re: Voyager power supply lifetime
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <865@mmm.UUCP>, allen@mmm.UUCP (Kurt Allen) writes:
> My knowledge is somewhat sketchy here: correct me if I am wrong, but I
> believe fission will increase in a reactor as the neutron flux increases.
> In commercial reactors heat generated by the breakdown of fissionables is
> controlled by withdrawing or inserting control rods or fluids from the
> reactor that absorb the neutrons given off by the normal breakdown of
> fissionables. If this is the way the Voyager reactor is controlled then
> couldnt the lifespan of the isotopes be increased by moderating the reactor?

No, because the Voyager generators are not reactors.  Neutron-induced
fission can indeed be throttled by controlling the neutron flux and
energy.  But the energy source in the Voyager RTGs (Radioisotope Thermal
Generators) is the spontaneous decay of an unstable isotope -- Plutonium
238 -- which is not under outside control.

Join STRAW: the Society To	Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
Revile Ada Wholeheartedly	{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Posted-Date: Sat 31 May 1986 09:11:47 EST
Date: Sat 31 May 1986 09:11:47 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Re: Voyager power supply lifetime
To: Don Kneller%Langridge <ucsfcgl!kneller@ucbvax.berkeley.edu>
In-Reply-To: ucsfcgl!kneller's message of 21 May 86 01:59:14 GMT
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa

Don Kneller wrote:
>>The half-life of the Pu-238 used in the isotope generators is quite short.
>>Don't remember the number offhand, but it's measured in years, not centuries.
>>Necessarily so:  long half-life means low release of energy per unit time.

>Not necessarily so.  You must consider the energy of the decay
>products which is not correlated with the half-life.

For Pu-238 the decay product is U-234, which has a half life of about
250,000 years, so the decay heat of the daughter nuclide is negligible.

------------------------------

Date: 23 May 86 17:02:12 GMT
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!harvard!rclex!adelie!axiom!linus!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: What to do with Voyager
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> Would it be possible to swing it around Neptune and head it back toward the
> inner Solar System? Perhaps it could be sent toward Jupiter until we can 
> figure out where to send it next...

It's probably more useful headed out of the solar system.  There is quite
a bit we don't know about extra-solar space.

In any case, I doubt that deflection back into the inner system can be
done.  There *was* some study of the notion of using the Neptune flyby
to send Voyager past Pluto, but it's not possible.  It looks viable
with a back-of- the-envelope calculation, treating Neptune as a point
mass.  The closer the fly-by, the more radical the course change.  But
Neptune is not a point mass, and one cannot get too close to its
center without hitting the planet.  The fly-by distance required to
change course for Pluto turns out to be a few hundred kilometers less
than the radius of Neptune.

Join STRAW: the Society To	Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
Revile Ada Wholeheartedly	{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 22 May 86 17:38:36 GMT
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!harvard!rclex!adelie!axiom!linus!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Voyager lifetime
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

I went and dug out the JBIS paper I referred to earlier.  It is:
"Prospects for the Voyager Extra-Planetary and Interstellar Mission",
by Robert J. Cesarone, Andrey B. Sergeyevsky, and Stuart J. Kerridge,
JBIS vol 37, page 99 (March 1984).  All three authors are/were with
the Mission Design Section of JPL; the first author is identified as
"Senior Engineer, Voyager Navigation".  The paper is footnoted as
being official JPL work sponsored by NASA.  It can be assumed, I
think, that they know what they are talking about.

The paper spends a little while discussing possible scientific
returns, then goes on to discuss long-term trajectories.  "Long-term"
really means long-term; one figure is a graph of Voyager 2's Sirius
flyby distance (circa 358000 AD) as a function of the choice of
Neptune-encounter aim point.  In between these two discussions is the
consideration of Voyager lifetime.  A summary:

----------
Transmissions to Voyager are not a problem.  The existing Deep Space
Network equipment will be good until 2023/2029 (here and henceforth, a
slashed figure is Voyager-1/Voyager-2).  More powerful transmitters and
slightly enlarged antennas will extend this by several centuries.

Reception from Voyager is an issue.  Data rate is a function of time and
antenna pointing (which means attitude control, since the Voyager main
antenna is fixed to the spacecraft).  The lowest worthwhile data rate is
about 20 bps.  With a wide attitude-control limit cycle (0.5 degrees on
all axes), 20 bps is available past 2029 for Voyager 2.  Narrowing the
limit cycle to 0.16 degrees on all axes stretches this another 40+
years, except that it uses rather more fuel.  See below.  In practice,
different limit cycles on each axis would be used.

Making reasonable assumptions about Neptune encounter for Voyager 2, the
Voyagers have 30.3/22.4 kg of propellant as of 1990.  The narrower
attitude-control limit cycle drains the tanks well before communications
range limit is reached.  The wide limit cycle stretches propellant to
2024/2030.  Voyager 1 will actually have propellant left in 2024 when
its wide-limit data rate drops below 20 bps, so its lifetime can be
extended a few more years by going to a narrower attitude-control cycle.
Coincidentally, the result is that both Voyagers exhaust their fuel in
2030.  In practice things will last longer, since varying limit cycles
will be used to economize on propellant.

The minimum reasonable load on the power supplies is 245 watts.  This
will keep the spacecraft functioning, provide communications, and
operate the four useful experiments (Low Energy Charged Particles,
Cosmic Ray Particles, Plasma Particles, and Magnetic Fields).  The
Voyager power supplies fall to 245W in 2012/2013.  This can be stretched
another 6 years by turning off experiments one by one.  There is some
uncertainty in these numbers because of possible failures in the
isotope-generator conversion subsystem.

Lasting until 2013 requires a 36-year lifetime for everything else that
matters.  Preliminary studies of subsystem reliability, including
redundancy, suggest that it's possible.
----------

End of summary, back to me again.

> 2 days ago I saw a talk on the Uranus results by Richard Terrile, a
> planetary scientist at  JPL.  He said the limiting factor would be the
> sun's brightness as seen from the spacecraft.  After about 30 years, the
> sun will be too dim to lock onto and Voyager's tight beam will drift.

My understanding is that Pioneer 10 is already using a star lock rather
than a sun lock, because it is too far out for a reliable sun lock.  I
would assume that the same technique could be used for the Voyagers.
Cesarone et al didn't mention this as an issue.

Join STRAW: the Society To	Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
Revile Ada Wholeheartedly	{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 24 May 86 01:18:18 GMT
From: allegra!princeton!puvax2!pucc.BITNET!6106728@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Keith Mancus)
Subject: Re: Oil/coal production; Wait a minute.....
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>In article <548@magic.DEC.COM> stolfi@magic.UUCP (Jorge Stolfi) writes:
>>JS> (Come to think of it, coal and oil deposits may be even more unlikely
>>JS> than uranium ones. Could this be the answer to the Fermi paradox?...)
>
>In article <1467@mmintl.UUCP> franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) replied:
>> I think your intuition is faulty here.  Living systems by their vary nature
>> tend to store energy in chemical form.
>
>I disagree --- they tend to use all the energy they can get, as efficiently
>as possible.  Plants on Earth started storing energy very late, after it
>developed photosynthesis.  Plant-eating life forms promptly evolved to
>consume that stored energy.  On the whole, the energy budget of Earth's
>life system is admirably balanced.
 
 Wait a minute.... You say that 'living organisms tend to use all the energy
they can get...'.  If plants had not evolved that stored energy, the
animals that eat them would not have evolved, and the animals
that eat the animals that eat the plants would not have evolved.
I have trouble believing in a race of starfaring plants, thus
creating a NEW problem.  If plants that store energy don't tend
to evolve on Earthlike worlds, then intelligent races that *don't*
evolve there won't need the nonexistent coal/oil/gas deposits ....
 
Keith Mancus <6106728@pucc>
Keith Mancus, BITNET: 6106728@PUCC   "A difference which makes no
difference is no difference."    -- from Spock Must Die

------------------------------

Date: 25 May 86 10:17:57 GMT
From: decwrl!magic!stolfi@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Do life systems always produce energy-rich deposits?
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <625@pucc.BITNET> Keith Mancus (6106728@pucc.BITNET) writes:
> Wait a minute.... You say that 'living organisms tend to use all the energy
> they can get...'.

Yep. Life FORMS (species) tend to evolve in that direction.
That is particularly true for life SYSTEMS, which is what I was talking about.

>If plants had not evolved that stored energy, the
> animals that eat them would not have evolved, and the animals
> that eat the animals that eat the plants would not have evolved.

I agree.

> I have trouble believing in a race of starfaring plants, thus
> creating a NEW problem.

Why? I can't see any reason why an organism that gets its energy
directly from sunlight can't be intelligent and build spaceships.

  J. Stolfi (A coffee-powered life form)

ARPA: stolfi@src.dec.com
UUCP: ..{..decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4,allegra}!decwrl!stolfi
DISCLAIMER: The above opinions are not the sort of stuff my employer,
my teachers, my friends, or my mother would like to be associated with.

------------------------------

Date: 22 May 86 16:29:32 GMT
From: ihnp4!ltuxa!we53!abstl!wucs!wucec2!ph@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Gravity well maneuvers (was Re: SPACE Digest V6 #287)
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In <13896@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> desj@brahms.UUCP (David desJardins) writes:
>In article <376@cad.BERKELEY.EDU> richter@pavepaws.UUCP (Adam J. Richter)
>writes:
>>	As you fall into the well, you are accelerated for a certain amount
>>of time.  When you fire your engines, this adds to your speed, so when
>>you come out, gravity HAS LESS TIME TO ACT ON YOU, so you lose less
>>speed coming out then when you went in.
>
>   Wrong.  The work done by gravity depends only on the path you follow
>(i.e. the change in gravitational potential), NOT on your velocity as
>you move through it.

	    David is right, but that doesn't mean that Adam is wrong,
	for he is talking about speed, not energy.  The kinetic energy
	lost coming out is the same as the energy gained going in, but
	at a higher velocity that change in energy corresponds to a
	lesser change in velocity.
	    Adam's description is also correct: acceleration is the rate
	at which velocity is changed.  Being subjected to the same
	acceleration for a shorter time (i.e.  traveling through the
	same gravitational field more quickly) results in less net
	change in velocity.

>>Therefore, you pick up not only extra velocity from firing your engines,
>>but you also "steal" some.  You can use the same trick for braking if,
>>for some reason, you can't aerobrake.
>
>   I don't think so.  Since the whole point is that you are leaving your
>fuel at the bottom of the potential well, with less potential energy, it
>seems that you would have to leave with more kinetic energy than if you
>had just used your fuel to brake in deep space.

	    But he's _not_ leaving his reaction mass down there; he's
	throwing it out in front to slow himself down, so it's going to
	go into a higher orbit.  The converses of the above arguments
	still apply.
						--pH
/*
 *	    "I hope you skipped the above.  Ballistics is interesting
 *	only to those who use it."
 */

------------------------------

Date: 23 May 86 07:23:12 GMT
From: allegra!princeton!caip!seismo!umcp-cs!prometheus!pmk@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Paul M Koloc)
Subject: Re: re-send, nice explanation of increasing average intelligence
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>throopw@ucbvax. (Wayne Throop)writes
> ... the spectum of intelligence (from "zero" to "most intelligent")
> broadens over time.  The difference is subtle and significant (but
> yeilds the same result in this case).  In particular, a species may
> become less intelligent over time as easily as it might become more
> intelligent.  But assuming that there is no particular bias towards
> more intelligence, even random fluctuations in intelligence level
> ought to produce a broader and broader spectrum.  Since less-than-zero
> intelligence is (for the most part) out of the question, this
> broadening means that the "average intelligence" ought to "go up" over
> time.

Greater birthrate among morons will pull "average intelligence"
down whereas prior to 25,000 years ago, this bias was reversed
because of the want of population related paucity of moron supporting 
civilization and more adverse survival conditions. 

Also the distribution of intelligence can be narrowed.  For
example, the Japanese for several centuries had their heads loped
off if they didn't bow and grovel quickly and convincingly.  That 
tended to take off the slower stupid fellows as well as the very 
bright innovative, bold and daring types.  Consequently, the average
intelligence of the Japanese is above others and that may include
the Jewish community (New York City study).   Japanese are 
today almost too rigid and too polite to "invent" something and
thereby subject themselves to possible ridicule (the tongue = sword). 

One people in Africa played intertribal games every few weeks, and 
in these games pairs of males would try (with one arm tied behind 
their back) to inflict a cut on the head of the other opponent by 
swinging a stone with a cutting edge from a cord tied to his wrist.  
The two combatants had to stand shoulder to shoulder with the arm 
holding the tethered stone over their head.  The pay off (the tallest 
usually won) in the men's club house was to have as many of the 
unmarried maidens as he wanted and then could choose whichever 
one he wanted as a mate or wait until his turn came again in later 
games.  This tribe has the tallest men in the world.  

The passage of law and the establishment of custom , religion,
and the implementation of technology can have far reaching and not
necessarily desirable influence on the breeding of our species. 
If alien planets lifeform is MORE intelligent than us, so what! 
We may have modest intelligence but it's with a Rambo like delivery. 

For now, matter doesn't come much in much better form then our 
human species..  some of think well ..  some of us do .. . and 
some of us just foobar.. . but we all have soul. 

             To visit an alien, get there with 
		        fusion power
                   It's safe and it's fast
+---------------------------------------------------------+--------+
| Paul M. Koloc, President: (301) 445-1075                | FUSION |
| Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222        |  this  |
| {umcp-cs | seismo}!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP  | decade |
+---------------------------------------------------------+--------+

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #301
*******************


1,forwarded,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA23687; Thu, 5 Jun 86 03:02:13 PDT
	id AA23687; Thu, 5 Jun 86 03:02:13 PDT
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 86 03:02:13 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8606051002.AA23687@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #302

*** EOOH ***
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 86 03:02:13 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #302

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 302

Today's Topics:
	       Re: PBS 'Space Race' program speculation
		    Gavity wells and advance races
	     Energy by Dropping Things Down Gravity Wells
		  Re: Gavity wells and advance races
			  intelligent plants
	     Re: Cosmic Quarantine hypothesis -- new idea
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 22 May 86 04:50:30 GMT
From: tektronix!uw-beaver!bullwinkle!rochester!seismo!umcp-cs!mangoe@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: PBS 'Space Race' program speculation
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Tom Steckner writes:

>I found the bit about the "leaking" black holes to be interesting.  Given
>what little I know about black holes though, the information you give is
>contrary to what I thought was current theory.  As far as a knew, Steven
>Hawking pioneered and developed the idea that only very small black holes
>could evaporate.

Actually, Hawking was the fellow who came up with the idea.  (Read his
marvelous article in Sci. American of several years ago.)  It turns out that
the process that provides the leakage is the virtual particle creation
activity that is always going on in the vacuum.  Near a black hole,
sometimes only one of a pair is eaten, but the other escapes; to conserve
mass/energy, the only way to interpret this is as leakage.  Obviously gravity
plays a part in the rate; really small holes explode, but large ones go very
slowly (a few orders of magnitude longer than the proton lifetime, if I
remember correctly).

>This idea still remains as a theoretical construct as there has been no
>observation of such as object (evaporation times are on the order of many
>10e9 years if I remember).  Such objects would be observable in the X-
>and gamma-ray wavelengths.  I don't understand how this information can be
>reconciled with what the TV program said.

Well, no black hole has been undeniably observed either.  For the phenomenon
not to occur, however, there would have to be a really big defect in quantum
mechanics as we know it (or relativity as we know it).  Trying to find such
a thing would be *very* hard, as the only way we have now of finding "black
holes" is to look for the radiation from infalling matter, which is much
brighter.  Looking for black holes in this way is roughly akin to looking
for the dark matter through proton decay.

>Noise:  What bugs me about some of these astronomy/physics programs is the
>voracious appetite they have for what seems to be border-line/speculative
>physics.  The processes (the term is used guardedly) they describe are poorly
>understood and usually little more than sketches on somebody's notepad.
>There is nothing wrong with this, but often a great amount of time is
>spent on it, using cheap graphics (as seems *not* to have been the case this
>time), e.g. Timothy Ferris - the author of "Galaxies" - had such a program
>on PBS (I didn't see 'Space Race').  Even such programs seem to need to use
>hype to "sell" the ideas.  Someone coined the phrase "Truth is stranger than
>fiction".  Well presented truth can be more interesting than a lot of
>golly-gee-whiz speculation and fancy pictures.  And in the end, I think,
>those parts of the program are the most forgetable due to their lack of
>content.  Enough noise...

I'm more bothered by the rather cavalier concern for historical accuracy in
this particular effort.  My father helped build SAS-A, and I remember when
the first results were coming in, people instantly began to think "black
hole"-- especially when they found that they could precisely locate Cygnus
X-1 when it began to emit lots of radio.  Einstein came along later.

C. Wingate

------------------------------

Date: 27 May 86 01:52:45 GMT
From: trwrb!trwspp!spp5!brahms@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Gavity wells and advance races
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <376@cad.BERKELEY.EDU> richter@pavepaws.UUCP (Adam J. Richter) writes:
>In article <516874105.amon@h.cs.cmu.edu> Dale.Amon@H.CS.CMU.EDU writes:
>>Why would any advanced race waste energy and resources dropping into
>>gigantic gravity wells? Planets are for primitive life forms.
>
>	Because by dropping very deep into one and firing a
>small amount of fuel, you can pick up a tremendous amount of velocity.

This may be true for space craft using some type of reaction mass as a
means of propulsion, but I feel a truly advance race would not be using
chemical motors to go around the galaxy/universe.  However, if you were
using some sort of gravitational motors, then the bigger the mass, the
faster you could go. :-)

			-- Brad Brahms
			   usenet: {decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!trwrb!trwspp!brahms
			   arpa:   Brahms@usc-eclc

The opinions expressed above are my own, and may not reflect those
of my employer.

------------------------------

Date:         Wed, 28 May 86 10:23:12 EDT
From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
To: space digest <space-incoming@s1-b.arpa>
Subject:      Energy by Dropping Things Down Gravity Wells

    Since the subject of gaining energy by firing a rocket engine at
the bottom of a gravity well is being discussed again, here is a
quick calculation that shows from a slightly different point of view
why it works.

(from an earlier comment to me by KFL)
>  The projectile is launched from the vicinity of Earth
>(for instance) into an eccentric orbit with the perihelion near the
>Sun.  At perihelion, the projectile ejects mass with as great a speed
>as possible.  The ejected mass falls into the Sun (ideally, or it may
>have such velocity that it orbits the Sun, which is less efficient)
>and the remaining mass comes flying out with a much greater speed than
>it fell towards the Sun.  Energy can be tapped by capturing it as it
>passes Earth.
>  Where does the energy come from?  Some of it is the energy used to
>eject the mass near the Sun.  But most of it comes from having dropped
>mass into the Sun.  It is much like getting energy by lowering stones
>into a well.  Of course you can do that only until the well is full of
>stones.  But gravity wells get DEEPER as you add stones to them.
>Granted, you can't keep doing that forever.  Eventually all the mass
>of the universe will be in one place.  But you can get enormous
>mounts of power for a very long time.

     The Calculation:
Near the sun you eject a part dm at velocity Vo, at an energy
cost (assuming the part you eject is much less massive than you)
.5 Vo**2 dm.  If your mass is M, you gain a dV=Vo/M dm, and energy
dE=MVdV=MV*Vo/M dm = V*Vo dm
     On orbiting back away from the sun, you lose kinetic energy
(while gaining potential energy).   Suppose your original kinetic energy
was zero [straight line orbit, not very practical unless you have a good
heat shield for when you pass through the center of the sun :-) ]
When you go back to the same position your energy is V*Vo dm.
so you've gained energy if Vo<2V.   You gain the most energy if
Vo=V.
     In hindsight, this makes perfect sense.  If you eject the mass
backwards at Vo=V it then has no velocity, and thus no kinetic energy
relative to the sun.  Since energy is conserved, that energy must
have gone to you.
    A minor problem is that you have to use energy to put the mass you
throw into the sun into an orbit that drops down close to the sun.
However, it's obvious that if you can come arbitrarily close to the
sun you can always gain that energy back, and more.
     I've heard the bit about it being more efficient to fire rockets
deep in a gravity well than outside it, but never thought to work it
out before.

                   --Geoffrey A. Landis, Brown University
                     (will be out of town from 1 June to 1 August,
                     so don't bother sending me messages then)

------------------------------

Date: 28 May 86 14:59:38 GMT
From: brahms!desj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (David desJardins)
Subject: Re: Gavity wells and advance races
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <121@spp5.UUCP> brahms@spp5.UUCP (Bradley S. Brahms) writes:
>>>Why would any advanced race waste energy and resources dropping into
>>>gigantic gravity wells? Planets are for primitive life forms.
>>
>>	Because by dropping very deep into one and firing a
>>small amount of fuel, you can pick up a tremendous amount of velocity.
>
>This may be true for space craft using some type of reaction mass as a
>means of propulsion, but I feel a truly advance race would not be using
>chemical motors to go around the galaxy/universe.

   Propulsion without reaction mass violates conservation of momentum.
Of all the "physical laws" known to Man, this is about the least likely
one ever to be violated...

   -- David desJardins

------------------------------

Date: 26 May 86 19:08:05 GMT
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!harvard!rclex!adelie!axiom!linus!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: intelligent plants
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> Why? I can't see any reason why an organism that gets its energy
> directly from sunlight can't be intelligent and build spaceships.

Not impossible, but there are difficulties.  The main one is simply that
sunlight is a very diffuse and low-grade energy source.  One does not
see many mobile plants, even though mobility would be a major asset (a
seed which lands in unfertile ground is stuck with it).  There simply
isn't enough energy available.  The more capable and intelligent forms
of life hereabouts get their energy by feeding on lower organisms,
including those which photosynthesize, because such organisms are
*concentrated* sources of energy.  Intelligent plants are not quite out
of the question, but in any ordinary sort of environment one would
expect animals to achieve intelligence first.

				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 28 May 86 05:33:39 GMT
From: decwrl!magic!stolfi@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Cosmic Quarantine hypothesis -- new idea
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <6727@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:

> In a previous article Jorge Stolfi (JS) wrote:

> JS>  I can imagine many variations on Earth's history where we would end
> JS>  up with life but no energy-righ deposits.  (1) the basic chemistry of
> JS>  life could have different (e.g.  silicon-based) from the start.  
>
> Doesn't work.  Silicon is not carbon's twin, it is only carbon's first
> cousin.  In particular, silicon generally refuses to form the large molecules
> necessary to life...

It is not obvious that long carbon chains are necessary for life.
There was an interesting (though highly speculative) article in 
Scientific American a few months ago arguing that life on Earth actually
began with a silicon-based (more exactly, silicate-based) chemistry.

Besides, I don't believe present-day chemistry is advanced enough to say
for sure that silicon chemistry is not as varied as that of carbon.
Virtually all knowledge we have about the versatility of carbon (and the
motivation to seek that knowledge) came from studying matter produced by
living beings.  

If the silicon-based chemists in Krakafoon IV have studied the chemistry of
carbon as thoroughly as we have studied that of silicon, they will probably
tell you that stable carbon compounds are generally insoluble and
unreactive, and completely unsuitable for life.  

> JS>  (2) reduced carbon compounds could have been so plentiful (as on Titan) 
> JS>  that photosynthesis never became worth the cost.
> 
> Unless some other factor limited its spread, any form of fast-reproducing
> life could and would grow to the limit of the available resources.  

Yes, but reduced carbon is just one of them. If life had run out of
some other resource first --- sunlight, water, space --- there would be
no compelling reason to photosynthesize them.

> There's (probably) lots of reduced carbon on Titan because it's been
> piling up for eons, not because the production rate is high.

There is lots of methane in Titan, and that is reduced carbon.
It is being slowly converted by sunlight into heavier carbon compounds,
but that is irrelevant to the point.

> JS>  (3) there might have been no CO2 (as may be the case on Europa).
> 
> It's hard to see how that would happen, since carbon and oxygen are both
> very common elements for quite fundamental reasons.
> With no atmosphere, maybe, but not on Earth.

Hydrogen is even more abundant, and (I believe) oxygen will prefer to
combine with it rather than with carbon.  Given enough hydrogen, you
will end up with methane + water rather than water + CO2.  I believe
that is largely the case for the outer planets and their moons.  (O
Experts, please correct me if I'm wrong.)

> JS>  (4) There might have been a sink for the O2, say Fe++  or ammonia.
> 
> I would think it would be difficult to get enough Fe++ given realistic
> element abundances.

The core of the Earth is believed to be largely metallic iron and iron
(Fe++) sulphide.  If that is true, there is enough iron (and sulphur)
there to combine with all the oxygen in the atmosphere, an MUCH more
besides.  Luckily, it all sank below the silicate crust and mantle well
before plants began producing O2.

> Ammonia is more plausible, but it's not clear to me
> how it would constitute a geological oxygen sink -- can you elaborate?
> (My chemistry is a bit rusty...)

Mine too is a bit oxydized :-), but ammonia (NH3) can combine with
oxygen to produce water and nitrogen.  I am almost sure it is a downhill
reaction (energetically speaking).

> JS>  (6) There might have been no rain.
> 
> This requires a grave shortage of either air or water, I would think.

No air is one possibility (it is certainly not essential for life).
Also, the oceans could be completely covered by ice.  Or the continents
could have been too cold for liquid rain (would glaciers be able to
carry enough sediments to bury the oil critters?  I doubt it) Or the
continents could have been too warm for water to condense over them. Ot
etc.

> JS>  (9) The Giant Coal-Eating Earthworm and the
> JS>  deep-rooted Derrick Tree might have evolved eons ago.
> 
> Maybe... although elemental carbon is not the easiest stuff to work with
> biologically.  It's pretty insoluble and pretty inert.

Organisms are amazingly versatile in exploiting sources of chemical
energy.  There are bacteria that eat oil slicks and copper sulphide ore
with enough efficiency to be industrially useful.  There are bacteria
who normally live in the piles of coal you usually find around coal
mines, especially in those piles that are being warmed by spontaneous
slow oxidation of the coal (Unfortunately, I don't know whether the bugs
actually use that energy for metabolism, or are just enjoying the free
sauna...)

> Yes, but this has no bearing on our own case.  The question is not whether
> there are lots of non-Earthlike worlds without such deposits, but of whether
> Earthlike worlds are unlikely to have them.

That is my point.  I think planets with energy-rich deposits are much
less likely, by orders of magnitude, than planets that can support
earth-like life.  Of course, you can always make the probability of
(intelligent life + energy-rich deposits) to be 100% by the proper
definition of "Earth-like"; but then "Earth-like" planets may be so
unlikely that there is only one per universe.

Actually, I am not proposing this as THE solution to the Fermi paradox.
I am just shaking a bit ONE of the zillion unstated assumptions that are
so common in discussions of SETI and space expansion.

My real opinion is that our ignorance of the basic facts is too vast for
us to reach any scientifically valid concusions.  It is certainly fun to
speculate, though...

  J. Stolfi (an hydrogen-based life form)

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #302
*******************


1,forwarded,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA01733; Fri, 6 Jun 86 03:02:03 PDT
	id AA01733; Fri, 6 Jun 86 03:02:03 PDT
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 86 03:02:03 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8606061002.AA01733@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #303

*** EOOH ***
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 86 03:02:03 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #303

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 303

Today's Topics:
			Re:  Request for help
			       Skywatch
			 re: density of stars
	   controversy over decreasing average intelligence
		      Re: Congress as scapegoat
			    cosmic strings
			Re: intelligent plants
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 2 Jun 86 22:45:18 GMT
From: voder!nsc!amdahl!canopus@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re:  Request for help
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

[NOTE:  I probably should have e-mailed this, but I have been having
mailer problems lately - so for anyone sending me mail recently and I
haven't responded, it isn't for lack of trying!]

In article <7292@tekecs.UUCP> jimd@tekecs.UUCP (Jim Deer) writes:
> 
> I am leading a "star gazer's campout", which will occur
> on the night of 21 June, at Cove Palisades State Park, near 
> Madras, OR. (...) 10:30 PM.
> (1) PLANETS: Which are visible, where are they located?

      Venus:  High in the Western sky after sunset, is the brightest
              object in the sky after the sun and moon.  It shows a
              nice gibbous phase through a small telescope.  By 10:30
              it may have already set, however.

      Saturn:  The bright yellow "star" that makes hash out the
               constellation Scorpio, will be low in the East around
               10:30, just to the left of the top three stars of the
               Scorpion.  The rings are nicely tilted, and is by far
               one of the most pleasing objects to show the public.
               Moonlight should not interfere.

      Mars:  Very close to us now, but not high enough at 10:30 to
             see.

      Moonlight will not affect planetary viewing.

> (2) BRIGHT STARS: Name and location.

      The pointers of the Big Dipper, Dubhe and Merak (Dubhe is closest{
      to the pole).

      Alcor and Mizar, the double-star in the handle of the Big Dipper.

      Albireo, a beautiful double in the "head" of Cygnus.

      Epsilon Lyrae, the famous "double-double" in Lyra.  Requires
      a decent telescope with moderate magnification.


> (3) MAJOR CONSTELLATIONS, particularly Saggitarius.

      In the north, the Big Dipper is almost straight overhead.
      The dipper should be easy to see, even with the moon.

      Likewise, the sickle of Leo, which will be setting around 10:30
      should be fairly easy to spot.  Regulus is the bright star in the
      bottom of the sickle.

      Rising in the south is Scorpio, with its bright red star Antares.

      Just east of Scorpio is the teapot of Sagittarius.  Won't be up
      until around midnite.

      In the northeast, Lyra with the bright star Vega.

> (4) THE ECLIPTIC.

      ?.  Essentially runs through Leo, Virgo, Scorpio, Sagittarius.
      (An imaginary line).

> (5) ANY READILY LOCATABLE GALAXIES AND NEBULAS.

      Difficult, if not impossible, with a full moon obscuring all but
      the brightest stars.  But try these, anyway:

      M4, a globular cluster just West of Antares in Scorpio.

      M81 & M82, two "bright" galaxies just off the last star in the
      handle of the Big Dipper.

      M57, a planetary nebula in Lyra (the Ring Nebula).

      None of these objects are visible to the naked eye.

> (6) MOON: WHAT TIME DOES IT RISE AND SET?

      It is full... so it will rise as the sun sets, effectively
      destroying your evening.  I would seriously recommend postponing
      it until the 28th.

Also, you may wish to obtain a current issue of Sky&Telescope magazine;
Debbie Byrd has an interesting column entitled "The Sun, Moon and Planets
this Month", which can help.  I did this rather quickly, so if anyone's
favorite object is left out, feel free to follow-up.
-- 
Frank M. Dibbell III (408-746-6493)  ...!{ihnp4,cbosgd,sun}!amdahl!canopus
Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA     [This is the obligatory disclaimer..]

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 03 Jun 86 11:34 PDT
From: Dave Platt <Dave-Platt%LADC@hi-multics.arpa>
To: tektronix!orca!tekecs!jimd@hplabs.arpa
Really-To: tektronix!orca!tekecs!jimd@hplabs.arpa
Cc: Space@s1-b.arpa
Real-Cc: Space@S1-B.ARPA
Subject: Skywatch
Randomness: Don't compare floating point numbers solely for equality.

I strongly suggest that you pick up the current month's issues of
both Sky&Telescope and Astronomy magazines.  Each of them has
a "Naked-eye astronomy" section (or "The sky this month" or
something like that) which provides a sky map for a typical viewing
night, a list of the planets' locations, moon positions and
times, any any interesting astronomical events that may be
occurring on particular days (conjunctions, meteor showers,
and so forth).

------------------------------

Posted-Date: Sat 31 May 1986 09:05:01 EST
Date: Sat 31 May 1986 09:05:01 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: re: density of stars
To: space@s1-b.arpa

Thanks to all who contributed an estimate of the rate of disruptive
close stellar encounters.  My initial estimate was clearly rough.

Here's another interesting set of questions:  what is the median distance
of a star in our galaxy from the galactic center?  What fraction of stars are
closer to the center than the Sun, and what fraction are farther away?
It would be interesting if the solar system were unusually far from the
center, perhaps indicating the galactic core is a bad place for the
development of life.

------------------------------

Date: 27 May 86 18:48:53 GMT
From: decwrl!pyramid!pesnta!epimass!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: controversy over decreasing average intelligence
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <239@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
>Greater birthrate among morons will pull "average intelligence"
>down whereas prior to 25,000 years ago, this bias was reversed
>because of the want of population related paucity of moron supporting 
>civilization and more adverse survival conditions. 

This is very short sighted thinking.  Evolution takes millenia to have
significant effects.  Long before (several orders of magnitude before)
influences such as this -- or even, what is probably a more significant
influence, modern medicine's healing of the sick -- can have detrimental
effects on the human genome, we'll be repairing genes and even improving
them.  Changing the human gene pool will have to be approached very
cautiously, of course.  I doubt, though, if many people would fight for
the "right" of genes such as Tay-Sachs disease, hemophilia, or even bad
eyesight to exist -- particularly since it is largely due to human
medical interference that genes such as these have survived much beyond
the generation of their origin.

Improving human intelligence -- or at least preventing its decline --
would also seem to be desirable.  Or course, we don't know enough about
intelligence, or the human genetic map, to "improve" on human
intelligence just yet -- but we have a long time, thousands of years, to
find the answers to these questions before the problem becomes an acute
one.  I doubt that we'll need more than a few centuries.

Michael McNeil
3Com Corporation     "All disclaimers including this one apply"
(408) 970-1835
	{hplabs|fortune|idi|ihnp4|tolerant|allegra|glacier|olhqma}
	!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm

	Not to go on all-fours; that is the Law.  
		Are we not Men?  
	Not to suck up Drink; that is the Law.  
		Are we not Men?  
	Not to eat Flesh or Fish; that is the Law.  
		Are we not men?  
	Not to claw Bark or Trees; that is the Law.  
		Are we not men?  
	Not to chase other Men; that is the Law.  
		Are we not Men?  
			H. G. Wells, 1896,
			*The Island of Doctor Moreau*

------------------------------

Date: 27 May 86 20:03:40 GMT
From: ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!mhuxm!mhuxf!mhuxi!mhuhk!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtgzz!dls@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (d.l.skran)
Subject: Re: Congress as scapegoat
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

One of the major reasons the shuttle costs so much to launch is not the
per launch costs but the overhead of running the entire program.
Originally there were intended to be 7, then 5, and finally 4, and now 3
shuttles. The per flight overhead would be much less with more shuttles,
but Congress has downsized the fleet in its typical penny-wise,
pound-foolish fashion.

I contend that NASA knew perfectly well they couldn't develop a shuttle
for the 5 billion OMB offered. They took it anyway because the
functional result of refusing it would be to disband NASA. As it was,
much of NASA capacity was destroyed by budget cuts.

It seems clear that there were errors of judgement at NASA, long overdue
errors at an agency that has been starved of funds for a decade.  Would
any of you rush to work at NASA, knowing that your job will be in
constant danger, who will be overburdened with paperwork, people will
accuse you of killing astronauts and cheating the taxpayer to pay for a
wasteful, foolish dream? Some would, and did, but over the last 15 years
I strongly doubt that NASA has gotten the same quality of personnel it
got before that.

It is nothing less than a miracle that NASA ever got the shuttle off the
ground at all.

The correct analogy is not a used car salesman, but a carpenter who
needs work to support his family. You ask him to build a house. He says
it will cost 10,000. You say 5,000 take it or leave it. The carpenter's
alternative is to beg in the streets, so he takes it.  He builds the
house as well as he can, but leaves off some of the "frills" like smoke
detectors.  Pretty soon an accident occurs, and the owner demands to
know why he doesn't have a 10,000 house.  The carpenter's only reply is
that he paid 5,000 and he got a 5,000 dollar house.

The Congress bought the shuttle. The staff members knew perfectly well
that they were not getting a quality shuttle, but a horse by committee.
Now they have several billions worth of rubble.

Now more that ever we must focus on the fact the NASA has been starved for
ten years. The incompetance of particular NASA officals
must not be allowed to obscure the reality of the situation.


Dale
Not speaking for AT&T

------------------------------

Posted-Date: Wed 28 May 1986 11:07:49 EST
Date: Wed 28 May 1986 11:07:49 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: cosmic strings
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Cc: "Alan D. Alters" <Alters@vermithrax.sch.symbolics.com>
In-Reply-To: Alan D. Alters's message of Sun, 18 May 86 14:56 PDT

Here's my understanding of cosmic strings (which is not guaranteed
to be correct):

A field (for example, the electromagnetic field, or fields arising from
other interactions) takes on a value at each point in spacetime.  The
"value" the field takes on at a point can be a scalar, or can be a
point in some other space (for example, it could be a vector, or a
position on a unit circle, or on a 7-sphere, etc.).  The field is
constrained to be continuous in time and space.  This means "kinks" can
arise in some fields that, for topological reasons, cannot decay.

An example:  suppose we have a one dimensional space (say, a rope).  At
each point on the rope we hang a pendulum.  Each pendulum is linked to
its neighbor by a piece of elastic.  Clearly, the ground state of this
system is when all the pendula are hanging straight down.  However,
suppose there is a twist in the pendula.  We can't get from that
state to the ground state by moving the pendula.  These kinks act
like particles; left and right handed kinks can annihilate one another.

Cosmic strings are similar, only the "kink" is a one-dimensional defect
in quantum fields.  These (hypothetical) fields would require tremendous
energy to excite (that is, the particles they are associated with are
very massive) so they normally aren't seen.  The strings cannot easily
decay, though, for topological reasons, so they can remain long after the
tremendous temperatures needed for their creation have disappeared.
Because the quantum field required great energy to excite (in the
analogy above, the weights on the pendula are very heavy) the cosmic
string will be very massive -- each mile of string has a mass roughly
equal to that of the earth.

Another example of a kink in quantum fields is the GUT monopole, a
zero-dimensional knot in the fields associated with grand unified
theories.

Loops of cosmic string will oscillate and emit gravitational radiation,
which may be detectable through its effects on the timing of signals from
several known pulsars with periods of a few milliseconds.

Cosmic strings are not to be confused with superstrings.

------------------------------

Date: 27 May 86 19:25:25 GMT
From: allegra!princeton!caip!seismo!umcp-cs!prometheus!pmk@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Paul M Koloc)
Subject: Re: intelligent plants
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>> Why? I can't see any reason why an organism that gets its energy
>> directly from sunlight can't be intelligent and build spaceships.
>
In article <6735@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
>Not impossible, but there are difficulties.  The main one is simply that
>sunlight is a very diffuse and low-grade energy source. .. intelligent
>forms of life get their energy by feeding on lower organisms ..
>*concentrated* sources of energy. 

For photon based systems animals depend upon the existence 
of plants, consequently, there is a greater risk to being an
animal, and thus a natural mechanism for selecting the ability 
to find energy for survival is more essential for animals.
Intelligence is one of those traits that accomplish the ability
to "make the right moves".  Perhaps genetic engineering will 
save the day and produce a race of "greenies" for the nutrients
needed in the state of "suspended animation" during that that 
long voyage to the next galaxy. 

It is interesting to note that life based entirely on heat and 
thermal gradients seems to have been found in regions of deep 
underwater "volcanic vents". The relative short lived existence 
of vent generating faults, such as the mid Atlantic rift, don't 
seem likely to allow for a very global system in which "thermal 
life" could evolve much beyond the "krill" stage.  

      Intergalactic plantlings use PLASMAK(tm) fusion power
                       to light their day.
+---------------------------------------------------------+--------+
| Paul M. Koloc, President: (301) 445-1075                | FUSION |
| Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222        |  this  |
| {umcp-cs | seismo}!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP  | decade |
+---------------------------------------------------------+--------+

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #303
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA07777; Sat, 7 Jun 86 03:02:04 PDT
	id AA07777; Sat, 7 Jun 86 03:02:04 PDT
Date: Sat, 7 Jun 86 03:02:04 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8606071002.AA07777@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #304

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 304

Today's Topics:
			Re: intelligent plants
		      Re: Re: intelligent plants
		      Re: Re: intelligent plants
		Using Gravity wells to affect velocity
	     Re: Cosmic Quarantine hypothesis -- new idea
       Re: Do life systems always produce energy-rich deposits?
	       SpacePac Survey on Space Program Issues
			 wrong kind of mirror
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 29 May 86 17:47:07 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: intelligent plants
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> It is interesting to note that life based entirely on heat and 
> thermal gradients seems to have been found in regions of deep 
> underwater "volcanic vents"...

Unless I'm much mistaken, the life you're thinking of is not based on
thermal gradients, but on the chemicals carried by the water emerging
from the vents.  Also, only the bacteria are truly dependent only on
the chemicals; the other things do eat the bacteria, but also need
oxygen which ultimately comes from the photosynthetic life on the surface.
-- 
Usenet(n): AT&T scheme to earn
revenue from otherwise-unused	Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
late-night phone capacity.	{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 31 May 86 05:17:07 GMT
From: allegra!princeton!caip!think!mit-eddie!genrad!panda!husc6!talcott!cfa!wyatt@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Bill Wyatt)
Subject: Re: Re: intelligent plants
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> >> Why? I can't see any reason why an organism that gets its energy
> >> directly from sunlight can't be intelligent and build spaceships.
...
> It is interesting to note that life based entirely on heat and 
> thermal gradients seems to have been found in regions of deep 
> underwater "volcanic vents".

This is not true - the life forms referred to metabolize sulfur
compounds brought the the sea floor around the vents by the volcanic
action. They are not extracting energy from thermal gradients.
-- 

Bill    UUCP:  {seismo|ihnp4|cmcl2}!harvard!talcott!cfa!wyatt
Wyatt   ARPA:  wyatt%cfa.UUCP@harvard.HARVARD.EDU

------------------------------

Date: 1 Jun 86 07:34:20 GMT
From: allegra!princeton!caip!seismo!umcp-cs!prometheus!pmk@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Paul M Koloc)
Subject: Re: Re: intelligent plants
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Bill's correct.  The thermal mechanism serves to bring nutrients 
(sulfurous compounds mostly) to the ocean floor where they pass 
through the vent into sea water.  The point that I intended to make 
was that the usually energy source, the sun, wasn't the source of 
this life system and that it would be doubtful that such ecosystems
could evolve much beyond the "krill" stage.  I apologize for the
carelessness. 
+---------------------------------------------------------+--------+
| Paul M. Koloc, President: (301) 445-1075                | FUSION |
| Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222        |  this  |
| {umcp-cs | seismo}!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP  | decade |
+---------------------------------------------------------+--------+

------------------------------

Date: 29 May 86 03:57:57 GMT
From: sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!burdvax!psuvax1!psuvm.bitnet!ukma!sean@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Sean Casey)
Subject: Using Gravity wells to affect velocity
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa



Ok, I'm stupid.  I've seen at least ten different explanations for how this
works and I still don't get it.  It doesn't seem intuitively 'right'.  Can
anyone recommend a text that explains it thoroughly?

Sean
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Casey                UUCP:  cbosgd!ukma!sean        CSNET:  sean@uky.csnet
University of Kentucky    ARPA:  ukma!sean@anl-mcs.arpa
Lexington, Kentucky     BITNET:  sean@ukma.bitnet

------------------------------

Date: 29 May 86 20:22:28 GMT
From: sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Stanley Friesen)
Subject: Re: Cosmic Quarantine hypothesis -- new idea
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <606@magic.DEC.COM> stolfi@magic.UUCP (Jorge Stolfi) writes:
>[Long message]
>
>You may have a point, though --- I forgot about hydroelectric power, which
>on Earth might have been enough to sustain an industrial revolution of
>sorts.  But rivers too are sort of a lucky accident, arent they?
>More on that below.  

	Not really, any planet that has liquid water, any land
surface, and any variation in climate *will* have rivers. Since liquid
water is necessary for life and climatic variation is a result of the
fact that a planet is a sphere, only lack of land would prevent rivers
on a planet with life.
>
>The reason Earth's life contains a substantial amount of high-energy carbon
>compounds is almost certainly evolutionary inertia.  Presumably, when life
>started, the atmosphere was reducing; carbon-based life was possible then
>precisely because proteins and lipids were almost stable (=had low energy
>content.) When the natural supply of those compounds ran out, the basic
>DNA/RNA/Protein chemistry was too well established to change.  Life still
>prefers to manufacture those compounds from CO2, at very high energetic
>costs, simply because switching to anything else
>would be too complicated.

	If you are right then all life will be the same, the reducing
conditions of the early atmosphere seem to be necessary for the origin
of life. Also, i think there are other reasons why living things do
things the way they do. For one thing *storage* of energy is vital in
an environment where external supplies of energy are uncertain.
>
>Second, if any life form produces energy-rich residues in significant
>quantities, I expect that other life forms will soon evolve to consume
>those residues.

	Certainly, but that does not mean that *all* such residues
will be eaten, there is continual deposition of new compressed plant
deposites, which given time may turn into coal. I am talking about
*peat*, which is a regular occurence in many swamps.

> I am not a geologist either, but I believe that coal and
>oil deposits were preserved only as a result of rather exceptional
>cirsumstances.  Most coal deposits date from a specific geological era
>(the Carboniferous) when plant life first moved into relatively dry land.

	Incorrect, most *high-grade* coal deposits date from that age.
Coal comes in several grades, and it improves in quality with age, so
only the oldest coal is fully converted into high-grade coal. I happen
to know that there are extensive coal deposits from the uppermost
Cretaceous, which is often called the Great Lignite(lignite is the
name for the lowest grade of coal). Since it is 200 million years
younger it only provides low-grade lignite rather than high-grade
anthracite.

>  Moreover, the geography at the time was
>such that many of those deposits were quickly buried out of the reach of
>organisms and oxygen.  These conditions don't seem to have lasted for long:
>In todays tropical forests, for example, dead plant matter does not
>accumulate.  

	In tropical *upland* forests that is, in wet lowlands it
accumulates as peat. Thus the conditions for coal are still with us
today.
>
>The origin of oil is more remote and obscure, but seems to depend on
>similar circumstances: an incompletely evolved ecosystem that allows
>organic matter to accumulate on the ocean bottom, and deep burial by
>river-carried sediments. 

	There is an article in the latest issue of Scientific American
that has a different point of view on this.
>
>I can imagine many variations on Earth's history where we would end up with
>life but no energy-righ deposits.
>(1) the basic chemistry of life could be silicon-based from the start.

	As far as I can tell Silicon is an inadequate basis for life,
it is not nearly as flexible and useful as Carbon. So this is likely
impossible.

>(2) plentiful reduced carbon compounds could have prevented photosynthesis
>from becaming worth the cost.

	This would only last for limited amount of time, eventually
all the free carbon compounds would be used up, Earth may well have
been like Titan at first! It isn't anymore.

>(3) there might have been no CO2

	There may not have been, the early atmosphere may have been
Methane! It doesn't really matter, you get to the same place
eventually whatever the original Carbon source.

>(4) There might have been a geological sink for the O2,
>say Fe++ oxides or ammonia.

	There *was*, it got filled up! Where do you think all that
Limestone and Iron ore(most iron ore is FeOx) comes from? After all
the reducing componds got oxidized is when our atmosphere started
collecting O2.

>(5) The ocean may have covered all land

	Maybe, but then I doubt civilization would form anyway, given
the "instability" of the medium.

>(6) There might have been no rain.

	Covered above, only if the planet was shaped like a wire, or
had no liquid water, in either case I doubt it would have any life.

>(7) there might have been no tectonic activity

	Reduces to #5.

>(9) The Giant Coal-Eating Earthworm and the
>deep-rooted Derrick Tree might have evolved eons ago.
	
	So, the formation of new Coal would enter into an equilibrium
with its consuption, or the Coal-Eater would become extinct and new
coal would form.
>
	All you seem to have left is the possibility of a civilization
on a pure water world! That may at least be possible.

				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)

UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen
ARPA: ??

------------------------------

Date: 29 May 86 20:43:28 GMT
From: sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Stanley Friesen)
Subject: Re: Do life systems always produce energy-rich deposits?
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <653@magic.DEC.COM> stolfi@magic.UUCP (Jorge Stolfi) writes:
>
>> I have trouble believing in a race of starfaring plants, thus
>> creating a NEW problem.
>
>Why? I can't see any reason why an organism that gets its energy
>directly from sunlight can't be intelligent and build spaceships.

	I can. Evolution is very conservative, it makes the minimum
change necessary. An organism that gets its energy from sunlight has
no *need* to move about or to manipulate its environment, it gets all
it needs by just standing there and growing! Why do you think there
are no truly mobile plants on Earth, coincidence? In fact even animals
which live in food rich environments(like oceanic filter feeders) tend
to be essentially sessile like plants(Sea Anemones, tube-dwelling
worms, Corals &c). Only organisms which *need* to move will waste
energy doing so!

				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)

UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen
ARPA: ??

------------------------------

Date: 29 May 86 13:42:34 GMT
From: ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dave Newkirk)
Subject: SpacePac Survey on Space Program Issues
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

I have just received the following results of a survey by SpacePac, a
political action committee to promote space development.

Issues which most people thought were good:

1) Determine long-range goals and planning
2) Develop near-Earth infrastructure for economic development and future growth
3) Keep shuttle user fees low to promote private development
4) Materials processing seems to provide best chance for immediate economic success
5) Colonization of the Moon and space habitats should be part of future goals

Issues which caused the most disagreement:

6) Space activity as a vital path for human survival
7) Role of the military in space
8) International cooperation in space to help resolve Earthly disputes

Issues that were generally perceived as bad:

9) Going into space to bolster national pride
10) Making the shuttle break-even on costs
11) Tourism as a significant part of space development
12) Use of space to dispose of hazardous wastes

These results don't exactly match my opinions, so don't blame/flame me.
SpacePac can be contacted at this address:
	2801 B Ocean Park Boulevard
	Suite S
	Santa Monica, CA 90405
-- 
				Dave Newkirk, ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn

------------------------------

Date: 1986 May 30 10:18:16 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@su-ai.arpa>
To: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
Subject: wrong kind of mirror

> Date: 16 May 86 20:28:35 GMT
> From: hplabs!felix!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Michael McNei
l)
> Subject: Freeman Dyson's "TW,TF,&TD" -- IV.  Big Trees
> trees can grow at far greater distances if they provide themselves with
> compound leaves.  A compound leaf would consist of a photosynthetic
> part which is able to keep itself warm, together with a convex mirror
                                                          ******
> part which itself remains cold but focuses concentrated sunlight upon
> the photosynthetic part.

A concave mirror would be more useful. A convex mirror disperses
rather than focuses/converges light. Is this a net-transcription typo
or an error in the original book?

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #304
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA11082; Sun, 8 Jun 86 03:02:07 PDT
	id AA11082; Sun, 8 Jun 86 03:02:07 PDT
Date: Sun, 8 Jun 86 03:02:07 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8606081002.AA11082@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #305

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 305

Today's Topics:
		       Re: wrong kind of mirror
		 Re: Gravity wells and advance races
		Re: Antimatter rockets & supersymmetry
	     Re: Cosmic Quarantine hypothesis -- new idea
	     Re: Cosmic Quarantine hypothesis -- new idea
	 Re: controversy over decreasing average intelligence
	       Re: Fermi Paradox, can't use a priori a
	       Re: Fermi paradox - we can only find wh
		   No Way, Canadians!  AT&T First!
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 4 Jun 86 23:33:46 GMT
From: hplabs!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Michael McNeil)
Subject: Re: wrong kind of mirror
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <8605301824.AA05664@s1-b.arpa> REM%IMSSS@SU-AI.ARPA
(Robert Elton Maas) writes:
>A concave mirror would be more useful. A convex mirror disperses
>rather than focuses/converges light. Is this a net-transcription typo
>or an error in the original book?

You're absolutely right, of course.  (I must've always translated
the wrong word into the right mental image, because I never noticed.)  
Although I did insert a few typos when I typed the document, this one
wasn't among them.  At least as far back as the MIT Press edition of
*Communication with Extraterrestrial Intelligence*, which includes
Dyson's lecture as Appendix D, the mirrors are described as "convex."    
I'm sure Dyson knows the difference -- although I wouldn't rule out
the possibility that he could make a typo as easily as anyone else.  

Michael McNeil
3Com Corporation     "All disclaimers including this one apply"
(408) 970-1835
	{hplabs|fortune|idi|ihnp4|tolerant|allegra|glacier|olhqma}
	!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm

	To be an Error & to be Cast out is a part of God's design.  
		William Blake

------------------------------

Date: 30 May 86 21:00:51 GMT
From: cad!nike!topaz!bentley!kwh@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (KW Heuer)
Subject: Re: Gravity wells and advance races
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <14012@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> brahms!desj (David desJardins) writes:
>In article <121@spp5.UUCP> brahms@spp5.UUCP (Bradley S. Brahms) writes:
>>This may be true for space craft using some type of reaction mass as a
>>means of propulsion, but I feel a truly advance race would not be using
>>chemical motors to go around the galaxy/universe.
>
>   Propulsion without reaction mass violates conservation of momentum.
>Of all the "physical laws" known to Man, this is about the least likely
>one ever to be violated...

But it is possible for an object to move forward, without reaction mass,
and conserve momentum by moving the rest of the planet, galaxy, or other
environment imperceptibly in the opposite direction.  I did it to get to
work this morning.  Voyager used the "slingshot effect" to gain momentum.
Advanced races might do it on a larger scale, using e.g. the magnetic
field of the galaxy.

Karl W. Z. Heuer (ihnp4!bentley!kwh), The Walking Lint
(Please correct typos in the subject line!!)

------------------------------

Date: 29 May 86 17:43:26 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Antimatter rockets & supersymmetry
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> Aside from other obvious applications of storable antimatter (nuclear
> hand grenades?)...

Not really very likely, actually:  too expensive and too dangerous to
store and handle.  Not even the USAF can afford bombs costing billions
of dollars each.  And it is very important that military weapons refrain
from exploding until they are requested to, even if they happen to (say)
be aboard a bomber that crashes at supersonic speed and then burns.
-- 
Usenet(n): AT&T scheme to earn
revenue from otherwise-unused	Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
late-night phone capacity.	{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 29 May 86 18:30:09 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Cosmic Quarantine hypothesis -- new idea
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> > Doesn't work.  Silicon is not carbon's twin, it is only carbon's first
> > cousin.  In particular, silicon generally refuses to form the large molecules
> > necessary to life...
> 
> It is not obvious that long carbon chains are necessary for life.
> There was an interesting (though highly speculative) article in 
> Scientific American a few months ago arguing that life on Earth actually
> began with a silicon-based (more exactly, silicate-based) chemistry.

Long carbon chains, perhaps not, but for serious life you need some sort
of analogous fine structure.  I saw the S.A. article too; it proposed
crude semi-life on the level of viruses and such, as I recall.  The author
was not suggesting this as a major alternative chemistry for life, just as
a possible helping hand in the origin of carbon-based life.  Generalizing
his ideas to higher forms doesn't work too well.  Perhaps possible, but
it does not look too likely.

> Besides, I don't believe present-day chemistry is advanced enough to say
> for sure that silicon chemistry is not as varied as that of carbon.

If you seriously look into the matter, you may change your mind.  Silicon's
unwillingness to form macromolecules is quite well established, and the
fundamental reasons for it are well understood.  Silicon chemistry can be
quite complicated and varied, yes, but it looks quite unsuited to life.

> Virtually all knowledge we have about the versatility of carbon (and the
> motivation to seek that knowledge) came from studying matter produced by
> living beings.  

Circa 100 years ago, this was true.  Not today.

> If the silicon-based chemists in Krakafoon IV have studied the chemistry of
> carbon as thoroughly as we have studied that of silicon, they will probably
> tell you that stable carbon compounds are generally insoluble and
> unreactive, and completely unsuitable for life.  

They will do this, of course, in between participating in the interstellar
protest marches protesting the carbon-based majority's unfairness to the
downtrodden silicon-based minority.  More seriously, you're badly
underestimating the state of knowledge about silicon chemistry.  It's not
as advanced as carbon chemistry, but it's not at the rudimentary level
you suggest.

>> JS>  (3) there might have been no CO2 (as may be the case on Europa).
>> It's hard to see how that would happen, since carbon and oxygen are both
>> very common elements for quite fundamental reasons.
> 
> Hydrogen is even more abundant, and (I believe) oxygen will prefer to
> combine with it rather than with carbon...

If we're talking about vaguely Earthlike planets, most of the hydrogen
will escape into space first.  Consider Venus and Mars; CO2 would appear
to be pretty common in inner-planet atmospheres.
-- 
Usenet(n): AT&T scheme to earn
revenue from otherwise-unused	Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
late-night phone capacity.	{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 30 May 86 22:39:47 GMT
From: ucsfcgl!arnold@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Ken Arnold%CGL)
Subject: Re: Cosmic Quarantine hypothesis -- new idea
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <1235@psivax.UUCP> Stanley Friesen writes:
>... Since liquid water is necessary for life ...
>
>... If you are right then all life will be the same, the reducing
>conditions of the early atmosphere seem to be necessary for the origin
>of life. ...

:g/s/life/life as we know it/g

Or, to put it in English, life *as we know it* requires water and a
bunch of other things.  Our sample size of conditions under which life
can evolve is rather small, consisting of, in all ... (hold on a minute
while I add this up) ... er, one.  We don't know even if life as we
know it, or would even recognize it, is necessary for intelligence.
(This last, of couse, depends on what you would recognize as life.  If
intelligence is sufficient, then this statement can't be true, but many
would argue that by "life" they include such things as, say, "death",
not to mention reproduction, and there is no guarantee that
intelligence requires any such thing.)

		Ken Arnold

------------------------------

Date: 30 May 86 21:57:46 GMT
From: hplabs!motsj1!mnetor!clewis@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Chris Lewis)
Subject: Re: controversy over decreasing average intelligence
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <518@3comvax.UUCP> michaelm@3comvax.UUCP (Michael McNeil) writes:
>In article <239@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
>>Greater birthrate among morons will pull "average intelligence"
>>down whereas prior to 25,000 years ago, this bias was reversed
>>because of the want of population related paucity of moron supporting 
>>civilization and more adverse survival conditions. 
>
>This is very short sighted thinking.  Evolution takes millenia to
>have significant effects.  

That just depends on how strong the "selection-process" is.  If you 
continually culled every individual with blonde hair (just as an example!
I'm blonde (sort of) :-)) it would take a lot less than a millenia to
extinguish the gene pretty thoroughly.

I agree with the rest of your posting though.
-- 
Chris Lewis,
{pyramid|watmath|utcsri|decvax|allegra|linus|ihnp4}!utzoo!
{utcsri|cbosgd}!utcs!
{yetti|lsuc|genat|mot|oakhill}!
... mnetor!clewis
BELL: (416)-475-8980 ext. 321

------------------------------

Date: 31 May 86 03:59:00 GMT
From: cad!nike!think!ima!inmet!janw@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Fermi Paradox, can't use a priori a
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa


[REM%IMSSS@SU-AI.ARPA.UUCP]
/* ---------- "Fermi Paradox, can't use a priori a" ---------- */
J> Date: 12 May 86 02:52:00 GMT
J> From: decvax!ima!inmet!janw@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
J> Subject: Fermi Paradox

J> The idea that Earth life is the first in the galaxy to evolve  to
J> its  present  stage  seems implausible, ...

J> A priori, we should consider ourselves in the middle of this dis-
J> tribution,  with  half the galaxy ahead of us, most of them ahead
J> by hundreds of millions years.

>A priori means ignoring all scientific evidence. We must instead use a
>posteriori analysis. 

NO, it means ignoring only the fact we want to explain.

>We start with all the theories, sorted  by  descending  a  priori
>likelihood,  then  we dismiss those which don't fit the evidence,
>and the first one that remains is the current favorite.
>If half the galaxy is ahead of us, they are here already,

THAT's where you go astray. There are zillions of other  theories
explaining why they aren't here already. E.g. "ahead" means dead,
all civilizations perish by the laws of  their  development.  Or,
"ahead" they become invisible to us and uninterested in us.

We must select  the  least  implausible  of  these  explanations.
*Then*  if  it  is  still  improbable, we may apply the anthropic
principle. To me, uniqueness of life on Earth seems less  plausi-
ble than both explanations above, and than many others.

		Jan Wasilewsky

------------------------------

Date: 31 May 86 04:15:00 GMT
From: decvax!ima!inmet!janw@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Fermi paradox - we can only find wh
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa


[redford@JEREMY.DEC.COM.UUCP]
>Could we tell their handiwork if we saw it?  English gardens
>are deliberately laid out to look natural; abstract expressionism looks
>random to those unfamiliar with it.  

Good examples. And the best packed information most resembles
random noise.

>>Attempts at radio communication seem even more futile. Radio  has
>>been  with  us for a few decades. A few centuries from now, we'll
>>be into something else. Yet we expect  beings  randomly  picked
>>from  a billion years of evolution - theirs, not ours, it may not
>>go in the same direction - to send beepbeeps to us.

>Yet radio is all we have.  They could be communicating with modulated 
>neutrino beams, or for that matter they could BE modulated neutrino beams,
>but we can only discover what we can detect.  You can only search the 
>ground where the streetlight shines.  Anyhow, it may not be that unlikely 
>that they use radio for some things.  We still build fires a hundred thousand
>years after discovering it.  

You have a point. But then we should look for some side effects,
radio noise, not signals sent to us. 

>What's certain is that if we don't look we'll never find them.

The question is how to channel our efforts. Listening  for  some-
thing  we ourselves would have sent is the path of least imagina-
tion...

		Jan wasilewsky

------------------------------

Date: 31 May 86 18:00:35 GMT
From: ihnp4!inuxc!inuxm!arlan@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (A Andrews)
Subject: No Way, Canadians!  AT&T First!
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

How extraordinaire that a Canadian has claim the world's first communications
satellite.  How incredible that anybody else would believe it.

A history lesson for you youngsters on the net (sigh***, so many netters
seem to think history began when they were in high school, and that only the
things they remember reading in daily papers were important...):  back in
1962, Bell Labs and the French government broadcast the first television via
satellite across the Atlantic, and it was accomplished with AT&T's bought-and-
paid-for Telstar satellite.

To my knowledge, the nations who have launched their own objects into space
(and no, it does NOT count if you hired somebody's launcher; en/ven I could
do that with enough cash) were:  USSR, USA, China, France, Japan, and INdia,
not necessarily in that order; after numbers one and two, who even cares?

Were the purchase of a launch vehicle qualification for calling a nation a
"space explorer", why even Italy and Cuba would probably qualify.

Sorry, neighbors.  You did not launch (or even build) the first commo satellite,
and have not launched your own satellites yet.  (When you do, I hope it's
by private company so as to avoid some of our own governmental troubles with
launch vehicles.)

'Bye


--arlan andrews (who...Ghad!...actually remembers when history REALLY began--
ca. 1945)

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #305
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA14220; Mon, 9 Jun 86 03:02:11 PDT
	id AA14220; Mon, 9 Jun 86 03:02:11 PDT
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 86 03:02:11 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8606091002.AA14220@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #306

*** EOOH ***
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 86 03:02:11 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #306

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 306

Today's Topics:
		    Re: Ariane Failure (Martians)
		  Re: Gavity wells and advance races
	 Re: Architecture for Space Exploration & Development
		Re: Alien visits, Cesium Clocks & Such
		Re: Alien visits, Cesium Clocks & Such
		Re: Alien visits, Cesium Clocks & Such
	      black hole temperature and evaporate/leak
		   Sunday NY Times article on space
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 31 May 86 20:02:04 GMT
From: allegra!princeton!caip!lll-crg!seismo!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!ius2.cs.cmu.edu!ralphw@ucbvax.  (Ralph Hyre)
Subject: Re: Ariane Failure (Martians)
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <8605310208.AA06476@s1-b.arpa> dietz@slb-doll.CSNET writes:
>I just heard Ariane lost another booster.  The third stage apparently
>failed to ignite (didn't they have this problem before?) Their failure
>rate is now four in eighteen -- not good, even for expendables.  If the
>US aerospace industry had kept developing expendables Arianespace would
>be in very serious trouble now.  Thank god the first Geostar transponder
>made it up safely last time.

I think the Martians want to keep us Earthlings out of space so we can't test
or deploy SDI and interfere with the invasion plans.  The failure of the  
Shuttle, Titan, Delta, the tiny launcher, and now Ariane CAN't be coincidental.

Let's test some of our ICBM's just to see if they work.  Keep those Ruskies
on their toes.

Maybe Cannon Group is just trying to build up publicity for their new movie,
'Invaders from Mars' by making us THINK the Martians want to keep us out of
space.
-- 
					- Ralph W. Hyre, Jr.

Internet: ralphw@c.cs.cmu.edu		Phone: (412)CMU-BUGS

------------------------------

Date: 31 May 86 19:54:55 GMT
From: allegra!princeton!caip!lll-crg!seismo!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!ius2.cs.cmu.edu!ralphw@ucbvax.  (Ralph Hyre)
Subject: Re: Gavity wells and advance races
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <14012@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> desj@brahms.UUCP (David desJardins) writes:
>   Propulsion without reaction mass violates conservation of momentum.
>Of all the "physical laws" known to Man, this is about the least likely
>one ever to be violated...

Where would the energy for the grav drive come from?  If you used the
drive to move between Jupiter and the Sun, wouldn't you be 'weakening' the
gravitational attraction between those two objects?  Seems like that would
have bad effects, like letting Jupiter go astray if your acceleration were
large enough.  Of course we could move Mars into a closer orbit around the
Sun, so maybe it wouldn't be so bad:-)
-- 
					- Ralph W. Hyre, Jr.

Internet: ralphw@c.cs.cmu.edu		Phone: (412)CMU-BUGS

------------------------------

Date: 31 May 86 19:19:18 GMT
From: allegra!princeton!caip!lll-crg!seismo!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!ius2.cs.cmu.edu!ralphw@ucbvax.  (Ralph Hyre)
Subject: Re: Architecture for Space Exploration & Development
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <583@pucc.BITNET> 6106728@pucc.BITNET writes:
>>[my post about timetable, etc]
>  Several questions, Ralph. 1) Why give your shuttle the ability
>to go from GSO to the Moon? It would be more efficient to design a separate
>craft for this.

Yeah, I watched 'Great Space Race: The Next Civilization' last Wednesday on PBS
and realized that I was off base in many respects.  Now I'd flush the beefier
shuttle in favor of an OTV (orbital transfer vehicle, w/ aerobraking).
I'll have to do some energy calculations to see if
E(Earth <-> low orbit) >= E(station <-> moon base) [I suspect it is]
Then the TAV could be used for most Earth-Moon operations, asssuming refueling
at the Station and/or Moon Base.

>2) Mars Base only 5 years after Moon Base? I'm very
>optimistic, but I think this is stretching it.  3)  It would be
>cheaper and more useful in the long run, not to mention easier, to go
>visit some nearby (i.e., Earth-grazing) asteroids before going to Mars.
Well, Mars is actually easier to set up shop in, given that it has water
and some atmosphere.  Moon is closer, though and that will mean a LOT
in the event of an emergency.

>4) Your 'fast' interstellar probe is INCREDIBLY fast given its launch date.
>What kind of drive were you planning on?
Ion (Cesium?), Solar Sail, or Orion (nukes).  This is the flakiest part of the
proposal, but it should give Proxmire something to attack without disturbing
the rest of the program.  Better to spend the money to actually LOOK for
planets in other solar systems before going there.

					- Ralph W. Hyre, Jr.

Internet: ralphw@c.cs.cmu.edu		Phone: (412)CMU-BUGS

------------------------------

Date: 28 May 86 01:14:22 GMT
From: allegra!princeton!caip!seismo!rlgvax!hadron!netexa!elw@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (E. L. Wiles)
Subject: Re: Alien visits, Cesium Clocks & Such
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> In <661@tekigm2.UUCP> timothym@tekigm2.UUCP (Timothy D Margeson) writes:
> >[...] take your Cesium clock, orbit it around the moon a few
> >times, compare it to an identical clock left on earth. If the two times are
> >the same, I'll believe you that radioactive decay is constant. Otherwise,
> >explain to me which clock has the correct time. Simple?
> 
>    Yes.  Both are correct (obviously).
> 
> > [Deleted reference to NASA test of above idea.]
>
>    And I say again, they are both correct.  The clock on Earth keeps the
> time on the Earth, and the clock on the ship keeps the correct time on the
> ship.  Since they are measuring different things, it is not surprising that
> they give different results...
>    Obviously, we use the clock that is measuring our time (i.e. the one in
> our frame) to measure our own time.
> 
>    -- David desJardins

But, when the voyagers return, do they then suddenly gain or lose time?
I think the original poster has a valid point.  The voyagers have not
experenced our time.  If the difference is on the order of years, are
they suddenly years older or younger (depending on the sign of the
diference).

Currently, this is a non-problem.  But, it may point out interesting
areas to study!

				E. L. Wiles @ NetExpress Comm. Inc.
				Vienna, Virginia.

"Opinions?....Opinions?....WHAT Opinions?!?"

------------------------------

Date: 28 May 86 14:47:29 GMT
From: cad!nike!lll-crg!seismo!ut-sally!franklin@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Maurice T. Franklin)
Subject: Re: Alien visits, Cesium Clocks & Such
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <504@netexa.UUCP> elw@netexa.UUCP (E. L. Wiles) writes:
>But, when the voyagers return, do they then suddenly gain or lose time?
> . . .

NO!  They don't 'suddenly gain or lose time'.  Each 'clock', whether it be
mechanical, atomic, or biological, measures the passage of time with reference
to it relative position in the Universe.  If my clock is moving with a higher
velocity relative to you, then we are running on different clocks, ALL the time
during the difference in speed.  When I come back from a 60% speed of light 
trip, time will have passed normally for both of us, yet, if we had been the
same age, you will be years older than I am or, conversly, I will be years 
younger than you.  And I will stay that way (unless you go on a similar trip
while I stay at home).  
Incidently, moving different velocities is not the only thing that can cause
relativistic time distortion.  Since acceleration and gravity are the same 
thing, differences in gravity cause time distortion.  A clock on Mt. Everest
runs slightly faster than one at sea level, which runs alot faster than one
near a black hole.

	"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"
		- Arthur C. Clark 
				Maurice T. Franklin
        			CS Dept University of Texas at Austin
UUCP:    			{ihnp4,seismo,harvard,gatech}!ut-sally!franklin
ARPA Internet and CSNET:    	franklin@sally.utexas.edu

------------------------------

Date: 30 May 86 16:30:50 GMT
From: allegra!princeton!caip!lll-crg!seismo!rlgvax!hadron!netexa!elw@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (E. L. Wiles)
Subject: Re: Alien visits, Cesium Clocks & Such
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

My prior posting was ambiguous, I did not intend to imply or suggest that in
the lightspeed trip suggested that the voyager would suddenly age the
difference upon return.

I was instead asking the question of how to reconcile the differences.
One clock shows that it is the year 2050, the other one still claims
it's the year 2000.  (Perhapse these are not absolutely accurate, but
they give you the idea!)  Given the relativisitic effects, both are
right.  Yet since both are now on the same planet, in the same frame,
running at the 'same' speed, how do you reconcile them?  Simply ignore
the difference?  How old is the voyager? By one clock he may be old
enough to retire, by the other, he's still in his prime!

				E. L. Wiles @ NetExpress Comm. Inc.
				Vienna, Virginia.

"Opinions?....Opinions?....WHAT Opinions?!?"

------------------------------

Date: 1986 June 01 12:23:21 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@su-ai.arpa>
To: decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-trco01!steckner@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Cc: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
Subject: black hole temperature and evaporate/leak

S> Date: 20 May 86 18:48:26 GMT
S> From: decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-trco01!steckner@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
S> Subject: Re: PBS 'Space Race' program speculation
S> I found the bit about the "leaking" black holes to be interesting.
S> Given what little I know about black holes though, the information you
S> give is contrary to what I thought was current theory.  As far as a
S> knew, Steven Hawking pio- neered and developed the idea that only very
S> small black holes could evaporate.

That's a misleading statement, so let me explain... All black holes
(according to Hawking theory) leak. Larger ones leak out slowly,
smaller ones leak out quickly. Since leak-out is a completely
randomized collection of fundamental particles, a single parameter
suffices to measure leak-out, usually given as a temperature. Fall-in
is different, it depends on what is nearby. But in the absence of
nearby objects fall-in consists primarily of photons and neutrinos
from the big bang fireball (when hydrogen&helium cooled beyond
ionization and the last photons emitted by the plasma found themselves
traveling through gas instead of plasma and never again were
absorbed), and again can be characterized by a single parameter,
temperature, except in this case the temperature varies with age of
univese rather than size of black hole.

If the black hole is sufficiently small, internal "temperature" is
higher than radiation temperature of outside universe, so more leaks
out than drops in, so the black hole gradually shrinks, and as it does
so it emits faster and faster until in the limit it reaches infinite
temperature and zero size after a finite time. Just before that moment
it emits a burst of gamma rays, earlier it emits x-rays predeced by
ultraviolet preceded by visible light preceded by infrared preceded by
microwave. But if a black hole is too large, its internal "temperature"
is lower than the radiation temperature of the surrounding universe,
in-fall is faster than out-leak so the black hole gets larger not
smaller and its internal "temperature" gets yet cooler (it emits even
more slowly). It would eventually absorb the whole universe, by little
pieces of the universe randomly drifting by it over time, even other
black holes falling into it (or it into them), until just about
everything has fallen into one big black hole. But if the universe is
expanding and thus cooling indefinitely, its density is approaching
zero so the rate of infalling stuff approaches zero so the rate of
growth of the black hole approaches zero. Also the growing universe is
getting cooler, and eventually drops below the temperature of the
black hole, at which point the black hole leaks out faster than it
gets stuff falling in, so the black hole starts shrinking. After a
very very very very long time (do you have any idea how large a google
number of years is? It's not far from that) the originally large black
hole shrinks to zero size and infinite temperature in a burst of gamma
rays.

S> Disclaimer: Often humans have disclaimed me, so my company, dog and cat
S> 		wouldn't claim the ideas in here either.

I wonder which is a worse trend, cyanide in medicine capsules, or
silly net disclaimers? Anyway, I joined the silly game a while back,
modifying my mail-sending program to select on the fly (as the message
is posted to the net) at random (I can't guess which one it'll select)
a disclaimer from my collection of about fourty favourites, and append
it to the end of the message...

Plagarism of the day: Imitation is the sincerest form of plagarism.

------------------------------

Posted-Date: Sun 1 Jun 1986 16:41:02 EST
Date: Sun 1 Jun 1986 16:41:02 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Sunday NY Times article on space
To: space@s1-b.arpa

The NY Times seems to be paying more attention to space these days.
The Sunday (6/1/86) issue has a 1/2 page series of short pieces taken
from the preceding week's AAAS meeting (page E7).  The pieces are:

  -- Elbert King and C. Fred Singer propose a manned base on
     Phobos and Deimos as more economical and scientifically productive
     than either direct landings on Mars or unmanned sample-return missions
     (the people on the Martian moons would control unmanned
     rovers to start with rather than descending themselves).

  -- Robert Forward briefly describes his "Starwisp" idea, in which a
     one ounce wire mesh a mile across is propelled by a microwave
     beam borrowed for a week from a conventional powersat.  The wisp
     travels at .2 c to alpha centauri in 20 years, at which point
     it is illuminated again by a microwave beam from the solar system,
     energizing built-in microcircuits that somehow image the passing
     star system.

  -- James Powell talks about getting the energy for interstellar flight
     from "planetary energy farms", either on or near Mercury (where
     sunlight is the source) or at Jupiter (where He-3 is the source).

  -- Isaac Asimov suggest no one will pay for these things anyway.
     (Thank you Dr. Asimov).

An aside:

Forward's starwisp suggests the possibility of accelerating somewhat
more massive objects to lower velocities to visit bodies in the solar
system.   You'd still need a strong light mesh reflector, but the
instrument package could be more conventional.  Energy costs turn out
to be small: accelerating a 1 kilogram object to 100 km/sec consumes
about $200,000 worth of energy (at $.05 per kilowatt hour), assuming
the microwaves can be generated, transmitted and reflected with 100%
efficiency.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #306
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA01882; Tue, 10 Jun 86 03:02:03 PDT
	id AA01882; Tue, 10 Jun 86 03:02:03 PDT
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 86 03:02:03 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8606101002.AA01882@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #307

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 307

Today's Topics:
			  Re: Reaction mass
			  Re: Fermi Paradox
	      Re: Using Gravity wells to affect velocity
		    Re: Ariane Failure (Martians)
			      SRB fuels
			  De-Nuke the Planet
		    Time Dilation, the effects of
			     Night Flash
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 30 May 86 06:57:51 GMT
From: decvax!cca!g-rh@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Richard Harter)
Subject: Re: Reaction mass
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <> desj@brahms.UUCP (David desJardins) writes:
>In article <121@spp5.UUCP> brahms@spp5.UUCP (Bradley S. Brahms) writes:
>>This may be true for space craft using some type of reaction mass as a
>>means of propulsion, but I feel a truly advance race would not be using
>>chemical motors to go around the galaxy/universe.
>
>   Propulsion without reaction mass violates conservation of momentum.
>Of all the "physical laws" known to Man, this is about the least likely
>one ever to be violated...

	Er, ah, David, I hate to break this to you, but your statement,
while true, is a non-sequitor.  Mr Brahms is clearly speaking of vehicles
which carry their reaction mass (e.g. rockets).  If I build a linear
induction accelerator and I accelerate a mass with it the accelerator
accelerates in the opposite direction from the mass -- i.e. the accelerator
provides the 'reaction mass' and momementum is conserved.  However the
accelerated mass does not carry fuel and was not accelerated by a
chemical motor.

			Richard Harter, SMDS Inc.

------------------------------

Date: 29 May 86 07:10:29 GMT
From: decvax!cca!g-rh@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Richard Harter)
Subject: Re: Fermi Paradox
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <> dietz@slb-doll.CSNET.UUCP writes:
>
>  decvax!cca!g-rh@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Richard Harter) writes:
>
>> 	It is my assessment that the probability of life developing,
>>GIVEN the conditions of primitive earth, are quite high.  My reasons
>>for making this assessment is that the necessary precondition events
>>seem to occur quite naturally.  These include (a) spontaneous generation
>>of encapsulating spheres, (b) spontaneous generation of complex biochemical
>>materials, and (c) spontaneous generation of self organizing configurations.
>
>Given our current knowledge about the processes leading to the creation
>of life this assessment cannot be supported.  It may be true, but our
>ignorance is nearly total.   Even panspermia cannot be ruled out!
>Although a bare bacterial spore in space is quickly destroyed by ultraviolet
>light, a bacterial spore blasted off a planet that happens to be in a
>molecular cloud could acquire a blanket of organic crud quickly enough
>to shield it when it left the cloud, and could survive for tens of
>millions of years.  (If panspermia were the mechanism then one would
>expect life to be fairly common, I concede.)

	Your point about our degree of ignorance is well taken.  Quick
now, what percentage of the Earth's surface was covered by water at a
depth of one meter or less, 300 million years after the formation of
the Earth?  Picky, picky.  What was the composition of the atmosphere
and what was its pressure?  Or, if that's too much detail, how was the
Moon acquired, and when?

	None-the-less I think that a statement that the assessment
cannot be supported is overly strong.  At this point in time we have
a fair understanding of the prokaryotic cell, how it works, and what
it needs.  To the best of our understanding (admittedly speculative)
the pieces were in place, and the chemical reactions all seem to go
in the right direction.  The really obscure part is the mechanism by
which the pieces got together.

	I have to be a skeptic about panspermia, at least of the
interstellar variety.  Even if spores could endure in space, I find
it hard to believe that they could last for the hundreds of thousands
to millions of years that they would take to get from one star to
another.

>An argument I have not heard before, but that seems plausible, is that
>evolution is a very local search mechanism, so it can easily get stuck
>in local minima.  Perhaps life orginates on many worlds, but on almost
>all of them evolution gets stuck in parts of the search space far from
>what we would call intelligent creatures.

	This is an interesting point.  One of the forces that appears
to drive evolution in the large are rare large scale exterminations.
These have the effect of making large, random changes in the search
space (stuck on a mesa?  go a hundred miles in a random direction.)
Myabe conditions on earth are unusually rigorous, and other life bearing
worlds are cursed by more benign conditions.

		Richard Harter, SMDS Inc.

PS - I received your note, but my reply got bounced.

------------------------------

Date: 30 May 86 18:25:01 GMT
From: decvax!cca!lmi-angel!jmturn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (James Turner)
Subject: Re: Using Gravity wells to affect velocity
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <> sean@ukma.UUCP (Sean Casey) writes:

>Ok, I'm stupid.  I've seen at least ten different explanations for how this
>works and I still don't get it.  It doesn't seem intuitively 'right'.  Can
>anyone recommend a text that explains it thoroughly?
>
>Sean

Let me try for number 11 and see if it helps.

Suppose you are traveling toward a gravity well, which we will
consider a point source for convinience's sake. You are traveling at
some speed V.  Let's take the simple case of a trajectory which passes
directly through the point source (painful for the crew..., but it's a
simpler set of math than for a gazing orbit, which involves vectors
but relies on the same principal.

Good old Newton tells us that the force acting on you at any point is

F = G (m1 * m2)/d^2

And since m1 (that's us) will remain a constant for the moment, we will
experience an increase in velocity of:

V = F / m1 * dT

Unfortunately, you experience the same loss of velocity coming out of
the well the other side. Thus, you end up with the same velocity V
after emerging from the well as before going in. However, suppose you
were to fire your motors as you fall into the well. Not only do you
increase your speed due to thrust, but when you emerge on the other
side, m1 will be smaller, since you expended fuel. Thus, you will
experience less loss of velocity due to gravitaional influences than
you did coming in, hence a speed boost care of your gravity well.

This help at all? Would somebody care to work out the actual calculus,
my brain hurts today...

James

Helping Computers With Speech Impediments
LISP Machine, Inc.

{harvard|cca|mit-eddie}!lmi-angel!jmturn
NOTE: I am *not* the James Turner at Imagen

------------------------------

Date: 3 Jun 86 00:44:44 GMT
From: bellcore!petrus!karn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Phil R. Karn)
Subject: Re: Ariane Failure (Martians)
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> Thank god the first Geostar transponder made it up safely last time.

Only one problem: it recently failed.  A replacement was scheduled to go up
on another Ariane in November, but...

I learned about the Ariane V18 failure just after I returned from the AMSAT
Phase 3-C thermal vacuum test last week (manifested on Ariane V21, the first
Ariane-4 flight).  While it's nice to have a little more time to fix the
problems we found, it doesn't make one view our eventual launch with any
less apprehension.

Maybe all these failures are a blessing in disguise, if they finally
convince the Ray-gunites that Star Wars is a mistake.

Phil

------------------------------

Date: 2 Jun 86 20:25:33 GMT
From: allegra!princeton!caip!think!mit-eddie!genrad!panda!teddy!rdp@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Richard D. Pierce)
Subject: SRB fuels
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Can someone enlighten me on the composition of the fuel used in the
shuttle SRB. I had heard that it was some aluminum/something-or-other
matrix, back when there was some concern about the toxicity of the
exhaust.

E-mail reply is OK, unless others would like to know

Dick Pierce

------------------------------

Date: 2 Jun 86 21:40:00 GMT
From: cad!nike!think!ima!inmet!janw@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: De-Nuke the Planet
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa


The treaty (of 1967 ?) against weapons in space needs to be abro-
gated. SDI as planned may or may not be feasible. However, moving
nuclear weapons away into outer space - both defensive and offen-
sive weapons - is an attractive ideal.

Not just because the Western  - the peaceful - side has an
advantage in space technology. There are other reasons.

Land-based missiles, especially, only attract a blow to the popu-
lation, merging counter-force with counter-value.

But the counter-value strategy of MAD - targeting population -
lacks both moral standing and credibility.

Denuke the planet!  Land first, then the sea and the air.

A treaty to that effect could be self-enforcing. If someone
hides nuclear missiles on their territory, they could only
use the advantage by disclosing it; and then they would 
become a target, a disadvantage far outweighing the advantage.

Europe and Japan would acquire strategic depth and not
be dependent on USA for their defense. 

First strike would become imposible:  space  bases  at  different
distances couldn't all be hit at the same time.

War, if it came, would be machines against machines,
with few people endangered.

What safer place for the nuclear race than the vast vacuum?

Last but not least, the boost to space colonization from  a  pro-
gram  like  this  would move humankind towards the only *lasting*
survival strategy - dispersal.

			Jan Wasilewsky

------------------------------

Date: 2 Jun 86 20:22:54 GMT
From: tektronix!tekig5!tekigm!tekigm2!timothym@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Timothy D Margeson)
Subject: Time Dilation, the effects of
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Hi,

About gravity and time dilation....  If light emitted from an average mass
star has the effects of gravity created time dilation acting upon it, does it
not stand to reason that the light spectrum emitted will be likewise affected?

Assume that it does, then it makes sense that the red shift used to measure
stellar distances is also affected by the mass of the stars emmiting the light.
This additional shift could be easily mistaken for aditional distance or speed.
I am aware that the distances to nearby stars have been measured by paralax, 
but what of the stars of greater distances? Are these effects accounted for it
the red shift theory?

I am not an astromomy major, so don't know if this is old hat to the profession
so excuse my ignorance if I am off base.

Now for a strange question, or concept.... Assume a distant galaxy, speeding
away from us at 90% of C. In this galaxy there is a star system similar to 
our Sol, and a planet similar to Earth, and a race similar to humans. The time
for this planet to revolve the distant sun is 365.25 days. The far race decides
to send a ship into deep space at 90% of C. They realize finally their ship is
really not going any where usefull, and send another ship in the same direction
at 99.9% of C. They pick up the first ships crew and continue on course. This
second ship is now heading directly for our system, at .1% of C relative to us,
and 99.9% of C relative to them. Time dilation dictates that the crew is aging
more slowly compared to the distant populace.

My question to real experts is this, Even though the distant galaxy is speeding
away from us at 90% of C, will the the orbital period of the distant appear to
be faster or slower to us (if we observe the star system on axis), or will we
count the plantary orbit at 365.25 days?

And what of the crew of the ship. Will they live forever as far as we are to
observe, or will they now live a life span equal to ours (assume that they did
have 80 year spans on their planet)?

I think Iknow the answers, but am not real sure. It makes sense to me that the
crew on the craft will now live 80 Earth years, and on the distant planet the
people will live many thousands of our years, and we will never observe the 
planet orbit the star even once.

Any knowledgeable responses welcome, but please, no flames, and no responses
by those less informed than myself.

-- 
Tim Margeson (206)253-5240
tektronix!tekigm2!timothym                   @@   'Who said that?'  
PO Box 3500  d/s C1-937
Vancouver, WA. 98665

------------------------------

Date: 3 Jun 86 14:42:01 GMT
From: ihnp4!inuxc!inuxe!fred@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Fred Mendenhall)
Subject: Night Flash
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

About 10:10PM EST last night, June 2, 1986, a friend and I
were admiring the night sky when we saw a brilliant flash
near the star Vega (near being within 20 Degrees). It was a point like 
flash much much brighter than Vega. I'm convinced that it was not 
related to an aircraft, we had just spent 2 hours flying night VFR
avoiding the Jet traffic over Indianapolis and we are quiet aware of 
what aircraft lighting looks like. It also didn't look like a 
meteor, but I haven't ruled out the possibility that we might have
witnessed a meteor heading right at us. It was so fast and bright
that I thought it was my imagination, but my friend saw it too.

Anybody else see the thing? Anybody else seen anything like it?
I know this is probably a mistake but... any suggestions on what
we actually saw?

				Fred Mendenhall

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #307
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA02855; Wed, 11 Jun 86 03:02:02 PDT
	id AA02855; Wed, 11 Jun 86 03:02:02 PDT
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 86 03:02:02 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8606111002.AA02855@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #308

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 308

Today's Topics:
		Re: Alien visits, Cesium Clocks & Such
		Re: Alien visits, Cesium Clocks & Such
	      Re: Using Gravity wells to affect velocity
	      Re: Using Gravity wells to affect velocity
			  Re: Ariane Failure
		Re: Alien visits, Cesium Clocks & Such
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 3 Jun 86 21:40:49 GMT
From: decvax!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Wayne Throop)
Subject: Re: Alien visits, Cesium Clocks & Such
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> elw@netexa.UUCP (E. L. Wiles)

> My prior posting was ambiguous, I did not intend to imply or suggest that in
> the lightspeed trip suggested that the voyager would suddenly age the
> difference upon return.

Your problems seem to be in the fundamental way you are thinking about
time.  Let's see in detail:

> I was instead asking the question of how to reconcile the differences.
> One clock shows that it is the year 2050, the other one still claims
> it's the year 2000. (Perhapse these are not absolutely accurate, but
> they give you the idea!)

This way of putting it seems to assume that there is such a thing as
"the year 2050" in some non-arbitrary sense.  This is not the case.  The
"difference" you need to reconcile is one of time-interval only, not one
of "what date is it".  The confusion comes from the fact that common
clocks don't measure what their readouts say they measure.  Clocks
measure time interval, yet the readout of a "normal" clock is a
co-ordinate.  When viewed as a co-ordinate, you must keep in mind that
the two clocks give their co-ordinates in different co-ordinate systems.
Thus, the clock readouts of the voyager and the stay-at-home both give
names to some particular moment in time.  The fact that these names can
be different is surprising only because most clocks in everyday life all
give the same name to any particular moment in time.

> Given the relativisitic effects, both are right.  Yet since both are now on
> the same planet, in the same frame, running at the 'same' speed, how do you
> reconcile them?  Simply ignore the difference?  How old is the voyager? By one
> clock he may be old enough to retire, by the other, he's still in his prime!

Let's take these questions one at a time.  I will note that the basic
difficulty here is that you are assuming that time is an absolute
quantity, the same for all observers.  It is not.  It turns out that it
is much more like space, and how you travel through space-time can
affect how much time-distance you travel, as well as how much
space-distance you travel.  I will use this analogy in answering the
questions below.

> how do you reconcile them? [the clocks]

You don't need to "reconcile" them.  You just realize that they are
measuring different things.  If someone drives from point A to point B
via route R1, and someone else drives from A to B via R2, do you need to
"reconcile" the fact that their odometers register differing milages?

> Simply ignore the difference?

Of course not.  They measure different things, but this doesn't mean
that the difference should be ignored.  The difference signifies that
the time interval along the traveller's path was less than the
time-interval along the stay-at-home's path.

> How old is the voyager?

This is like asking "how long are the voyager's legs?" The answer is
"long enough to reach the ground".  So the answer to "how old is the
voyager?" is "old enough to have lived from birth to the present
moment." This is not as facetious as it seems.  The point of it all is
if you measure the space interval between the voyager's pelvis and the
ground (while standing), you get the length of the voyager's legs.  If
you "measure" the time interval between the voyager's present moment and
the voyager's birth, you get the voyager's age.  Naturally, if the
voyager's space-time path leads off the earth and back, you have to
measure that, just as when the voyager's legs are bowed, you have to
measure along the bow.

Note that a person's legs have "two lengths" if they are bowed.
There is the length along the bow, and the length which is the
straight-line distance that separates the ends of the leg.  Similarly, a
relativistic traveler has "two ages".  The age "along the trip", and
the age "straight along the home planet".  And it it easy to see that a
person's legs can have a multitude of lengths, depending on just what it
is that is measured, and the same is true of "age".

Right?  All clear?
-- 
Wayne Throop      <the-known-world>!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw

------------------------------

Date: 3 Jun 86 23:04:26 GMT
From: ihnp4!ltuxa!we53!wucs!wucec2!ph@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Alien visits, Cesium Clocks & Such
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <506@netexa.UUCP> elw@netexa.UUCP (E. L. Wiles) writes:
>I was instead asking the question of how to reconcile the differences.  One
>clock shows that it is the year 2050, the other one still claims it's the year
>2000.  (Perhapse these are not absolutely accurate, but they give you the idea!)
>Given the relativisitic effects, both are right.  Yet since both are now on
>the same planet, in the same frame, running at the 'same' speed, how do you
>reconcile them?  Simply ignore the difference?  How old is the voyager? By one
>clock he may be old enough to retire, by the other, he's still in his prime!

	    Maurice has already answered this, in the article to which
	you followed-up, but I'll try to spell it out more explicitly.
	    In what sense do you mean to "reconcile" the differences?
	Both clocks are correct, but they have described different
	paths.  That has resulted in a difference in the time that each
	clock currently displays which is not going to go away.  They
	have now returned to the same frame, which means that they will
	both now run at the same _rate_, but that does not mean that the
	same _time_ must be displayed by each.  The voyager will have
	aged physically at a rate compatible with the clock he traveled
	with, i.e. more slowly.
						--pH
/*
 *	    "Bloo.  Redd.  Bloo.  Redd."
 */

------------------------------

Date: 3 Jun 86 21:37:10 GMT
From: ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (sonntag)
Subject: Re: Using Gravity wells to affect velocity
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> Suppose you are traveling toward a gravity well, which we will
> consider a point source for convinience's sake. You are traveling at
> some speed V.  Let's take the simple case of a trajectory which passes
> directly through the point source (painful for the crew..., but it's a
> simpler set of math than for a gazing orbit, which involves vectors
> but relies on the same principal.
> 
> Good old Newton tells us that the force acting on you at any point is
> 
> F = G (m1 * m2)/d^2
> 
> And since m1 (that's us) will remain a constant for the moment, we will
> experience an increase in velocity of:
> 
> V = F / m1 * dT
		 = G * m2 * dT / d^2 , or dV/dT= G * m2 / d^2, which is
*independant* of our mass.
> 
> Unfortunately, you experience the same loss of velocity coming out of the
> well the other side. Thus, you end up with the same velocity V after emerging
> from the well as before going in.

Quite true.

> However, suppose you were to fire your
> motors as you fall into the well. Not only do you increase your speed due
> to thrust, but when you emerge on the other side, m1 will be smaller, since
> you expended fuel. Thus, you will experience less loss of velocity due to
> gravitaional influences than you did coming in, hence a speed boost care
> of your gravity well.
> James
> {harvard|cca|mit-eddie}!lmi-angel!jmturn

    Untrue, since your deceleration as you leave the gravity well
is independant of your mass, as demonstrated above.  By firing your
boosters at the point of closest approach to the gravity well, however,
you can leave the proximity of the well quicker than you got there, and
shed less velocity leaving than you gained falling in.
    To see how this works, consider falling in from infinity on a course
to graze a gravity well.  You start out with a relative velocity of 0.
When you come closest to the well, you have picked up a velocity of V.  
You fire your motor and pick up an additional velocity D (for Delta V.).
The kinetic energy in your system is now 1/2 * M * (V + D)^2.  As you 
speed away from the well, part of that kinetic energy is converted back
into potential energy.  How much?  The same amount as you got falling in,
1/2 * M * V^2.  How much do you have left?  1/2 * M * (2VD + D^2).  The 2VD
portion of that was the free part.  The D^2 part was the amount you paid.
Oh, and you're now traveling at (2VD + D^2)^(1/2), which is
(1 + 2V/D)^(1/2) times as fast as you would have been without the
gravity well maneuver.  Notice that it didn't matter whether we got our
delta-vee through reaction mass or by interaction with 'the force'.  We
still got a free lunch.  (I'm amazed by these results!  Diving 10km/sec
deep into a gravity well, and kicking yourself off the spaceship for a lousy
10m/sec extra buys you an extra 0.45km/sec at the end!)
     One other way to improve on this free lunch, of course, is to capture
some of the gravity well's orbital velocity.  Imagine waiting just inside
the earth's orbit for the earth to come along.  Start out with no velocity
relative to the solar system.  You start to fall in, are almost captured,
and just miss as the earth speeds away.  You can end up with a velocity
equal to a large fraction of the earth's orbital velocity (~31km/sec?),
headed just about wherever you want, if you position yourself carefully
enough.
-- 
Jeff Sonntag
ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j

------------------------------

Date: 4 Jun 86 05:24:48 GMT
From: cad!nike!topaz!ll-xn!cit-vax!palmer@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (David Palmer)
Subject: Re: Using Gravity wells to affect velocity
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Organization : California Institute of Technology

There have been many explanations of why the best place to boost your
spaceship is at the bottom of a gravity well, some of it is unclear,
some of it is wrong, and some of it is totally irrelevent.  For instance
in article <54@lmi-angel.UUCP> jmturn@lmi-angel.UUCP (James Turner) writes:
>
>Unfortunately, you experience the same loss of velocity coming out of the
>well the other side. Thus, you end up with the same velocity V after emerging
>from the well as before going in. However, suppose you were to fire your
>motors as you fall into the well. Not only do you increase your speed due
>to thrust, but when you emerge on the other side, m1 will be smaller, since
>you expended fuel. Thus, you will experience less loss of velocity due to
>gravitaional influences than you did coming in, hence a speed boost care
>of your gravity well.

This particular example is either unclear or wrong. As explained, if you
dropped into a gravity well, vented your fuel without burning it, and then
continued out, you would gain speed.  This is not true.

When you do something which applies a force on you, then your change in
momentum is proportional to the force times the time during which the force
acts, but your change in kinetic energy is proportional to the force times
the distance you travel, which, in turn, is proportional to the speed
times the time.  So the change in kinetic energy is force times time times
speed, or (change in K.E.) = (change in momentum) * speed.  All you need
to know about space-craft motors is when they are turned on for a certain
amount of time and burn a certain amount of fuel, they produce a certain
amount of change in momentum which is independant of the speed they are
travelling.  (The same is true for many other technologies, including light-
sails for low speeds).  This means that the change in kinetic energy that
a spaceship motor gives its ship is proportional to the ship's speed.

It is therefore advantageous to burn as much of your fuel as possible at those
times that your are travelling at a high speed.  You can get up to a high
speed by diving into a gravity well and firing your rockets at the point of
closest approach.  The amount of K.E. that you gain as
you fall in is the same as the amount that you lose as you fall out, but
in between, at the point of nearest approach and highest speed, you gained
more additional K.E. than you would have if you had fired your rockets when
you moving slowly far away from any gravity wells.

This argument works just as well for light sails, which do not change their
mass by burning fuel, so the change in mass has nothing to do with it.

			David Palmer

------------------------------

Date: 4 Jun 86 09:47:27 GMT
From: ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!mhuxm!mhuxf!mhuxi!mhuhk!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtgzz!dls@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (d.l.skran)
Subject: Re: Ariane Failure
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings but:

The first Geostar transponder has completely failed in-orbit.

Thank god it was insured!


Dale

------------------------------

Date: 3 Jun 86 05:14:41 GMT
From: allegra!princeton!caip!seismo!cmcl2!philabs!linus!alliant!spain@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dave Spain)
Subject: Re: Alien visits, Cesium Clocks & Such
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <506@netexa.UUCP> elw@netexa.UUCP (E. L. Wiles) writes:
>>In article <1366@mmintl.UUCP> Maurice T. Franklin writes: [EDITED!]
>> In article <504@netexa.UUCP> elw@netexa.UUCP (E. L. Wiles) writes:
>> >
>> >But, when the voyagers return, do they then suddenly gain or lose time?
>> >I think the original poster has a valid point.  The voyagers have not
>> >experenced our time.  If the difference is on the order of years, are
>> >they suddenly years older or younger (depending on the sign of the
>> >diference).
>> >
>> >				E. L. Wiles @ NetExpress Comm. Inc.
>> 
>> NO!  They don't 'suddenly gain or lose time'.  Each 'clock', whether it be
>> mechanical, atomic, or biological, measures the passage of time with reference
>> to it relative position in the Universe.  If my clock is moving with a higher
>> velocity relative to you, then we are running on different clocks, ALL the
>> time during the difference in speed.  When I come back from a 60% speed of
>> light trip, time will have passed normally for both of us, yet, if we had
>> been the same age, you will be years older than I am or, conversly, I will
>> be years younger than you.  And I will stay that way (unless you go on a
>> similar trip while I stay at home).  
>
>My prior posting was ambiguous, I did not intend to imply or suggest that in
>the lightspeed trip suggested that the voyager would suddenly age the
>difference upon return.
>
>I was instead asking the question of how to reconcile the differences.  One
>clock shows that it is the year 2050, the other one still claims it's the year
>2000.  (Perhapse these are not absolutely accurate, but they give you the idea!)
>Given the relativisitic effects, both are right.  Yet since both are now on
>the same planet, in the same frame, running at the 'same' speed, how do you
>reconcile them?  Simply ignore the difference?  How old is the voyager? By one
>clock he may be old enough to retire, by the other, he's still in his prime!
>

I believe this boils down to what is commonly referred to as the "Twins
Paradox".  Both clocks are correct for their given frames of reference, yet
one shows 2050 the other 2000. Time dilation alone cannot account for this
difference since if each could see the other's clock (while their velocities
relative to each other are constant and very high) they would see the other's
clock running slower to their own. However, the clock in the reference frame
that "made the trip" experienced accelerations not experienced by the other.
Herein lies the difference between the clocks upon the traveler's return.
Since acceleration, be it caused by gravitation or by ejection mass also
effects time, the one that expirences the accelerations relative to the other
is the one that will have the lower time figure upon his return.
Again both clocks are correct and the guy who made the trip ought to really
enjoy his retirement!

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #308
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA05748; Thu, 12 Jun 86 03:02:01 PDT
	id AA05748; Thu, 12 Jun 86 03:02:01 PDT
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 86 03:02:01 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8606121002.AA05748@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #309

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 309

Today's Topics:
	     Re: Cosmic Quarantine hypothesis -- new idea
		Re: Alien visits, Cesium Clocks & Such
	       Gravity wells -- a differing calculation
		       Re: SPACE Digest V6 #302
			   Watch this Space
			    Re: SRB fuels
		 Re: Alien visits, Cesium Clocks & S
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 2 Jun 86 17:27:32 GMT
From: allegra!princeton!caip!think!harvard!cmcl2!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Frank Adams)
Subject: Re: Cosmic Quarantine hypothesis -- new idea
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa


Furthermore, fossil fuels are not necessary for a technological
civilization.  Steam engines will operate quite well burning wood.  At a
higher technological level, solar power cells are quite viable.  Fossil
fuels are cheaper than these alternatives; their availability enabled us to
develop our industry faster than would have been possible otherwise; but
they are by no means necessary.

Frank Adams                           ihnp4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
Multimate International    52 Oakland Ave North    E. Hartford, CT 06108

------------------------------

Date: 2 Jun 86 17:38:33 GMT
From: allegra!princeton!caip!think!harvard!cmcl2!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Frank Adams)
Subject: Re: Alien visits, Cesium Clocks & Such
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <506@netexa.UUCP> elw@netexa.UUCP writes:
>I was instead asking the question of how to reconcile the differences.  One
>clock shows that it is the year 2050, the other one still claims it's the year
>2000.
>Given the relativisitic effects, both are right.  Yet since both are now on
>the same planet, in the same frame, running at the 'same' speed, how do you
>reconcile them?  Simply ignore the difference?  How old is the voyager? By one
>clock he may be old enough to retire, by the other, he's still in his prime!

It still isn't clear exactly what you want to resolve.  The voyager has
experienced a period of time which is correctly measured by the clock he
took with him.  The people who stayed on Earth have experienced a period of
time which is correctly measured by the clock which stayed on Earth.  If the
voyager left a sweetheart behind, she's an old woman, even though he's still
a young man.

If you want to talk about the legal issues (is he eligable for an old-age
pension?), there is no applicable body of law, since such cases have not
occured as yet.  Sooner or later, some lawyers will get rich dealing with
them.

The social issues will likewise have to be dealt with by those involved.  At
this point, we can only speculate.

Frank Adams                           ihnp4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
Multimate International    52 Oakland Ave North    E. Hartford, CT 06108

------------------------------

Return-Path: <TESTA-J%OSU-20@ohio-state.ARPA>
Date: Thu 5 Jun 86 16:49:33-EDT
From: ~joe testa~ <TESTA-J%OSU-20@ohio-state.arpa>
Subject: Gravity wells -- a differing calculation
To: space@mc.lcs.mit.edu
Cc: TESTA-J%OSU-20@ohio-state.arpa



Geoffrey A. Landis, to describe how a gravity well can be used to gain energy
by dropping mass into the sun, writes:


>    Since the subject of gaining energy by firing a rocket engine at
>the bottom of a gravity well is being discussed again, here is a
>quick calculation that shows from a slightly different point of view
>why it works.
>
>Near the sun you eject a part dm at velocity Vo, at an energy
>cost (assuming the part you eject is much less massive than you)
>.5 Vo**2 dm.  If your mass is M, you gain a dV=Vo/M dm, and energy
>dE=MVdV=MV*Vo/M dm = V*Vo dm
>     On orbiting back away from the sun, you lose kinetic energy
>(while gaining potential energy).   Suppose your original kinetic energy
>was zero [straight line orbit, not very practical unless you have a good
>heat shield for when you pass through the center of the sun :-) ]
>When you go back to the same position your energy is V*Vo dm.
>so you've gained energy if Vo<2V.   You gain the most energy if
>Vo=V.
>     In hindsight, this makes perfect sense.  If you eject the mass
>backwards at Vo=V it then has no velocity, and thus no kinetic energy
>relative to the sun.  Since energy is conserved, that energy must
>have gone to you.


I have to disagree with several of the assertions of this calculation;
probably the best way to do this is to present what i believe to be a more
accurate calculation which shows that dumping mass into the sun results in a
LOSS of energy rather than a gain.  Or else i'm missing something somewhere.
Here we go:

Since the total energy of an object in an orbit is constant (if the only force
acting on the object is the central gravitational force -- i.e without any
mass ejection, or rocket exhaust), the energy at aphelion -- where the object
is released -- is equal to the total energy at perhelion -- where the mass
ejection takes place.  Thus, we need only to consider the energy of the
projectile immediately before and immediately after the mass is ejected, since
the energy at these points will be equal to the energy when released from
earth and when recovered on earth, respectively.

Immediately before the mass m is ejected, the total energy of the projectile
moving with velocity v , mass M, at a distance r from the sun is 

	E(initial) = .5 M v**2  + Mgr

where g is the acceleration due to the sun's gravity, a constant in this
calculation.

Now let's eject the mass m into the sun with zero initial velocity.  (If we
eject it with nonzero velocity the energy loss will only be worse.)  Now there
are two objects' energies we have to worry about: the remaining projectile,
and the ejected mass'.

	E(projectile) = .5(M- m) (v')**2   +  (M-m)gr

	E(ejected mass) = mgr

where v' is the velocity of the projectile after ejection, which doesn't
matter anyway since conservation of energy tells us that the original energy
must equal the sum of the resulting energies, i.e. E(initial) = E(projectile)+
E(ejected mass).  Since the ejected mass has a nonnegative energy, the
projectile must have less energy than it started with.  (So it will end up in
a different orbit, and we might not even be able to recover it!)  Even if we
do get it back, though, it will have less energy than we sent it off with.

This is assuming that it takes no internal energy to send the ejected mass
into the sun.  If it does take internal energy (say, an engine to kick out the
mass) then you would be better off using this energy that you have to generate
anyway to accelerate the ship rather that the garbage you're sending away.

I think the previously presented calculation erred by forgetting that the
ejected mass will cart off some of the projectile's energy.
----

"the next time you are tempted to go into a moviehouse and yell 'fire', you
should instead go into a firehouse and yell 'movie'."

				-joe testa
				testa-j%osu-20@ohio-state.arpa
-------
-------

------------------------------

Date:  5 Jun 1986 21:21-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V6 #302

I'd like to note that my comment about dropping into gravity wells had
nothing to do with the current discussion. I was aiming more at the
previous discussion about alien races and even more to the point about
colonizing other planets. Once you get out of a gravity well, it is
STUPID to jump into the next one that comes along, at least in terms of
running a civilization with heavy industry and commerce.

And to Dave DesJardins, I think you may have taken the comment advanced
races not using reaction mass too literally. What about beanstalks,
sails, fixed mass drivers, Kantrowitz laser launchers, starwisp,
Lofstrom launch loops, skyhooks and Bussard ram jets to name a few.
Then there are the technologies that might come from deeper
understanding of the universe, ie some form of star drive via
dynamically controlled worm holes or some twist in supersymmetry (who
dares to guess at 25th century technology? Even if something is
impossible per se, 4 or 5 centuries of engineering hacks might make a
damn good imitation).

Yes, there is always SOMETHING acting as a reaction mass in terms of
physical laws. It's just that it is pretty dumb and wasteful to carry
it all with you like we have to do at present. Each of the above
technologies has it's slot. A hypothetical culture could use:

	1) Beanstalks to move materials to GSO. Objects can be run out
	   furthur to use the whip effect to send them outwards.
	   Laser launchers are a similar cheap ground to orbit
	   transport.
	2) Numerous skyhooks can be used change orbits and
	   as energy banks to trade energy between ships going in
	   different direction at different times. They could be used
	   for laser launch vehicles to go into orbit and drop from
	   orbit.
	3) Solar sails can be used for system commerce
	4) Laser driven solar sails and starwisps can send probes to
	   explore other star systems, or if there are projectors at
	   the destinations for braking, can carry on cheap
	   (relatively) and fast (>.9c) interstellar commerce.
	   (see Drexler, Engines of Creation)
	6) Bussard ram jets are also useful for interstellar probes and
	   transport.

There have also been farther out proposals like using galactic magnetic
fields to trade energy, controlling worm holes, storing and controlling
inertia, fun with supersymmetry, etc. None of which seems very possible
WITH CURRENT UNDERSTANDING. Very probably they are all impossible and
there is something else we haven't even considered because we haven't
done the science that is a prerequisite to it being imaginable.

So I think the statement is correct. No advanced civilization will
carry reaction mass around with them except for unusual events (ie that
2 fps correction burn to make sure you catch the skyhook at precisely
the right instant)

In the words of a Charles Sheffield character:

		"ROCKETS ARE WRONG"

					Ad Astra,
					Dale Amon
			Chairman, 6th Space Development Conference
			  (Pittsburgh Hilton, March 27-29, 1987)

------------------------------

From: Eugene miya <eugene@ames-aurora.arpa>
Date:  5 Jun 1986 1910-PDT (Thursday)
To: space@s1-b.arpa, risks@sri-csl.arpa
Cc: 
Subject: Watch this Space

The following is a personal observation and not an opinion of my employer.

Next week the President's Commission will be reporting its findings
on the Challenger Incident.  Already leaks have occurred and I find
some of them in Time magazine.  While I cannot completely comment on
the bureacracy problems in NASA, it is interesting to note that part of
the solution to the launch decision problem is adding more members
(contractors and astronauts) to the final launch decision process.
There is an irony to that.  One on hand we have been trying to reduce
bureaucracy, to make committees smaller, and so forth, and one would
ideally have astronauts and contractors "represented" by a "good"
bureaucract, and yet the solution is to increase the size and complexity
of some committees.  Yes, safety should be first, but how do you
achieve safety?  Or should I say achieve safety and balance it with
complexity?

This complexity actually has another system to compare it to: SDI.
I don't want to completely open a can of worms, but we should keep
our eyes open on this other space program and see how it handles complexity
in contrast the to manned space program.  Several weeks ago, Danny
Cohen at USC-ISI reported some where (I thought it was Science, but
I saw it in stronger language) that SDI developers (i.e., the aero-space
community) have been very conservative about their use of computers
and that SDI needs the state-of-the-computing-art.  Cohen said something
to the effect that we have to push aerospace companies to use the most
advance computing techniques available.  Space companies have
always tried to use tried-and-true technologies and have varied them
only one slow degree at a time.  I would like to point out to the
readerships of both the space and risks digests that these two
different forces are now acting upon companies like Lockheed, Rockwell,
and so forth, and it will be interesting to watch how they develop.

Both systems are quite complex, conservative to some degree, but
supposedily diverging forces are pushing for more conservativism and
less conservatism.

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

------------------------------

Date: 5 Jun 86 21:40:10 GMT
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!usc-oberon!demke@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Demke)
Subject: Re: SRB fuels
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa


	  quoting from the 'Space Shuttle Operators Manual':

	Fuel:		Aluminum powder, 16%
	Oxidizer:	Ammonium perchlorate 69.83%
	Catalyst:	Iron oxide powder 0.17%
	other:		Binder and curing agent 14%


	Weight at launch:	1.3 million lbs
				
	Thrust at launch:	2.65 million lbs


-- 
Christopher Demke, U of Southern California Computing Services, (213) 743-8102
  UUCP: {sdcrdcf, uscvax}!usc-oberon!demke
  ARPA: demke@usc-oberon.arpa 		BITNET: demke@uscvm

------------------------------

Date: 4 Jun 86 15:45:00 GMT
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiucdcsb!carroll@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Alien visits, Cesium Clocks & S
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa


He's as old as his local clock says he is. (Local clock = clock that was with
him at all times and experienced the same accelerations). There is nothig
to "reconcile". It's like saying, I have two identical cars, I drive one all
around the US, the other I just drive around the block; when they are both
in the same driveway, how do I reconcile the readings on the odometers?

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #309
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA09623; Fri, 13 Jun 86 03:02:06 PDT
	id AA09623; Fri, 13 Jun 86 03:02:06 PDT
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 86 03:02:06 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8606131002.AA09623@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #310

*** EOOH ***
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 86 03:02:06 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #310

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 310

Today's Topics:
	     Costs of travelling in the Earth-Moon system
		  Re: Voyager power supply lifetime
		      Re: Congress as scapegoat
		       Re:  intelligent plants
		 Re: Gravity wells and advance races
		      Re: Congress as scapegoat
		    "Evolution takes millenia..."
		 Re: No Way, Canadians!  AT&T First!
	      Re: Using Gravity wells to affect velocity
		      The point of no return...
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 3 Jun 86 13:44:07 GMT
From: ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dave Newkirk)
Subject: Costs of travelling in the Earth-Moon system
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa


    Velocity Increments Required Between Locations in Meters per Second



Earth           8600            Low Earth    4100       Lunar   2200    Lunar
Surface	-----------------------	Orbit -----------------	Orbit --------- Surface
                                     \ .....             |
                                      \     4100        700
                                       \        .....   /
                                      3800             L5
                                         \             /
                                          \         1700
                                           \         /
                                          Geosynchronous
                                               Orbit

Note that velocity increments are not additive.  You should also realize that
travel time and effort are inversely related; for example, getting up to low
Earth orbit takes a few minutes of a large effort, but continuing on to Lunar
orbit takes five days with half the effort (assuming minimum energy paths).

From "Space Settlements: A Design Study", NASA SP-413.
-- 
				Dave Newkirk, ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn

------------------------------

Date: 3 Jun 86 15:59:57 GMT
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!harvard!cmcl2!philabs!linus!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Voyager power supply lifetime
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>>The half-life of the Pu-238 used in the isotope generators is quite short.
>>Don't remember the number offhand, but it's measured in years, not centuries.
>>Necessarily so:  long half-life means low release of energy per unit time.
>
>Not necessarily so.  You must consider the energy of the decay
>products which is not correlated with the half-life.

The rate of formation of the decay products *is* correlated with the
half-life, though, so it comes down to the same thing:  long half-life
means low rate of energy release.
-- 
Usenet(n): AT&T scheme to earn
revenue from otherwise-unused	Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
late-night phone capacity.	{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 3 Jun 86 23:33:58 GMT
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!harvard!cmcl2!philabs!linus!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Congress as scapegoat
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> Congressional staff investigations have been saying for years
> that NASA couldn't develop an economical, reliable shuttle on the
> budget they requested, but NASA firmly denied this...
> At any point they could have gone to congress and said "look, the
> shuttle is a flop; we need more money to fix our mistakes."  They
> didn't, and their mistakes caught up with them.

I'll answer this by quoting from a paper by Del Tischler, "Cost
Reduction Potential in Space Program Management", Acta Astronautica
vol 11 no 12, page 741, 1984.  Tischler was NASA's first propulsion man,
and among other things he wrote the specs for the Saturn V's main engines.

"...Even after acceptance the project may be severely emasculated
budgetarily.  In several years of negotiations on cost the project leader's
initial estimates, usually on the basis of inadequate project definition,
are further eroded by inflation.  But he doesn't dare to ask for more
because everyone seems to remember and quote the original estimate.
Approval may nevertheless be contingent on a reduced cost program with
no change of scope.  Again, as an example, one major European program now
faces its fourth overrun crisis.  But factually the project has not yet
exceeded its original, and undoubtedly reasonable, cost estimate.  The
original budget was cut with no change of scope as a condition of acceptance.

"What happens when a project manager is confronted with a proposition to
do the project for less than it takes or forget the whole thing?  He lies,
or, sometimes, his boss lies for him.  In the hierarchical order of
motivations, preserving his program, protecting its manpower skills, and
retaining sufficient technical acumen and political clout to fight and
win the budget battle on another day displace professional ethics.
Under these circumstances the initial program approval must be acknowledged
as the edge of the wedge.

"Buy-ins place the program under duress from its inception.  The program
manager must induce contract changes in order to `get well'.  His customer,
on the other hand, wants improvements without changes.  Obviously the
attitude of each is strongly influenced by the direction in which money
flows between them.  But, I must point out, it takes two parties to create
these bastard situations."
-- 
Usenet(n): AT&T scheme to earn
revenue from otherwise-unused	Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
late-night phone capacity.	{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date:     Fri, 6 Jun 86 8:37:45 EDT
From: Les Eastman  <lreastma@crdc-vax3.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Subject:  Re:  intelligent plants

>Date: 27 May 86 19:25:25 GMT
>From: allegra!princeton!caip!seismo!umcp-cs!prometheus!pmk@ucbvax.berkeley.
>edu  (Paul M Koloc)
>It is interesting to note that life based entirely on heat and 
>thermal gradients seems to have been found in regions of deep 
>underwater "volcanic vents".

Although the warm water probably makes life there more comfortable, the
ecosystem at the vents derives its energy from hydrogen sulfide, which is
contained in the water spewing from the vents.  Bacteria use the H2S as
their energy source.  Everything else eats the bacteria and/or each
other.

------------------------------

Posted-Date: Fri 6 Jun 1986 09:51:50 EST
Date: Fri 6 Jun 1986 09:51:50 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Re: Gravity wells and advance races
To: David desJardins <brahms!desj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu>
In-Reply-To: brahms!desj's message of 28 May 86 14:59:38 GMT
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa

>   Propulsion without reaction mass violates conservation of momentum.
>Of all the "physical laws" known to Man, this is about the least likely
>one ever to be violated...

I agree with your second point, but not necessarily with the first.
An engine that emits tachyons (or absorbs tachyons, depending on your
reference frame) might count as a (nearly) reaction mass free engine,
since tachyons (if they exist) might carry large amounts of momentum
but very little energy.  Similarly, if "negative mass" exists then
a spaceship composed of equal amounts of negative and normal matter
(negative matter != antimatter) would have zero momentum regardless
of its velocity.

Also, I assume you don't count engines that have external sources of
reaction mass (ramjets, sails, etc.)

P. Dietz

------------------------------

Posted-Date: Fri 6 Jun 1986 10:44:02 EST
Date: Fri 6 Jun 1986 10:44:02 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Re: Congress as scapegoat
To: "d.l.skran" <ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!mhuxm!mhuxf!mhuxi!mhuhk!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtgzz!dls@ucbvax.berkeley.edu>
In-Reply-To: ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!mhuxm!mhuxf!mhuxi!mhuhk!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtgzz!dls's message of 27 May 86 20:03:40 GMT
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa

> One of the major reasons the shuttle costs so much to launch is not the
> per launch costs but the overhead of running the entire program.
> Originally there were intended to be 7, then 5, and finally 4, and now 3
> shuttles. The per flight overhead would be much less with more shuttles,
> but Congress has downsized the fleet in its typical penny-wise,
> pound-foolish fashion.

Sigh: more Congress bashing.  The dramatic misestimation of overhead costs
is not really a function of the number of shuttles but rather the time it
takes to refit an individual shuttle between flights.  NASA workers and
contractors were already overloaded trying to fly the four shuttles they had
at the low flight rates they managed to achieve.

>I contend that NASA knew perfectly well they couldn't develop a shuttle
>for the 5 billion OMB offered. They took it anyway because the
>functional result of refusing it would be to disband NASA. As it was,
>much of NASA capacity was destroyed by budget cuts.

NASA could have developed a smaller shuttle, but that's beside the
point.  Even if NASA officials were absolutely certain NASA would be
disbanded if the shuttle wasn't funded that doesn't excuse their
behavior.  As it stands, they've not only sidetracked NASA for 15
years, they've destroyed US space science and crippled the US
expendable booster industry.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 6 Jun 86 13:28:59 PDT
From: Murray.pa@xerox.com
Subject: "Evolution takes millenia..."
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Cc: Murray.pa@xerox.com

Not if there is enough pressure.

There was an interesting article in Sci Amer a few years ago - one of
their big Sept special theme issues was on "population". One of their
examples was sickle cell anemia in the US. The indidence has changed
significantly in the several hundred years since we stoped importing
slaves. In Africa, there is lots of malaria, and sickle cell
non-quite-anemia gives you a much better chance of growing up to have
children. There isn't much malaria here. Full sickle cell anemia makes
it very hard to grow up and have children.

Another example: Birds in England have changed color as the coal soot in
the area changed the background, and changed back when society decided
it didn't like blackness all over and stopped using coal.

------------------------------

Date: 6 Jun 86 00:45:21 GMT
From: decwrl!pyramid!pesnta!lsuc!mnetor!genat!phoenix@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: No Way, Canadians!  AT&T First!
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Who died and made AT&T a nation :-) ?
(Though I've heard that in *some* nations (who shall remain nameless),
it is like unto a god.
.

-- 
					The Phoenix
					(Neither Bright, Dark, nor Young)
                                        (Go pick on a mechanism your own size)


---"A man should live forever...or die trying."
---"There is no substitute for good manners...except fast reflexes."
---"Never appeal to a man's "better nature".  He may not have one.
    Invoking his self-interest gives you more leverage."

------------------------------

Date: 6 Jun 86 16:41:34 GMT
From: cad!nike!topaz!ll-xn!cit-vax!elroy!smeagol!jplgodo!ted@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Ted Sweetser x4989 156/224)
Subject: Re: Using Gravity wells to affect velocity
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

James Turner has written:

> Good old Newton tells us that the force acting on you at any point is
> 
> F = G (m1 * m2)/d^2
> 
> And since m1 (that's us) will remain a constant for the moment, we will
> experience an increase in velocity of:
> 
> V = F / m1 * dT
> 
> However, suppose you were to fire your
> motors as you fall into the well. Not only do you increase your speed due
> to thrust, but when you emerge on the other side, m1 will be smaller, since
> you expended fuel. Thus, you will experience less loss of velocity due to
> gravitaional influences than you did coming in, hence a speed boost care
> of your gravity well.


Wrong, Jim -- by your analysis it wouldn't matter which direction or at what
speed you expelled matter from your spacecraft (and in reality it does
matter a great deal).  Look at your own equations -- m1 drops out, so the
delta-V due to gravity is independent of the spacecraft mass.

		Ted Sweetser, JPL ( {wlbr|smeagol}!jplgodo!ted )

------------------------------

Date: 6 Jun 86 04:31:20 GMT
From: tektronix!uw-beaver!bullwinkle!rochester!seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!osmigo1@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Ron Morgan)
Subject: The point of no return...
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa


There's been a lot of talk the past couple of months about what NASA did 
(and didn't do) regarding known safety defects in the shuttle launcher. But 
suppose they HAD done something?


Can you imagine the following conversation taking place?

(names are fictitious, of course)

*********************************

engineer: "well, boys, we've found some serious safety defects in the design
	of this stuff. We're gonna have to redesign."

Bill: "Oh, crap. Ok, let's shut down the space program for a couple of years.
	I guess everybody knows what to do, right"?

Jack: "Sure, Bill. I'll call Ronnie and tell him to forget the segment in 
	tonight's speech, so he can announce instead that it'll be sometime 
	in 1988."

Roger: "Thanks, Jack, and I'll get hold of Cap Weinberger and tell'im those
	vital military satellites are gonna hafta collect dust for a while."

Wayne: "Great, Rog. 'course, we'll need to cancel that $400,000,000 SRB contract
 	with Thiokol and our supporting industries, so they can commence
	laying off 10,000 people."

Phil: "Nice going, Wayne, and I'll head for Washington first thing in the
	morning to see if I can scrounge up an extra 5 billion bucks."

Fred: "Terrific. Let's not forget our PR people. They're gonna have to keep
	public support of the space program going full blast until this is 
	all over with."

Slovanovic: "Har. Boy, I can see Gorbachev now. He's gonna LOVE this."

*********************************

A recent post on net.space suggested that the space program would have ground
to a halt by now anyway, with or without the challenger disaster. Granted,
the above dialogue is somewhat satirical, but given the improbability that 
anything like it would ever have taken place, perhaps NASA had indeed reached
a "point of no return." It's just a shame that 7 people had to die to bring
it about. "60 Minutes," where were you when we needed you?

Ron Morgan
 




-- 
osmigo1, UTexas Computation Center, Austin, Texas 78712
ARPA:  osmigo1@ngp.UTEXAS.EDU
UUCP:  ihnp4!ut-ngp!osmigo1  allegra!ut-ngp!osmigo1  gatech!ut-ngp!osmigo1
       seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!osmigo1  harvard!ut-sally!ut-ngp!osmigo1

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #310
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA13681; Sat, 14 Jun 86 03:01:59 PDT
	id AA13681; Sat, 14 Jun 86 03:01:59 PDT
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 86 03:01:59 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8606141001.AA13681@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #311

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 311

Today's Topics:
	 Re: controversy over decreasing average intelligence
	     Re: Cosmic Quarantine hypothesis -- new idea
		 Gravity wells: a Gadankin Experiment
	     Re: Cosmic Quarantine hypothesis -- new idea
			   Re: Night Flash
	     Re: Cosmic Quarantine hypothesis -- new idea
			 SPACE Digest V6 #303
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 7 Jun 86 05:03:36 GMT
From: hplabs!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Michael McNeil)
Subject: Re: controversy over decreasing average intelligence
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <3460@mnetor.UUCP> clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) writes:
>In article <518@3comvax.UUCP> michaelm@3comvax.UUCP (Michael McNeil) writes:
>>In article <239@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
>
>>>Greater birthrate among morons will pull "average intelligence"
>>>down whereas prior to 25,000 years ago, this bias was reversed
>>>because of the want of population related paucity of moron supporting 
>>>civilization and more adverse survival conditions. 
>>
>>This is very short sighted thinking.  Evolution takes millenia to
>>have significant effects.  
>
>That just depends on how strong the "selection-process" is.  If you 
>continually culled every individual with blonde hair (just as an example!
>I'm blonde (sort of) :-)) it would take a lot less than a millenia to
>extinguish the gene pretty thoroughly.

Of course -- like only one generation to extinguish genes which are
dominant, longer for recessive.  For example, mutations which are
always fatal don't last long in the gene pool unless medicine is
able to interfere.  But we were discussing effects far short of
100% culling -- and time scales for selecting out genes under more
normal evolutionary circumstances are *very* long by human standards.  

-- 

Michael McNeil
3Com Corporation     "All disclaimers including this one apply"
(408) 970-1835
	{hplabs|fortune|idi|ihnp4|tolerant|allegra|glacier|olhqma}
	!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm

	Nothing seems now more contrary to reason, than that chance and
	nastiness should give a being to uniformity, regularity, and
	beauty ... and create living animals...  This, however, was the
	opinion not only of the ignorant and illiterate, but of the most
	learned grave philosophers of preceding ages; and would probably
	still have been taught and believed had not microscopes
	discovered the manner how all these things are generated...  
		Henry Baker, 1742, *The Microscope Made Easy*

------------------------------

Date: 3 Jun 86 20:54:23 GMT
From: allegra!princeton!caip!seismo!rochester!bullwinkle!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!bcsaic!pamp@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (pam pincha)
Subject: Re: Cosmic Quarantine hypothesis -- new idea
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <572@magic.DEC.COM> stolfi@magic.DEC.COM (Jorge Stolfi) writes:
>In article <8605142120.AA23236@s1-b.arpa> Paul Dietz writes:
>> I looked up some information on the occurence of uranium oxide
>> deposits in igneous rocks.  It apparently is concentrated into ore
>> bodies there by medium and high temperature hydrothermal processes.
>
>In <453@scicom.UUCP> galyen@scicom.UUCP (Robert Galyen) writes:
>> The vast majority of U.S. deposits occur in sedimentary
>> rocks, mainly sandstone, and were deposited by oxidized uranium bearing
>> groundwater upon contact with reduced sediments. [...]  Some deposits are of
>> primary origin and occur in sufficient concentration to be mined. 

	The term "primary deposits" I find a little confusing. I'd
appreciate seeing a slight expansion of this. For what I remember and
can glean from my Economic geology notes -- the other type of Uranium
ore deposits are of the "placer/beach" deposits characterized in
the Witwatersrand deposits of South Africa. The age of these deposits
(Pre-Cambrian from 2.7-2.2 billion) lend credence to the theory of
the atmosphere at that time being a "reducing" type that would allow
the uranium ores to be stable (in our current atmosphere this isn't
true). This allowed the detritus deposition of the uranium/pyrite
(commonly conglomeritic) grains.  These deposits are the richest
deposits that are currently mined. They only occur in rocks within
the 2.2-2.7 billion year window --meaning that only the older core's
(ie. Precambrian sheilds)of the continents is where you would find
these deposits. Good examples of these deposits are the
Witwatersrand / Ventesdorp & Transvaal Sequences/ Bushveld/
Karoo (Australia). The Canadian mines near the Great Lakes are
another example.

	The major thing to notice is that these deposits needed a
reducing atmosphere for them to have developed.

>> These
>> types of deposits are uncommon in the U.S, however.
>> Basically all that is required for sedimentary uranium deposits is oxidized
>> uranium bearing groundwater passing into permeable reduced sediments, the
>> presence or absence of organic matter is not important.
>
P.M.Pincha-Wagener

------------------------------

Date: 7 Jun 86 13:29:25 PDT (Saturday)
From: Ayers.PA@xerox.com
Subject: Gravity wells: a Gadankin Experiment
To: space@s1-b.arpa

OK, here is a simple thought experiment.

We have one "sun" and one "rocket". 

The "rocket" is two identical masses connected by a compressed spring.
We call one of the masses the "fuel", the other the "quarters" and we
will release the spring in order to "thrust."

The rocket is in a back-and-forth "orbit" about the "sun"  It falls
straight in along a radius, through a fortuitous hole in the "sun" and
out the far side. At the ends of its "orbit" it has potential energy but
no kinetic energy. At the center of its "orbit" it has kinetic energy
but no (available) potential energy. Energy is conserved along the
orbit: it just goes from potential to kinetic and back again.

Now we want to thrust our rocket. We can choose between two places to
fire our spring.  
    
    1) We fire at the end of the orbit, pointed "out". Now both halves 
    of the "rocket", quarters and fuel, are going the same speed in
opposite
    directions. You can convince yourself easily that the two parts of
the 
    rocket have equal energy: their orbits are the same.

    2) We fire at the center of the orbit. The spring is strng enough to
    stop the "fuel" while speeding up the rest of the rocket. Quarters
are 
    in a higher orbit, the "fuel" half is stopped at the sun, with zero 
    kinetic and zero potential energy.
        
Clearly test firing two helps us more than test firing one, since in
case one all of the mass shares the energy (original energy plus the
spring) equally, while in case two all of the energy is owned by the
quarters and none by the fuel.

If you are worried that the "sun" somehow contributes, since it is not
really the center of mass of the above system, put two "rockets" into
equal-but-opposite orbits, and run the experiment again.

Bob

------------------------------

Posted-Date: Sat 7 Jun 1986 17:58:17 EST
Date: Sat 7 Jun 1986 17:58:17 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Re: Cosmic Quarantine hypothesis -- new idea
To: space@s1-b.arpa

>The origin of oil is more remote and obscure, but seems to depend on
>similar circumstances: an incompletely evolved ecosystem that allows
>organic matter to accumulate on the ocean bottom, and deep burial by
>river-carried sediments. 

Our current ecosystem must be "incompletely evolved" (a silly phrase,
since evolution doesn't tend towards any predetermined goal).  Organic
rich sediments continue to be deposited in deltas and lakes today.  It
doesn't turn into oil until its been buried deep enough to cook the
kerogen.

I have a hard time understanding how carbon based life could be
constructed without its tissue containing lots of carbon-carbon and
carbon-hydrogen bonds.  Couple that with an oxidizing atmosphere and
all organic matter will necessarily be energy rich.

While we're speculating about how energy poor all other civilizations
might be, how about equally valid (and untestable) speculations
about how energy rich they might be?  They might live on planets closer
to their suns.  They might have evolved more quickly so they still
have large quantities of U-235 (they might invent nuclear reactors
before steel!).  Their planets might be tectonically more active
for more geothermal energy.  Their planets might be in orbit around
a Jupiter-size world, so they can generate electricity by exploiting
their planet's motion through the gas giant's magnetic field.

------------------------------

Date: 6 Jun 86 16:46:36 GMT
From: cbosgd!ukma!psuvm.bitnet!gms@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Night Flash
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

of course it is very difficult to make suggestions as to what another
person may have seen - particularly with a very short lived event such
as this one.  I would, however, point out two things:
     
- first - 'head-on' meteors are not as oncommon as you might think.  I
      have seen numerous such flashes (about 2 dozen or so) over 20
      years of amateur observing.  (considering that I spend most of my
      time looking through a telescope rather than at the sky en masse
      that seems to be a large number)
     
- second - a visual 'burster' star was recently discovered and photographically
      confirmed just west of the main asterism in Aries.  I believe this
      was discovered and confirmed just last year.  Before that time such
      objects were suggested but never seriously considered, as photographs
      were not well suited for their search.  Perhaps the object you and your
      friend saw might (maybe, possibly, just slightly perhaps) be of this
      class.
     
     
Gerry Santoro   --   Penn State University
gms at psuvm (bitnet)
...!psuvax1!psuvm.bitnet!gms   (uucp)

------------------------------

Date: 7 Jun 86 19:30:00 GMT
From: nbires!isis!scicom!galyen@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Robert Galyen)
Subject: Re: Cosmic Quarantine hypothesis -- new idea
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <557@bcsaic.UUCP>, pamp@bcsaic.UUCP (pam pincha) writes:
> In article <572@magic.DEC.COM> stolfi@magic.DEC.COM (Jorge Stolfi) writes:
> >In article <8605142120.AA23236@s1-b.arpa> Paul Dietz writes:
> >> I looked up some information on the occurence of uranium oxide
> >> deposits in igneous rocks.  It apparently is concentrated into ore
> >> bodies there by medium and high temperature hydrothermal processes.
> >
> >In <453@scicom.UUCP> galyen@scicom.UUCP (Robert Galyen) writes:
> >> The vast majority of U.S. deposits occur in sedimentary
> >> rocks, mainly sandstone, and were deposited by oxidized uranium bearing
> >> groundwater upon contact with reduced sediments. [...]  Some deposits are of
> >> primary origin and occur in sufficient concentration to be mined. 
> 
> 	The term "primary deposits" I find a little confusing. I'd
> appreciate seeing a slight expansion of this. For what I remember and

Primary uranium deposits are those which are deposited by hydrothermal fluids
and are usually associated with igneous rocks.  The hydrothermal fluids are
generated in the earth's crust/mantle and migrate through encompassing rocks
until proper temperature/pressure and host rock conditions allow deposition
of uranium.  These deposits are not related to subaerial erosion.

Secondary uranium deposits are the result of chemical/mechanical erosion of 
uranium bearing rock.  In an oxidizing atmosphere, the uranium is taken into
solution by surface/groundwater and transported until proper eh/ph conditions,
in addition to host rock suitability, allow the uranium to be deposited.
Hence,secondary uranium deposits are the result of the subaerial erosion
processes.

> can glean from my Economic geology notes -- the other type of Uranium
> ore deposits are of the "placer/beach" deposits characterized in
> the Witwatersrand deposits of South Africa. The age of these deposits

I am not familiar with the Witwatersrand deposits, and my reference books are
at the office, but based on the "placer/beach" depositional environment of
these deposits, these are probably secondary deposits and appear to be the
result of mechanical concentration processes (i.e. wave action), probably in
a reducing environment (as you suggested).

> (Pre-Cambrian from 2.7-2.2 billion) lend credence to the theory of
> the atmosphere at that time being a "reducing" type that would allow
> the uranium ores to be stable (in our current atmosphere this isn't
> true). This allowed the detritus deposition of the uranium/pyrite
> (commonly conglomeritic) grains.  These deposits are the richest
> deposits that are currently mined. They only occur in rocks within
> the 2.2-2.7 billion year window --meaning that only the older core's
> (ie. Precambrian sheilds)of the continents is where you would find
> these deposits. Good examples of these deposits are the
> Witwatersrand / Ventesdorp & Transvaal Sequences/ Bushveld/
> Karoo (Australia). The Canadian mines near the Great Lakes are
> another example.
> 
> 	The major thing to notice is that these deposits needed a
> reducing atmosphere for them to have developed.
> 
> >> These
> >> types of deposits are uncommon in the U.S, however.
> >> Basically all that is required for sedimentary uranium deposits is oxidized
> >> uranium bearing groundwater passing into permeable reduced sediments, the
> >> presence or absence of organic matter is not important.
> >

I hope my explanations help clarify "primary" and "secondary" uranium deposits.
If you would like a better analysis of the occurrence of Precambrian uranium
deposits, let me know and I will see what I can find out.



------------------------------------------------
What is mine is mine.  Would anyone else claim this...please?

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1986  00:02 EDT
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 V6 #303
In-Reply-To: Msg of 6 Jun 1986  06:21-EDT from Ted Anderson <ota at s1-b.arpa>

This is a plea for brevity.  I usually read my mail at 1200 baud.
Two affictions are peculiarly obnoxious:
  
  "Cute" sign-offs, slogans, poems, and bits of wisdom.
       There are better ones in Joe Miller's joke book.

  
   "Disclaimers" - like this is not the opinion of AT&T or XEROX.
        These are really stupid, time-wasting, and might even
        become mandatory if enough people foolishly become
        self-conscious about freedom of speech.  Unless you are
        a vice-president - and explictly say that you are
        speaking in an official capacity, it is pretentious and
        unnecessary.

This is an official pronouncement from the (Society for the Prevention
of Network Abuse)

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #311
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA16154; Sun, 15 Jun 86 03:01:58 PDT
	id AA16154; Sun, 15 Jun 86 03:01:58 PDT
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 86 03:01:58 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8606151001.AA16154@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #312

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 312

Today's Topics:
			 SPACE Digest V6 #303
	     Re: Cosmic Quarantine hypothesis -- new idea
			   Trip into Space
  Re: ETI may use packet synchronizers, deviation from pseudo-random
				 Time
			  wire mesh thruster
	     Re: Cosmic Quarantine hypothesis -- new idea
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1986  00:02 EDT
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 V6 #303
In-Reply-To: Msg of 6 Jun 1986  06:21-EDT from Ted Anderson <ota at s1-b.arpa>

This is a plea for brevity.  I usually read my mail at 1200 baud.
Two affictions are peculiarly obnoxious:
  
  "Cute" sign-offs, slogans, poems, and bits of wisdom.
       There are better ones in Joe Miller's joke book.

  
   "Disclaimers" - like this is not the opinion of AT&T or XEROX.
        These are really stupid, time-wasting, and might even
        become mandatory if enough people foolishly become
        self-conscious about freedom of speech.  Unless you are
        a vice-president - and explictly say that you are
        speaking in an official capacity, it is pretentious and
        unnecessary.

This is an official pronouncement from the (Society for the Prevention
of Network Abuse)

------------------------------

Date: 9 Jun 86 08:05:49 GMT
From: bellcore!petrus!karn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Phil R. Karn)
Subject: Re: Cosmic Quarantine hypothesis -- new idea
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> > (Pre-Cambrian from 2.7-2.2 billion) lend credence to the theory of
> > the atmosphere at that time being a "reducing" type that would allow

I'm curious: how accurately do we know the actual composition and density of
the Earth's primeval reducing atmosphere?  How did it change to an oxidizing
atmosphere without the new oxygen simply combining with the methane or
whatever already existed?

Phil

------------------------------

Date: 9 Jun 86 14:52:38 GMT
From: cad!nike!lll-crg!lll-lcc!pyramid!pesnta!amd!tc@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Tom Crawford)
Subject: Trip into Space
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

I usually don't like to cross-post, but in this case I couldn't resist:

Here is a quote from an ad in the current issue of Air & Space.

"Society Expeditions now provides your first opportunity. With Project
Space Voyage, the first ever passenger orbit of earth, beginning October
12, 1992.

Lift off is at 8:00 A.M.  Orbit insertion occurs seven minutes into the
flight.  You circle the earth up to eight times.  Entire cost: $52,200.
Expert scientists, lecturers and astronauts will be aboard."

Now if everybody on usenet just sends in one dollar, I will be able to go
and I promise to post my impressions :-)

			Tom Crawford
			...amdcad!amd!tc

------------------------------

Date: 9 Jun 86 23:53:48 GMT
From: brahms!desj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (David desJardins)
Subject: Re: ETI may use packet synchronizers, deviation from pseudo-random
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <8606091150.AA07705@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> REM%IMSSS@SU-AI.ARPA
(Robert Elton Maas) writes:
>[Indented text is quote from janw = Jan Wasilewsky]
>    ... the best packed information most resembles random noise.
>
>On an errorfree channel that is true, but radio communication over
>interstellar distances is hardly errorfree at the transmission level.
>Probably they use some error-detecting/correcting protocol such as
>packets with multiple checksums or somesuch. When a single bit error
>happens (or any worse error), the data stream must be resynchronized,
>that is the remainder of the current packet must be ignored and the
>start of the next packet located.

   This is completely false.  Admittedly, if you have two-way communication
available, a system where you simply detect errors and request retransmission
is not too bad (kermit, for example, uses this method).  But this is hardly
practical using radio transmission over interstellar distances!  Do you have
100000 years to wait for the packet to be retransmitted, if it told you how
to build the key part in a device for which plans were being transmitted?
   The whole point of error detection and correction is both to detect and
*to correct* any errors that may occur.  Retransmission should never be
necessary (although of course no system can eliminate all errors, they can
certainly be reduced to a rate of 10^-20 or less if necessary).

>In absence of an apparent packet break, a complicated algorithm must be
>used to try to locate a packet in all that pseudorandom "noise".

   Not all error detection and correction is block-oriented (i.e. individual
packets of information).  Some schemes are convolutional, for example, which
simply put means that succeeding bits carry not only new information but
error checks for preceding bits.
   But I do think you may have a point of some sort; it seems reasonable to
expect to see some sort of recognizable "header" information to indicate the
beginning and end of a message, the intended recipient(s), the subject, etc.
But any periodic signal is redundant and probably unnecessary.

>It would be funny if LGM i.e. pulsars turned out not to be neutron stars
>but deliberate synchronizer bleeps for some communication system, the main
>data stream being unobserved by us to date because it has such high band-
>width we interpret it as residue of big-bang or emission from molecular
>hydrogen clouds instead of compressed and encrypted communication. :-)

   This is a cute idea, but unfortunately periodic signals are generally
redundant (a good clock serves the same purpose).  How about introducing
slight variations in the rotation rate of the pulsar (say, by interaction
with its magnetic field) in order to transmit information using the variation
in the interval between pulses?  This actually seems quite clever; most of
the energy going into the signal is being contributed by nature instead of
by the signaler.  Maybe I should patent this idea? :-)

   -- David desJardins

------------------------------

Date: Mon,  9 Jun 86 21:25:21 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@mc.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: Time
To: allegra!princeton!caip!lll-crg!seismo!rlgvax!hadron!netexa!elw@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Cc: KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@mc.lcs.mit.edu, Space@s1-b.arpa

    From: allegra!princeton!caip!lll-crg!seismo!rlgvax!hadron!netexa!elw@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (E. L. Wiles)

    One clock shows that it is the year 2050, the other one still claims
    it's the year 2000. ... Given the relativisitic effects, both are
    right.  Yet since both are now on the same planet, in the same frame,
    running at the 'same' speed, how do you reconcile them?

  What year it is is a legal matter.  I assume that it would be defined as
being the year that the clock that stayed on Earth claims.
  There is no need to reconcile them.  They will remain 50 years apart
indefinitely, since they each are keeping track of their own history.
  Read _Marooned_in_Real_Time_, in the May, June, July, and August (1986)
issues of _Analog_.  After reading it, you will never think of time the
same old way again.

    How old is the voyager? By one clock he may be old enough to retire, by the
    other, he's still in his prime!

  He is the age you would expect from the year shown on the clock that
was with him.
								...Keith

------------------------------

Date: 1986 June 09 04:13:44 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@su-ai.arpa>
To: "dietz%slb-doll.csnet"@csnet-relay.arpa
Cc: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
Subject: wire mesh thruster

[Indented text is quote from NYT via Paul Dietz]
    Date: Sun 1 Jun 1986 16:41:02 EST
    From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
    Subject: Sunday NY Times article on space
    -- Robert Forward briefly describes his "Starwisp" idea, in which a
     one ounce wire mesh a mile across is propelled by a microwave
     beam borrowed for a week from a conventional powersat.  The wisp
     travels at .2 c to alpha centauri in 20 years, at which point
     it is illuminated again by a microwave beam from the solar system,
     energizing built-in microcircuits that somehow image the passing
     star system.
First we need to explore the outer solar system. Perhaps the Oort
cloud (assuming it exists) is so thick it'll impede the .2 c
interstellar wisp-ship or destroy it, i.e. maybe the probability of
colliding with a comet is nearly 1. Voyager is very slowly reaching
the outer solar system, but much too slowly to be of use. How about
using the wisp ship to quickly get past Neptune and explore the Oort
cloud or whatever is really out there, within the next ten years after
STS is operational again? We can send out the first wisp-ship just to
scout the start of the Oort cloud, then as technology improves we can
increase its speed (same ship pushed again, or another ship built
better) to finish the journey through the Oort cloud more quickly.

[Indented text is addenda by Dietz himself]
    Forward's starwisp suggests the possibility of accelerating somewhat
    more massive objects to lower velocities to visit bodies in the solar
    system.   You'd still need a strong light mesh reflector, but the
    instrument package could be more conventional.  Energy costs turn out
    to be small: accelerating a 1 kilogram object to 100 km/sec consumes
    about $200,000 worth of energy (at $.05 per kilowatt hour), assuming
    the microwaves can be generated, transmitted and reflected with 100%
    efficiency.

(Sigh, I didn't read whole message before starting to reply. I see you
have come up with a similar idea. Let's do both, send more
Voyager/Galileo kinds of craft to planetary systems such as
Saturn&moons, but also visit Oort cloud or whatever.)

------------------------------

Date: 5 Jun 86 22:53:14 GMT
From: ihnp4!alberta!ken@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Ken Hruday)
Subject: Re: Cosmic Quarantine hypothesis -- new idea
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <9866@ucsfcgl.ucsfcgl.UUCP> arnold@ucsfcgl.UUCP (Ken Arnold%CGL) writes:
>In article <1235@psivax.UUCP> Stanley Friesen writes:
>>... Since liquid water is necessary for life ...
>>
>>... If you are right then all life will be the same, the reducing
>>conditions of the early atmosphere seem to be necessary for the origin
>>of life. ...
>
>:g/s/life/life as we know it/g
>
>Or, to put it in English, life *as we know it* requires water and a
>bunch of other things.  Our sample size of conditions under which life
>can evolve is rather small, consisting of, in all ... (hold on a minute
>while I add this up) ... er, one.

Your argument would lead us to believe that we can't conclude that 
the laws of physics are necessarily valid everywhere until we've observed 
more cases. Now I'll admit that this misrepresents your reasoning
somewhat - but it comes pretty close. The fact is, if we assume that
the laws of physics hold everywhere we can make some intelligent guesses
and even establish some requirements for life.

Before I start, I presume that we agree that life is founded on physical
/chemical processes, failure to agree at this point means that we should
move this discussion to the non-existent news group "net.psi". 

It is fundamental that a biological system be largely based on some fluid.
The biggest reason for this is that a fluid is needed as a medium for
chemical reactions. Additionally, fluid plays many other useful roles.
Fluid can provide structural support to biological structures (cells in our 
case) and prevents them from collapsing under their own weight. More 
important in the case of intelligent organisms, is that a fluid 
support allows for flexability and therefore the possibility of motion. 

Another desirable use of a potential fluid is that it is relatively
inert to most reactions, but it can also participate in others. A very 
big requirement for this fluid is that it should be freely available. 
Because of the low atomic weight of oxygen and the universal abundance 
of hydrogen, water fits this last requirement extremely well, in addition 
to all the others (Yes, I am arguing in retrospect, but the rationale
can stand on it's own). 

Of course, if another fluid was available that could fit these requirements, 
then it might also form the basis for a lifeform. In this regard, those
who have discussed the possibility of silicon lifeforms, haven't
appeared to consider what fluid would be used. Would water, for instance,
be a suitable medium for the temperatures at which silicon reactions
may take place? Are there other suitable solvents?, ... etc.

>                                ... We don't know even if life as we
>know it, or would even recognize it, is necessary for intelligence.
>(This last, of couse, depends on what you would recognize as life.  If
>intelligence is sufficient, then this statement can't be true, but many
>would argue that by "life" they include such things as, say, "death",
>not to mention reproduction, and there is no guarantee that
>intelligence requires any such thing.)

There is a "guarantee" that "natural" intelligence requires reproduction.
What are the odds of all the elements spontaneously combining to form 
the needed molecules and that these molecules, in turn, spontaneously combine
to form the needed structures for thought? Probably close to the odds that
all the molecules in my fingers "vibrate" at just the right rate so that
they will pass through the keyboard that I'm typing on. Intelligence is
far too complicated an attribute for it to arise instantly from the
environment. 

Machine intelligence presumes an intelligent, biological creator. The only
other possibility is an organism that lives forever and continues to 
change itself. This is unlikely, since even mountains and stars don't
"live" forever and without reproduction such an organism would be a very
transient phenomena at best - not enough time would be possible for
it to acquire even rudimentary intelligence. Reproduction insures long 
term survival and this time is needed to allow a complicated phenomena 
like "intelligence" to arise.

Aside from this time requirement, there is no process like evolution 
that could guide its formation; without some guidance or survival 
heuristic, change in such an organism would be as random as Brownian 
motion and destructive change would be trillion of orders of magnitude 
more likely than random change to the highly organized structures required 
for intelligence.

It is true that we really don't know what's out there, but assuming 
that the laws of physics are the same everywhere and that "life" is
based on physical and chemical principles, we CAN establish some fundamental
limitations on what life can exist. The empircal approach doesn't work,
so discussion requires use the of physical principles and speculation.
Besides, it is an interesting topic to kick around - don't you agree?

                                          Ken Hruday
                                    University of Alberta

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #312
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA19676; Mon, 16 Jun 86 03:01:57 PDT
	id AA19676; Mon, 16 Jun 86 03:01:57 PDT
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 86 03:01:57 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8606161001.AA19676@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #313

*** EOOH ***
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 86 03:01:57 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #313

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 313

Today's Topics:
		  Re: Time Dilation, the effects of
			    Ariane failure
			   Re: Night Flash
		       Re: SPACE Digest V6 #307
			  Re: Ariane Failure
	     Re: Cosmic Quarantine hypothesis -- new idea
		    Re: The point of no return...
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 10 Jun 86 10:17:47 pdt
From: David Smith <dsmith%hplabsc@hplabs.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Re: Time Dilation, the effects of

I can't explain relativistic time, but let's get the speeds straight.

> Now for a strange question, or concept.... Assume a distant galaxy, speeding
> away from us at 90% of C. ...  The far race decides
> to send a ship into deep space at 90% of C. They realize finally their ship is
> really not going any where useful, and send another ship in the same direction
> at 99.9% of C. They pick up the first ships crew and continue on course. This
> second ship is now heading directly for our system, at .1% of C
> relative to us, and 99.9% of C relative to them. 

I don't know where the .1% figure came from, even if you simply subtract
90% from 99.9%.  But relative to the earth, the faster ship is approaching
at a speed of (.999 - .9) / (1+(.999)(-.9)) = .9812 C.  This is also the
speed at which it overtook the slower ship.

		David Smith

------------------------------

Date:           Thu, 5 Jun 86 22:51:40 PDT
From: Jordan Brown <lcc.jbrown@locus.ucla.edu>
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject:        Ariane failure

As I was in Kourou for the launch, and spent the time in the room next
to the Intelsat control room and talking to the Intelsat people, I might
as well give a pretty complete blow-by-blow.

Ariane Vol (flight) 18, an Ariane 2 carrying Intelsat V (VA?)
#14 was scheduled to be launched 05/30/86 21:03 Kourou time (00:03
GMT).

At approximately T-50 minutes, the French advised that I5 would not have
permission to arm the ABM (apogee boost motor) at the scheduled T-40
because they were working on a problem with some hydraulics in the second
stage.  They concluded that the system was adequately redundant, and the
countdown proceeded with no hold, with the ABM arming a little late.
This probably had nothing at all to do with the failure, but I include
it for completeness.

At approximately T-8 minutes, I5 requested a delay until at least the
openning of the next launch window, 00:53 GMT.  Intelsat did not elaborate
on the reason for the delay when asked about it at the press conference
the next day, so I will not go into it except to say that it was unrelated
to the failure.  There is some possibility, however, that the delay itself
caused the failure, due to various kinds of temperature considerations.

At T0, the launch went off beautifully, though somewhat obscured by
rain and fog.  Alas, none of my pictures came out at all.

At T+4.5 minutes, the third stage failed to ignite.  I am told that I5's
people in the block house were informed of this almost instantly - one of
the French guys watching his displays gave a thumbs-down sign to the I5
person, saying "no pressure".

By approximately T+7 minutes, the vehicle had fallen far short of the
desired flight path, and a destruct signal was sent.

At approximately T+10, approximately 2000 miles downrange, radar coverage
of the debris was lost.

Whys, wherefores, and so on...

The exact reason for the failure was not known when I left.  It IS known
that it is not the same failure as that which caused V15 to fail.  V15
failed because some leaky valve allowed hydrogen to cool something below
the temperatures at which the reactions would work.

The third stage ignition sequence is very very sensitive to timing,
temperature, and so on.  V15 failed because some event in its third stage
ignition was delayed ~350ms.  If I remember correctly, V18's was delayed
~200, but this I am unsure about.  Once the ignition has failed, there
is no backup mechanism to try it again.  Once the telemetry showed no
pressure when the third stage was supposed to ignite, the rest was a
foregone conclusion.  (By contrast, an Atlas-Centaur, which has a similar
motor, has a back-up-and-try-the-whole-sequence-again mode, which results
in a slightly different but still acceptable orbit.)

If I find out more, I'll pass it on.

The human side...

The toast after in the I5 area after the failure was "To the next flight:
Bonne Chance"  ("good luck" in French, in case you hadn't guessed.)  The I5
people were disappointed, for sure, but they seemed more concerned about the
fact that there are now no launchers operational in the free world than
that their satelite had been destroyed.  They've had a lot of launches,
with a moderate number of failures; you just sigh and go on to the next
one.

On a more humorous and superstitious note:

We came up with two possible reasons for the failure:  One was that I
neglected to take off my bright red "Remove Before Flight" t-shirt, and
the other was that one of the I5 people wore a tie which he hadn't worn
since the I5 flight 9 launch, which was also a failure.

Apparently the Red Chinese have been wandering around trying to get people
interested in launching on their "Long March" booster...

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 10 Jun 86 14:28 PDT
From: Dave Platt <Dave-Platt%LADC@hi-multics.arpa>
To: decvax!ihnp4!inuxc!inuxe!fred@decwrl.dec.com
Really-To: decvax!ihnp4!inuxc!inuxe!fred@decwrl.dec.com
Cc: Space@s1-b.arpa
Real-Cc: Space@S1-B.ARPA
Subject: Re: Night Flash
Randomness: Let a fool hold his tongue and he will pass for a sage.

Haven't seen anything in the press recently that would correspond
with the flash that you saw.  It might, as you suggested, have been
a meteor headed directly towards you;  a glance at a good astronomy
text might tell you whether any known meteor showers were due that
night.

Another possibility:  you and your friend might have been standing
within the cone of a cosmic-ray shower.  A cosmic-ray particle
(a proton, muon, or ion of some variety) striking the retina causes
whatever rods or cones it hits to trigger, resulting in the sensation
of a bright flash of light;  the flash normally has no trail (appears
as a point source), leaves a noticable afterimage, and (because it
occur only in one eye and isn't subject to depth-perception processing
by the brain) frequently seems to occur at a great distance.

Such cosmic-ray flashes aren't all that uncommon even at sea level,
and are more common at higher altitutes and especially in orbit.
Normally, only one person out of a group will notice a flash, because
the odds of two people being struck by unrelated cosmic-ray particles
is pretty small.  However, a high-energy cosmic striking the upper
atmosphere usually triggers a cascade of secondary and tertiary
particles, which will frequently reach ground level in a fairly
tight pattern.  It's just possible that both one of your eyes, and one
of your friend's, happened to be struck by secondary particles in
the same cascade.  You mention that it occurred within 20 degrees of
Vega;  did both of you notice the flash in roughly the same position
_relative_ to Vega?  If not, then this makes the cosmic-shower
hypothesis more attractive.

Anybody out there care to calculate the odds of this happening?  I don't
have any data for the number of cosmic-ray cascades that reach sea level
nor the average width or density of the shower cones.  Also, does anyone
know whether the solar-system weather was particularly stormy at the
beginning of this month?  Any ion storms on the horizon?

------------------------------

Date: 10 Jun 1986 18:05-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V6 #307

Fred Mendenhall mentioned a bright flash in his posting. There are many
possibilities, and one of the more interesting is the suggestion that
optical burstars exist. There has been some discussion of possible
sightings of this phenomena in Astronomy magazine over the last year,
and I think there are some amateur astronomers trying to verify
existence of this chimera.

There are also more prosaic options; tumbling soviet upper
stages, head on meteors. I don't think it could be an engine firing,
because I don't think Inidana is well placed for seeing the actual
staging event. And if it was, it certainly wasn't one of ours.
(America, the ground-faring nation)

------------------------------

Date: 5 Jun 86 17:51:12 GMT
From: decvax!cca!lmi-angel!jmturn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (James Turner)
Subject: Re: Ariane Failure
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <> dls@mtgzz.UUCP (d.l.skran) writes:
>Sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings but:
>
>The first Geostar transponder has completely failed in-orbit.
>
>Thank god it was insured!
>
>
>Dale

Not so good, since the failure will probably drive the last nail in the
space insurance industry. Right now, Lloyd's of London is *really* scared
of taking satelite policies, and this failure won't help things.

-- 

James

Helping Computers With Speech Impediments
LISP Machine, Inc.

{harvard|cca|mit-eddie}!lmi-angel!jmturn
NOTE: I am *not* the James Turner at Imagen

------------------------------

Date: 11 Jun 86 03:31:27 GMT
From: cad!nike!lll-crg!seismo!rochester!sher@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (David Sher)
Subject: Re: Cosmic Quarantine hypothesis -- new idea
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Off hand I can remember that Issac Asimov in a work whose name I can't
remember and Hal Clement in the afterword to _Mission_of_Gravity (I think)
discuss the chemical environment that are both likely to occur and
would support a process analogous to life.  Of course for life as we
know it water/oxygen is optimal (think about it :-).  Features that
are emphasized are having a large liquid phase and, being a strong reducer
(thus enabling energetic chemical reactions allowing the construction of
complex molecules).  In both of these fields water/oxygen are far superior 
to any other combination that is likely to be common.  Another
way water wins over strong contenders like amonia and methane is that 
ice floats.  If ice sinks then it would tend to accumulate on the bottom of
the ocean not leaving much liquid around.  I am not sure it is bad but
this feature is certainly different from what we are used to.  

-- 
-David Sher
sher@rochester
seismo!rochester!sher

------------------------------

Date: 10 Jun 86 20:49:43 GMT
From: ihnp4!ihlpa!animal@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (D. Starr)
Subject: Re: The point of no return...
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> 
> There's been a lot of talk the past couple of months about what NASA did 
> (and didn't do) regarding known safety defects in the shuttle launcher. But 
> suppose they HAD done something?
> 
> 
> Can you imagine the following conversation taking place?
> 
> (names are fictitious, of course)
> 
> *********************************
> 
> engineer: "well, boys, we've found some serious safety defects in the design
> 	of this stuff. We're gonna have to redesign."
> 
> Bill: "Oh, crap. Ok, let's shut down the space program for a couple of years.
> 	I guess everybody knows what to do, right"?
> 
> Jack: "Sure, Bill. I'll call Ronnie and tell him to forget the segment in 
> 	tonight's speech, so he can announce instead that it'll be sometime 
> 	in 1988."
> 
> Roger: "Thanks, Jack, and I'll get hold of Cap Weinberger and tell'im those
> 	vital military satellites are gonna hafta collect dust for a while."
> 
> Wayne: "Great, Rog. 'course, we'll need to cancel that $400,000,000 SRB contract
>  	with Thiokol and our supporting industries, so they can commence
> 	laying off 10,000 people."
> 
> Phil: "Nice going, Wayne, and I'll head for Washington first thing in the
> 	morning to see if I can scrounge up an extra 5 billion bucks."
> 
> Fred: "Terrific. Let's not forget our PR people. They're gonna have to keep
> 	public support of the space program going full blast until this is 
> 	all over with."
> 
> Slovanovic: "Har. Boy, I can see Gorbachev now. He's gonna LOVE this."
> 
> *********************************
> 
> A recent post on net.space suggested that the space program would have ground
> to a halt by now anyway, with or without the challenger disaster. Granted,
> the above dialogue is somewhat satirical, but given the improbability that 
> anything like it would ever have taken place, perhaps NASA had indeed reached
> a "point of no return." It's just a shame that 7 people had to die to bring
> it about. "60 Minutes," where were you when we needed you?
> 
> Ron Morgan
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> osmigo1, UTexas Computation Center, Austin, Texas 78712
> ARPA:  osmigo1@ngp.UTEXAS.EDU
> UUCP:  ihnp4!ut-ngp!osmigo1  allegra!ut-ngp!osmigo1  gatech!ut-ngp!osmigo1
>        seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!osmigo1  harvard!ut-sally!ut-ngp!osmigo1

I don't think that anything quite that dramatic would have happened. 
Remember that the O-rings held on 24 flights previously; they're *not*
totally guaranteed to fail catastrophically every time.  As a matter
of fact, their reliability isn't all that terribly bad for an EXPERIMENTAL
vehicle flown by TEST PILOTS.  Thiokol did seem to know that they weren't
reliable enough for an OPERATIONAL vehicle (e. g., an airliner), and that
they seemed to degrade the most in cold temperatures.  Given that situation,
a very reasonable response would have been to fly with the minimum crew,
and only under weather conditions that were well within the range in which
seal behaviour was well understood.  This would have dropped the number of
missions drastically, and cut out many of the high-profile flights (teacher
in space, Arab prince in space, etc.).  This would have been bad for public
relations, of course, but not as bad as having the thing blow up, and would
have left us with some capability while the boosters were redesigned.  Now,
of course, such options are gone, both because of public perceptions (most
people don't realize just how dangerous this kind of work has always been)
and the fact that we can't afford to lose a second orbiter.

Dan Starr

Disclaimer 1:  In response to the obvious question, no I wouldn't take a
ride on the thing in the situation described above.  I'm not a test pilot.

Disclaimer 2:  My employer not only does not endorse my opinions;
it is usually quite unaware of them, including the ones above.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #313
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA25548; Tue, 17 Jun 86 03:02:05 PDT
	id AA25548; Tue, 17 Jun 86 03:02:05 PDT
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 86 03:02:05 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8606171002.AA25548@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #314

*** EOOH ***
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 86 03:02:05 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #314

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 314

Today's Topics:
		    how to get Commission Report.
			 LA Area: Space Talk
			Re: De-Nuke the Planet
	       Design criteria of a large space habitat
		    High Technology Article on TAV
		       Re: SPACE Digest V6 #309
	     Re: Cosmic Quarantine hypothesis -- new idea
		   Re: Evolution takes millenia...
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 12 Jun 86 06:26:58 GMT
From: mtxinu!rtech!daveb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dave Brower)
Subject: how to get Commission Report.
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

(From Reuters, in the SF Chronicle)

"The 256 page report by the presidential Commission on the Shuttle
Challenger Accident is being sold through the Governmen Printing Office
for $18.00 a copy.

"The paperback may be obtained by writing to Government Printing Office,
710 North Capitol Street, Washington, DC, 20401.  The order number is
040-000-00496-3."

-dB

{amdahl, sun, mtxinu, cbosgd}!rtech!daveb

Also-From: hplabs!hao!seismo!rlgvax!hadron!klr@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Kurt L. Reisler)

	To order by phone, the number is 202-783-3238.
	Delivery time is 2-3 weeks.  They accept most
	major forms of plastic money.

------------------------------

Date: 14 Jun 1986 12:08:46 PDT
Subject: LA Area: Space Talk
From: Craig Milo Rogers <Rogers@usc-isib.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Cc: BBoard@usc-isib.arpa, BBoard@usc-ecl.arpa, BBoard@rand-unix.arpa
Reply-To: Rogers@USC-ISIB.ARPA


	  Are you interested in current plans for the Space
     Station?  Lunar base design?  the Pacific Spaceport
     theme park?  the American Astronaut Memorial?  These
     topics will be covered during the June general meeting
     of OASIS, the Organization for the Advancement of Space
     Industrialization and Settlement.

	  The speakers for the meeting include John Spencer
     and Charles Carr of Design Sciences Corp., who are
     directing the Pacific Spaceport project.  Mr. Spencer is
     also a member of the Executive Committee of the American
     Astronout Memorial Foundation.

	  The meeting will be held in the Santa Monica Public
     Library Main Auditorium, 1343 6th Street, Santa Monica,
     CA at 7:00 PM, June 21st.  This event is not sponsored by
     the Santa Monica Public Library.

	  OASIS is a non-profit educational group which promotes
     space development.  For more information about this lecture
     or other OASIS activities contact Craig Milo Rogers
     <Rogers@USC-ISIB.ARPA>, or call (213) 419-0561.

------------------------------

Date:         Wed, 11 Jun 1986 12:40:57 FIN
From: Kaj Wiik  <S-KW%FINHUTC.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu>
Subject:      Re: De-Nuke the Planet
To: <SPACE-INCOMING@s1-b.arpa>


What do you mean with outer space? Earth orbit, moon orbit or sun orbit?
Earth orbit is too close, moon orbit is too close and too expensive....

OK, It's totally your business what you do with your money, but I do not
see any positive points in SDI. You had to cancel your Halley probe and
many other very interesting and valuable projects because of budget cuts.

'The Russkies' have already two working space stations and they had Halley
probes (real). Furthermore, as you might know, they have announced that
there will be no military research in their space stations. I have a strong
feeling, that while you are trying to construct aggressive and very
expensive 'defense' systems, other (USSR, ESA, Japan) with co-operation,
are going ahead you.

And about the peacefulness of the 'Western side': look around you with
open eyes and be honest to yourself| ( e.g CIA and the contras, Libya...)
We have only one earth, and I think it is still the most pleasant place
to live. Space colonization is ok, but not if it is the last hope.

            De-Nuke the Planet and the Space


                        Kaj...

------------------------------

Date: 11 Jun 86 20:53:41 GMT
From: ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dave Newkirk)
Subject: Design criteria of a large space habitat
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

It [the habitat] carries 10,000 colonists in a toroidal habitat
positioned at L5 orbiting the Sun in a fixed relation to the Earth and
Moon and exploiting the paths through space in figure 4-16 [posted
earlier as Velocity Increments in Earth-Moon system].  Mining the Moon
for oxygen, aluminum, silica, and the undifferentiated matter
necessary for shielding, the colonists ship a million tons per year by
electromagnetic mass launcher to L2.  There, with the active catcher,
the material is gathered and transshipped to L5 to be refined and
processed.  With small amounts of special materials, plastics and
organics from Earth, the colonists build and assemble solar power
stations which they deliver to geosynchronous orbit.  The colonists
also raise their own food and work on the construction of the next
colony.

Physiological Criteria:

    Pseudogravity:		.95 +/- .5 g	[conservative value]
    Rotation rate:		<= 1 rpm	[easier to adapt to than 3 rpm]
    Radiation exposure:	<= .5 rem/year		[allows children & babies]
    Magnetic field:		<= 10**-4 T
    Temperature:		23 +/- 8 C
    Atmosphere:	pO2	22.7 +/- 9 kPa		[same as sea level on Earth]
		    pN2	between 26.7 and 78.9 kPa
		    pCO2	<0.4 kPa	[meets OSHA standards]
		    pH2O	1 +/- .3 kPa	[about 40% humidity]
						[total pressure: 1/2 atm.]
Quantitative Environmental Design Criteria

    Population:			10,000	[not self-sufficient, but large]
    Habitable area per person:	47 m**2		[compared to 38.2 in Manhattan]
    Agriculural area per person:	20 m**2
    Habitable volume per person:	823 m**3
    Agricultural volume per person:	915 m**3

Qualitative Environmental Design Criteria

    Long lines of sight
    Large overhead clearance
    Noncontrollable unpredictable parts of the environment
    External views of large natural objects
    Parts of interior out of sight of others
    Natural light
    Contact with the external environment
    Availability of privacy
    Good internal communications
    Capability to isolate segments of the habitiat from each other
    Modular construction of habitat and internal structures
    Flexible internal organization
    Details of interior design left to inhabitants

From: Space Settlements: A Design Study, NASA SP-413 [my comments in brackets]

				Dave Newkirk, ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn

------------------------------

Posted-Date: Thu 12 Jun 1986 07:20:28 EST
Date: Thu 12 Jun 1986 07:20:28 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: High Technology Article on TAV
To: space@s1-b.arpa

T. Heppenheimer has an article in the most recent High Technology
magazine on airbreathing launchers.  Some interesting points:

-- The fuel the SR-71 burns contains boron (I didn't know that).

-- The X-30, the hypersonic test vehicle DARPA is currently designing,
   is hoped to have a loaded weight of 25 - 50 tons and carry a
   couple of tons of instruments to orbit.  That's a small vehicle, and
   not a bad payload ratio either.  (Is the X-30 twice the vehicle
   the X-15 was?)

-- The British HOTOL design may breath air only up to about Mach 5, and
   use rockets thereafter.  Heppenheimer suggests it uses a cryojet
   in which the liquid hydrogen fuel is used to compress the air and
   cool it to room temperature (not to the point where ice can form).
   They're not getting much interest from the continent for developing
   it, though.

------------------------------

Date: 12 Jun 1986 15:40-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V6 #309

I would like to point out that Joe Testa's analysis stated that it used
a constant g field, which is of course incorrect. The acceleration due
to the sun's gravity decreases with distance.

Secondly, since one cannot change velocity with trading momentum in
such a way that the vector sum is zero, then by Mr. Testa's analysis
rockets can't possibly work, because when they fire their engines they
would always lose energy.

A rocket engine releases chemical energy and turns it into kinetic
energy, but because of conservation of momentum, the expelled exhaust
and the moving rocket must take shares of that energy such that the
momentum of the resulting system of particles remains constant (or
zero, if the frame of reference is at the center of mass)

The flaw in his argument is the assumption that the energy in the
system is constant and is somehow magically partitioned among the objects
such that one is kicked away from the other.

To give an extreme example of the error, let us assume a small asteroid
descending into a gravity well. The asteroid has a 100 Megaton hydrogen
bomb at it's center. At the bottom of the gravity well we explode the
bomb. Is the sum of the energies of the particles after the explosion
equal to the sum of the particles before the explosion?

------------------------------

Date: 12 Jun 86 20:31:24 GMT
From: ucsfcgl!arnold@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Ken Arnold%CGL)
Subject: Re: Cosmic Quarantine hypothesis -- new idea
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>> = Me
> = Ken Hruday

>>In article <1235@psivax.UUCP> Stanley Friesen writes:
>>>... Since liquid water is necessary for life ...
>>
>>Or, to put it in English, life *as we know it* requires water and a
>>bunch of other things.  Our sample size of conditions under which life
>>can evolve is rather small, consisting of, in all ... (hold on a minute
>>while I add this up) ... er, one.
>
>Your argument would lead us to believe that we can't conclude that 
>the laws of physics are necessarily valid everywhere until we've observed 
>more cases. Now I'll admit that this misrepresents your reasoning
>somewhat - but it comes pretty close. The fact is, if we assume that
>the laws of physics hold everywhere we can make some intelligent guesses
>and even establish some requirements for life.

Oh, it doesn't misrepresent my reasoning by much, I agree.  However,
I find nothing wrong with your statement.  We don't know much about
the laws of physics except where we can observe them or their actions.
We also don't know much about life except where we can observe it or
its actions.  The crucial difference is that we can observe what I
would consider a significant fraction of the universe to examine
physical laws, but we haven't been able to look for life (or
intelligence) in any class of environments except the one provided by
this planet and a couple of neighbors which we haven't explored very
thoroughly.  We haven't seen anything operating even on principles that
seem probable to work for life (say, left-handed amino acids instead of
right-handed).  How can we presume to extrapolate reliably from our
*extremely* limited experience?

>Before I start, I presume that we agree that life is founded on physical
>/chemical processes, failure to agree at this point means that we should
>move this discussion to the non-existent news group "net.psi". 

It depends.  Does "physical/chemical" mean "both physical *and*
chemical" or does it mean "either physical *or* chemical"?  (I know
that the chemical is a subset of the physical, but you get my drift.)
I agree that it is physical.  I am unwilling to stipulate that it
*must* be chemical.  The rest of your arguments seems based on the
*chemical* nature of life, and so I won't include it here.  Suffice it
to say that you have convinced me of what I alread believed -- that
chemical life does require some liquid-type system.  That such a system
must be based on water is less proveable to me, although your arguments
sound plausable.  The problem is that all sorts of things that say "it
must always work the way we know it to work" are proven wrong in the
long run, usually because what was know at the time was limited
compared to what there was to know.

>>                                ... We don't know even if life as we
>>know it, or would even recognize it, is necessary for intelligence.
>>(This last, of couse, depends on what you would recognize as life.  If
>>intelligence is sufficient, then this statement can't be true, but many
>>would argue that by "life" they include such things as, say, "death",
>>not to mention reproduction, and there is no guarantee that
>>intelligence requires any such thing.)
>
>There is a "guarantee" that "natural" intelligence requires reproduction.

Well, okay.  Maybe my words were sloppy here (no maybe about it,
really).  Conceded that reproduction of some sort is necessary at some
point in the cycle, although (as you concede) it may be phased out.
There were really two points embeded in my statement.  The first is
that things may exist which don't seem alive to our way of thinking,
working on principles of replication/evolution we haven't concieved of
since we have never seen anything like it.  The second is that
intelligence may not require corporeal life *to exist*, even if it did
require it at one time to evolve -- this last was mostly the point of
the paranthetical statement.  The first is my real point, the second an
aside (which is why it was parenthetical).  Sorry about the confusion.

		Ken Arnold

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jun 86 15:53:35 EDT (Friday)
From: power.Wbst@xerox.com
Subject: Re: Evolution takes millenia...
In-Reply-To: <8606131002.AA09637@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Cc: power.Wbst@xerox.com


From an interested amateur point of view:

Pure Darwinists say evolution takes many millenia; that it is constant
but slow.  Pure Catastrophists (I'm not sure there are any pure
Catastrophists) say that populations remain developmentally fixed until
a catastrophy causes significant amounts of the population to die off.
When creationists say that 'leading scientists disagree on the validity
of Darwinism' this is what they are talking about, although they are
certainly not ignorant of the fact that in the eye of the general
public, Darwinism and evolution are synonyms.

There is some support (computer simulations) for a belief that very
large successful populations remain relatively unchanged for long
periods of time, with a small percentage of mutants in the overall
group.  When trouble hits a significant evolution can occur over a
relatively short time (ones to tens of generations).  Smaller, more
tenuous populations change more quickly until they become succesfull (or
all members croak).

In reference to a previous posting about birds changing color, it should
be noted that this is not necessarily evolution.  The different color
birds can still succesfully mate.  Perhaps all birds have the potential
to produce offspring of the 'new' color, but it was merely unlikely.
(If a madman killed everyone in the world but red-haired people (a
recessive gene) and eventually only red-haired people survived and bred
true, would we say that the human race had evolved?  Beats me...)

-Jim

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #314
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA00326; Wed, 18 Jun 86 03:02:22 PDT
	id AA00326; Wed, 18 Jun 86 03:02:22 PDT
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 86 03:02:22 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8606181002.AA00326@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #315

*** EOOH ***
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 86 03:02:22 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #315

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 315

Today's Topics:
			 `Night Flash Update
		       Re: `Night Flash Update
		      Re: Congress as scapegoat
		      Arm chair image processing
			Re: Orphaned Response
		      Re: Congress as scapegoat
		Good articles on gravitational lenses
		   Soviet Space Program Reliability
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 17 June 1986, 09:15:54 EDT
From: "JOSHUA W. KNIGHT"  <JOSH@ibm.com>


                            Stellafane
                             1926-1986

                     Saturday, August 2, 1986

             The 51st Convention of Amateur Telescope
           Makers on Breezy Hill in Springfield, Vermont


Informal program begins August 1st, at 8:30 p.m..  There will be telescope
judging and afternoon and evening talks on Saturday.  All the information
in the registration brochure has been posted to net.astro (Usenet).  The
address to write for information and registration materials is:

    Dennis di Cicco, 60 Victoria Rd., Sudbury, Massachusetts 01776

After July 15th, and at the gate, the registration will be $6.00 per
person.

			Josh Knight
josh@ibm.com, josh@yktvmh.BITNET, ...!philabs!polaris!josh

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jun 86 15:11:35 GMT
From: ihnp4!inuxc!inuxe!fred@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Fred Mendenhall)
Subject: `Night Flash Update
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

	To try and clarify the observation. the flash was very fast
with no tail. The sensation was like a bright electronic strobe 
only much much brighter than any aircraft strobe I've seen. The 
flash occured only once that we observed. I experienced a slight
greenish tinge to the light but my friend did not. Since the
orginal posting a third observer in the Indianapolis area confirmed
that he saw the event as well. He was about 10 miles from our
location. He did not report any color tinge to the light. 

	As far as position, anything I would say other than my
orginal posting would not be accurate. I didn't have a set of 
star charts and even if I did I don't think it would have helped.
Immediately after the event I tried to pinpoint where I had seen
it in the sky and I just couldn't. I am an amatuer astronomer and
I play this game with meteors on star charts. I'm speculating that
the event was so bright that my retina couldn't ignore it but
that it was so fast that what I experienced was more an artifact
of my nervous system and not indicative of what really happened.
You get a feeling of

	"Hey, What? I know I just saw something BRIGHT over there!
	And you know something, I think it was a little green."

Its then followed by a period of disbelief. "Naw, that doesn't 
make sense. I couldn't have seen what I thought I saw." 
"" ERR, SAY, RALPH DID YOU JUST SEE SOMETHING BRIGHT UP THERE?????"


Thanks to eveyone that sent me Mail. If anyone else sees something
like this near Vega please Post the sighting, a repeat sighting
will convince me to try and patrol that region of the sky with a
camera.

				Fred Mendenhall

------------------------------

Date: 16 Jun 86 15:16:29 GMT
From: ucbcad!nike!caip!princeton!astrovax!elt@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Ed Turner)
Subject: Re: `Night Flash Update
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa


This flash business sounds quite similar to a phenomenon that has been reported
by a group of amateur astronomers.  I have not seen any of the material
myself but have heard that an article (co-authored with a professional)
describing their work has been accepted by the Astrophysical Journal Letters.
It has also been discussed in Sky & Telescope within the past couple of years.

Apparently these amateurs saw such flashes repeatedly from some part of the
sky and eventually succeeded in photographing one.

Speculation as to their source ranges from an association with gamma ray
bursts to some man made phenomenon (i.e., specular reflection of the Sun of
a rotating satellite).

Ed Turner
astrovax!elt

------------------------------

Date: 16 Jun 86 02:48:38 GMT
From: ucbcad!nike!caip!andromeda!njitcccc!ken@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Kenneth Ng)
Subject: Re: Congress as scapegoat
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

A couple of questions about the space shuttle.  If Congress had
approved five shuttles, how much would the price per shuttle have
dropped?  Also, with five shuttles, wouldn't there be more time
between when a shuttle comes down and when it goes back up again?
Third, is it true that the space shuttle is the first time men have
been placed aboard a solid fueled rocket?  If it is, why?  Lastly,
there is talk about developing the next generation of space
transportation vehicle.  Does anyone know what it is, how long it will
take to build, test, and become operational, and how much it will
cost?

Kenneth Ng: uucp(unreliable) ihnp4!allegra!bellcore!njitcccc!ken
	    soon uucp:ken@rigel.cccc.njit.edu
	    bitnet(prefered) ken@njitcccc.bitnet
	    soon bitnet: ken@orion.cccc.njit.edu
(Yes, we are slowly moving to RFC 920, kicking and screaming)

New Jersey Institute of Technology
Computerized Conferencing and Communications Center
Newark, New Jersey 07102

Vulcan jealousy: "I fail to see the logic in prefering Stonn over me"
Movie "Short Circuit": Number 5: "I need input"

------------------------------

Date: 14 Jun 86 06:02:41 GMT
From: ucbcad!nike!lll-crg!seismo!hao!noao!terak!anasazi!will@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Will Fuller)
Subject: Arm chair image processing
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Snooort...

The following is a proposal that could possibly add new dimension to
the role of the amature in modern astronomy. So, to the meat of the
matter...

A non-profit organization is established with close ties to all major
international observatories. This organization designates itself a
depository of image processing software. The software is all in the
public domain, and several versions are mantained for a host of
popular personal computers.  Packaged hardware (monitors, floating
point processors, graphics cards) might also be recommended,
developed, or oem'd by the above organization. The organization will
employ several astronomers as "data brokers". The role of the data
broker is to procure from the major research facilities raw
unprocessed data. Once obtained, the data is cataloged with as much
context as possible and distributed to interested subscribers at a
nominal fee.

After an initial investment in equipment the power of the VLA, MMT,
Voyager, or space telescope could be brought into the home.  One could
probably expect a good deal of quality discovery from dedicated
hobbyists.  Another function of the organization would be to referee
these discoveries. A regular publication of the organization might
serve as a forum to bring to the attention of the professional
community valid discoveries.

Data and software might also be archived for particle physics, earth
resources, etc...

William H. Fuller
{decvax|ihnp4|hao}!noao!terak!anasazi!will

------------------------------

Date: 15 Jun 86 22:34:00 GMT
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!aglew@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Orphaned Response
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

... > Evolution

I just heard on BBC Science Magazine about a Polish biologist who has
come upon instances of inherited behavioural adaptation via natural
selection,over the space of 30-40 years (several generations, for
zooplankton).

Sorry, I may continue this in net.origins (although the verbiage in
that newsgroup is a bit high for me).

------------------------------

Date: 15 Jun 86 03:00:52 GMT
From: ucbcad!nike!think!harvard!rclex!adelie!axiom!linus!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Congress as scapegoat
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> ...The dramatic misestimation of overhead costs
> is not really a function of the number of shuttles but rather the time it
> takes to refit an individual shuttle between flights.  NASA workers and
> contractors were already overloaded trying to fly the four shuttles they had
> at the low flight rates they managed to achieve.

An observation from Gary Hudson's talk at LaCon II may be relevant here.
The USAF could launch a Thor IRBM in 15 minutes with a crew of 8.  The
Delta, which is a Thor derivative, takes 3 months with a crew of circa
2000.  Yes, the Thor was pre-readied to some extent; yes, the Delta is
a more complex rocket flying more complex missions.  There still seems to
be a certain disproportion here.

> >I contend that NASA knew perfectly well they couldn't develop a shuttle
> >for the 5 billion OMB offered. They took it anyway because the
> >functional result of refusing it would be to disband NASA...
> 
> NASA could have developed a smaller shuttle...

If you read the history of the shuttle development, you will discover that
NASA *wanted* to develop a smaller shuttle.  This would preclude USAF
support, and there seemed to be no way to get a shuttle of any kind
without USAF support, so that killed that idea.

> ...Even if NASA officials were absolutely certain NASA would be
> disbanded if the shuttle wasn't funded that doesn't excuse their
> behavior.  As it stands, they've not only sidetracked NASA for 15
> years, they've destroyed US space science and crippled the US
> expendable booster industry.

The intent was specifically to destroy the expendable booster industry,
by providing a more economical alternative.  How many expendable aircraft
do you see in airline use?  However, as we all know, it didn't quite work
out that way, and rather than admit it, NASA tried to impose a monopoly
to keep the shuttle alive.  This was reprehensible.  The ideal of putting
the expendables completely out of business was not; sooner or later it
will happen.  Unless we stop trying, in the name of short-term economy,
of course.

As for space science... don't you give a major recession, overall cutbacks
in NASA, a stingy and micromanaging Congress, and planetary astronomy's
own megaproject orientation any credit at all?
-- 
Usenet(n): AT&T scheme to earn
revenue from otherwise-unused	Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
late-night phone capacity.	{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date:     Mon, 16 Jun 86 17:25 CDT
From: <HIGGINS%FNALC.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu>
Subject:  Good articles on gravitational lenses
To: space@mc.lcs.mit.edu
X-Original-To:  space@mit-mc.wiscarpa, HIGGINS

   Mahboud Zabetia and David DesJardins were asking a few weeks ago
about the images produced by a gravitational lens: why does it make
two quasars, instead of a single ring-shaped quasar? and so forth.
  Recent archaeological excavations into my desk drawers have turned
up a good popular article on the subject. Vincent Icke, a University
of Minnesota astronomer, penned "Bending Saturn's Rings," in *New
Scientist*, 20/27 December 1979 (the double end-of-year issue), pages
928-930.  Icke gives the (fairly simple) transformation that gives the
distorted image of an object seen past (through?) a gravitational
lens.  His example diagrams use an image of Saturn as a Sun-sized
black hole passes it, hence the title.
  Speaking of gravitational lenses, if you want to get really weird,
and if you can find the paper, Eric Cabot Hannah published a scheme
for using the Sun as a gravitational lens of truly staggering
magnification.  You park your spaceship somewhere beyond 544
astronomical units away from the Sun, and light from objects in the
Sun's direction is brought to a focus.  To look at any large number of
targets, of course, you have to move your ship very large distances,
or station lots of different ships around the edge of the solar
system.  The paper is in the proceedings of the 1981 Princeton
conference on Space Manufacturing (*gulp*-- I've lost the title of the
book-- all I have are Xeroxes), published by the American Institute of
Aeronautics & Astronautics, pages 355-359.  I think that would be the
Fifth Princeton Conference.

                                Bill Higgins
                                Fermilab
                                HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET

------------------------------

Date:     Mon, 16 Jun 86 10:39 ???
From: Sonny Crockett <WELTYC%rpicie.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa
Subject:  Soviet Space Program Reliability
X-Vms-To:  IN%"space-incoming%s1-b.arpa",WELTYC      


	We've all seen and heard about the unreliability/reliability
of the Western space vehicles, does anyone out there know what the
success to failure ratio is in the Soviet space program (I believe
they are Vostok and Soyuz?), and how many cosmonauts they've lost?
Someone told me that they had a far better than a 1 in 25 failure
rate, and haven't lost more than 10 people. Maybe we could learn from
them?  It seems to me that both nations would benefit from some kind
of *REAL* cooperation in [manned] space efforts.  (I say manned
because I doubt our government would be too keen on cooperation in the
unmanned area...)  Yeah...and if the world could live in peace and
harmony, tralalala ...

						-Chris

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #315
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA00883; Thu, 19 Jun 86 03:01:59 PDT
	id AA00883; Thu, 19 Jun 86 03:01:59 PDT
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 86 03:01:59 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8606191001.AA00883@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #316

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 316

Today's Topics:
	      Using the Moon's Helium-3 as a fusion fuel
	     Maybe no super-galactic grav lens after all.
		Recovering payloads in launch failures
		       Re:  De-Nuke the Planet
			     SFMSS ALERT
		     Censorship on the ARPA Net.
		1992 Passenger Launch Venture for Real
	       Oh, No:  Gravity Wells  (clarification)
		      Re: Congress as scapegoat
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 16 Jun 86 19:51:51 PDT
From: ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: ucbvax!s1-b.arpa!SPACE
Subject: Using the Moon's Helium-3 as a fusion fuel

	The Moon could be economically mined for a rare isotope of
helium that would be a very safe fuel for atomic fusion power plants,
University of Wisconsin nuclear engineers say.  Moon rocks and dust
contain enough helium-3 to supply the nations electrical needs 500,000
times over, engineers Gerald Kulcinski, Layton Wittenberg and John
Santarius said.  Kulcinski said the theory has evoked so much interest
that hosts of an international conference in the Soviet Union changed
their agenda last week so that he could explain it.  Fusion
Technology, the journal that will publish the engineer's paper in
September, went to the unusual step of publishing pre- prints of the
article.

	Kulcinski said fusion, using the most commony studied reaction
with hyrogren fuel, would be a thousand times safer that fission
plants, and fusion using helium-3 would be even safer.  "There is no
weapon-grade material produced, and the radioactivity would be so low
the waste could probably be buried near the surface", he said.

	Experts have long known that helium-3 would make fusion safer,
but there is so little of that form of helium on the Earth that it was
never considered practical.  At the same time, NASA geologists knew
that Apollo missions to the Moon had discovered lots of helium-3, but
never knew it had any value.  "It's the only thing the Moon has that
the Earth doesn't", Kulcinski said.  "It's taken 15 years for us to
put two and two together but that's often the way science works."  He
said projections suggest that helium-3 would yield 250 units of energy
for every unit invested in going to the moon, mining and refining and
returning it to Earth.  In contrast, coal yields energy at a ratio of
16 to 1 and uranium at 20 to 1, he said.

	A ship the size of the space shuttle could bring back 20 tons
of liquefied helium-3, enough to power the United States for a year
and worth an estimated $50 billion, Kulcinski said.  "Nasa is
interested because it gives them a reason to go back to the Moon", he
said.

[Taken without permission from the Chicago Tribune, 6/15/86, Associated Press]
				Dave Newkirk, ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn

------------------------------

Date: 17 Jun 86 13:31:54 GMT
From: ucbcad!nike!lll-crg!seismo!ut-sally!utastro!matt@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Matt Wood)
Subject: Maybe no super-galactic grav lens after all.
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

I just read in the most-recent copy of Nature that some folks have
taken IR spectra of the "double" quasar that caused such a fervor
a couple of weeks ago (the one with ~2 arcmin separation).  They 
find that the spectra don't appear nearly so similar in this new
region of the EM spectrum.  Therefore, we don't have to resort
to cosmic strings and/or supermassive, dark, intergalactic matter
to explain the observations recently reported (see Nature, roughly
a month or less ago (I don't have the correct reference.)).  

The new data were mentioned in the current issue because the wide
double QSO caused such interest, but the new data themselves will
not be published for about two weeks.

-- 
    "If at first you don't succeed, iterate."

    Matt A. Wood.
    Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712  
    {allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!matt	(UUCP)
    matt@astro.UTEXAS.EDU.				(Internet)

------------------------------

Date:     Tue, 17 Jun 86 16:32:40 CDT
From: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI <wmartin@almsa-1.arpa>
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject:  Recovering payloads in launch failures

What sort of costs or penalties would be involved in adding some form of
safety or recovery mechanism for the payloads in the unmanned launches
we have seen fail recently (Ariane, Delta)? Would it have been physically
possible to have saved the satellites and recovered them undamaged (at
least in good enough shape for an overhaul to have restored them to
usable condition)? Are not these satellites expensive enough that it
would be worth some effort to save them if the launch vehicle sending
them up fails?

Would any mechanism that would do this have such a weight and size that
the reduction in useful payload caused by adding it would be so great
as to make the possible savings (in rebuilding and insurance costs)
not worth it? Or maybe it would be no more reliable than the launch
vehicle itself, so it wouldn't be worth adding because you really
wouldn't gain anything in the odds of success?

If the payload was a very-expensive, hard-to-replace military
surveillance satellite, maybe the relative costs of some safety mechanism
would not be as important as it would to a commercial situation.

I just keep thinking of those pictures of the failing vehicle(s), and
how it would be at least somewhat relieving to see a powered pod
or a parachute lowering the payload to an eventual recovery; at least
not everything would be wasted...

Will Martin

ARPA/MILNET: wmartin@almsa-1.ARPA    USENET: seismo!brl-smoke!wmartin

------------------------------

Date: Tue 17 Jun 86 19:28:33-EDT
From: Richard A. Cowan <COWAN@xx.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: Re:  De-Nuke the Planet
To: cad!nike!think!ima!inmet!janw@ucbvax.berkeley.edu,
        S-KW%FINHUTC.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu, space@s1-b.arpa
Cc: cowan@xx.lcs.mit.edu

In response to Jan Wasilensky's "de-nuke" the planet wish:

  "First strike would become imposible:  space  bases  at  different
  distances couldn't all be hit at the same time.
  War, if it came, would be machines against machines,
  with few people endangered."

I don't see why space bases couldn't be hit at the same time.  If they
were, there would be harm: the side whose nuclear weapons are first
used up or destroyed in space could be blackmailed by the other side.

-rich

------------------------------

Date: 17 Jun 1986 19:15-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: SFMSS ALERT

For those of you who have been involved with SFMSS calls for help in the
past, here is a letter from Mark Hopkins. If you have not signed on our list
before or if info has changed since the last time you sent it, please send
me this info:

Name:		
Title:		
Affiliation:	
Address:	
Phone:		
Net Address:	


============================================================================
Date:	Thu Jun  5 1986
TO:	Scientists for a Manned Space Station

Never before have we needed your help more than now.

The launch failures of the last few months have halted America's space
program. We are no longer a space-faring nation. And with the recent Ariane
failure, the West has extraordinarily limited access to space.

Our space program is in trouble. With no direction from the White House and
a congress operating under Gramm-Rudman-Hollings restraints, NASA's programs
are in jeopardy. Current consideration includes delay of a space station
program already decades behind the Russians. Stretch out of Space Station
development was detrimental to space science.

America can ill afford such a setback.

The Soviet Union already has nearly 10 years of experience living and
working aboard their space stations. Last Februrary, the soviets launched
their latest generations of space station, this one called Mir.

By the time the US has an operational space station (current optimistic
date is 1994 without delays), the soviets will have an additional 8 years of
permanent space occupancy experience.

We ask you to IMMEDIATELY write, phone, or mailgram members of the
[CENSORED]

Also, please contact [CENSORED]:

[CONTACT amon@h.cs.cmu.edu FOR UNCENSORED TEXT INCLUDING NAMES AND
PHONE NUMBERS]

This committee needs to hear the potential user community -- that's YOU.

The message is straightfoward: "Fund the space station at the requested
level of $410M for fiscal year 87".

					Sincerely
					Mark M. Hopkins
				Executive Vice President L5 Society

PS: To whoever made the comment about censorship in Canadian news some
months back, please note that there is NO protected freedom of speech
on the AMERICAN arpanet. So much for this being a free country,
comrades...

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 18 Jun 86 18:58:54 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@s1-b.arpa>
To: space-request, Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: Censorship on the ARPA Net.

I am surprised that it is necessary for me to explain and justify the
censorship I must employ in moderating a mailing list that primarily
uses the ARPA Net for distribution.

Give few moments thought to the reasonable design of government policy
given the presence of corruptable human beings.  One of the obvious
policies is: "The government must not lobby itself".  Allowing the
government spend money to affect its own decisions to spend money is
an invitation to disaster.

In this case we have a government funded facility, the ARPA Net, being
used for a marginally "official government business" use, namely
distributing a Space interest group news letter.  As I have pointed
out in the past this is an already precarious situation.

This particular message is clearly an attempt to lobby the government.
As such, it is clearly out of line: both from the standpoint of ARPA
Net usage guidelines and any reasonable government policy.  This has
nothing to do with freedom of speech.  You are certainly permitted
your freedom of speech but it is ridiculous to expect the government
to pay your duplication and distribution expenses.  Freedom of speech
is one thing; a free ride is another.

It was on this basis that I asked for a less political message to
send out over the Digest.  What I got will have to do, I guess.

	-Ted Anderson (Moderator)

------------------------------

Date: 17 Jun 86 17:15 EST
From: C0144%CSUOHIO.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
To: Space-Incoming@s1-b.arpa
Subject: 1992 Passenger Launch Venture for Real


    I've actually sent for the supporting material behind the 1992 space
launch program advertised in Air & Space. They are VERY serious about this
venture, and even go to the extent of sending out a (bi?)monthly newsletter
describing their progress towards their first commercial launch on Columbus
Day, 1992.

    This stuff makes for some very interesting reading.

                                       Dave Chatfield
                                       Computer Services, Cleveland State U.
                                       C0144%CSUOHIO.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU

    Disclaimer: This only thing I disclaim is ownership of my mutt, "Rambo"

------------------------------

Return-Path: <TESTA-J%OSU-20@ohio-state.ARPA>
Date: Tue 17 Jun 86 15:30:38-EDT
From: ~joe testa~ <TESTA-J%OSU-20@ohio-state.arpa>
Subject: Oh, No:  Gravity Wells  (clarification)
To: space@mc.lcs.mit.edu
Cc: TESTA-J%OSU-20@ohio-state.arpa

I suppose that the intent of my previous posting was not as clear as i had
intended, so most of the criticisms i have recieved are indeed valid.  Let's
see if i can emphasize a few things more clearly:

* My impression from some earlier postings was that some people were arguing
that energy was gained by the mass loss; i was attempting to demonstrate that
it's not the actual mass loss which speeds up the ship, so another mechanism
had to be responsible.  Of course it is unrealistic to neglect the energy
generated to dump off the mass.  (This was most succintly stated by someone a
few days later -- sorry, i don't remember who, but it was from caltech, i
think.) 

* In the scenario where the mass is ejected instantly, the gravitational
acceleration g *is* a constant during the mass ejection since the position of
the ship is unchanged in that instant.  

I appreciate some of the subsequent postings which described better ways to
think of the problem (notwithstanding the large holes through the sun).  I
promise, from now on, to post items only in the afternoon when i am awake
enough to really say what i mean.  :-)

					-joe testa
					testa-j%osu-20@ohio-state.arpa

[now do you know what i meant, Adam?]
-------

------------------------------

Date: 17 Jun 86 14:45:42 GMT
From: ucbcad!nike!think!mit-eddie!genrad!panda!enmasse!comm!dave@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dave Brownell)
Subject: Re: Congress as scapegoat
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <185@petrus.UUCP> purtill@petrus.UUCP (Mark Purtill) writes:
> > in <228@njitcccc.UUCP> ken@njitcccc.UUCP (Kenneth NG) writes

> > Thirdly, is it true that the space shuttle is
> > the first time men have been placed aboard a solid fueled
> > rocket?  If it is, why?  

> I don't think the US ever used solid boosters on manned rockets before;
> maybe the Soviets did, tho.  The reason they were used is money:  liquid
> boosters would have cost more.

We used solid fuel rockets in the Apollo project, provided by at least
Thiokol (no salt company involved then).  I think the third stage booster
was solid, and maybe even some boosters on the lander itself.  I forget
the exact configurations.
-- 
Dave Brownell		{panda,genrad,harvard}!enmasse!comm!dave

"They sang long into the evening about their Truck and Radio."

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #316
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA08083; Fri, 20 Jun 86 03:02:05 PDT
	id AA08083; Fri, 20 Jun 86 03:02:05 PDT
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 86 03:02:05 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8606201002.AA08083@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #317

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 317

Today's Topics:
		 Re: Re: Evolution takes millenia...
		      Re: Congress as scapegoat
		     Soviet commercial launches?
	      part of Austin science fiction newsletter
			     Planet forms
		       Re: `Night Flash Update
	       Article on USENET in the for-real press
			   Re: Night Flash
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 17 Jun 86 10:16:58 GMT
From: ihnp4!riccb!jmc@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Jeff McQuinn )
Subject: Re: Re: Evolution takes millenia...
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> In reference to a previous posting about birds changing color, it should
> be noted that this is not necessarily evolution.  The different color
> birds can still succesfully mate.  Perhaps all birds have the potential
> to produce offspring of the 'new' color, but it was merely unlikely.
> (If a madman killed everyone in the world but red-haired people (a
> recessive gene) and eventually only red-haired people survived and bred
> true, would we say that the human race had evolved?  Beats me...)
> 
> -Jim

It seems to me that both of these cases ARE evolution.  What the red-haired
people case is NOT is natural selection.  I haven't got any training in this
field so take my opinions with a grain or two but I beleive the reason that
people have such difficulty with evolution is that natural selection rarely
applies to people anymore.  Human thought seems to have made mankind so
well equipped and flexible that he no longer needs evolutionary processes
to adapt him to changing envirnments.  Most critters aren't so lucky!

Now just because mankind doesn't rely on evolution to adapt himself to his
envirnment doesn't mean that people aren't undergoing change.  Over the past
few generations it seems that people desired tall mates and we've seen each
succeeding generation get taller.  Ben Franklen invented eyeglasses 200 years
back and now look around you at all the blind-as-a-bat-without-my-contacts
officemates that you have.  (This ones my favorite because I myself could
not have survived for these 30 odd years without glasses!)  

I guess I'd have to side with the catastophists in that I suspect that there
needs to be an enviromental change before a species requires evolutionary
change.  I don't beleive that there need be catostrophic change however.  Nor
do I beleive that the older population need die off quickly.  Much depends
on wether the changing trait is a dominant or recessive trait.  For a minor
change in envirnment (such as the dominant plant in the envirnment has changed
to a plant of differnt color therefore my coloring should change a little) the
process would relie on dominant genes taking over the pool.  Enough of the 
older population would meet untimely deaths to make the new color more 
attractive then the old,  but the older population would not be wiped out or
even seriously threatened.  In the case of a catostrophic change (an 
especially wicked winter killed off all but the lightest skinned neanderathals
thereby allowing the recessive gened light skinners to reproduce in the Nordic
regions) the old population is wiped out except for those few more adapted.
Now if the dominant gene was the more suited you wouldn't expect that the main
population would have died.  Therefore the recessive gene would be more 
important for truely catastrophic changes.  Should the catostrophic change
prove to be a short term fluke, the dominate gene would filter back in (my
neanderathals would darken to handle those hot, hot summers).

If it were to take millions of years for evolution to work its changes then
I don't beleive it would be of much use in coping with envirnmental changes
which tend to happen over a few centuries.  I'll grant you that a species
may not have noticeably changed over a very long time but they do change.

If I'm wrong here please Flame to death, lets just get something going 
besides PSI!

					Jeff McQuinn just VAXing around

------------------------------

Date: 18 Jun 86 05:46:25 GMT
From: ucbcad!nike!caip!seismo!umcp-cs!cvl!umd5!louie@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Louis Mamakos)
Subject: Re: Congress as scapegoat
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <270@comm.UUCP> dave@comm.UUCP (Dave Brownell) writes:

>We used solid fuel rockets in the Apollo project, provided by at least
>Thiokol (no salt company involved then).  I think the third stage booster
>was solid, and maybe even some boosters on the lander itself.  I forget
>the exact configurations.
>-- 
>Dave Brownell		{panda,genrad,harvard}!enmasse!comm!dave

According to my copy of "Stages To Saturn: A Technological History of
the Apollo/Saturn Launch Vehicles" (NASA SP-4206), the Saturn first
stage is fueled by RP-1 (kerosene-like) and LOX; the second stage
and third stages by liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen (LOX).  The service
module engine is fueled by hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide as is the
lunar module ascent and decent stages.

The 8 first stage retro motors are solid (391000 newtons) and are used
during stage seperation.  The 8 second stage ullage motor are solid (at
101000 each).  There are also 4 solid retomotors (158800 newtons) and
2 solid ullage motors (15100 newtons) on the transstage between the
second and third stages.

The escape tower launch motor is a solid motor (667000 newtons); the
escape tower jettison motor is also a solid (178000 newtons), and the
escape tower pitch motor solid too (13300 newtons).

So it seem that none of the primary, large thrust motors on the Saturn
vehicle were solid.  There were, however, a number of solid motors in
important roles on the Saturn.
-- 
Louis A. Mamakos WA3YMH   University of Maryland, Computer Science Center
 Internet: louie@trantor.umd.edu
 UUCP: {seismo!umcp-cs, ihnp4!rlgvax}!cvl!umd5!louie

------------------------------

Date: 2 Jun 86 19:54:18 GMT
From: ucbcad!nike!caip!brl-adm!brl-smoke!wmartin@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Will Martin )
Subject: Soviet commercial launches?
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

First, thanks to those who have been posting all the details extracted
from AW&ST and similar sources; it is appreciated!

In the light of the current launch-vehicle-reliability crisis, some news
reports have mentioned that the Soviets might be making their Proton
booster (and maybe other vehicles?) available for contract launches.
However, this was never phrased too specifically and the degree of
reliability of such reports seemed to vary from source to source. Can
this be pinned down more authoritatively? Have the Soviets made any
specific offers, or named any prices, in public?

Personally, I see nothing "wrong" with the commercial satellite users
buying launches from the Soviets. It would be interesting if the US
Government did it, but I somehow doubt that the USAF, DIA, or NSA will
be too willing to hand over a satellite to the USSR for them to launch
for us... :-) However, are they really a viable alternative? Since the
Soviet space program is traditionally shrouded in secrecy, do we
actually know if their current crop of boosters is more reliable than
the Western ones now grounded pending review of recent failures? After
all, it might be that the Soviets have had just as many failures but are
willing to accept the current success percentage and are going ahead
with what they have. 

Anybody with good info on this, please post! Thanks!

Will Martin

------------------------------

Date: 18 Jun 86 13:58:05 GMT
From: ucbcad!nike!lll-crg!styx!mordor!sri-spam!caip!seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!janeann@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (puddin'head)
Subject: part of Austin science fiction newsletter
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa


I came across this recently and thought this group might be interested;
it's a transcription of part of an issue of CHEAP TRUTH, a science
fiction newsletter that's occasionally put out in Austin.  I cut
most of the article out because it didn't pertain to this newsgroup
(the whole thing, which is about something the authors call the
`Pournelle Disciples' movement, has been posted in net.sf-lovers);
however, this part seemed to relate to a lot of recent discussion
here.  Comments welcome.  (Not responsible for typos!)


   The most potent political treatise of the Disciples is a
work of nonfiction by Morris, David Drake, and Congressman Newt
Gingrich, the ultrarightist Golden Boy of the born-again contingent.
This book, WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY, presents the straight gospel of
Pournelle's private pressure group, the Citizen's Advisory Council
on National Space Policy.  It advocates "an effective American
monopoly of space," in which laissez-faire capitalists fill orbits
with "the Hiltons and Marriotts of the solar system."  These space
cities will be manned by Christian space-settlers, whose stern faith
gives them the backbone for the frontier life.  "The rise of high-tech
preachers on cable television is accelerating the re-emergence of
religion as a legitimate vehicle for explaining the world.
Presently there will be religious software for home computers and a
host of modern high-tech efforts to spread a new, electronic
gospel...."

   With this treatise the gloves are off, and the Disciples come
full-circle.  This combination of 19th-century values and visionary
technolatry is a potent one which, though easy to mock, is easier
to underestimate.

   SF has power now, and it is our responsibility to see to what
uses that power is put.  Pournelle, as usual, has put it best, in
his argument for the Strategic Defense Initiative.  Peace,
Prosperity, and Freedom are his watchwords.  Peace:  as an orbiting
Pax Americana over a world requiring American tutelage.  Prosperity:
for high-tech asteroid-barons, who will watch the disastrous
crumbling of communist society from the safety of orbit.  Freedom:
from any necessity of change or accommodation to other cultures.

   Naive space enthusiasts believe that humanity will climb into the
cosmos on a Pentagon payroll.  Many dislike the idea, but feel that
an allegiance with the military is a small price to pay for a life
of bliss in an orbiting O'Neill colony.  The psychological appeal
these colonies hold for us in SF is not hard to grasp.  An O'Neill
colony will be an airtight little world, of technically educated
white Americans gazing raptly at the stars.  A world soaring far
above the heads of threatening mundanes.  A world that is fandom's
objective correlative.

   SF has always been publicly identified with space flight.  There
is no shame in that.  But SDI's backers become the predominant
political spokesmen for SF, we will be associated from now on with
X-ray lasers.  Whether we like it or not.

   In the final analysis, it does not matter that they write badly
or that their ideas are lunatic.  That has never stopped any of us.

------------------------------

Date: 18 Jun 86 18:08:25 GMT
From: ucbcad!nike!caip!brl-adm!brl-smoke!wmartin@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Will Martin )
Subject: Planet forms
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Stanley Friesen writes: (I saw this in an ARPA Space Digest, but could
                         not find it in net.space here; don't know why.)
>First generation planets were likely exclusively jovian gas giants like
>Saturn. Second generation non-jovian planets were likely very small,
>too small to retain an atmosphere. So only third generation stars would
>have terrestrial type planets in the life zone...

The first statement seems fairly obvious, given what elemental
distribution after the Big Bang probably was like. But I can't figure
out the rationale for the second statement (about 2nd-generation
rocky planets being very small). I am not quarelling with it or
complaining about it -- I just don't understand why this would be the
case. I'd appreciate enlightenment!

(A first guess would be that, though there were some higher-numbered
elements around by the time of the second generation, there still were
not that much of them, and therefore, simply not enough material existed
yet to form larger planets. This seems too simplistic an explanation,
though, and I think I just don't know enough to see the real cause.)

Will Martin

UUCP/USENET: seismo!brl-smoke!wmartin  or  ARPA/MILNET: wmartin@almsa-1.ARPA

------------------------------

Date: 17 Jun 86 14:24:58 GMT
From: ucbcad!nike!lll-crg!seismo!hao!noao!terak!anasazi!will@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Will Fuller)
Subject: Re: `Night Flash Update
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <786@astrovax.UUCP> elt@astrovax.UUCP (Ed Turner) writes:
>Speculation as to their source ranges from an association with gamma ray
>bursts ...

A reference to the production of Cerenkov radiation in the atmosphere.
Seems unlikely that this would resemble such a compact source.
-- 
William H. Fuller
{decvax|ihnp4|hao}!noao!terak!anasazi!will

------------------------------

Date: 18 Jun 86 15:59:41 GMT
From: ucbcad!nike!lll-crg!caip!brl-adm!brl-smoke!wmartin@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Will Martin )
Subject: Article on USENET in the for-real press
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

(Reposted due to local system problems; original never got out to net.)

A recent (May 86) issue of the DEC PROFESSIONAL magazine is a "DEC Pro
Extra" special issue on UNIX. As far as that is concerned, it probably
would be of little interest to those already experienced with UNIX, as
it seems to aim at those who do not already use it. However, and why I
am posting this, there is an article in it (pg 26-33) on USENET News
by Tim O'Reilly.

It is oriented toward "readnews", and, as such, might make a handy
introductory handout to people at your site if you use that
news-reading software.

Also, I'm curious -- the author used "live" USENET traffic (from
net.space) as examples in his article. Are there any of you out there
who saw this article and whose names appeared in the examples? If so,
how do you feel about this -- flattered, annoyed, indifferent? I know
I eagerly scanned the examples to see if my name showed up (it
didn't).  Names shown include Ethan Vishniac, Paul Dietz, Kenall Auel,
Ed Turner, Bruce Lowerre, Rob Kenyon, & Dave Platt -- Did Mr. O'Reilly
contact any of you in advance to let you know your names would appear
in a national publication or to ask permission? I doubt that any of us
would say that he should do that; I just wondered if he did... (Seems
like the kind of thing the magazine's lawyers would bring up.)

Regards, Will

------------------------------

Date: 18 Jun 86 18:50:55 GMT
From: ucbcad!nike!lll-crg!lll-lcc!qantel!ptsfa!varian!vaxwaller!chip@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Chip Kozy)
Subject: Re: Night Flash
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa


 > second - a visual 'burster' star was recently discovered and photographically

	Dumb question...What's a "burster" star?  Am I correct in assuming
(there's that dirty word) that it is one that turns "on and off", or what?


					Happiness;
					Chip

-- 
             ,,
*** SOLIDARNOSC ***

		Chip Kozy   (415) 939-2400 x-2048
		Varian Inst. Grp.  2700 Mitchell Dr.  
		Walnut Creek, Calif.  94598
		{zehntel,amd,fortune,rtgvax,rtech}!varian!chip

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #317
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA02487; Sat, 21 Jun 86 03:02:05 PDT
	id AA02487; Sat, 21 Jun 86 03:02:05 PDT
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 86 03:02:05 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8606211002.AA02487@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #318

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 318

Today's Topics:
			 Manned solid rockets
		      Re: Congress as scapegoat
			   I heard a meteor
	     Re: Article on USENET in the for-real press
	      Anybody know how Voyager navigation works?
	       Amateur Satellite Observers organization
			Staffed solid rockets
	      Re: Recovering payloads in launch failures
		   Re: Evolution takes millenia...
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 86 12:58 EDT
From: Chris Jones <clj@sapsucker.scrc.symbolics.com>
Subject: Manned solid rockets
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
In-Reply-To: <8606191019.AA01156@s1-b.arpa>

    In article <185@petrus.UUCP> purtill@petrus.UUCP (Mark Purtill) writes:
    > > in <228@njitcccc.UUCP> ken@njitcccc.UUCP (Kenneth NG) writes

    > > Thirdly, is it true that the space shuttle is
    > > the first time men have been placed aboard a solid fueled
    > > rocket?  If it is, why?  

    > I don't think the US ever used solid boosters on manned rockets before;
    > maybe the Soviets did, tho.  The reason they were used is money:  liquid
    > boosters would have cost more.

    We used solid fuel rockets in the Apollo project, provided by at least
    Thiokol (no salt company involved then).  I think the third stage booster
    was solid, and maybe even some boosters on the lander itself.  I forget
    the exact configurations.
    -- 
    Dave Brownell		{panda,genrad,harvard}!enmasse!comm!dave

NO, NO, NO!!!  Where did you get this (mis-)information?  The only uses of solid
fuelled rockets in U.S. manned space flight before the space shuttle were the retro-rockets
on the Mercury and Gemini spacecraft, and as escape rockets (which were never used)
on Mercury and Apollo spacecraft.  Since solids can't be stopped and restarted, the
third stage of the Saturn V would have been an extraordinarily poor place to have
employed them; the third stage had to finish getting the CSM and LM into earth orbit
and then later restart to inject them on the trajectory to the moon.

The Soviet boosters are completely liquid fuelled.  Their escape rockets are almost
certainly solid fuelled, and they have had to use it once.  Their soft-landing
capability may also employ a solid fuelled rocket, but that's it.

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jun 86 15:53:28 GMT
From: hplabs!hplabsc!dsmith@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (David Smith)
Subject: Re: Congress as scapegoat
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> > > Thirdly, is it true that the space shuttle is
> > > the first time men have been placed aboard a solid fueled
> > > rocket?  If it is, why?  
> 
> > I don't think the US ever used solid boosters on manned rockets before;
> > maybe the Soviets did, tho.  The reason they were used is money:  liquid
> > boosters would have cost more.
> 
> We used solid fuel rockets in the Apollo project, provided by at least
> Thiokol (no salt company involved then).  I think the third stage booster
> was solid, and maybe even some boosters on the lander itself.  I forget
> the exact configurations.
> -- 
> Dave Brownell		{panda,genrad,harvard}!enmasse!comm!dave

Hold on, now!  The Saturn 5 3rd stage used the lox/lh2 J-2 engine, and
the lunar module's engines were definitely liquid (the propellant, that
is).  The descent stage engine had to be throttleable, and the ascent
stage engine required computer-controlled cutoff.  The descent engine
burned aerozine-50 fuel with nitrogen tetroxide as oxidizer.  I presume
the ascent engine burned the same thing.

Liquid fuels provide higher specific impulse than solids, and much less
vibration.  Solids are much simpler and hence (gulp!) should be more reliable.
If a SSME's turbopump throws a blade, you can be in big trouble.  On the
other hand, shuttles and Saturn 5s have shut down malfunctioning
liquid-fueled engines prematurely and still carried out their missions.

			David Smith
			{backbone!}hplabs!dsmith

------------------------------

Date: Thu 19 Jun 86 18:39-EDT
From: Henry Minsky <HQM%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: I heard a meteor
To: space%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu

This is really weird. I stepped out of my building in Cambridge aboutB
1 AM in the morning last weekend. As I looked up, I saw a bright trail
that seemed to break up into a couple of pieces and then was gone.

While watching it, I swear I heard a background hissing, like static,
or ice melting on a stove. I heard the sound simultaneously with
seeing the flash.

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jun 86 16:49:16 GMT
From: ucbcad!nike!lll-crg!seismo!ut-sally!utastro!ethan@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Ethan Vishniac)
Subject: Re: Article on USENET in the for-real press
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <1463@brl-smoke.ARPA>, wmartin@brl-smoke.ARPA (Will Martin ) writes:
> (Reposted due to local system problems; original never got out to net.)
> 
> A recent (May 86) issue of the DEC PROFESSIONAL magazine is a "DEC Pro Extra"
> special issue on UNIX. As far as that is concerned, it probably would be
> of little interest to those already experienced with UNIX, as it seems
> to aim at those who do not already use it. However, and why I am posting
> this, there is an article in it (pg 26-33) on USENET News by Tim O'Reilly.
> 
> Also, I'm curious -- the author used "live" USENET traffic (from
> net.space) as examples in his article. Are there any of you out there
> who saw this article and whose names appeared in the examples? If so,
> how do you feel about this -- flattered, annoyed, indifferent? I know
> I eagerly scanned the examples to see if my name showed up (it didn't).
> Names shown include Ethan Vishniac, Paul Dietz, Kenall Auel, Ed Turner,
                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Bruce Lowerre, Rob Kenyon, & Dave Platt -- Did Mr. O'Reilly contact
> any of you in advance to let you know your names would appear in a
> national publication or to ask permission? I doubt that any of us would
> say that he should do that; I just wondered if he did... (Seems like the
> kind of thing the magazine's lawyers would bring up.)

I was not contacted in advance (or afterwards).  I do not feel that such
contact would have been necessary or appropriate.  From a legal point of
view it seems likely that submitting an article to usenet is like making
a public speech, or writing an article without a copyright.  I do
admit to being slightly flattered, (I hope that it wasn't
a stupid article ... although of course I *never* write those ...
almost never...:-) ).
-- 
"Ma, I've been to another      Ethan Vishniac
 planet!"                      {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan
                               ethan@astro.UTEXAS.EDU
                               Department of Astronomy
                               University of Texas

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 86 23:27:43 PDT
From: Murray.pa@xerox.com
Subject: Anybody know how Voyager navigation works?
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Cc: Murray.pa@xerox.com

They did some really fancy navigation with the Voyagers. I think they
watched Voyager I while it went near Jupiter's moons and then back
computed to get better data for the orbits of the moons so they could
get (much) closer with Voyager II.

Are the tricks involved written up anyplace?

How do you even figure out where something like a Voyager is located and
which direction it's going? It's a long distance from Earth so radar
isn't going to help much. Even with an active transponder you only get
radial information. Are they using something like long baseline
interferometry to get the angles?

Can you back compute enough after watching it's (radial) speed change
for a long time? (I'm assuming the can get the radial speed pretty
accurately from the dopler of it's transmittedy signal.) Do we know
enough about the mass of Jupiter to do that, or is that just one of the
unknowns?

------------------------------

Date: 18 Jun 86 18:21:45 GMT
From: nbires!isis!scicom!wats@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Bruce Watson)
Subject: Amateur Satellite Observers organization
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

There is a new and growing organization of those interested in visually 
observing artificial satellites.  If interested contact Jim Hale, HCR 65, 
Box 261 B, Kingston, Arkansas 72742.  Tracking software and satellite 
elements are available.

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jun 86 13:32:37 GMT
From: decwrl!fisher@star.dec.com@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Burns Fisher ZKO1-1/D42 DTN 381-1466)
Subject: Staffed solid rockets
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>In article <185@petrus.UUCP> purtill@petrus.UUCP (Mark Purtill) writes:
>> > in <228@njitcccc.UUCP> ken@njitcccc.UUCP (Kenneth NG) writes
> 
>> > Thirdly, is it true that the space shuttle is
>> > the first time men have been placed aboard a solid fueled
>> > rocket?  If it is, why?  
> 
>> I don't think the US ever used solid boosters on manned rockets before;
>> maybe the Soviets did, tho.  The reason they were used is money:  liquid
>> boosters would have cost more.
> 
>We used solid fuel rockets in the Apollo project, provided by at least
>Thiokol (no salt company involved then).  I think the third stage booster
>was solid, and maybe even some boosters on the lander itself.  I forget
>the exact configurations.
>-- 
>Dave Brownell		{panda,genrad,harvard}!enmasse!comm!dave

Sorry Dave.  The Saturn V third stage was LH/LOX powered.  It was restartable,
remember?  It fired to put the finishing touches on the initial earth parking
orbit, and then fired again for TLI (Trans-Lunar Injection).  You can't do that
with solids.

The LM's engines were also liquid, although I believe that they used some
hypergolic propellant rather than hydrogen/oxygen.  Remember that they
were throttleable, something else you can't do with solids.

I don't believe that there have been any solid rockets used as one of the
main propulsion units on any staffed space flights until the shuttle.  There
were solids at a few less noticable places, however:

	1) The Mercury retrorockets (I think)

	2) Mercury escape tower rockets.  (Other escape rockets?)

	3) Separation motors on the Saturn V, and probably others (these
	   pull the spent stages back away from the main stack after the
	   separation charges fire...visible in the opening/closing credits
	   on SPACEFLIGHT, the PBS series.

Burns
decwrl!star!fisher.DEC.COM

------------------------------

Date: 18 Jun 86 22:04:59 GMT
From: ihnp4!ihlpa!animal@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (D. Starr)
Subject: Re: Recovering payloads in launch failures
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> What sort of costs or penalties would be involved in adding some form of
> safety or recovery mechanism for the payloads in the unmanned launches
> we have seen fail recently (Ariane, Delta)? Would it have been physically
> possible to have saved the satellites and recovered them undamaged (at
> least in good enough shape for an overhaul to have restored them to
> usable condition)? Are not these satellites expensive enough that it
> would be worth some effort to save them if the launch vehicle sending
> them up fails?
> 
> Would any mechanism that would do this have such a weight and size that
> the reduction in useful payload caused by adding it would be so great
> as to make the possible savings (in rebuilding and insurance costs)
> not worth it? Or maybe it would be no more reliable than the launch
> vehicle itself, so it wouldn't be worth adding because you really
> wouldn't gain anything in the odds of success?
> 
> If the payload was a very-expensive, hard-to-replace military
> surveillance satellite, maybe the relative costs of some safety mechanism
> would not be as important as it would to a commercial situation.
> 
> I just keep thinking of those pictures of the failing vehicle(s), and
> how it would be at least somewhat relieving to see a powered pod
> or a parachute lowering the payload to an eventual recovery; at least
> not everything would be wasted...
> 
> Will Martin
> 
Once upon a time, when the U. S. launched people into space pretty
routinely, they had a procedure in place and practiced (in simulators)
for recovering the "payload" (the people) in the event of a launch
vehicle failure.  That procedure was to place the payload in a ballistic
capsule (something not too far in reality from a nuclear warhead's re-entry
vehicle), and in the event of a problem, shut down the engines (a uniquely
handy attribute of liquid fueled rockets), separate the capsule and allow
it to re-enter and land under a parachute.  The re-entry vehicles carried
such poetic names as Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo, and were admittedly
necessary to complete the mission anyway (a not-so-unique attribute of
people as a payload is that you plan to bring them back down someday)...
This scheme was, of course, abandoned with the Shuttle, since you simply
have to assume that solid fuel rockets always work perfectly.

So (less sarcastically) it wouldn't be hard to design a ballistic pod to
bring a payload safely back to earth following a loss-of-thrust type 
failure such as the Ariane's third stage non-ignition (it would be a bit
harder to do it for the Delta because the solid boosters were still running
when its engine shut down).  The problems are weight, stress and where the
thing might come down.  A re-entry vehicle would need to carry an ablative
heat shield, parachutes and some maneuvering jets to control the re-entry.
These all contribute weight; it's not difficult to believe that such a
vehicle might weigh as much as the payload it's protecting.  Then there's
the issue of g-loading on the payload during re-entry.  In U. S. manned
space flight, the G loads on re-entry generally exceeded those on launch
by a fair margin.  This might require stronger (and therefore heavier)
payloads.  Third is the issue of where the payload is going to land; if
it comes down over the open ocean (most likely), it could be recovered by
almost anybody.  If it's a new, trade secret space manufacturing process
or a spy satellite, you might prefer to blow it into unrecognizable
pieces rather than risk having someone else pick it up.

------------------------------

Date: 17 Jun 86 15:08:47 GMT
From: ihnp4!alberta!ken@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Ken Hruday)
Subject: Re: Evolution takes millenia...
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <698@riccb.UUCP> jmc@riccb.UUCP (Jeff McQuinn ) writes:
>Now just because mankind doesn't rely on evolution to adapt himself to his
>envirnment doesn't mean that people aren't undergoing change.  Over the past
>few generations it seems that people desired tall mates and we've seen each
>succeeding generation get taller.  

Better nutrition is the reason for taller people - at least this is 
the explanation I heard.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #318
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA06190; Sun, 22 Jun 86 03:02:06 PDT
	id AA06190; Sun, 22 Jun 86 03:02:06 PDT
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 86 03:02:06 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8606221002.AA06190@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #319

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 319

Today's Topics:
			     naming stars
		      Re: Congress as scapegoat
		   Re: Evolution takes millenia...
		      Re: Congress as scapegoat
	       Re: Recovering payloads in launch failu
	     Re:  Recovering payloads in launch failures
     Launch Requirements for a Constructing a Large Space Colony
		    Re: Arm chair image processing
		   Re: Soviet commercial launches?
		    Centaur upper-stage cancelled
		Use of net.space in the for-real press
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 19 Jun 86 20:34:58 GMT
From: ucbcad!nike!think!harvard!seismo!columbia!caip!andromeda!njitcccc!ken@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Kenneth Ng)
Subject: naming stars
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Does anyone know the phone number of the place that
can name a star after something?  Supposedly one would
receive something that says the position and various other
information about the star that I would name.

-- 
Kenneth Ng:
Post office: NJIT - CCCC, Newark New Jersey  07102
uucp(unreliable) ihnp4!allegra!bellcore!njitcccc!ken
soon uucp:ken@rigel.cccc.njit.edu
bitnet(prefered) ken@njitcccc.bitnet
soon bitnet: ken@orion.cccc.njit.edu
(Yes, we are slowly moving to RFC 920, kicking and screaming)

Vulcan jealousy: "I fail to see the logic in prefering Stonn over me"

------------------------------

Date: 18 Jun 86 16:06:10 GMT
From: bellcore!petrus!karn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Phil R. Karn)
Subject: Re: Congress as scapegoat
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> [Apollo program] ...I think the third stage booster
> was solid, and maybe even some boosters on the lander itself.  I forget
> the exact configurations.

This is incorrect. Solids were used in the Apollo program, but only as small
special purpose motors. All main stages were liquid: kerosene/LOX for the
first stage of the Saturn V, H2/LOX for the second and third stages, and
various hypergolic combinations (hydrazine compounds with N2O4) for the
Service Module, both stages of the Lunar Module and maneuvering rockets
on both vehicles.

The best-known use of solids was on the launch escape tower, which could
have been used to pull the command module (and the astronauts) away from the
launcher in an emergency. A smaller solid motor was used to jettison the
tower when it was no longer needed. Other motors were used on each stage of
the Saturn V as "separation" and "ullage" motors. These aided staging by
pushing the spent stage back and settling the propellants in the stage about
to be ignited. These short-duration motors accounted for the big puffs of
white smoke that seemed to envelop the launcher at staging (and gave plenty
of lay observers momentary coronaries). Similar motors are used on the
shuttle SRBs to push them away from the orbiter/ET combination when they are
jettisoned.

Phil

------------------------------

Date: 18 Jun 86 18:13:00 GMT
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiucdcsp!silber@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Evolution takes millenia...
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa



Good article, and I agree with you about psi.  Actually, Franklin just invented
bifocals, glasses had been around for centuries, at least back to Spinoza, and
I think the first magnifying glasses were 12th century.

------------------------------

Date: 18 Jun 86 18:18:00 GMT
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiucdcsp!silber@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Congress as scapegoat
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa




Lo! How soon they forget.  The Mercury Redstone, atop which Alan Sheppard
became the "first American in Space" during a 15 minute sub-orbital jaunt,
was a solid fuel ICBM.  The second flight (Gus "scew the pooch" Grissom)
was also atop a Redstone.  All later Mercuries were launched via the Atlas.
I put "first American in Space" in quotes since a number of X-15 pilots
had broke the 50 mile barrier before.

Ami Silberman

------------------------------

Date: 18 Jun 86 18:21:00 GMT
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiucdcsp!silber@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Recovering payloads in launch failu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa



>Would any mechanism that would do this have such a weight and size that
>the reduction in useful payload caused by adding it would be so great
>as to make the possible savings (in rebuilding and insurance costs)
>not worth it? Or maybe it would be no more reliable than the launch
>vehicle itself, so it wouldn't be worth adding because you really
>wouldn't gain anything in the odds of success?

I think that the main problems would be due to the high velocity at the
time of failure.  Still, some sort of escape tower ala Mercury or Apollo
might be feasible.  It need not be more reliable than the launch vehicle,
a 10% failure rate for each leads to a 1% chance of loss of the payload.

------------------------------

Date:           Thu, 19 Jun 86 14:13:22 PDT
From: Jordan Brown <lcc.jbrown@locus.ucla.edu>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Subject:        Re:  Recovering payloads in launch failures
In-Reply-To:    Message of Thu, 19 Jun 86 03:13:58 PDT
                    from "Ted Anderson <ota@s1-b.arpa>"
                    <8606191013.AA01075@s1-b.arpa>


> What sort of costs or penalties would be involved in adding some form of
> safety or recovery mechanism for the payloads in the unmanned launches
> we have seen fail recently (Ariane, Delta)? Would it have been physically
> possible to have saved the satellites and recovered them undamaged (at
> least in good enough shape for an overhaul to have restored them to
> usable condition)? Are not these satellites expensive enough that it
> would be worth some effort to save them if the launch vehicle sending
> them up fails?

Several people have asked me this question since I returned from the
Ariane launch.  I think the answer is that there is too much trouble
involved.

Consider that you are going to have to take a satelite, which was never
intended to see atmosphere, reenter it, and splash it down.  I suspect
that this would be difficult to impossible.  Next, consider that to
recover from, say, the Ariane failure, you would have had to have ships
scatterred out ~2000 miles from Kourou in order to pick up this vehicle
in a timely manner.  Note that these ships are going to have to be in
precisely the wrong place to avoid the shrapnel which is going to be
falling from the booster, which you have to destroy because it is a
substantial bomb.  Next, consider that you have now introduced
additional complexity, which will every once in a while fail and leave
you with an otherwise good launch but a satellite with its reentry
package and parachute still wrapped around it.  Finally, consider the
additional weight.

Disclaimer:  I am merely an interested bystander who has thought about
the problem a little.  Maybe I overestimate the complexity.  However, I
will note that none of the Intelsat people I was with expressed any sort
of "wish we had a recovery system" feeling.  They just wanted a more
reliable booster, with backup ignition systems.

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jun 86 14:36:43 GMT
From: ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dave Newkirk)
Subject: Launch Requirements for a Constructing a Large Space Colony
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

The transportation requirements of a colony are much more extensive than merely
getting material cheaply from the Moon to the factories of the colony.  There
must be a capability for launching about 1 million metric tons from the Earth
over a period of 6 to 10 years:

Year  5  6  7  8  9 10 11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22 Max Total

HLLV  9 26 23 53 54 71 65  49  53  65  69  76  72  72  67  73  73  73  76 1043
STS  13 13 13 20 17 27 27 100 100 100  83  83  83  83  80  80  80  80 100 1082

Tot. 22 39 36 73 71 98 82 149 153 165 152 159 155 155 147 153 153 153 165 2125

No provision for launching propellant is included in these numbers; its inclusion
will more than double the annual launch requirements.

[ Years 1-4 cover research, development and the beginning of production  - dcn ]

[ The Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle (HLLV) is a Shuttle derivative with 4 SRB's
  surrounding a unmanned hydrogen/oxygen rocket using 4 Shuttle main engines and
  a large payload capacity (120 metric tons compared to the Shuttle's 29). - dcn ]

From "Space Settlements - A Design Study", NASA SP-413.
-- 
				Dave Newkirk, ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jun 86 19:32:19 GMT
From: pur-ee!pucc-j!rsk@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Wombat)
Subject: Re: Arm chair image processing
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <345@anasazi.UUCP>, will@anasazi.UUCP (Will Fuller) writes:
> 
> A non-profit organization is established with close ties to all major
> international observatories. This organization designates itself a depository
> of image processing software. The software is all in the public domain, and
> several versions are mantained for a host of popular personal computers.
> 
> After an initial investment in equipment the power of the VLA, MMT, Voyager,
> or space telescope could be brought into the home.  One could probably expect
> a good deal of quality discovery from dedicated hobbyists.

While I do not mean to slight the tenacity or ingenuity of amateur astronomers,
I doubt that any real image processing work could be done by the vast majority
of them, due to the sheer lack of MIPS (or FLOPS, if you prefer) at their
disposal.  Image processing is very computationally expensive, and even
commonplace applications of it are beyond the [practical] capabilities of
today's personal computers.  [Of course, those with add-on FPA's or AP's
are exceptions.]

The storage requirements for raw and processed image data are equally
demanding; a single multi-spectral image could easily fill an entire
floppy disk of the size frequently found on PC's.

Please also note that most existing image processing software is not
available for any personal computer; the software conversion alone would
constitute a huge effort.
-- 
Rich Kulawiec, pucc-j!rsk, rsk@j.cc.purdue.edu

------------------------------

Date: 20 Jun 86 04:00:11 GMT
From: ucbcad!nike!ll-xn!cit-vax!palmer@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (David Palmer)
Subject: Re: Soviet commercial launches?
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Organization : California Institute of Technology

In article <1472@brl-smoke.ARPA> wmartin@brl-smoke.ARPA (Will Martin ) writes:
>In the light of the current launch-vehicle-reliability crisis, some news
>reports have mentioned that the Soviets might be making their Proton
>booster (and maybe other vehicles?) available for contract launches.

	I recently heard a rumor that the Soviets offered to launch
Galileo, and that in return for the privilege they would also launch
several American ComSats.  Apparently this offer was rejected due
to technology transfer issues.  Probably it would also cost as much
to modify Galileo for a Proton as it would to modify it for an Atlas+Centaur
(now that the shuttle+Centaur has been ruled too risky, that and the
Shuttle + other Upper Stage are the only alternatives).

			David Palmer

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 20 Jun 86 12:50 PDT
From: Dave Platt <Dave-Platt%LADC@hi-multics.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Really-To: Space@S1-B.ARPA
Subject: Centaur upper-stage cancelled
Randomness: Deprive a mirror of its silver and even the Czar won't see his
            face.

According to an article in this morning's Los Angeles Times,
NASA has decided to cancel the liquid-fueled Centaur engine project
effective immediately.  The reasons stated in the article were primarily
related to safety and reliability concerns.

The primary effect of the Centaur cancellation will probably be yet
another delay in the space-science / planetary exploration programs.
The Galileo probe to Jupiter, and the Ulysses probe (polar-sun
trajectory?) had originally been scheduled to be launched in 1986;  they
would have been moved into low-earth-orbit by one of the space shuttled
and then boosted out towards Jupiter by Centaur engines.  The schedules
for these probes were, of course, seriously disrupted by the Challenger
disaster and the grounding of the shuttle fleet;  the probes have a
fairly narrow launch-window (1 month a year?) and I believe they're too
large to be launched via any of the existing unmanned vehicles.  The
cancellation of the Centaur will delay the launches of Galileo and
Ulysses until at least 1990 or 1991, according to the article.

The cost of the cancellation has not yet been determined;  it will
depend on whether the Air Force can use (& thus pay for) the two
Centaurs already delivered and the two nearing completion.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 20 Jun 86 13:05 PDT
From: Dave Platt <Dave-Platt%LADC@hi-multics.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa, brl-adm!brl-smoke!wmartin@brl.arpa
Really-To: brl-adm!brl-smoke!wmartin@BRL.ARPA, Space@S1-B.ARPA
Subject: Use of net.space in the for-real press
Randomness: Even the smallest candle burns brighter in the dark.

No, Mr. O'Reilly didn't contact me either for permission or to simply
notify me that my name & writings would be used.  I don't mind not
being asked for permission, but I would have appreciated notice;
it would have made it easier for me to acquire a copy of the article.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #319
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA10708; Mon, 23 Jun 86 03:02:01 PDT
	id AA10708; Mon, 23 Jun 86 03:02:01 PDT
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 86 03:02:01 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8606231002.AA10708@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #320

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 320

Today's Topics:
		       Re: SPACE Digest V6 #317
		     Re: Lobbying and Censorship
		    Re: Arm chair image processing
		      Re: Congress as scapegoat
		    Re: Arm chair image processing
			Solid motors in Apollo
		     New space technology needed?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 20 Jun 1986 16:55-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V6 #317

The 'Pournelle Disciples' might better be called the 'Children of
Robert Heinlein' because Heinlein is the REAL intellectual father of the
space movement. I also think the article is somewhat ridiculous, as it
makes the gross jump of imagination (well I guess it was fandom types
who wrote it) that because Pournelle has had some association with Newt
Gingrich, therefore all the writers discussed are Jerry Fallwell
type religious nuts. That is utter BULLSHIT.

I feel that I can speak with some authority since I know Jerry
Pournelle well enough to get my ear burned off by him for two hours on
the phone, and I have at least met many of the others named.

First, although there is some friendly contact between JEP and Newt, it
is not QUITE, as close as the article or JEP would have you believe. As
for people like Janet Morris, etc: Anyone who has met Janet Morris and
her husband (I think it was her husband) know that they come more from
the 60's counterculture than from the right wing religious facism
implied by the article. Even Newt Gingritch, who IS decidely right, is
not quite what the article would imply, although he is admittedly a bit
conservative for my libertarian tastes.

The article strikes me as a sour grapes attack on people just becasue
they don't follow the line which some rather wimpy liberals feel is
ideologically 'correct'. Tough nookies guys. I left the antiwar
movement in 1971 because some leftwing no-mind said "That was a
really pig question" when I had asked a US Senator at a campus event
about continuing post-Apollo support for the Space program. I see they
haven't changed much.

Yes, most of the people named know each other. Yes, several of them
publish under Baen books. Yes, quite a few of them agree with an
aggressive movement into space. And very definitely most of them agree
that it is far preferable to have space dominated by individualism (of
ANY nationality) instead of collectivism. I suspect that quite a few SF
writers would consider even this country a little too fascist and
collectivist for their tastes.

It seems unfortuneate that despite our efforts to wake people up over
the last decade, we are faced with what may be an irreversible gap with
the USSR far in the lead. And to those who say it is not the
politicians fault, I say again, BULLSHIT. If we had kept the post-Apollo
momentum going as the Agnew Commission requested the solar system would
belong to free societies today.

Instead we got the program gutted and nearly annihilated by the likes of
Proxmire and Mondale (may they rot in hell, may their souls be damned
to eternal torment, may the bird of paradise crap in their noses, and
may the fleas of billions and billions of camels reside in their armpits)

And for those who like to pigeon hole people into nice neat categories,
I might add that I did not like Agnew at the time, and still think the
Vietnam war was the greatest act of national stupidity ever performed
and that LBJ was disgusting. I actively worked against that war, but I
never felt that our way of life was inherently wrong, nor did I ever
feel that there are not valid reasons for defending it against REAL
attack. I simply do not believe in defending tin horn dictators against
their rightful demise.

Oh well, with a little bit of luck we'll have our space station up in
time to have someone in orbit to wave goodbye as the soviet spaceship
blasts out for Mars.

Anyone know where I can find a good programmed learning course in
Russian? I might as well be prepared for the future our leadership has
created for us. And I'm sure the writers of the 'Cheap Truth' article
will be ecstatic.

------------------------------

Date: Fri 20 Jun 86 19:41:18-EDT
From: Richard A. Cowan <COWAN@xx.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Lobbying and Censorship
To: space@s1-b.arpa, ota@s1-b.arpa


I was somewhat surprised when I heard the following statement:

  Give few moments thought to the reasonable design of government policy
  given the presence of corruptable human beings.  One of the obvious
  policies is: "The government must not lobby itself".  Allowing the
  government to spend money to affect its own decisions to spend money
  is an invitation to disaster.

You are right, of course, but it should also be obvious that in 1986 the
government is allowed to spend money to affect ts own decisions all the
time.  Just the public relations office of the Pentagon is larger than
most other government agencies.  Furthermore, there are dozens of
government contractors that contribute to poltical action committees.

I would ask, can you imagine any form of government, or any
restrictions on current government policy, that would prevent the
government from "lobbying itself?"  I bet that you cannot.  Still, is
it possible to limit it so that we don't get the abuses Dwight
Eisenhower alluded to in his final speech as President?  (He said,
"The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and
will persist.")

I contend that the only way is to spread access to new technologies
that permit this lobbying (in this case, the NET) to more people.  If
the net were public, like the postal system, then we could use it to
lobby, but so could the rest of the country too.

-rich
-------

------------------------------

Date: 20 Jun 86 19:47:58 GMT
From: ucbcad!nike!lll-crg!seismo!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!ius2.cs.cmu.edu!ralphw@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Ralph Hyre)
Subject: Re: Arm chair image processing
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <203@vaxb.calgary.UUCP> west@calgary writes:
>In article <345@anasazi.UUCP>, will@anasazi.UUCP (Will Fuller) writes:
>> 
>> The following is a proposal that could possibly add new dimension to
>> the role of the amature in modern astronomy. So, to the meat of the
>> matter...
>> 
>> A non-profit organization is established with close ties to all major
>> international observatories. This organization designates itself a depository
>> of image processing software. The software is all in the public domain, and
>> several versions are mantained for a host of popular personal computers.

>This is a very good idea, assuming that personal computers could handle
>this image processing software (it and its data would tend to be LARGE).

Well, how about using an existing non-profit organization at first, like L-5.
They have all the necessary infrastructure (bulletin boards, etc), so that
will make image file and software distribution easier.

If the 'amateur' community acquires enough sophistication then NASA/JPL can
look for the really 'important' things and set up a cooperative research
program.  I'd rather look for new planets and stars than compute prime
numbers.  Multitasking computers will be most useful for this task.

Ideally one will have access to the raw data as it comes in, how hard can
it be to build a receiver for data from the Hubble Space telescope?

-- 
					- Ralph W. Hyre, Jr.

Internet: ralphw@c.cs.cmu.edu [most reliable] Phone: (412) 268-2847 [CMU-BUGS]
Amateur Radio: KA3PLY (c/o W3VC, CMU Radio Club) [packet mailbox coming soon!]
Fido: Ralph Hyre at Pitt-Net [may change soon, when I put up a BBS of my own!]

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jun 86 00:07:09 GMT
From: ucbcad!nike!caip!ut-sally!seismo!umcp-cs!eneevax!dragt@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Alex Dragt)
Subject: Re: Congress as scapegoat
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Wrong! The shuttle is the _first_ manned launcher to use a solid
rocket as major component.
The Redstone IRBM used in the first two Mercury Project flights
was essentially a stretched wersion of the WWII German V2 rocket.
The rocket used a liquid fuel and liquid oxigen.
The X-15 also used liquid fuels ( LOX + liquid Ammonia ).
The X-15 engine ( XLR99 ) could be shut down, purged and restarted;
this happend on the fifth and sixth flight.
The standards of safety for manned space launchers have been
severily relaxed in the design of the Shuttle, in the good old
times it would have been unthinkable to launch men on a rocket
that cannot be shut down.
                                    F. Neri
				NERI@UMCINCOM

------------------------------

Date: 18 Jun 86 15:58:25 GMT
From: ihnp4!alberta!calgary!west@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Darrin West)
Subject: Re: Arm chair image processing
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <345@anasazi.UUCP>, will@anasazi.UUCP (Will Fuller) writes:
> 
> The following is a proposal that could possibly add new dimension to
> the role of the amature in modern astronomy. So, to the meat of the
> matter...
> 
> A non-profit organization is established with close ties to all major
> international observatories. This organization designates itself a depository
> of image processing software. The software is all in the public domain, and
> several versions are mantained for a host of popular personal computers.

> 
> After an initial investment in equipment the power of the VLA, MMT, Voyager,
> or space telescope could be brought into the home.  One could probably expect
> a good deal of quality discovery from dedicated hobbyists.  Another function
> of the organization would be to referee these discoveries. A regular
> publication of the organization might serve as a forum to bring to the
> attention of the professional community valid discoveries.

This is a very good idea, assuming that personal computers could handle
this image processing software (it and its data would tend to be LARGE).

It is said that the sum of MIPS (millions of instructions per second) for all
personal computers is at least 1 order of magnitude (or was that 2) greater
than the sum of MIPS for all larger computers (I believe this second sum
includes minicomputers like Vaxen).  The problem of using these former MIPS
is availability (just think of how many are turned off right now!).  An idea
such as Will's at least opens a few, and may eventually lead to small or
great discoveries similar to current amateur astronomers' contributions.

I would certainly "play" with such software and data were it available.

-- 

"Is that a "yes" or the number of your
 intelligence quotient?"

Darrin West
Master's Unit (read: student)
Department of Computer Science
University of Calgary
Calgary, Alberta.
..![ubc-vision,ihnp4]!alberta!calgary!west

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jun 86 02:57:22 GMT
From: voder!lewey!evp@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Ed Post)
Subject: Solid motors in Apollo
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> 
> We used solid fuel rockets in the Apollo project, provided by at least
> Thiokol (no salt company involved then).  I think the third stage booster
> was solid, and maybe even some boosters on the lander itself.  I forget
> the exact configurations.
> -- 
> Dave Brownell		{panda,genrad,harvard}!enmasse!comm!dave
> 
Wrongo. The Saturn 5 third stage and Lunar module motors were all
liquid fueled -- no choice in either case

The third stage was restartable -- it went into L.E.O. with the
command module and L.M., then was restarted at the appropriate moment
for "T.L.I." (Trans-Lunar Insertion).

Both the L.M. descent engine and ascent engine were throttleable.

The only way to turn off a solid booster is to blow a hole in it. The
only way to throttle one is to build special geometries into the grain
to vary the surface area during burn. (This is how the thrust in the
shuttle solids is temporarily reduced during max-Q transit.)
-- 
Ed Post		hplabs!lewey!evp
American Information Technology
10201 Torre Ave. Cupertino CA 95014
(408)252-8713

------------------------------

Date: 20 Jun 86 21:01:10 GMT
From: hplabs!felix!oliveb!3comvax!mykes@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Mike Schwartz)
Subject: New space technology needed?
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

I am new to this newsgroup and haven't really been following all the
discussions that have been going on.  So please excuse me if this subject
has been brought up before...

With all the troubles we seem to be having getting stuff into space these
days, is it time to consider using a much more modern method of payload
delivery?  The shuttle was supposed to be just that, but it is very costly
and clearly not very safe (or at this point in time reliable).  So let me
bounce an old idea around...

If we could launch a large mass into space, and anchor that mass to the
earth in such a way that there was a tremendous amount of centrifugal
force, then the rope (or cables or whatever) would be extremely taught
and could probably support an elevator type device.

The concept is sort of like "jack and the beanstalk", where there would be
an enormously long cable (whatever our best and most reasonable technology
is - nylon or steel or whatever) that disappeared into the sky.  It would
be very safe for ANYONE to visit space, using an elevator-type car that
simply climbed up the cable.  Using automobile technology, an elevator
the size of a Chevette could climb at maybe 50 or 60 (or maybe more) miles
per hour and the trip would take 2 or three hours (who cares, it is real
safe and real cheap), and would still have enough gas to make the trip again
when it was all over.

Once we have the ability to bring materials and personell into space on
a daily basis, space stations, interplanetary travel, and all the rest
will follow.  To travel to the moon, you would ride up the elevator to 
a space platform a few hundred miles up.  From there, you would board a
space "bus", a craft that was built in space (never needs to enter an
atmosphere) to travel in space, which would transport you to the moon.
The space "bus"es may stop at space stations along the way to deliver/
pick up goods, etc.

Mike Schwartz @ 3Com Corp., Mountain View, CA!
I'm a dreamer by nature,
as I've always been.
Tryin to dream myself out of
this world that I'm in...

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #320
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA15710; Tue, 24 Jun 86 03:02:06 PDT
	id AA15710; Tue, 24 Jun 86 03:02:06 PDT
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 86 03:02:06 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8606241002.AA15710@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #321

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 321

Today's Topics:
	     Re: Article on USENET in the for-real press
		    Re: Arm chair image processing
		      re: evolution (and birds)
			 Re: I heard a meteor
			    open YOUR eyes
		  Soviets are 10 years ahead of U.S.
		     Re: naming stars - CON GAME!
			 Re: I heard a meteor
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 21 Jun 86 13:03:51 GMT
From: ucbcad!nike!ll-xn!adelie!ora!tim@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Tim O'Reilly)
Subject: Re: Article on USENET in the for-real press
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> A recent (May 86) issue of the DEC PROFESSIONAL magazine is a "DEC Pro Extra"
> special issue on UNIX. As far as that is concerned, it probably would be
> of little interest to those already experienced with UNIX, as it seems
> to aim at those who do not already use it. However, and why I am posting
> this, there is an article in it (pg 26-33) on USENET News by Tim O'Reilly.

I am the author of the article in question; I made the assumption that
material posted to Usenet was effectively published information, and
therefore subject to the fair use rule in reprinting material in
reviews et al.

More to the point, it never occurred to me that anyone might be
offended.  If anyone was, I apologize.  In particular, I chose the
group net.space because I know that most space-exploration and
development boosters (like me and many of the readers of net.space)
are eager to see space activities mentioned in print at any
opportunity.

Again, if anyone was offended, I apologize.

(Incidentally, the article (though not the example of live traffic)
was adapted from two short handbooks published by my company, Using
UUCP and Usenet, and Managing UUCP and Usenet.   These handbooks
obviously provide a more complete introduction to USENET, readnews, 
vnews and rn than the article in question.)

Tim O'Reilly
O'Reilly & Associates, Inc.
171 Jackson Street
Newton, MA 02159
(617) 527-4210

decvax\!harvard\!adelie\!ora\!tim

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jun 86 05:27:12 GMT
From: ucbcad!nike!ll-xn!cit-vax!palmer@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (David Palmer)
Subject: Re: Arm chair image processing
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Organization : California Institute of Technology

There is a proposal for an Amateur Space Telescope, which will be run for
the benefit of amateurs, and will presumably, require amateur image 
processing.

Some details:
	Optics:18" Ritchey-Chretien Cassegrain
	Image Plane:512x512 GE CID (charge injection device), negotiations
		are underway to get one of the 800x800 image detectors
		that are spare from Hubble
	Reach:Mag. 22 with a 10 hour exposure
	resolution: 0.25 Arc Seconds
	Pointing Accuracy:0.1 arc seconds over 10 hours. The pointing
		uses reaction wheels for moving and magnetorquers
		(current carrying wires that react against the magnetic
		field of the Earth) to dump angular momentum.
		The pointing system is being designed by some of the
		same people who worked on Hubble.  (volunteered)
	Price, funding and donations:
		The whole telescope is projected to cost $500,000 in
		all, half in lucre, half in equipment.
		90% of the equipment has already been donated
		Rockwell has offered space in a shuttle flight that they
		have leased.
		Negotiations are underway for AmSat (the people who put
		up the Oscar satelites) to provide the comunications
		systems.  One idea under consideration is having the
		telescope transmit data to an Oscar in higher orbit,
		and then rebroadcasting (just like TDRS)

For more information, contact:
	Independant Space Research Group
	P.O. Box 23083
	Rochester, NY 14692
	USA

Memberships in ISRG are $15:Supporting, $25:Patron, $50:Sponsor
$100:Associate $250:Life.  Corporate memberships are one step up the
scale at each level ($25:Supporting etc)

				David Palmer

------------------------------

Date: Sat 21 Jun 86 20:53:07-EDT
From: LINDSAY@tl-20b.arpa
Subject: re: evolution (and birds)
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa
Cc: LINDSAY@tl-20b.arpa

I am surprised that three successive posters on this subject could all be
ignorant of the case they cite.

The "birds" were in fact moths, and they were studied at a time when the
industrial revolution has just invented air pollution. It was noticed that
a certain moth species had shifted from 95% of its members being white,
to 5% being white (since the black ones didn't show on sooty tree trunks).

A year or two back, Scientific American ran an article about how modern
air-pollution laws had shifted the moths back to 95% white.
All in all, a beautiful example of a shift in a gene pool.

I'm not sure what all this has to do with getting into space.

Don Lindsay

------------------------------

Date: 22 Jun 86 07:03:06 GMT
From: ucbcad!nike!watson@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (John S. Watson)
Subject: Re: I heard a meteor
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> This is really weird. I stepped out of my building in Cambridge about
> 1 AM in the morning last weekend. As I looked up, I saw a bright trail
> that seemed to break up into a couple of pieces and then was gone.
>
> While watching it, I swear I heard a background hissing, like static,
> or ice melting on a stove. I heard the sound simultaneously with
> seeing the flash.

When I was young and lived Visalia, in the central valley of California, away 
from the traffic noise and smog, I used to sit up on the roof at nights and 
watch the meteors.  Most the meteors made a swooshing noise as they streaked 
across the sky.  Sometime I'd hear the meteor before I'd see it.
But now the I live here in beautiful Silicon Valley, I'm lucky if I can see
the stars.

I did not think anything of this until recently when I read an article
somewhere saying *Science* had no explaination for this phenonenon. 
(Sorry I can't remember where I saw this article.  I'll look around for it.)
It seems the meteors are to high up for the sound to be heard at the instant
of impact with the atmosphere.  As I recall one theory proposed that 
electromagnetic radiation caused by the meteor somehow effects the inner ear.

John S. Watson
NASA Ames Research Center

ARPA: watson@titan.arc.nasa.gov
UUCP: nike!watson

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 86 15:31:31 mst
From: Chuck Volstad <volstad%asu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
To: space@mit-mc.csnet
Subject: open YOUR eyes

  In response to Kaj message:
> Date:         Wed, 11 Jun 1986 12:40:57 FIN
> From: Kaj Wiik  <S-KW%FINHUTC.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu>
>
> Furthermore, as you might know, they (the Russians) have announced that
> there will be no military research in their space stations. 

   Do you really believe that the Russians are not now and will not in
the future use their space stations for military research ?????

   Get serious !!  Do you believe that the Russians will allow free
elections in eastern Europe ?? Do you believe that the Russians will
give back all the land they stole at the end of WWII ??

   I may not agree with SDI but I do know better than to trust a
Dictatorship bent on world domination.

                                       better start learning Russian,
                                                comrade

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jun 86 21:27:00 GMT
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!convex!trsvax!gm@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Soviets are 10 years ahead of U.S.
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa


(06/16-18:19)
Jane's reports Soviets are 10 years ahead of U.S. in space

  LONDON (AP) -- The Soviet Union has taken an "almost frightening"
10-year lead over the United States in its space program, Jane's Space
Flight Directory says in its latest edition, published Tuesday.
  Editor Reginald Turnill writes that the biggest surprise about the
U.S. space shuttle disaster on Jan. 28 was that NASA had made no
contingency plans for the space program in case of an accident.
  He said that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration had a
100 percent flight safety record for 25 years and "no transport system
can hope to maintain such perfection in the face of human
fallibility."
  Turnill's assessments came in the introduction to the 1986
directory, published by the company that produces the authoritative
Jane's reference works on aircraft, military vessels and weapons
systems
  "The Soviet lead in space is now almost frightening," wrote
Turnhill, adding that because of the Challenger shuttle disaster,
plans to use the shuttle as the West's main satellite launcher had
failed beyond recovery.
  He said another result of the Challenger explosion is that
short-term launch costs, such as insurance, will soar. This will put
pressure on satellite makers to increase capacity and, most of all,
longevity.
  In terms of space experience, the Soviets are so far ahead of the
Americans "that they are almost out of sight," Turnill said.
  Their cosmonauts have clocked more than 4,000 days in space compared
with the American astronauts' 1,587, he wrote.
  "Worse, the U.S. experience is largely based on short flights,
giving no more than three days at a time of uninterrupted materials
processing and crystal growth experiments," Turnill said.
  The advanced Salyut space station Mir is already in place, he said.
But "for all NASA's brilliant interplanetary successes, the U.S. space
station is receding into the mid-1990s and NASA . . . (is) now 10
years behind the Soviets in the practical utilization of what
President Nixon so long ago dubbed "this New Ocean."'
  On the military significance of the Soviet lead, the article noted
that the Americans themselves have said the heavy-lift booster system
for the Soviet shuttle could be used for launching heavy military
payloads, including ballistic missile defense weapons, as well as for
assembling very large modular space stations.
  Such modules, say the Americans, could be fitted out as
reconnaissance platforms, nuclear power substations, or laboratories
for various types of research and experiment.
  Once deployed, such a space station would provide the Soviets with a
manned space-based military capability for missions such as
reconnaissance, command and control.
  Turnill called the superpower dispute over the U.S. Star Wars
space-based defense weapons system a "phony controversy."
  "Space has always been militarized, the process having begun before
Sputnik I, with the development of ICBMs (intercontinental ballistic
missiles) and the spy satellites that quickly replaced their
warheads," he wrote.
  Turnill said the Soviets, too, have a well-advanced space weapon
program. He said the superpowers may conclude that a joint space
defense system would threaten neither. He said that it could also
protect both East and West against "the growing likelihood of
irresponsible random nuclear attack from temporarily hostile smaller
nations."

END

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jun 86 16:57:47 GMT
From: ucbcad!nike!think!harvard!husc6!talcott!cfa!wyatt@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Bill Wyatt)
Subject: Re: naming stars - CON GAME!
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> Xref: talcott net.astro:1634 net.astro.expert:166 net.space:3847
> 
> Does anyone know the phone number of the place that
> can name a star after something?  Supposedly one would
> receive something that says the position and various other
> information about the star that I would name.

THIS IS A CON! The places that will happily accept your money will
give you nothing back except perhaps a gaudy, meaningless certificate.

The IAU (International Astronomical Union) is the sole authority on
names.  Most stars are known only by their position or a catalog
reference number, anyway. Any name `assigned' elsewhere is meaningless
to everyone but your (and the con man's) wallet.

The Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory (where I work) has
occasionally had its name used in such scams, probably because of the
SAO star catalog (about 160,000 stars down to 9th magnitude). Action
was taken, and the last such malefactor was stopped. In that one, the
people xeroxed the page `your' star appeared on and sent it to you!

This is not to be confused with the infrequent `adopt a star'
campaigns various planetariums have. These are means to raise
charitable donations, and are clearly stated as such.


Bill    UUCP:  {seismo|ihnp4|cmcl2}!harvard!talcott!cfa!wyatt
Wyatt   ARPA:  wyatt%cfa.UUCP@harvard.HARVARD.EDU

------------------------------

Date: 22 Jun 86 03:38:27 GMT
From: ucbcad!nike!lll-crg!seismo!harvard!cmcl2!philabs!linus!alliant!spain@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dave Spain)
Subject: Re: I heard a meteor
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Seems like I remember reading in Sky & Telescope Magazine many years ago
(~10 I'd say) a special article on a rather spectacular meteor that passed
across the Northwest of the U.S. for many hundreds of miles.

If memory serves me right, at one point, some people camping out high up in
the Rockies reported not only seeing the meteor but could actually HEAR it as
well. I believe they mentioned hearing a hissing sound similar to one you
mentioned. Many photos of the meteor were published, and I think it was
actually referred to as a fireball due to its duration. Speculation was that
it was a fairly sizeable mass coming down from space. No known impacts were
reported.

Can anyone in netland confirm this or is my memory playing tricks on me?


                                          |
SSSSSSssssss s s s s s s    s       s   - * -
                                          |

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #321
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA20312; Wed, 25 Jun 86 03:02:04 PDT
	id AA20312; Wed, 25 Jun 86 03:02:04 PDT
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 86 03:02:04 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8606251002.AA20312@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #322

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 322

Today's Topics:
		  Re: how to get Commission Report.
		  Re: how to get Commission Report.
	     Re: Article on USENET in the for-real press
		   Shut Up and Do What You're Told
		Re: Soviets are 10 years ahead of U.S.
			 Re: I heard a meteor
		      Re: Congress as scapegoat
		   Re: Soviet commercial launches?
		  Exotic particles as energy sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 23 Jun 86 02:12:19 GMT
From: ucbcad!nike!sri-spam!caip!seismo!umcp-cs!cvl!umd5!louie@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Louis Mamakos)
Subject: Re: how to get Commission Report.
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <283@rtech.UUCP> daveb@rtech.UUCP (Dave Brower) writes:
>(From Reuters, in the SF Chronicle)
>
>"The 256 page report by the presidential Commission on the Shuttle
>Challenger Accident is being sold through the Governmen Printing Office
>for $18.00 a copy.
>
>"The paperback may be obtained by writing to Government Printing Office,
>710 North Capitol Street, Washington, DC, 20401.  The order number is
>040-000-00496-3."
>
For those of you who live in or near cities with GPO bookstore, you may
want to drop by the book store to see if they have them in stock.  I got
my copy of the report from the GPO bookstore in Washington DC without
the 6 week wait when ordering by mail.
-- 
Louis A. Mamakos WA3YMH   University of Maryland, Computer Science Center
 Internet: louie@trantor.umd.edu
 UUCP: {seismo!umcp-cs, ihnp4!rlgvax}!cvl!umd5!louie

------------------------------

Date: 12 Jun 86 16:39:00 GMT
From: hplabs!hpcea!hpccc!dlow@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: how to get Commission Report.
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

# Written 11:26 pm  Jun 11, 1986 by rtech!daveb in hpccc:net.space
# ---------- "how to get Commission Report." ---------- 
# (From Reuters, in the SF Chronicle)
# "The 256 page report by the presidential Commission on the Shuttle
# Challenger Accident is being sold through the Governmen Printing Office
# for $18.00 a copy.
# "The paperback may be obtained by writing to Government Printing Office,
# 710 North Capitol Street, Washington, DC, 20401.  The order number is
# 040-000-00496-3."
# End of text from hpccc:net.space 

Bantam book has published the complete text of the report in a book for
only $14.95! Not only is the book cheaper but it has several fine
astronomical paintings and photographs as well. I got my copy at
Waldenbooks.

                            Danny Low HP-POD 
"If you don't know where you're going, it doesn't matter how you get there." 
                    ...Flying Karamozov Brothers
... but if want to get here, try ...!ucbvax!hplabs!hpccc!dlow

------------------------------

Date: 23 Jun 86 03:48:32 GMT
From: ucbcad!nike!styx!mcb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Michael C. Berch)
Subject: Re: Article on USENET in the for-real press
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <109@ora.UUCP> tim@ora.UUCP (Tim O'Reilly) writes:
> [Discussion of use of real netnews articles in DEC publication...]
> . . .
> I am the author of the article in question; I made the assumption that
> material posted to Usenet was effectively published information, and
> therefore subject to the fair use rule in reprinting material in
> reviews et al.

Right conclusion, wrong legal reasoning. Tim is correct that the
permission of the authors was not necessary. [Whether he should have
done so as a matter of courtesy is orthagonal to the legal question.]
The question is not whether the articles are "published" (they are)
but whether they are in the public domain. Material that is published
without copyright notice, and without evidence that the copyright
notice was inadvertantly omitted, is in the the public domain. [Yes,
there are some trivial exceptions to this, and yes, there are cases
where distribution does not comprise publication, but they're not
involved here.]

Reprinting the articles in question does not fall under the "fair use"
doctrine, which applies only to copyrighted material. Tim (or any of
us) is perfectly free to make any use of public domain Usenet
articles, including republishing them for profit. About the only thing
you CAN'T do is assert intellectual property rights in them and try to
copyright them yourself. [Or use the information therein in an
unlawful manner, etc.]

Michael C. Berch
ARPA: mcb@lll-tis-b.ARPA
UUCP: {ihnp4,dual,sun}!lll-lcc!styx!mcb

------------------------------

Date: 20 Jun 86 19:12:05 GMT
From: tektronix!uw-beaver!tikal!phred!artm@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Shut Up and Do What You're Told
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

I just received the latest issue of THE INSTITUTE, the IEEE's
monthly scandal sheet full of salary surveys, Irwin Feerst's
ravings, and so on.

The front page contains an article in which Donald Hicks, under-
secretary of defense for research and engineering, is qouted as having
stated in an interview that he considers it "dishonest and disloyal"
for any scientist receiving DOD funding to criticize anything the
department is doing, particularly Star Wars.

Unless I'm totally out to lunch, that sounds a hell of a lot like the
kind of managerial thinking that led to the Sargent York boondoggle
and the Challenger disaster..."This is what I want you to do, and I
don't care how foolish it is!!!"

The emperor may not be naked, but he's down to his underwear.

                                       Art Marriott
                                       Physio-Control Corp.


If my employer shares these opinions, it's his own damn problem.

------------------------------

Date: 22 Jun 86 11:41:13 GMT
From: ihnp4!ihnet!eklhad@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (K. A. Dahlke)
Subject: Re: Soviets are 10 years ahead of U.S.
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

The rise in the general level of paranoia is almost frightening:

>   LONDON (AP) -- The Soviet Union has taken an "almost frightening"
> 10-year lead over the United States in its space program, Jane's Space
> Flight Directory says in its latest edition, published Tuesday. ...
>   Once deployed, such a space station would provide the Soviets with a manned
> space-based military capability for missions such as reconnaissance, command
> and control. ...

Are there any significant military functions astronauts can perform
that satellites cannot?  I know of none.  There are better reasons for
developing space stations.  The moon "race" was bad enough; let us not
base another worthy accomplishment on irrational fear, or
nationalistic competition.

>   Turnill said the Soviets, too, have a well-advanced space weapon program. 

Perhaps he has not read the report from the Office of Technology
Assessment on the relative capabilities of the two superpowers, as
they relate to space based defense.  Paranoid cries notwithstanding,
we are even in a couple areas, and ahead in all the rest.

When a program is as fundamentally flawed as SDI, it is amazing to
watch its proponents propose contrived reasons for its continued
existence:

> He said the superpowers may conclude that a joint space defense system would
> threaten neither. 

Joint space defense???  How naive can you get??  Reagan tried to sell
this one too.  I assume, therefore, that all SDI research is
unclassified :-).

> He said that it could also protect both East and West against
> "the growing likelihood of irresponsible random nuclear attack from temporarily
> hostile smaller nations." 

A nice try, but a bit unrealistic.  Any country possessing ICBM
capabilities can circumvent, disable, fool, etc, any fragile space
based defense.  Fortunately, countries with this capability are
somewhat rational.  They are not necessarily moral or ethical, but
they understand that such weapons must never be used again.  Yes,
there is a real threat here, but space based defense won't help.  If a
madman like Khadaffi decides to nuke somebody, he will quietly
construct the bomb in his own country, and smuggle it into the target
area.  The best way to prevent this is good intelligence gathering,
and a reduction in the amount of weapons grade material floating
around our planet.  Of course, the best way to do that is to reduce
the number of nuclear weapons.  Since any ABM system can be saturated,
ABM defense inevitably invites nuclear proliferation, and actually
increases the chance of third party attack, or accident.  SDI is the
most unworkable, dangerous defense program ever seriously proposed,
and that is saying quite a bit.

			Karl Dahlke    ihnp4!ihnet!eklhad

------------------------------

Date: 22 Jun 86 02:59:18 GMT
From: ucbcad!nike!lll-crg!seismo!cmcl2!philabs!linus!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: I heard a meteor
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> ...As I looked up, I saw a bright trail
> that seemed to break up into a couple of pieces and then was gone.
> While watching it, I swear I heard a background hissing, like static,
> or ice melting on a stove...

There have been such reports before, I believe.  The source of the sound
is not understood.

Usenet(n): AT&T scheme to earn
revenue from otherwise-unused	Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
late-night phone capacity.	{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 22 Jun 86 03:18:27 GMT
From: ucbcad!nike!lll-crg!seismo!cmcl2!philabs!linus!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Congress as scapegoat
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> ... These short-duration motors accounted for the big puffs of
> white smoke that seemed to envelop the launcher at staging...

Puffs of smoke?  My recollection is that the first staging of a Saturn V
was normally accompanied by a sheet of flame blasting out sideways from
the rocket!  Most spectacular.

Usenet(n): AT&T scheme to earn
revenue from otherwise-unused	Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
late-night phone capacity.	{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 22 Jun 86 02:57:14 GMT
From: ucbcad!nike!lll-crg!seismo!cmcl2!philabs!linus!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Soviet commercial launches?
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> ...the Soviets might be making their Proton booster... available for
> contract launches. ... Have the Soviets made any specific offers, or named
> any prices, in public?

The Soviets have been quite explicitly advertising Proton as available
for commercial launches for quite some time.  I believe that Intelsat
and others have taken a serious look at it.  Prices are quite low, as
I recall, since the Soviets recognize that people have doubts about
them as launch suppliers.  So far I don't believe they have any
customers.

> ... However, are they really a viable alternative? Since the
> Soviet space program is traditionally shrouded in secrecy, do we
> actually know if their current crop of boosters is more reliable than
> the Western ones now grounded pending review of recent failures? ...

A legitimate concern, although one mitigating factor is that the
Soviets have *far* more expendable launch experience than the West.
Their launch schedule in the last ten years makes the US's look like a
joke.  Their most-used launcher -- not the Proton, but a smaller one
-- has flown over 1000 times, last I heard.  Look at, e.g., the
monthly things-launched list in Spaceflight: typically a dozen Soviet
launches and maybe one US.

Usenet(n): AT&T scheme to earn
revenue from otherwise-unused	Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
late-night phone capacity.	{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date:  Mon, 23-JUN-1986 12:55 CDT
From: W. Skeffington Higgins  <HIGGINS%FNALB.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu>
To: <SPACE@mc.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject:  Exotic particles as energy sources

In volume 6, number 300, Paul Dietz writes:
>Fascinating things happen, though,
>if there are stable supersymmetric charged particles.  Such particles
>and their antiparticles could be stable when interacting with ordinary
>matter, so ordinary nuclei and electrons could be used to neutralize
>the particles for separate storage.  This would solve the antimatter
>storage problem, and might make antimatter rockets possible...

   There have been lots of speculations about neat things you could do
if you had just the right kind of elementary particle: muon-catalyzed
fusion, antimatter rocket fuel, annihilation with beautiful and
anti-beautiful mesons, the tricks played by our old friend the
monopole, materials stuck together with free quarks, and new stuff
using "strange matter".  There are a couple of general problems these
ideas share.
   The world we do physics in is mostly made up of a few types of
stable particles: protons, neutrons, electrons, neutrinos, and
photons. (The jury is out on the Dark Matter, though.)  We have
techniques for manufacturing and measuring a vast zoo of other
particles, some of which might be handy for engineering purposes.
Exotic particles always seem to have drawbacks:
        1) God didn't make very many of them,
                        and/or
        2) They are unstable, with quite short lifetimes.
    So when you think up a nice application to release energy using,
say, a charged stable supersymmetric particle, you face these
difficulties.  Generally you need a pretty large supply of them to do
anything practical, so you must either find a bunch or manufacture
them yourself.  To find some, the new particle has to be stable.  But
if it's stable, then it's been lying around under physicists' noses
all these centuries, and you must explain why it hasn't been detected
before.  On the other hand, to manufacture the particle yourself, you
need to create it using the energy of a nuclear collision, always at
the abysmal efficiencies of particle creation processes.
  To take an example, the natural limit on antiproton creation
efficiency is 10**-4; present techniques used at the CERN and Fermilab
antiproton sources run more like 10**-10.  Commonwealth Edison has to
feed us energy equivalent to ten billion proton MC Squared's in order
to create just one antiproton.  Any decent rocket application for
antimatter needs quantities like a milligram, so you could launch a
rocket if you ran Fermilab for thirty thousand years at our design
rate of a few trillion antiprotons a day.
   For most of these suggested schemes the particles are rarer and
harder to make than antiprotons, or aren't known to exist at all.
(Muon-catalyzed fusion is an exception; muons are realatively cheap to
make, though they must do all their fusions in the couple of
microseconds before they decay.  See the work of Stephen Jones at Los
Alamos.  Fascinating, but not promising.)  Any speculation on
engineering applications of exotic particles should take this into
account.

++++++++++++++++++
For a splendid survey of unusual energy sources, see Bob Forward's study
for the Air Force Rocket Propulsion Laboratory, "Alternate Propulsion Energy
Sources".
Also "Strange Matter", E. Farhi & R. L. Jaffe, Phys. Rev. D, v30, n11, p. 2379

                                                Bill Higgins
                                                Fermilab
                                                HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #322
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA06182; Thu, 26 Jun 86 03:02:02 PDT
	id AA06182; Thu, 26 Jun 86 03:02:02 PDT
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 86 03:02:02 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8606261002.AA06182@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #323

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 323

Today's Topics:
		  Re: how to get Commission Report.
		   Re: Evolution takes millenia...
			 Re: I heard a meteor
		    Re: Armchair Image Processing
			   Hearing a meteor
   Re: Launch Requirements for a Constructing a Large Space Colony
	     Re: Cosmic Quarantine hypothesis -- new idea
		     Re: Space Shuttle Militarism
	    Re: Anybody know how Voyager navigation works?
			   Re: Planet forms
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 24 Jun 86 22:57:29 GMT
From: hplabs!amdahl!jon@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Jonathan Leech)
Subject: Re: how to get Commission Report.
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <34700003@hpccc>, dlow@hpccc writes:
> # "The 256 page report by the presidential Commission on the Shuttle
> # Challenger Accident is being sold through the Governmen Printing Office
> # for $18.00 a copy.
> 
> Bantam book has published the complete text of the report in a book for
> only $14.95! Not only is the book cheaper but it has several fine
> astronomical paintings and photographs as well. I got my copy at
> Waldenbooks.
> 
>                             Danny Low HP-POD 

    Are you sure you're not confusing this with the OTHER presidential
commission which discussed long-term goals in space? Some of the members
were Armstrong, O'Neill, David Webb. I haven't seen their report yet but
it was published by Bantam.

    Jon Leech (...seismo!amdahl!jon)
    Amdahl Corporation
    __@/

------------------------------

Date: 23 Jun 86 19:49:00 GMT
From: ihnp4!alberta!ken@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Ken Hruday)
Subject: Re: Evolution takes millenia...
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <517@scicom.UUCP> wats@scicom.UUCP writes:
> Was it birds that changed color due to soot or moths?

If you are refering to the study that took place in England, it was moths.

                                            Ken Hruday

------------------------------

Date: 23 Jun 86 15:50:22 GMT
From: decwrl!dipirro@louie.dec.com@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Live Long and Perspire)
Subject: Re: I heard a meteor
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>This is really weird. I stepped out of my building in Cambridge aboutB
>1 AM in the morning last weekend. As I looked up, I saw a bright trail
>that seemed to break up into a couple of pieces and then was gone.
> 
>While watching it, I swear I heard a background hissing, like static,
>or ice melting on a stove. I heard the sound simultaneously with
>seeing the flash.

I guess I can admit it now without EVERYONE thinking I'm crazy. About
16 years ago, I was heading for a friends house to prepare for a
meteorite shower that was to take place later that night. A group of
us were going to sit outside on lounge chairs to observe the event. As
I approached his house, I heard a hissing sound from above. As I
looked up, I saw a bright object (roughly the size of the moon) with a
tail go over my head towards my house. Due to the size and sound of
this thing, I braced myself for its impact. I thought for sure that it
would crash within a few miles of where I was standing. However, no
such impact occurred. Later that evening, we did observe the more
typical meteorite shower. What did I see...the big one that got away?
I've never observed anything like it and was never quite sure what it
was (although I always suspected that it was a fairly large meteorite
burning up in the atmosphere). My reactions that night were
instinctive.

Steve DiPirro
Digital Equipment Corp.

------------------------------

Date: 23 Jun 1986 16:07-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Re: Armchair Image Processing

I believe that Landsat data may be available in diskette format
already. There was an article on using microprocessors for serious
image processing research in:

	"Microcomputer Based Satellite Image Processing"
		Ellsworth LeDrew and Steven Franklin
	Dec Professional, pgs 16-33, December 1985

I would presume that much of this work would be applicable for
astronomical image processing work as well.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 23 Jun 86 13:28 PDT
From: Dave Platt <Dave-Platt%LADC@hi-multics.arpa>
To: HQM%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu
Really-To: HQM%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
Cc: Space@s1-b.arpa
Real-Cc: Space@S1-B.ARPA
Subject: Hearing a meteor
Randomness: Make sure all variables are initialized before use.

There are quite a few reports on record similar to yours.  To date,
nobody has clearly demonstrated the mechanism by which the sounds are
produced; they clearly can't be simply sound/shockwaves from the
meteor's passage, because they're heard simultaneously with the
flash/trail, as you mentioned.

I've heard some theories suggesting that the meteor's passage creates
an electromagnetic pulse or current of some sort (the trail is highly
ionized and might serve as an electrical conductor).  Perhaps the EMI
field is inducing subtle motions into electrically-conductive objects
near the ground, or is actually stimulating the nervous system of the
hearer directly.

Similar sounds have been reported in conjunction with strong auroral
displays in the Arctic.  The aurora seems to be generating some very
powerful low-frequency (1-5 Hz) pulsations in the atmosphere, which
induce motion and audible sounds in the snowpack at ground level.

Sorry I can't quote any actual references for this information; I'm
working strictly from memory.  You might want to check a cumulative
index for Science News for the last few years; I think one of the
articles I saw appeared there.

------------------------------

Date: 23 Jun 86 22:16:26 GMT
From: ucbcad!nike!yee@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Re: Launch Requirements for a Constructing a Large Space Colony
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

The following article appeared in the NASA Ames Research Center
Astrogram (the local news letter), Volume XXVIII, Number 20, dated
June 19, 1986:

	NASA Administrator Dr. James C. Fletcher last month announced
the selection of a baseline configuration for the permanently manned
Space Station.  This configuration will be used to guide preliminary
design activities for the remaining eight months of the Phase B
(definition and preliminary design) studies.

	The announcement came after more than a year of study by NASA
Centers and contractor teams during which the overall architecture of
the station was defined and specific subsystems for operating the
Space Station were chosen.

	Acting Associate Administrator for the Office of Space Station
John D.  Hoge described the baseline Space Station configuration at a
news conference in Washington, D.C.

	President Reagan directed NASA in January 1984 to develop a
permanently manned Space Station within a decade.  Definition of Space
Station architecture and subsystems began in April 1985 with the
selection of eight U.S. aerospace companies to perform the details
definition and preliminary design studies under contract to four NASA
Centers.  The Space Station reference configuration used as a starting
point for conducting the definition studies included unmanned
free-flying platforms and a manned base called "power tower".

	Important changes in the reference configuration of the Space
Station have been made in response to user requirements.  The "dual
keel" Space Station provides for a better microgravity environment
(10-5Gs for all modules), increases usable area on the structure for
attaching external payloads, allows better pointing accuracy due to
stiffer structure, and reduces traffic through the laboratory modules.

	As part of their definition activities, NASA and the
contractors also studied the approach of initially man-tending the
Space Station by phasing in the permanently-manned aspects of the
program over a 3-to-5 year period.  The current planning scenario for
the baseline configuration can incorporate this man-tended approach,
enabling a future decision on phasing in the permanently manned
feature of the station.  A report on this man-tended approach has been
submitted to Congress.

	A total of 14 Space Shuttle flights are required for assembly
of the baseline Space Station configuration.  Attached payloads and
the laboratory module are scheduled to be carried up early in the
assembly sequence to provide a useful capability for conducting early
scientific operations prior to the addition of the habitation module.
Two additionally flights from the west coast will be required to place
the planned polar platforms into orbit.

	The current schedule calls for NASA to being development of
the Space Station in October 1986 with the contracts for actual
hardware development slated for negotiation and signature in the
spring of 1987.  First element launch would occur in 1993, with a
useful, permanently habitable station in place in 1994.  The remaining
elements requires to complete assembly of the Space Station would be
be launched over the next two years.

End of Article.

Disclaimer:  The posting of this article neither reflects NASA policy, or that
of my employer, Sterling Software/Informatics.  Errors in this article are
most likely mine, though I have tried to enter it verbatim.  Send flames to
me.

The ASTROGRAM is an official publication of the Ames Research Center,
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Moffett Field,
California, and is published bi-weekly in the interest of Ames
employees.

Editor:  Margie Glazer
Reporters:  NASA Employees

------------------------------

Date: 11 Jun 86 23:33:00 GMT
From: hplabs!hpcea!hpfcdc!hpfcla!ajs@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Cosmic Quarantine hypothesis -- new idea
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> ...establish some requirements for life...  It is fundamental that a
> biological system be largely based on some fluid.

I'm not convinced.  All I'm sure of is the attributes of life, which
Richard Dawkins abstracted in "The Selfish Gene".  In a nutshell, "All
life evolves by the differential survival of replicating entities."

For instance, the living meme system (see the book) is not directly
based on "fluids", but rather on "intelligent minds", whatever THEY
are.  (The only brains we know of are pretty sticky, but so what?)

Alan Silverstein

------------------------------

From: Eugene miya <eugene@ames-aurora.arpa>
Date: 23 Jun 1986 1854-PDT (Monday)
To: arms-d@xx.lcs.mit.edu
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle Militarism

>Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1986  13:19 EDT
>From: LIN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
>Subject: Space Shuttle Militarism
>
>    From: decwrl!decvax!utzoo!henry at ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU
>    > ...  Establishing
>    > space colonies or homesteading on some heretofore unknown hospitable
>    > planet, would require giant leaps in scientific understanding...
>
>    Nonsense.  Most of what is required is straightforward engineering
>    development.  That, plus.. money.
>
>By far the most serious problem, which is NOT a straightforward
>engineering problem, is how to maintain a closed sefl-sustaining
>environment over many years.  That is NOT well-understood by ANYONE.

Having just come from yet another Station meeting. I can confirm what
Herb said.

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

------------------------------

Date:           Mon, 23 Jun 86 10:24:13 PDT
From: Jordan Brown <lcc.jbrown@locus.ucla.edu>
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject:        Re: Anybody know how Voyager navigation works?


> Are the tricks involved written up anyplace?

There are probably hundreds of papers.

> How do you even figure out where something like a Voyager is located and
> which direction it's going? It's a long distance from Earth so radar
> isn't going to help much. Even with an active transponder you only get
> radial information. Are they using something like long baseline
> interferometry to get the angles?

I believe that essentially all orbital-and-higher spacecraft use their own
instruments to figure out where they are.  They have sun sensors and star
sensors, and for orbital types earth sensors.  In fact, they have to be able
to find the earth without help, in case they lose attitude control for some
reason.  If Voyager loses the earth, I believe it goes through a recovery
cycle (long, maybe a day or two?) where it goes and re-finds the sun and,
I believe, Canopus, and then the earth.

------------------------------

Date: 23 Jun 86 22:51:44 GMT
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Stanley Friesen)
Subject: Re: Planet forms
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <1470@brl-smoke.ARPA> wmartin@brl-smoke.ARPA (Will Martin ) writes:
>
> But I can't figure
>out the rationale for the second statement (about 2nd-generation
>rocky planets being very small).
>
>(A first guess would be that, though there were some higher-numbered
>elements around by the time of the second generation, there still were
>not that much of them, and therefore, simply not enough material existed
>yet to form larger planets. This seems too simplistic an explanation,
>though, and I think I just don't know enough to see the real cause.)
>
	Well, actually that is basically my reasoning. It may well be
too simplistic, I am not realy an astronomer, rather I am a biologist.
(Any astronomers out there care to comment on this??)
My real reasoning is, based on my knowledge of biology. The more we
learn about biology, the more inevitable life seems to be given the
right environment. Thus the right environment must either be very
rare, very recent, or there must be other intelligent species in the
galaxy. Since the first seems unlikely based on what we know of
planetary formation, and the last is said to be refuted by the fact
that we have not detected them, that leaves number two. Thus for
*some* reason planets suitable for life must not have formed until
relatively recently.

				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)

UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen
ARPA: ??

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #323
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA10297; Fri, 27 Jun 86 03:02:01 PDT
	id AA10297; Fri, 27 Jun 86 03:02:01 PDT
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 86 03:02:01 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8606271002.AA10297@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #324

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 324

Today's Topics:
			 Re: I heard a meteor
		Re: Soviets are 10 years ahead of U.S.
	     Re: Cosmic Quarantine hypothesis -- new idea
		    Re: Arm chair image processing
		     Re: Amateur Image Processing
		      Re: Congress as scapegoat
		      Re: Congress as scapegoat
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 24 Jun 86 06:22:52 GMT
From: amdcad!cae780!weitek!sci!daver@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: I heard a meteor
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

I remember reading some stuff about the fireball you mention.  It happened
in daytime--it was bright enough that several people who saw it thought it
was an airliner on fire.  Several pictures were taken of it.  It seemed to
be moving quite slowly--actually, it was moving quite rapidly at a
considerable altitude.  No impact area was found, it was assumed to have
been a near miss.  I think it's path was from south-east to north-west--
it was originally sited over Colorado, and later over Washington or Idaho.

this is from memory--real data would be appreciated.


david rickel
cae780!weitek!sci!daver

------------------------------

Date: 24 Jun 86 21:56:35 GMT
From: ucbcad!nike!ll-xn!adelie!axiom!linus!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Soviets are 10 years ahead of U.S.
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> >   ...such a space station would provide the Soviets with a manned
> > space-based military capability for missions such as reconnaissance, command
> > and control. ...
> 
> Are there any significant military functions astronauts can perform
> that satellites cannot?  I know of none.

Sure there are.  To name one -- a prominent one -- assume you are the
President.  There are indications that a Soviet attack may be underway.
Which would you rather believe:  a computer telling you that the satellite
sensors are definitely reporting Soviet ICBM launches, or an astronaut in
orbit telling you that he can see the missile tracks with his binoculars?

> There are better reasons for developing space stations.

No argument there.

> The moon "race" was bad enough; let us not base another worthy accomplishment
> on irrational fear, or nationalistic competition.

To my way of thinking it's the results that count, and competition is
usually good for results.  (It should not be forgotten that motives can
influence methods and hence results, mind you.)

P.S. Can we keep the SDI debates out of net.space, please?

Usenet(n): AT&T scheme to earn
revenue from otherwise-unused	Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
late-night phone capacity.	{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 24 Jun 86 15:05:23 GMT
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Stanley Friesen)
Subject: Re: Cosmic Quarantine hypothesis -- new idea
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <172@petrus.UUCP> karn@petrus.UUCP (Phil R. Karn) writes:
>> > (Pre-Cambrian from 2.7-2.2 billion) lend credence to the theory of
>> > the atmosphere at that time being a "reducing" type that would allow
>
>I'm curious: how accurately do we know the actual composition and density of
>the Earth's primeval reducing atmosphere?

	Not as accurately as we would like, but we are learning more
all the time. However, all lines of evidence available strongly
indicate a reducing atmosphere as the original, whether it was
primarily methane or something else.

> How did it change to an oxidizing
>atmosphere without the new oxygen simply combining with the methane or
>whatever already existed?
>
	It didn't, it changed over *by means of* combining with what
already existed! Essentially, the first oxygen released was *all*
absorbed by reducing compounds in the atmosphere and in the "soil".
The result was lots of Carbon Dioxide, Iron oxides, and Lime. However,
the supply of reducing compounds was finite, and *eventually* they
were all filled up with Oxygen. Then any new Oxygen remained free, and
it started to accumulate in the atmosphere. Since Oxygen is essentially
toxic to life, this was a major ecological disaster. Almost all then
existing life forms became extinct, or were restricted to marginal
environments. However, a whole *new* groups of organisms evolved that
had "figured out" how to metabolize Oxygen into something harmless, or
even into something *useful*. Some of these groups even developed the
ability to use Oxygen to extract energy from organic Carbon compounds,
thus originating what we would call "animals".

				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)

UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen
ARPA: ??

------------------------------

Date: 23 Jun 86 00:59:53 GMT
From: hplabs!hao!noao!terak!anasazi!will@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Arm chair image processing
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <1382@pucc-j> rsk@pucc-j.UUCP (Wombat) writes:
>In article <345@anasazi.UUCP>, will@anasazi.UUCP (Will Fuller) writes:
>> 
>> A non-profit organization is established with close ties to all major
>> international observatories. This organization designates itself a depository
>> of image processing software. The software is all in the public domain, and
>> several versions are mantained for a host of popular personal computers.
>> 
>> After an initial investment in equipment the power of the VLA, MMT, Voyager,
>> or space telescope could be brought into the home.  One could probably expect
>> a good deal of quality discovery from dedicated hobbyists.
>
>While I do not mean to slight the tenacity or ingenuity of amateur astronomers,
>I doubt that any real image processing work could be done by the vast majority
>of them, due to the sheer lack of MIPS (or FLOPS, if you prefer) at their
>disposal.  Image processing is very computationally expensive, and even
>commonplace applications of it are beyond the [practical] capabilities of
>today's personal computers.  [Of course, those with add-on FPA's or AP's
>are exceptions.]
>
Clearly, technology available tomorrow will make IP in the home easier to
imagine.  CD ROM's as distribution media, high res. graphics and monitors
will all become affordable. However, everything has to begin somewhere.

I hope no one minds my reposting some email that I received on this topic.
The first reposting shows a rather ingeneous application of a wimpy home
computer, the second illustrates the professional state of the art.

Bruce Stock (Boeing) wrote:
>I would be willing to submit the image processing program I have written for
>the Heath/Zenith-100 computer.  C-source, various filters and adjustments.

What have you been able to do with that hardware?

>What indeed.  A lot by some lights, a little by others.  But to better answer
>your query:
>
>The Z-100 is a 3 plane machine.  I have "faked" 4 planes by sacrificing spatial
>for briteness resolution.  ie the 640x225x(8 intensity levels) becomes
>320x 225 x(15 intensity levels).  This is done by using 2 screen dots for
>every pixel, and using an algorithm which converts a single pixel to a pair
>of dots of specific intensities.   This approach has the secondary benefit of
>making the screen more rectilinear, ie squares come out square.  The resulting
>image is a long way from "TV quality", but it usually surprizes people who
>see it.
>
>As a side note: up to a point, briteness resolution is more important than
>spatial resolution, at least in terms of image esthetics.  Obviously a 1000x
>1000x (1 intensity level) image is not going to look as good as a 256x256x
>(32 intensity levels).  { Ignoring for the moment such things as halftoning
>techniques} 
>
>The CPU horsepower of my 8088 (even at 8mhz) is not all that grand, tho it
>will do a 3x3 kernal convolution on a 256x256x(256 intensity levels) image
>in about 20 seconds, since only integer math is involved.
>
>The S/W package I wrote does all its processing on 8 plane (256 intensity 
>level) data, then maps the output to 15 intensity levels for display.  It
>provides a couple of hi-pass filters, a couple of low-pass filters, an edge
>detector (laplacian filter), and data brightness and contrast adjustments.
>The S/W could easily be adapted to another computer, provided that the
>programmer has the capability to set pixels to (hopefully many) intensities.

Steve Grandi (NOAO) writes:
>The software used by astronomers for image processing (AIPS from NRAO and IRAF 
>from NOAO for example) is already in the public domain!  But (and it
>is a big but!) is not suitable for PCs.  An 800 x 800 CCD frame takes
>up 1.25 Mbytes; and we are hoping to have 2048 x 2048 chips running at
>the telescope a year from now; those babies produce 8 Mbytes everytime
>you push the button (even more if we can squueze more than 16 bits per
>pixel out of them).  The kind of PCs we are purchasing for astronomers
>to use right at the telescope are Sun-3's with FPAs, 8-Mbytes of
>memory, two Eagle disks (900 Mbytes total) and a 6250 bpi tape drive.
>These PCs list for about $100K.
.
.
.
>Data is unlikely to available in such a fashion.  NASA, for example, says 
>the data is exclusively the observer's for a certain length of time, then 
>any astronomer (I don't know about the general public) can get the data from the
>archive.  NASA, however, has money to support archives, NOAO does not!
>There is no way such data could be supplied from our instruments
>without the cooperation of each and every observer.

I thank both Mr. Stock and Mr. Grandi for their good data.
-- 
William H. Fuller
{decvax|ihnp4|hao}!noao!terak!anasazi!will

------------------------------

Date: 24 Jun 86 02:07:12 GMT
From: hplabs!ames!eugene@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Eugene Miya)
Subject: Re: Amateur Image Processing
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

<Numerous pro and con postings.>
My two cents: to the con postings.
My background: used VICAR developed at JPL, written small image
utilities of my own, and am offered a PhD in astronomy if I write
a system for Lick/UCSC.

We are not quite as bad off as the con people say.  Three years ago
the MIDAS project set out to use existing technology to make
cheap image processing.  The target system price was to be $20K.

This was for LANDSAT BTW.

They came pretty close: $50K for a system using the first 68K (not
68020) SUN mother boards, a tiny 80 MB Fujitsu drive, Ethernet
controllers and Raster Tech FB.  I know people with Raster Tech
hardware in their home (real home).  Perhaps an IBM PC is not really
powerful enough, but VICAR is now running on SUNs (just off the net at
JPL).  The question is how long are you willing to wait?  One poster
pointed out that the sum total of all micros exceeded the maxis by an
order of magnitude: this is true, but cycles do not an IP system make.
You need image interpretation expertise.  This is what is really
lacking.  My fear is that IP software in the wrong hands would waste
real time trying to verify bad artifacts.  IP and image understanding
is no where near as sophisticated as a human interpreter.  All the
cycles ever executed would not equal what even a blurred eyed person
could see.

Go do it.
But build upon that which exists.

From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  com'on do you trust Reply commands with all these different mailers?
  {hplabs,ihnp4,dual,hao,decwrl,tektronix,allegra}!ames!aurora!eugene
  eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA

------------------------------

Date: 22 Jun 86 04:54:41 GMT
From: ucbcad!nike!lll-crg!seismo!harvard!cmcl2!philabs!linus!alliant!spain@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dave Spain)
Subject: Re: Congress as scapegoat
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <15800012@uiucdcsp> silber@uiucdcsp.CS.UIUC.EDU writes:
>
>Lo! How soon they forget.  The Mercury Redstone, atop which Alan Sheppard
>became the "first American in Space" during a 15 minute sub-orbital jaunt,
>was a solid fuel ICBM.  The second flight (Gus "scew the pooch" Grissom)
       ^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^
>was also atop a Redstone.  All later Mercuries were launched via the Atlas.
>I put "first American in Space" in quotes since a number of X-15 pilots
>had broke the 50 mile barrier before.
>
>Ami Silberman


Sorry I'm afraid not. The Mercury-Redstone was a derivitive of the liquid
fueled U.S. Army's Redstone MRBM (Medium Range Ballistic Missile) with a manned
capsule (aka "Mercury Spacecraft") on top. Launcher data follows:

Mercury-Redstone

Development : Chrysler, NASA-MSFC (Marshall Space Flight Center)
Length : 83 ft. (25.3 meters)
Diameter : 5.83 ft. (1.77 meters)
Weight : 66,000 lbs. (29,930 kg) *
Engine : Single Rocketdyne A-7
Propellant : Liquid Oxygen/Ethyl Alcohol + water
Thrust : 78,000 lbs. (35,375 kg.)

Source : The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Space Technology
         Author : Kenneth Gatland
	 Publisher : Harmony Books, a divison of Crown Publishers Inc.
		     One Park Avenue
		     New York, NY 10016

Notes:

* = Not listed whether this weight includes propellant.

------------------------------

Date: 22 Jun 86 03:16:05 GMT
From: ucbcad!nike!lll-crg!seismo!cmcl2!philabs!linus!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Congress as scapegoat
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> ...  The Mercury Redstone, atop which Alan Sheppard
> became the "first American in Space" during a 15 minute sub-orbital jaunt,
> was a solid fuel ICBM...

Nope, sorry, it was a liquid-fueled tactical missile.  One of the von
Braun team's first American products.  It pre-dates all large
solid-fuel rockets and all ICBMs.  A modified Redstone was also the
first stage of the so-called Jupiter C that launched the first US
satellite.  (It was called "Jupiter C" because its official mission
was to test components for the Jupiter missile, and somebody had
noticed that rockets named "Jupiter" got rather higher priority at the
Cape than "Redstone".)  The later Mercury flights used Atlas (liquid
fuels).  Gemini used Titan II, again liquid fuels.

These were all (nearly) off-the-shelf missiles, which were
liquid-fuelled because there were no big solid-fuel missiles.
Minuteman was smaller and came later, and has never been used for
manned launches.

The Apollo boosters -- Saturn 1B and Saturn V -- were all
liquid-fuelled for performance reasons.  The Apollo spacecraft itself
used liquid fuels because its engines had to be restartable (and, in
the case of the LM descent stage, throttleable).

The closest the US has come to using solid fuels for a manned launch
in pre-shuttle days was the USAF Manned Orbiting Laboratory project.
MOL was to be launched on a Titan IIIM much like the USAF's current
heavy Titan launchers, with two very large solid boosters as the first
stage.  MOL itself was a cylindrical mini-Skylab with a Gemini on top,
and the first (only?) crew was intended to ride up on it.  The Gemini
had a hatch in its heatshield for access to the MOL.  (This was tested
on an unmanned flight; the heatshield worked properly despite the
hatch.)  But MOL was cancelled before it ever flew.

All of these systems used solid rockets in minor roles, including
escape towers (Gemini had solid-rocket-powered ejection seats instead)
and separation rockets for staging.

Usenet(n): AT&T scheme to earn
revenue from otherwise-unused	Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
late-night phone capacity.	{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #324
*******************


1,forwarded,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA02841; Sat, 28 Jun 86 03:02:02 PDT
	id AA02841; Sat, 28 Jun 86 03:02:02 PDT
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 86 03:02:02 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8606281002.AA02841@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #325

*** EOOH ***
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 86 03:02:02 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #325

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 325

Today's Topics:
			   Re: L.M. engines
		      Re: Staffed Solid Rockets
		      Re: Congress as scapegoat
		    Re: Arm chair image processing
		 Re: Shut up and do what you're told.
	     Re: Article on USENET in the for-real press
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 24 Jun 86 20:54:11 GMT
From: hplabs!hplabsb!bl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Bruce T. Lowerre)
Subject: Re: L.M. engines
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> Both the L.M. descent engine and ascent engine were throttleable.

Only the descent engine was throttleable.

------------------------------

Date: 24 Jun 86 20:21:16 GMT
From: decwrl!kallis@ink.dec.com@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Staffed Solid Rockets
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

>>> > Thirdly, is it true that the space shuttle is
>>> > the first time men have been placed aboard a solid fueled
>>> > rocket?  If it is, why?

The first time a man was "placed aboard" a solid fueled rocket, from a stand-
point of history, was in the 1300s when a Chinese civil servant, one Wan Ho,
had blackpowder rockets tied to a chair or saddle (accounts vary) and ignited
by coolies.  Unfortunately, it exploded.  (see any Willy Ley book on the
history of space travel for a bit more information.)

Steve Kallis, Jr.

------------------------------

Date: 23 Jun 86 15:56:55 GMT
From: ucbcad!nike!think!mit-eddie!genrad!panda!enmasse!comm!dave@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dave Brownell)
Subject: Re: Congress as scapegoat
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

Me --

> We used solid fuel rockets in the Apollo project, provided by at least
> Thiokol (no salt company involved then).  I think the third stage booster
> was solid, and maybe even some boosters on the lander itself.  I forget
> the exact configurations.

I was half right.  There were no solied *boosters*, but a number of the smaller
rockets (including the escape tower) were solid.  Next time I'll do my homework
before posting.

Dave Brownell		{panda,genrad,harvard}!enmasse!comm!dave

"They sang long into the evening about their Truck and Radio."

------------------------------

Date: 25 Jun 86 16:38:43 GMT
From: uwvax!uwmacc!demillo@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Rob DeMillo)
Subject: Re: Arm chair image processing
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

In article <1382@pucc-j> rsk@pucc-j.UUCP (Wombat) writes:
>
>While I do not mean to slight the tenacity or ingenuity of amateur astronomers,
>I doubt that any real image processing work could be done by the vast majority
>of them, due to the sheer lack of MIPS (or FLOPS, if you prefer) at their
>disposal.  Image processing is very computationally expensive, and even
>commonplace applications of it are beyond the [practical] capabilities of
>today's personal computers.  [Of course, those with add-on FPA's or AP's
>are exceptions.]
>
>The storage requirements for raw and processed image data are equally
>demanding; a single multi-spectral image could easily fill an entire
>floppy disk of the size frequently found on PC's.
>
>Please also note that most existing image processing software is not
>available for any personal computer; the software conversion alone would
>constitute a huge effort.
>-- 
>Rich Kulawiec, pucc-j!rsk, rsk@j.cc.purdue.edu

Don't count on it...I'm authoring one now. 

As a student of astronomy, I have worked on a half-dozen or so image
processing systems. I am currently designing one to work on an Atari
ST series computer. It will, of course, not be anywhere near the power
of a mainframe version - but more than adequate for an "amateur's"
needs, or mine.

It will, of course, require special hardware: some form of
photodensitometer, a hard disk, etc...

Don't sell the non-degreed astronomers short....

                           --- Rob DeMillo 
                               Madison Academic Computer Center
                               ...seismo!uwvax!uwmacc!demillo


          "If you can't trust wimp lawyers anymore,
                 who can you trust...?"
                        -- Mildred Krebs

------------------------------

Date: Thu 26 Jun 86 00:22:26-EDT
From: Richard A. Cowan <COWAN@xx.lcs.mit.edu>
Also-From: ucbcad!nike!ll-xn!adelie!axiom!linus!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Shut up and do what you're told.
To: space@s1-b.arpa, tektronix!uw-beaver!tikal!phred!artm@ucbvax.berkeley.edu


The personal views of Donald Hicks, fortunately, are not the views
of the Pentagon.  The Pentagon came out with several statements
dissociating Pentagon policy from Hicks' statements, and Hicks
got into a lot of trouble because of the controversy.  It was
even rumored that he might resign.  Anyone hear a confirmation
of this?

If there are people out there who agree with with Hicks' views,
though, I'd be interested in hearing from them.

-rich

------------------------------

Date: 24 Jun 86 21:20:46 GMT
From: ucbcad!nike!ll-xn!adelie!axiom!linus!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Article on USENET in the for-real press
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

> The question is not whether the articles are "published" (they are)
> but whether they are in the public domain.

Right so far.

> Material that is published
> without copyright notice, and without evidence that the copyright
> notice was inadvertantly omitted, is in the the public domain.

Please check with a copyright lawyer before doing anything rash.  This
is NOT TRUE in some countries, and I believe the US joined the club a
few years ago.  In those countries, copyright is implicitly present
even in the absence of the notice.  Copyright notices are still
usually used, partly to be more emphatic and partly because not all
countries recognize this rule.  But leaving off the notice no longer
puts material into the public domain.  I know this is true in Canada;
I believe the recent changes in US copyright law make it true in the
US as well.

Usenet(n): AT&T scheme to earn
revenue from otherwise-unused	Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
late-night phone capacity.	{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #325
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA06219; Sun, 29 Jun 86 03:01:53 PDT
	id AA06219; Sun, 29 Jun 86 03:01:53 PDT
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 86 03:01:53 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8606291001.AA06219@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #326

*** EOOH ***
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 86 03:01:53 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #326

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 326

Today's Topics:
    Presidents Commission Report (short form, 50 kbytes) [3 Parts]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Wed, 18 Jun 86 16:14 ???
From: MIKE LINNIG <LINNIG%ti-eg.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject:  Presidents Commission Report (short form, 50 kbytes) [3 Parts]



The "Report at a Glance" as prepared by The Presidential Commission



  WASHINGTON (AP) -- Here is the "Report at a Glance" as prepared by The
Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident. It does not
summarize every chapter of the full report, only those chosen for summary
treatment by the commission.

Preface

  The accident of Space Shuttle Challenger, mission 51-L, interrupting for a
time one of the most productive engineering, scientific and exploratory
programs in history, evoked a wide range of deeply felt public responses. There
was grief and sadness for the loss of seven brave members of the crew; firm
national resolve that those men and women be forever enshrined in the annals of
American heroes, and a determination, based on that resolve and in their
memory, to strengthen the Space Shuttle program so that this tragic event will
become a milestone on the way to achieving the full potential that space offers
to mankind.

  The President, who was moved and troubled by this accident in a very personal
way, appointed an independent commission made up of persons not connected with
the mission to investigate it. The mandate of the commission was to:

  1. Review the circumstances surrounding the accident to establish the
probable cause or causes of the accident; and

  2. Develop recommendations for corrective or other action based upon the
commission's findings and determinations.

  Immediately after being appointed, the commission moved forward with its
investigation and, with the full support of the White House, held public
hearings dealing with the facts leading up to the accident. In a closed society
other options are available; in an open society -- unless classified matters
are involved -- other options are not, either as matter of law or as a
practical matter.

  In this case a vigorous investigation and full disclosure of the facts were
necessary. The way to deal with a failure of this magnitude is to disclose all
the facts fully and openly; to take immediate steps to correct mistakes that
led to the failure; and to continue the program with renewed confidence and
determination.

  The commission construed its mandate somewhat broadly to include
recommendations on safety matters not necessarily involved in this accident but
which require attention to make future flights safer. Careful attention was
given to concerns expressed by astronauts because the Space Shuttle program
will only succeed if the highly qualified men and women who fly the shuttle
have confidence in the system.

  However, the commission did not construe its mandate to require a detailed
investigation of all aspects of the Space Shuttle program; to review budgetary
matters; or to interfere with or supersede Congress in any way in the
performance of its duties. Rather, the commission focused its attention on the
safety aspects of future flights based on the lessons learned from the
investigation with the objective being to return to safe flight.

  Congress recognized the desirability, in the first instance, of having a
single investigation of this national tragedy. It very responsibly agreed to
await the commission's findings before deciding what further action might be
necessary to carry out its responsibilities.

  For the first several days after the accident -- possibly because of the
trauma resulting from the accident -- NASA appeared to be withholding
information about the accident from the public. After the commission began its
work, and at its suggestion, NASA began releasing a great deal of information
that helped to reassure the public that all aspects of the accident were being
investigated and that the full story was being told in an orderly and thorough
manner.

  Following the suggestion of the commission, NASA established several teams of
persons not involved in the mission 51-L launch process to support the
commission and its panels. These NASA teams have cooperated with the commission
in every aspect of its work. The result has been a comprehensive and complete
investigation.

  The commission believes that its investigation and report have been
responsive to the request of the president and hopes that they will serve the
best interests of the nation in restoring the United States space program to
its preeminent position in the world.

The Accident

  Just after liftoff at .678 seconds into the flight, photographic data show a
strong puff of gray smoke was spurting from the vicinity of the aft field joint
on the right Solid Rocket Booster. The two pad 39B cameras that would have
recorded the precise location of the puff were inoperative. Computer graphic
analysis of film from other cameras indicated the initial smoke came from the
270 to 310-degree sector of the circumference of the aft field joint of the
right Solid Rocket Booster. This area of the solid booster faces the External
Tank. The vaporized material streaming from the joint indicated there was not
complete sealing action within the joint.

  Eight more distinctive puffs of increasingly blacker smoke were recorded
between .836 and 2.500 seconds. The smoke appeared to puff upwards from the
joint. While each smoke puff was being left behind by the upward flight of the
shuttle, the next fresh puff could be seen near the level of the joint. The
multiple smoke puffs in this sequence occurred at about four times per second,
approximating the frequency of the structural load dynamics and resultant joint
flexing. Computer graphics applied to NASA photos from a variety of cameras in
this sequence again placed the smoke puffs' origin in the 270-to 310-degree
sector of the original smoke spurt.

  As the Shuttle increased its upward velocity, it flew past the emerging and
expanding smoke puffs. The last smoke was seen above the field joint at 2.733
seconds.

  The black color and dense composition of the smoke puffs suggest that the
grease, joint insulation and rubber O-rings in the joint seal were being burned
and eroded by the hot propellant gases.

  At approximately 37 seconds, Challenger encountered the first of several
high-altitude wind shear conditions, which lasted until about 64 seconds. The
wind shear created forces on the vehicle with relatively large fluctuations.
These were immediately sensed and countered by the guidance, navigation and
control system.

  The steering system (trust vector control) of the Solid Rocket Booster
responded to all commands and wind shear effects. The wind shear caused the
steering system to be more active than on any previous flight.

  Both the shuttle main engines and the solid rockets operated at reduced
thrust approaching and passing through the area of maximum dynamic pressure of
720 pounds per square foot. Main engines had been throttled up to 104 percent
thrust and the Solid Rocket Boosters were increasing their thrust when the
first flickering flame appeared on the right Solid Rocket Booster in the area
of the aft field joint. This first very small flame was detected on image
enhanced film at 58.788 seconds into the flight. It appeared to originate at
about 305 degrees around the booster circumference at or near the aft field
joint.

  One film frame later from the same camera, the flame was visible without
image enhancement. It grew into a continuous, well-defined plume at 59.262
seconds. At about the same time (60 seconds), telemetry showed a pressure
differential between the chamber pressures in the right and left boosters. The
right booster chamber pressure was lower, confirming the growing leak in the
area of the field joint.

  As the flame plume increased in size, it was deflected rearward by the
aerodynamic slipstream and circumferentially by the protruding structure of the
upper ring attaching the booster to the External Tank. These deflections
directed the flame plume onto the surface of the External Tank. This sequence
of flame spreading is confirmed by analysis of the recovered wreckage. The
growing flame also impinged on the strut attaching the Solid Rocket Booster to
the External Tank.

  The first visual indication that swirling flame from the right Solid Rocket
Booster breached the External Tank was at 64.660 seconds when there was an
abrupt change in the shape and color of the plume. This indicated that it was
mixing with leaking hydrogen from the External Tank. Telemetered changes in the
hydrogen tank pressurization confirmed the leak. Within 45 milliseconds of the
breach of the External Tank, a bright sustained glow developed on the
black-tiled underside of the Challenger between it and the External Tank.

  Beginning at about 72 seconds, a series of events occurred extremely rapidly
that terminated the flight. Telemetered data indicate a wide variety of flight
system actions that support the visual evidence of the photos as the shuttle
struggled futilely against the forces that were destroying it.

  At about 72.20 seconds the lower strut linking the Solid Rocket Booster and
the External Tank was severed or pulled away from the weakened hydrogen tank
permitting the right Solid Rocket Booster to rotate around the upper attachment
strut. This rotation is indicated by divergent yaw and pitch rates between the
left and right Solid Rocket Boosters.

  At 73.124 seconds, a circumferential white vapor pattern was observed
blooming from the side of the External Tank bottom dome. This was the beginning
of the structural failure of the hydrogen tank that culminated in the entire
aft dome dropping away. This released massive amounts of liquid hydrogen from
the tank and created a sudden forward thrust of about 2.8 million pounds,
pushing the hydrogen tank upward into the intertank structure. At about the
same time, the rotating right Solid Rocket Booster impacted the intertank
structure and the lower part of the liquid oxygen tank. These structures failed
at 73.137 seconds as evidenced by the white vapors appearing in the intertank
region.

  Within milliseconds there was massive, almost explosive, burning of the
hydrogen streaming from the failed tank bottom and the liquid oxygen breach in
the area of the intertank.

  At this point in its trajectory, while traveling at a Mach number of 1.92 at
an altitude of 46,000 feet, the Challenger was totally enveloped in the
explosive burn. The Challenger's reaction control system ruptured and a
hypergolic burn of its propellants occurred as it exited the oxygen-hydrogen
flames. The reddish brown colors of the hypergolic fuel burn are visible on the
edge of the main fireball. The Orbiter, under severe aerodynamic loads, broke
into several large sections which emerged from the fireball. Separate sections
that can be identified on film include the main engine/tail section with the
engines still burning, one wing of the Orbiter, and the forward fuselage
trailing a mass of umbilical lines pulled loose from the payload bay.


The Cause of the Accident

  The consensus of the commission and participating investigative agencies is
that the loss of the Space Shuttle Challenger was caused by a failure in the
joint between the two lower segments of the right Solid Rocket Motor. The
specific failure was the destruction of the seals that are intended to prevent
hot gases from leaking through the joint during the propellant burn of the
rocket motor. The evidence assembled by the commission indicates that no other
element of the Space Shuttle system contributed to this failure.

  In arriving at this conclusion, the commission reviewed in detail all
available data, reports and records; directed and supervised numerous tests,
analyses, and experiments by NASA, civilian contractors and various government
agencies; and then developed specific failure scenarios and the range of most
probable causative factors.

Findings

  1. A combustion gas leak through the right Solid Rocket Motor aft field joint
initiated at or shortly after ignition eventually weakened and/or penetrated
the External Tank initiating vehicle structural breakup and loss of the Space
Shuttle Challenger during STS Mission 51-L.

  2. The evidence shows that no other STS 51-L Shuttle element or the payload
contributed to the causes of the right Solid Rocket Motor aft field joint
combustion gas leak. Sabotage was not a factor.

  3. Evidence examined in the review of Space Shuttle material, manufacturing,
assembly, quality control, and processing of non-conformance reports found no
flight hardware shipped to the launch site that fell outside the limits of
shuttle design specifications.

  4. Launch site activities, including assembly and preparation, from receipt
of the flight hardware to launch were generally in accord with established
procedures and were not considered a factor in the accident.

  5. Launch site records show that the right Solid Rocket Motor segments were
asembled using approved procedures. However, significant out-of-round
conditions existed between the two segments joined at the right Solid Rocket
Motor aft field joint (the joint that failed).

  a. While the assembly conditions had the potential of generating debris or
damage that could cause O-ring seal failure, these were not considered factors
in this accident.

  b. The diameters of the two Solid Rocket Motor segments had grown at a result
of prior use.

  c. The growth resulted in a condition at time of launch wherein the maximum
gap between the tang and clevis in the region of the joint's O-rings was no
more than .008 inches and the average gap would have been .004 inches.

  d. With a tang-to-clevis gap of .004 inches, the O-ring in the joint would be
compressed to the extent that it pressed against all three walls of the O-ring
retaining channel.

  e. The lack of roundness of the segments was such that the smallest
tang-to-clevis clearance occurred at the initiation of the assembly operation
at positions of 120 degrees and 300 degrees around the circumference of the aft
field joint. It is uncertain if this tight condition and the resultant greater
compression of the O-rings at these points persisted to the time of launch.

  6. The ambient temperature at time of launch was 36 degrees Fahrenheit, or 15
degrees lower than the next coldest previous launch.

  a. The temperature at the 300 degree position on the right aft field joint
circumference was estimated to be 28 degrees plus/minus 5 degrees Fahrenheit.
This was the coldest point on the joint.

  b. Temperature on the opposite side of the right Solid Rocket Booster facing
the sun was estimated to be about 50 degrees Fahrenheit.

  7. Other joints on the left and right Solid Rocket Boosters experienced
similar combinations of tang-to-clevis gap clearance and temperature. It is not
known whether these joints experienced distress during the flight of 51-L

  8. Experimental evidence indicates that due to several effects associated
with the Solid Rocket Booster's ignition and combustion pressures and
associated vehicle motions, the gap between the tang and the clevis will open
as much as .017 and .029 inches at the secondary and primary O-rings,
respectively.

  a. This opening begins upon ignition, reaches its maximum rate of oppening at
about 200-300 milliseconds, and is essentially complete at 600 milliseconds
when the Solid Rocket Booster reaches its operating pressure.

  b. The External Tank and right Solid Rocket Booster are connected by several
struts, including one at 310 degrees near the aft field joint that failed. This
strut's effect on the joint dynamics is to enhance the opening of the gap
between the tang and clevis by about 10-20 percent in the region of 300-320
degrees.

  9. O-ring resiliency is directly related to its temperature.

  a. A warm O-ring that has been compressed will return to its original shape
much quicker than will a cold O-ring when compression is relieved. Thus, a warm
O-ring will follow the opening of the tang-to-clevis gap. A cold O-ring may not.

  b. A compressed O-ring at 75 degrees Fahrenheit is five times more responsive
in returning to its uncompressed shape than a cold O-ring at 30 degrees
Fahrenheit.

  c. As a result it is probable that the O-rings in the right solid booster aft
field joint were not following the opening of the gap between the tang and
clevis at time of ignition.

  10. Experiments indicate that the primary mechanism that actuates O-ring
sealing is the application of gas pressure to the upstream (high-pressure) side
of the O-ring as itsits in its groove or channel.

  a. For this pressure actuation to work most effectively, a space between the
O-ring and its upstream channel wall should exist during pressurization.

  b. A tang-to-clevis gap of .004 inches, as probably existed in the failed
joint, would have initially compressed the O-ring to the degree that no
clearance existed between the O-ring and its upstream channel wall and the
other two surfaces of the channel.

  c. At the cold launch temperature experienced, the O-ring would be very slow
in returning to its normal rounded shape. It would not follow the opening of
the tang-to-clevis gap. It would remain in its compressed position in the
O-ring channel and not provide a space between itself and the upstream channel
wall. Thus, it is probable the O-ring would not be pressure actuated to seal
the gap in time to preclude joint failure due to blow-by and erosion from hot
combustion gases.

  11. The sealing characteristics of the Solid Rocket Booster O-rings are
enhanced by timely application of motor pressure.

  a. Ideally, motor pressure should be applied to actuate the O-ring and seal
the joint prior to significant opening of the tang-to-clevis gap (100 to 200
milliseconds after motor ignition).

  b. Experimental evidence indicates that temperature, humidity and other
variables in the putty compound used to seal the joint can delay pressure
application to the joint by 500 milliseconds or more.

  c. this delay in pressure could be a factor in initial joint failure.

  12. Of 21 launches with ambient temperatures of 61 degrees Fahrenheit or
greater, only four showed signs of O-ring thermal distress; i.e., erosion or
blow-by and soot. Each of the launches below 61 degrees Fahrenheit resulted in
one or more O-rings showing signs of thermal distress.

  a. Of these improper joint sealing actions, one-half occurred in the aft
field joints, 20 percent in the centerfield joints, and 30 percent in the upper
field joints. the division between left and right Solid Rockter Boosters was
roughly equal.

  b. Each instance of thermal O-ring distgress was accompanied by a leak path
in the insulating putty. The leak path connects the rocket's combustion chamber
with the O-ring region of the tang and clevis. Joints that actuated without
incident may also have had these leak paths.

  13. There is a possibility that there was water in the clevis of the STS 51-L
joints since water was found in the STS-9 joints during a destack operation
after exposure to less rainfall than STS 51-L. At time of launch, it was cold
enough that water present in the joint would freeze. Tests show that ice in the
joint can inhibit proper secondary seal performance.

  14. A series of puffs of smoke were observed emanating from the 51-L aft
field joint area of the right Solid Rocket Booster between 0.678 and 2.500
seconds after ignition of the Shuttle Solid Rocket Motors.

  a. The puffs appeared at a frequency of about three puffs per second. this
roughly matches the natural structural frequency of the solids at lift off and
is reflected in slight cyclic changes of the tang-to-clevis gap opening.

  b. The puffs were seen to be moving upward along the surface of the booster
above the aft field joint.

  c. The smoke was estimated to originate at a circumferential position of
between 270 degrees and 315 degrees on the booster aft field joint, emerging
from the top of the joint.

  15. This smoke from the aft field joint at shuttle lift off was the first
sign of the failure of the Solid Rocket Booster O-ring seals on STS 51-L.

  16. The leak was again clearly evident as a flame at approximately 58 seconds
into the flight. It is possible that the leak was continuous but unobservable
or non-existent in portions of the intervening period. It is possible in either
case that thrust vectoring and normal vehicle response to wind shear as well as
planned maneuvers reinitiated or magnified the leakage from a degraded seal in
the period preceding the observed flames. The estimated position of the flame,
centered at a point 307 degrees around the circumference of the aft field
joint, was confirmed by the recovery of two fragments of the right Solid Rocket
Booster.

  a. A small leak could have been present that may have grown to breach the
joint in flame at a time on the order of 58 to 60 seconds after lift off.

  b. Alternatively, the O-ring gap could have been resealed by deposition of a
fragile buildup of aluminum oxide and other combustion debris. This resealed
section of the joint could have been disturbed by thrust vectoring. Space
Shuttle motion and flight loads induced by changing winds aloft.

  c. The winds aloft caused control actions in the time interval of 32 seconds
to 62 seconds into the flight that were typical of the largest values
experienced on previous missions.

Conclusion

  In view of the findings, the commission concluded that the cause of the
Challenger accident was the failure of the pressure seal in the aft field joint
of the right Solid Rocket Motor. The failure was due to a faulty design
unacceptably sensitive to a number of factors. These factors were the effects
of temperature, physical dimensions, the character of materials, the effects of
reusability, processing, and the reaction of the joint to dynamic loading.

[To Be Continued]

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #326
*******************


1,forwarded,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA10114; Mon, 30 Jun 86 03:01:54 PDT
	id AA10114; Mon, 30 Jun 86 03:01:54 PDT
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 86 03:01:54 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8606301001.AA10114@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #327

*** EOOH ***
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 86 03:01:54 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #327

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 327

Today's Topics:
    Presidents Commission Report (short form, 50 kbytes) [Part 2]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Wed, 18 Jun 86 16:14 ???
From: MIKE LINNIG <LINNIG%ti-eg.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject:  Presidents Commission Report (short form, 50 kbytes) [Part 2]

The Contributing Cause of The Accident


  The decision to launch the Challenger was flawed. Those who made that
decision were unaware of the recent history of problems concerning the O-rings
and the joint and were unaware of the initial written recommendation of the
contractor advising against the launch at temperatures below 53 degrees
Fahrenheit and the continuing opposition of the engineers at Thiokol after the
management reversed its position. they did not have a clear understanding of
Rockwell's concern that it was not safe to launch because of ice on the pad. If
the decisionmakers had known all of the facts, it is highly unlikely that they
would have decided to launch 51-L on January 28, 1986.


Findings


  1. The commission concluded that there was a serious flaw in the decision
making process leading up to the launch of flight 51-L. A well structured and
managed system emphasizing safety would have flagged the rising doubts about
the Solid Rocket Booster joint seal. Had these matters been clearly stated and
emphasized in the flight readiness process in terms reflecting the views of
most of the Thiokol engineers and at least some of the Marshall engineers, it
seems likely that the launch of 51-L might not have occurred when it did.

  2. The waiving of launch constraints appears to have been at the expense of
flight safety. There was no system which made it imperative that launch
constraints and waivers of launch contraints be considered by all levels of
management.

  3. The commission is troubled by what appears to be a propensity of
management at Marshall to contain potentially serious problems and to attempt
to resolve them internally rather than comunicate them forward. This tendency
is altogether at odds with the need for Marshall to function as part of a
system working toward successful flight missions, interfacing and communicating
with the other parts of the system that work to the same end.

  4. The commission concluded that the Thiokol Management reversed its position
and recommended the launch of 51-L, at the urging of Marshall and contrary to
the views of its engineers in order to accommodate a major customer.


Findings


  The commission is concerned about three aspects of the ice-on-the-pad issue.

  1. An analysis of all of the testimony and interviews establishes that
Rockwell's recommendation on launch was ambiguous. The commission finds it
difficult, as did Mr. Aldrich, to conclude that there was a no-launch
recommendation. Moreover, all parties were asked specifically to contact
Aldrich or Moore about launch objections due to weather. Rockwell made no phone
calls or further objections to Aldrich or other NASA officials after the 9:00
Mission Management Team meeting and subsequent to the resumption of the
countdown.

  2. The commission is also concerned about the NASA response to the Rockwell
position at the 9:00 a.m. meeting. While it is understood that decisions have
to be made in launching a shuttle, the commission is not convinced Levels I and
II appropriately considered Rockwell's concern about the ice. However ambiguous
Rockwell's position was, it is clear that they did tell NASA that the ice was
an unknown condition. Given the extent of the ice on the pad the admitted
unknown effect of the Solid Rocket Motor and Space Shuttle Main Engines
ignition on the ice, as well as the fact that debris striking the Orbiter was a
potential flight safety hazard, the commission finds the decision to launch
questionable under those circumstances. In this situation, NASA appeared to be
requiring a contractor to prove that it was not safe to launch, rather than
proving it was safe. Nevertheless, the commission has determined that the ice
was not a cause of the 51-L accident and does not conclude that NASA's decision
to launch specifically overrode a no-launch recommendation by an element
contractor.

  3. The commission concluded that the freeze protection plan for launch pad
39B was inadequate. The commission believes that the severe cold and presence
of so much ice on the fixed service structure made it inadvisable to launch on
the morning of January 28, and that margins of safety were whittled down too
far.

  Additionally, access to the crew energency slide wire baskets was hazardous
due to ice conditions. Had the crew been required to evacuate the Orbiter on
the launch pad, they would have been running on an icy surface. The commission
believes the crew should have been made aware of the situation, and based on
the seriousness of the condition, greater consideration should have been given
to delaying the launch.


An Accident Rooted in History


  
Early Design


  The Space Shuttle's Solid Rocket Booster problem began with the faulty design
of its joint and increased as both NASA and contractor management first failed
to recognize it as a problem, then failed to fix it and finally treated it as
an acceptable flight risk.

  Morton Thiokol, Inc., the contractor, did not accept the implication of tests
early in the program that the design had a serious and unanticipated flaw. NASA
did not accept the judgment of its engineers that the design was unacceptable,
and as the joint problems grew in number and severity NASA minimized them in
management briefings and reports. Thiokol's stated position was that "the
condition is not desirable but is acceptable."

  Neither Thiokol nor NASA expected the rubber O-rings sealing the joints to be
touched by hot gases of motor ignition, much less to be partially burned.
However, as tests and then flights confirmed damage to the sealing rings, the
reaction by both NASA and Thiokol was to increase the amount of damage
considered "acceptable." At no time did management either recommend a redesign
of the joint or call for the shuttle's grounding until the problem was solved.


  
Findings


  The genesis of the Challenger accident -- the failure of the joint of the
right Solid Rocket Motor -- began with decisions made in the design of the
joint and in the failure by both Thiokol and NASA's Solid Rocket Booster
project office to understand and respond to facts obtained during testing.

  The commission has concluded that neither Thiokol nor NASA responded
adequately to internal warnings about the faulty seal design. Furthermore,
Thiokol and NASA did not make a timely attempt to develop and verify a new seal
after the initial design was shown to be deficient. Neither organization
developed a solution to the unexpected occurrences of O-ring erosion and
blow-by even though this problem was experienced frequently during the shuttle
flight history. Instead, Thiokol and NASA management came to accept erosion and
blow-by as unavoidable and an acceptable flight risk. Specifically, the
commission has found that:

  1. The joint test and certification program was inadequate. There was no
requirement to configure the qualifications test motor as it would be in
flight, and the motors were static tested in a horizontal position, not in the
vertical flight position.

  2. Prior to the accident, neither NASA nor Thiokol fully understood the
mechanism by which the joint sealing action took place.

  3. NASA and Thiokol accepted escalating risk apparently because they "got
away with it last time." As Commissioner Feynman observed, the decision making
was:

  "a kind of Russian roulette . . . . (The shuttle) flies (with O-ring erosion)
and nothing happens. Then it is suggested, therefore, that the risk is no
longer so high for the next flights. We can lower our standards a little bit
because we got away with it last time . . . . You got away with it, but it
shouldn't be done over and over again like that."

  4. NASAS's system for tracking anomalies for Flight Readiness Reviews failed
in that, despite a history of persistent O-ring erosion and blow-by, flight was
still permitted. It failed again in the strange sequence of six consecutive
launch constraint waivers prior to 51-L, permitting it to fly without any
record of a waiver, or even of an explicit constraint. Tracking and continuing
only anomalies that are "outside the data base" of prior flight allowed major
problems to be removed from, and lost by, the reporting system.

  5. The O-ring erosion history presented to Level I at NASA Headquarters in
August 1985 was sufficiently detailed to require corrective action prior to the
next flight.

  6. A careful analysis of the flight history of O-ring performance would have
revealed the correlation of O-ring damage and low temperature. Neither NASA nor
Thiokol carried out such an analysis; consequently, they were unprepared to
properly evaluate the risks of launching the 51-L mission in conditions more
extreme than they had encountered before.


The Silent Safety Program


  The commission was surprised to realize after many hours of testimony that
NASA's safety staff was never mentioned. No witness related the approval or
disapproval of the reliability engineers, and none expressed the satisfaction
or dissatisfaction of the quality assurance staff. No one thought to invite a
safety representative or a reliability and quality assurance engineer to the
January 27, 1986, teleconference between Marshall and Thiokol. Similarly, there
was no representative of safety on the Mission Management Team that made key
decisions during the countdown on January 28, 1986. The commission is concerned
about the symptoms that it sees.

  The unrelenting pressure to meet the demands of an accelerating flight
schedule might have been adequately handled by NASA if it had insisted upon the
exactingly thorough procedures that were its hallmark during the Apollo
program. An extensive and redundant safety program comprising interdependent
safety, reliability and quality assurance functions existed during and after
the lunar program to discover any potential safety problems. Between that
period and 1986, however, the program became ineffective. this loss of
effectiveness seriously degraded the checks and balances essential for
maintaining flight safety.

  On April 3, 1986, Arnold Aldrich, the Space Shuttle program manager, appeared
before the commission at a public hearing in Washington, D.C. He described five
different comunication or organization failures that affected the launch
decision on January 28, 1986. Four of those failures relate directly to faults
within the safety program. these faults include a lack of problem reporting
requirements, inadequate trend analysis, misrepresentation of criticality and
lack of involvement in critical discussions. A properly staffed, supported, and
robust safety organization might well have avoided these faults and thus
eliminated the communication failures.

  NASA has a safety program to ensure that the communication failures to which
Mr. Aldrich referred do not occur. In the case of mission 51-L, that program
fell short.


Findings


  1. Reductions in the safety, reliability and quality assurance work force at
Marshall and NASA Headquarters have seriously limited capability in those vital
functions.

  2. Organizational structures at Kennedy and Marshall have placed safety,
reliability and quality assurance offices under the supervision of the very
organizations and activities whose efforts they are to check.

  3. Problem reporting requirements are not concise and fail to get critical
information to the proper levels of management.

  4. Little or no trend analysis was performed on O-ring erosion and blow-by
problems.

  5. As the flight rate increased, the Marshall safety, reliability and quality
assurance work force was decreasing, which adversely affected mission safety.

  6. Five weeks after the 51-L accident, the criticality of the Solid Rocket
Motor field joint was still not properly documented in the problem reporting
system at Marshall.


Pressures on the System


  With the 1982 completion of the orbital flight test series, NASA began a
planned acceleration of the Space Shuttle launch schedule. One early plan
contemplated an eventual rate of a mission a week, but realism forced several
downward revisions. In 1985, NASA published a projection calling for an annual
rate of 24 flights by 1990. Long before the Challenger accident, however, it
was becoming obvious that even the modified goal of two flights a month was
overambitious.

  In establishing the schedule, NASA had not provided adequate resources for
its attainment. As a result, the capabilities of the system were strained by
the modest nine-mission rate of 1985, and the evidence suggests that NASA would
not have been able to accomplish the 15 flights scheduled for 1986. These are
the major conclusions of a commission examination of the pressures and problems
attendant upon the accelerated launch schedule. 

  
Findings 

  1. The capabilities of the system were stretched to the limit to support the
flight rate in winter 1985/1986. Projections into the spring and summer of 1986
showed a clear trend; the system, as it existed, would have been unable to
deliver crew training software for scheduled flights by the designated dates.
The result would have been an unacceptable compression of the time available
for the crews to accomplish their required training.

  2. Spare parts are in critically short supply. The shuttle program made a
conscious decision to postpone spare parts procurements in favor of budget
items of perceived higher priority. Lack of spare parts would likely have
limited flight operations in 1986.

  3. Stated manifesting policies are not enforced. Numerous late manifest
changes (after the cargo integration review) have been made to both major
payloads and minor payloads throughout the shuttle program.

  -- Late changes to major payloads or program requirements can require
extensive resources (money, manpower, facilities) to implement.

  -- If many late changes to "minor" payloads occur, resources are quickly
absorbed.

  -- Payload specialists frequently were added to a flight well after announced
deadlines.

  -- Late changes to a mission adversely affect the training and development of
procedures for subsequent missions.

  4. The scheduled flight rate did not accurately reflect the capabilities and
resources.

  -- The flight rate was not reduced to accommodate periods of adjustment in
the capacity of the work force. There was no margin in the system to
accommodate unforeseen hardware problems.

  -- Resources were primarily directed toward supporting the flights and thus
not enough were available to improve and expand facilities needed to support a
higher flight rate.

  5. Training simulators may be the limiting factor on the flight rate: the two
current simulators cannot train crews for more than 12-15 flights per year.

  6. When flights come in rapid succession, current requirements do not ensure
that critical anomalies occurring during one flight are identified and
addressed appropriately before the next flight.


  
Other Safety Considerations


  In the course of its investigation, the commission became aware of a number
of matters that played no part in the mission 51-L accident but nonetheless
hold a potential for safety problems in the future.

  Some of these matters, those involving operational concerns, were brought
directly to the commission's attention by the NASA astronaut office. They were
the subject of a special hearing.

  Other areas of concern came to light as the commission pursued various lines
of investigation in its attempt to isolate the cause of the accident. These
inquiries examined such aspects as the development and operation of each of the
elements of the Space Shuttle -- the Orbiter, its main engines and the External
Tank; the procedures employed in the processing and assembly of 51-L, and
launch damage.

  This chapter examines potential risks in two general areas. The first
embraces critical aspects of a shuttle flight; for example, considerations
related to a possible premature mission termination during the ascent phase and
the risk factors connected with the demanding approach and landing phase. The
other focuses on testing, processing and assembling the various elements of the
shuttle.


Ascent: A Critical Phase


  The events of flight 51-L dramatically illustrated the dangers of the first
stage of a Space Shuttle ascent. The accident also focused attention on the
issues of Orbiter short capabilities and crew escape. Of particular concern to
the commission are the current abort capabilities, options to improve those
capabilities, options for crew escape and the performance of the range sfety
system.

  It is not the commission's intent to second-guess the Space Shuttle design or
try to depict escape provisions that might have saved the 51-L crew. In fact,
the events that led to destruction of the Challenger progressed very rapidly
and without warning. Under those circumstances, the commission believes it is
highly unlikely that any of the systems discussed below, or any combination of
those systems, would have saved the flight 51-L crew.


Findings


  1. The Space Shuttle System wa not designed to survive a failure of the Solid
Rocket Boosters. There are no corrective actions that cn be taken if the
boosters do not operate properly after ignition, i.e., there is no ability to
separate an Orbiter safely from thrusting boosters and no ability for the crew
to escape the vehicle during first-stage ascent.

  -- Neither the Mission Control Team nor the 51-L crew had any warning of
impending disaster.

  -- Even if there had been warning, there were no actions available to the
crew or the Mission Control Team to avert the disaster.

Landing Another Critical Phase

  The consequences of faulty performance in any dynamic and demanding flight
environment can be catastrophic. The commission was concerned that an
insufficient safety margin may have existed in areas other than shuttle ascent.
Entry and landing of the shuttle are dynamic anbd demanding with all the risks
and complications inherent in flying a heavyweight glider with a very steep
glide path. Since the shuttle crew cannot divert to any alternate landing site
after entry, the landing decision must be both timely and accurate. In
addition, the landing gear, which includes wheels, tires and brakes, must
function properly.

  In summary, although there are valid programmatic reasons to land routinely
at Kennedy, there are concerns that suggest that this is not wise under the
present circumstances. While planned landings at Edwards carry a cost in
dollars and days, the realities of weather cannot be ignored. Shuttle program
officials must recognize that Edwards is a permanent, essential part of the
program. The cost associated with regular, scheduled landing and turnaround
operations at Edwards is thus a necessary program cost.

  Decisions governing Space Shuttle operations must be consistent with the
philosophy that unnecessary risks have to be eliminated. Such decisions cannot
be made without a clear understanding of margins of sfety in each part of the
system.

  Unfortunately, margins of safety cannot be assured if performance
characteristics are not thoroughly understood, nor can they be deduced from a
previous flight's "success."

  The Shuttle Program cannot afford to operate outside its experience in the
areas of tires, brakes, and weather, with the capabilities of ther system
today. Pending a clear understanding of all landing and deceleration systems,
and a resolution of the problems encountered to date in shuttle landings, the
most conservative course must be followed in order to minimize risk during this
dynamic phase of flight.


  
Shuttle Elements


  The Space Shuttle Main Engine teams at Marshall and Ricketdyne have developed
engines that have achieved their performance goals and have performed extremely
well. Nevertheless the main engines continue to be highly complex and critical
components of the shuttle that involve an element of risk principally because
importnt components of the engines degrade more rapidly with flight use than
anticipated. Both NASA and Rocketdyne have taken steps to contain that risk. An
important aspect of the main engine program has been the extensive "hot fire"
ground tests. Unfortunately, the vitality of the test program has been reduced
because of budgetary constraints.

  The number of engine test firings per month has decreased over the past two
years. Yet this test program has not yet demonstrated the limits of engine
operation parameters or included tests over the full operating envelope to show
full engine capability. In addition, tests have not yet been deliberately
conducted to the point of failure to determine actual engine operating margins.

[To Be Continued]

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #327
*******************


1,forwarded,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA15211; Tue, 1 Jul 86 03:01:53 PDT
	id AA15211; Tue, 1 Jul 86 03:01:53 PDT
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 86 03:01:53 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8607011001.AA15211@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #328

*** EOOH ***
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 86 03:01:53 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #328

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 328

Today's Topics:
    Presidents Commission Report (short form, 50 kbytes) [Part 3]
			 RE: I heard a meteor
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Wed, 18 Jun 86 16:14 ???
From: MIKE LINNIG <LINNIG%ti-eg.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject:  Presidents Commission Report (short form, 50 kbytes) [Part 3]

Recommendations


  The commission has conducted an extensive investigation of the Challenger
accident to determine the probable cause and necessary corrective actions.
Based on the findings and determinations of its investigation, the commission
has unanimously adopted recommendations to help assure the return to safe
flight.

  The commission urges that the administrator of NASA submit, one year from
now, a report to the president on the progress that NASA has made in effecting
the commission's recommendations set forth below:


ONE


  Design. The faulty Solid Rocket Motor joint and seal must be changed. this
could be a new design eliminating the joint or a redesign of the current joint
and seal. No design options should be prematurely precluded because of
schedule, cost or reliance on existing hardware. All Solid Rocket Motor joints
should satisfy the following requirements:

  -- The joints should be fully understood, tested and verified.

  -- The integrity of the structure and of the seals of all joints should be
not less than that of the case walls throughout the design envelope.

  -- The integrity of the joints should be insensitive to:

  -- Dimensional tolerances.

  -- Transportation and handling.

  -- Assembly procedures.

  -- Inspection and test procedures.

  -- Environmental effects.

  -- Internal case operating pressure.

  -- Recovery and reuse effects.

  -- Flight and water impact loads.

  -- The certification of the new design should include:

  -- Tests which duplicate the actual launch configuration as closely as
possible.

  -- Full consideration should be given to conducting statis firings of the
exact flight configuration in a vertical attitude.

  Independent Oversight. The Administrator of NASA should request the national
Research Council to form an independent Solid Rocket Motor design oversight
committee to implement the commission's design recommendations and oversee the
design effort. This committee should:

  -- Review and evaluate certification requirements.

  -- Provide technical oversight of the design, test program and certification.

  -- Report to the Administrator of NASA on the adequacy of the design and make
appropriate recommendations.


TWO


  Shuttle Management Structure. The Shuttle Program Structure should be
reviewed. the project managers for the various elements of the shuttle program
felt more accountable to their center management than to the shuttle program
organization. Shuttle element funding, work package definition, and vital
program information frequently bypass the National STS (Shuttle) Program
Manager.

  A redefinition of the Program Manager's responsibility is essential. This
redefinition should give the Program Manager the requisite authority for all
ongoing STS operations. Program funding and all Shuttle Program work at the
centers should be placed clearly under the Program Manager's authority.

  Astronauts in Management. The commission observes that there appears to be a
departure from the philosophy of the 1960s and 1970s relating to the use of
astronauts in management positions. These individuals brought to their
positions flight experience and a keen appreciation of operations and flight
safety.

  -- NASA should encourage the trqansition of qualified astronauts into agency
management positions.

  -- The function of the Flight Crew Operations director should be elevated in
the NASA organization structure.

  Shuttle Safety Panel. NASA should establish an STS Safety Advisory Panel
reporting to the STS Program Manager. The charter of this panel should include
shuttle operational issues, launch commit criteria, flight rules, flight
readiness and risk management. The panel should include representation from the
safety organization, mission operations, and the astronaut office.

THREE


  Criticality Review and Hazard Analysis. NASA and the primary shuttle
contractors should review all Criticality 1, 1R, 2, and 2R items and hazard
analyses. This review should identify those items that must be improved prior
to flight to ensure mission success and flight safety. An Audit Panel,
appointed by the National Research Council, should verify the adequacy of the
effort and report directly to the Administrator of NASA.


FOUR


  Safety Organization. NASA should establish an Office of Safety, Reliability
and Quality Assurance to be eaded by an Associate Administrator, reporting
directly to the NASA Administrator. It would have direct authority for safety,
reliability, and quality assurance throughout the agency. The office should be
assigned the work force to ensure adequate oversight of its functions and
should be independent of other NASA functional and program responsibilities.

  The responsibilities of this office should include:

  -- The safety, reliability and quality assurance functions as they relate to
all NASA activities and programs.

  -- Direction of reporting and documentation of problems, problem resolution
and trends associated with flight safety.


FIVE


  Improved Communications. The commission found that Marshall Space Flight
Center project managers, because of a tendency at Marshall to management
isolation, failed to provide full and timely information bearing on the sfety
of flight 51-L to other vital elements of shuttle program management.

  -- NASA should take energetic steps to eliminate this tendency at Marshall
Space Flight Center, whether by changes of personnel, organization,
indoctrination or all three.

  -- A policy should be developed which governs the imposition and removal of
shuttle launch constraints.

  -- Flight Readiness Reviews and Mission Management Team meetings should be
recorded.

  -- The flight crew commander, or a designated representative, should attend
the Flight Readiness Review, participate in acceptance of the vehicle for
flight, and certify that the crew is properly prepared for flight.


SIX


  Landing Safety. NASA must take actions to improve landing safety.

  -- The tire, brake and nosewheel steering systems must be improved. these
systems do not have sufficient safety margin, particularly at abort landing
sites.

  -- The specific conditions under which planned landings at Kennedy would be
acceptable should be determined. Criteria must be established for tires, brakes
and nosewheel steering. Until the systems meet those criteria in high fidelity
testing that is verified at Edwards, landing at Kennedy should not be planned.

  -- Committing to a specific landing site requires that landing area weather
be forecast more than an hour in advance. During unpredictable weather periods
at Kennedy,, program officials should plan on Edwards landings. Increased
landings at Edwards may necessitate a dual ferry capability.


SEVEN


  Launch Abort and Crew Escape. The shuttle program management considered
first-stage abort options and crew escape options several times during the
history of the program, but because of limited utility, technical
infeasibility, or program cost and schedule, no systems were implemented. The
commission recommends that NASA:

  -- Make all efforts to provide a crew escape system for use during controlled
gliding flight.

  -- Make every effort to increase the range of flight conditions under which
an emergency runway landing can be successfully conducted in the event that two
or three main engines fail early in ascent.


EIGHT


  Flight Rate. The nation's reliance on the shuttle as its principal space
launch capability created a relentless pressure on NASA to increase the flight
rate. Such reliance on a single launch capability should be avoided in the
future.

  NASA must establish a flight rate that is consistent with its resources. A
firm payload assignment policy should be established. The policy should include
rigorous controls on cargo manifest changes to limit the pressures such changes
exert on schedules and crew training.


NINE


  Maintenance Safeguards. Installation, test, and maintenance procedures must
be especially rigorous for Space shuttle items designated Criticality 1. NASA
should establish a system of analyzing and reporting performance trends of such
items.

  Maintenance procedures for such items should be specified in the Critical
Items List, especially for those such as the liquid-fueled main engines, which
require unstinting maintenance and overhaul.

  With regard to the Orbiters, NASA should:

  -- Develop and execute a comprehensive maintenance inspection plan.

  -- Perform periodic structural inspections when scheduled and not permit them
to be waived.

  -- Restore and support the maintenance and spare parts programs, and stop the
practice of removing parts from one Orbiter to supply another.


CONCLUDING THOUGHT


  The commission urges that NASA continue to receive the support of the
Administration and the nation. The agency constitutes a national resource that
plays a critical role in space exploration and development. It also provides a
symbol of national pride and technological leadership.

  The commission applauds NASA's spectacular achievements of the past and
anticipates impressive achievements to come. the findings and recommendations
presented in this report are intended to contribute to the future NASA
successes that the nation both expects and requires as the 21st century
approaches.

------------------------------

Date: 27 JUN 1986 18:50:49 EST
From: <MARKS-ROGER@yale.arpa>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa
Cc: MARKS-ROGER@yale.arpa
Subject:  RE: I heard a meteor
Reply-To: <MARKS-ROGER@YALE.ARPA>

>Seems like I remember reading in Sky & Telescope Magazine many years ago
>(~10 I'd say) a special article on a rather spectacular meteor that passed
>across the Northwest of the U.S. for many hundreds of miles.
>
>If memory serves me right, at one point, some people camping out high up in
>the Rockies reported not only seeing the meteor but could actually HEAR it as
>well. I believe they mentioned hearing a hissing sound similar to one you
>mentioned. Many photos of the meteor were published, and I think it was
>actually referred to as a fireball due to its duration. Speculation was that
>it was a fairly sizeable mass coming down from space. No known impacts were
>reported.
>
>Can anyone in netland confirm this or is my memory playing tricks on me?

Several reports of the meteor in question appeared in Sky and Telescope, 
the most comprehensive of which was "A Meteorite That Missed the Earth"
by Luigi G. Jacchia (July 1974, p. 4-9).  The meteor arrived at about 2:30
p.m. local time on August 10, 1972 and was visible for a distance of about 
900 miles from Salt Lake City to Edmonton, a travel time of about 100 
seconds.  A number of color photographs and at least two segments of 
Super-8 film were shot of it (many nice photos are in Jacchia's article).
Data on the trajectory were collected by a Montana surveyor and a satellite-
borne infrared radar.  The object apparently skipped off the atmosphere 
with a minimum height of about 60 km.  Estimates of the size and mass vary
widely, but the kinetic energy of the object was comparable to that of an
nuclear bomb.

The only sounds referred to by Jacchia were sonic booms heard ("after
passage") near the midpoint of the visible trajectory; observers near the 
ends apparently heard nothing (Jacchia used this fact in his analysis of the 
minimum altitude, claiming that shock waves above 60 km are refracted up).
The delayed boom seems to be unrelated to the instantaneous hiss described
recently on the net.  Note that the absence of hiss during the period of
observation does not contradict any connection between the hiss and EM noise 
generation in the ionosphere, for the meteor was down around 75 km when 
first observed.

                                    --Roger Marks
-------

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #328
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA18998; Wed, 2 Jul 86 03:01:53 PDT
	id AA18998; Wed, 2 Jul 86 03:01:53 PDT
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 86 03:01:53 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8607021001.AA18998@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #329

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 329

Today's Topics:
		    Re: Armchair image processing
		 Re: Shut Up and Do What You're Told
		     New space technology needed?
			Pictures of spacecraft
		     A response to Dr. Van Allen
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 28 Jun 1986 20:07-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Re: Armchair image processing


Even if it is assumed that really serious work requires large work
stations, that only delays things by a few years at most. CMU is
involved in a project to make what is called a 3M processor (1 million
pixels, 1 MIP, 1 MB ram ) available at reasonable prices for all
students within the next few years. Such a processor is on the order of
a SUN in capacity. I think it is fair to expect that such systems will
be available at less than $3K within a very short time. In addition,
the software will be far more sophisticated than what the average home
PC has at the present time. Consider putting these machines with full
blown Berkely 4.2 and MIT's X-window in the hands of amateur
astronomers. I would expect the equivalent of Cray I's (with accessible
software) in the home by the mid 90's. And I might be being overly
pessimistic on the FLOPS potential. It could well be a system measured
it Mega-LIPS instead.

Also keep in mind that many so called 'amateurs' in astronomy are
professionals who designed the equipment and software the
'professionals' are using. I suspect there could be a renaissance in
the importance of amateur astronomy, particularly when you combine this
kind of computing power with the Dobsonian light buckets that
are cheaply available these days, and with the public domain (and
transmitted from space in an easy to rcv format) data that will be
available from the ISRG amateur space telescope when it goes up.

With the commercialization of LANDSAT, and the already existing
SpotImage system, there is going to be a big push for the creation of
sophisticated image processing software for personal computers. I know
that Teramar Inc out in the Valley was working on such software for
IBM-PC's about 4 years ago. So I think we can consider it a given that
very sophisticated hardware and software WILL be available to anyone
who wants it and who is willing to spend a few $K's.

				so many stars, so few astronomers...
				Dale Amon

------------------------------

To: tektronix!uw-beaver!tikal!phred!artm@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Cc: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: hester=aticse@ICSE.UCI.EDU
Subject: Re: Shut Up and Do What You're Told
In-Reply-To: Your message of 20 Jun 86 19:12:05 GMT.
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 86 10:20:49 -0800
From: Jim Hester <hester@icse.uci.edu>

There is a subtle difference.

In situations like the shuttle, engineers who had jobs on the shuttle,
and believed that it could be made to work (if done right), were then
told to hold their opinions and do it wrong.  The key point here is
the fact that they were told to do something that they knew was dangerous.

Hicks, on the other hand, made the main point that he didn't want to
"hire" people in the first place who did not believe that the project
could not work.  As far as that goes, he makes sense.  I wouldn't want
someone on a developement team who didn't think it could be done,
either.  I may listen to why he thinks it can't, but then I may (or may
not) still choose to let those who think it can give it a shot.  Many
scientific discoveries were made by trying/testing what was thought to
be known (like whether or not heavier objects fall faster, or whether or
not one could sail around the world).

The problem is that he extends his policy to refuse grants to ANYONE on
ANY PROJECT who disapproves of ANY OTHER PROJECT that he (Hicks) may be
funding (on the grounds of national disloyalty, among other things).
This is the part that is obscene.  He is not forcing people to work on
projects they think are dangerous, but he is using his power to censor
their comments on projects which he has decided to go ahead with.

Don't get me wrong: I still (on an emotional level) think that he
deserves things which are illegal in this country, and I certainly
don't want him in charge of anything of importance.  But his policy is
not one of forcing bad work; in fact requiring people who think it can
be done would, if anything, usually improve the quality.
His unacceptable policy was merely of refusing to allow continueing
discussian, amont the outside doubters, concerning the viability of his
projects.  He should be willing to let them continue, in case they come
up with convincing arguments, and he should certainly NOT use his power
in that fashon.  It is still possible, however, that within his projects
he allows/encourages his engineers to to the best job they can.

The guy may not be some people's opinion of an exemplory human being,
but let's not demean ourselves by accusing him of things he didn't do.

Jim Hester (hester@ics.uci.edu)

------------------------------

To: space@mc.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: New space technology needed?
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 86 16:18:54 -0500
From: James R. Van Zandt <jrv@mitre-bedford.arpa>

> The concept is sort of like "jack and the beanstalk", where there would be
> an enormously long cable (whatever our best and most reasonable technology
> is - nylon or steel or whatever) that disappeared into the sky.  It would
> be very safe for ANYONE to visit space, using an elevator-type car that
> simply climbed up the cable.   ...

Yes, this has come up before.  Unfortunately, we don't have materials with 
a high enough strength to weight ratio.  In order to support itself from 
above, the beanstalk has to increase in cross section exponentially when 
near the ground:
          area(h) = area(ground)*exp(h/H)

where
          H = S/rho/g                        4.3 km
          S = yield stress                   48e3 psi
          rho = density                      7.85 g/cm^3
          g = gravitational acceleration     9.8 m/sec/sec

(the values are for "AISI C1020 hot-worked steel").  In other words, the 
cross section would have to increase by a factor of 2.7 for each 4.3 km 
of altitude, or by a factor of 1.6e20 in 200 km.  Other materials are 
better, but not nearly good enough.

However, there are two other ideas that bear more thought.  One is 
putting a "chain" into low earth orbit, accelerating it so it's 
under tension, and hanging a stationary platform on it just above the 
atmosphere.  You'd still need a beanstalk, but only to low earth orbit 
rather than to geostationary orbit.

The other idea is the Lofstrom Loop, proposed in the L5 News in 1982.  
It consists roughly of a chain which is launched upward fast enough to 
reach orbital altitude and with enough momentum to support its own 
vacuum vessel and a rail for launching payloads.

There was an article in the Nov 85 L5 News about Skyhook Enterprises, a 
Texan attempt to use these ideas.  They wanted to start by building
energy storage units consisting of a thin iron ring moving at 100
km/sec.  Does anyone have more recent word on their work?  Are they on 
the level?
                              - Jim Van Zandt

------------------------------

Date:     Mon, 30 Jun 86 16:09:43 CDT
From: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI <wmartin@almsa-1.arpa>
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject:  Pictures of spacecraft

I've often wondered about some of the pictures we've seen of spacecraft;
for example, there is a shot I've seen several times of the separation
of one stage from another, as taken from the lower, discarded stage --
you see the ring of light as the stages separate, and then the exhaust
nozzle of the upper stage pulling away slowly, and then a burst of white
as it ignites. How did they get the film back from this shot? The camera
was attached to the discarded stage which was to burn up on reentry --
were there some special camera-recovery facilities built into some of
the lower stages in some programs? (I think this might have been from
one of the Saturn-booster programs.)

Will

------------------------------

Date:  1 Jul 1986 00:20-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
To: "/usr/amon/SFMSS/Email.sfmss" <Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu>
Subject: A response to Dr. Van Allen


Gordon Woodcock, president of the L5 Society, has asked me to
distribute this letter as widely as possible, and particularly to all
individuals on the SFMSS list:

=============================================================================

First,  I would like to get a key fact straight about the mission 
of the Challenger on January 28,  1986.  The particular satellite 
Dr.  VanAllen  infers "could have been delivered less expensively 
 ... by unmanned launch vehicle" could not have been delivered by 
any unmanned launcher now in service.  It was a TDRSS with an IUS 
upper  stage,  a payload too massive for any presently  operating 
launch vehicle except Shuttle.



The  question  of  whether unmanned launchers  are  cheaper  than 
Shuttle  is  answered differently depending on who is  doing  the 
accounts.  Shuttle critics add in the NASA institutional overhead 
that is charged against the shuttle program.   (NASA has no other 
convenient  place to charge it.)  Shuttle advocates consider this 
a fixed cost.  It won't go away just by stopping shuttle flights; 
the charges would show up somewhere else.   Instead, they deal in 
marginal costs.  In the former case, present-day unmanned systems 
are somewhat less costly;  in the latter,  the Shuttle wins by  a 
considerable margin.



Manned  space flight is expensive,  but it is hardly a noticeable 
drain  on  a four-trillion-dollar economy.   In case no  one  has 
noticed, the cost is coming down dramaticallly.  A shuttle flight 
costs a tiny fraction of what an Apollo flight cost, and there is 
nothing about the physics of space flight by rocket propulsion to 
keep it forever beyond the financial means of ordinary people.



The cost question we should be asking is what launcher technology 
has the greatest economic POTENTIAL?    Expendable vehicles are a 
mature technology without much room for cost improvement. Shuttle 
is a new technology;  we have never done anything like it before.  
Its  reusable  technology has great cost  improvement  potential, 
quite possibly as much as two orders of magnitude.  Note that the 
contrast here is between expendable and reusable technology,  not 
manned vs. unmanned.  The Shuttle could have been designed to fly 
unmanned;  it  would have about 5,000 lb.  more payload and would 
have required considerable added investment for automation to  do 
what  the  pilots  do.   There is no  question  where  technology 
development  should  be  headed:  clearly  in  the  direction  of 
economic reusable systems. 



Dr.  Van  Allen seems to have particular difficulty in perceiving 
any kind of technological future beyond present capabilities,  as 
evidenced  by  his attack on "futuristic proposals"  as  akin  to 
science  fiction.   He lumps together manufacturing in space,  on 
which about fifty U.  S.  corporations are now spending  research 
funds  (are  they  all mesmerized  by  science  fiction?),  space 
stations,  which  we and the Russians have ALREADY FLOWN (this is 
an  especially  peculiar  definition  of  science  fiction),  and 
the economic mining of asteroids, about which we presently under-
stand too little to judge as either fiction or future fact.



This form of technological myopia is so common that Arthur Clarke 
devoted  most  of  a book (PROFILES OF THE  FUTURE)  to  it.   An 
especially pertinent example:   "The popular mind often  pictures 
gigantic  flying  machines speeding across the Atlantic  carrying 
innumerable  passengers in a way analogous to our  modern  steam-
ships  ...  It  seems  safe  to say that such  ideas  are  wholly 
visionary, and even if a machine could get across with one or two 
passengers,  the  expense  would be prohibitive to  any  but  the 
capitalist  who  could  use  his  own  yacht."   -- Dr.   William 
Pickering, 1910.  What, I wonder, would he have thought had some-
one  been  so  bold  as to prophesy  that  these  fragile  flying 
machines would one day put the steamships out of business?

I  concur with Dr.  Van Allen's "popular perception of what  real 
space  flight is mostly about";  it is indeed mostly about manned 
flight  if one measures by what mostly interests most people  and 
what most of the money is spent on.   Dr.  Van Allen's problem is 
that  he  perceives  manned  space flight  as  NOT  mostly  about 
science,  especially  the fields of science that mainly  interest 
him, and that is also true.  Manned flight is mostly about people 
and about opening a new frontier.  But he gives manned flight too 
little credit for science.  A large part of the "huge increase in 
our  detailed knowledge ...  of our solar system" came  from  the 
scientific  returns of Apollo.   "Each [planet and satellite]  is 
worthy of much more detailed scientific study."  How?  By robots?  
I  observe  that enthusiasm exhibited by eminent  scientists  for 
exploration  by  robots is about inversely proportional to  their 
practical  experience with robotics and the development of  soft-
ware,  especially that intended to exhibit any measure of  actual 
intelligence whatsoever.   Van Allen thinks "the surface of  Mars 
has been studied comprehensively"?  We still study the surface of 
Earth (by manned exploration) and WE HAVE BEEN AT IT A LONG TIME!



It is true that dramatic,  even astounding space discoveries have 
been  made  by automated spacecraft doing  rather  simple  exper-
iments, e.g. taking pictures; measuring basic physical properties 
like radiation and fields.  This is true because space science by 
in  situ  measurement  is a relatively  new  science;  remarkable 
discoveries  by simple experiments are almost always the rule  in 
new  sciences.   This is not a justification to do simple  exper-
iments forever.  Next steps in exploring Mars need not be manned, 
but the steps after those probably do.  The next logical step for 
the  Moon  is an automated polar orbiter,  but  after  that?   Or 
perhaps Dr.  Van Allen thinks we know enough about the Moon.   We 
might  very  well return a few samples from Mars in an  automated 
mode.   One hopes they would not be as misleading as Stuart  Ross 
Taylor  says  the  Soviet lunar samples would have  been  without 
Apollo.  And what should we do with the Space Telescope and other 
space observatories now in development?   Scrap them because they 
need  manned flights to launch and service them?   Or  should  we 
take the risk?



That brings us full circle.  Risk.  Manned space flight is risky.  
Based on  the  one fatal accident in  about  fifty  U.S.  manned 
flights  (poor statistics),  it's roughly as risky as a  500-mile 
automobile race.  Racing is apparently a socially acceptable risk 
for  a volunteer activity.   We can and should make space  flight 
much  safer,  and much less costly as well,  but in a  historical 
perspective, space is the safest frontier we have ever developed.  
If our nation doesn't have the stomach for it, others do. 



No  one claims that manned flight is mainly about science;  it is 
mainly  about opening a frontier.   There have always been  those 
who  think frontiers a waste of time and money.   "...As to  this 
Louisiana, this new immense unbounded world, if it should ever be 
incorporated  into  this  union ...  I believe  it  will  be  the 
greatest  curse  that  could at present befall  us  ...  We  have 
already  territory  enough  ...  I would rather see it  given  to 
France,  to  Spain,  or to any other nation."  -- Senator  Samuel 
White,   1803,   objecting   to  Jefferson's  proposed  Louisiana 
purchase.   The  pioneers  that rolled wagons west  in  the  last 
century didn't do much to directly benefit established scientists 
in  eastern  universities,  but  most would agree that  they  did 
quite  a lot for a young nation.   Dr.  Van Allen seems to  think 
that  those  like  myself  who advocate  developing  space  as  a 
frontier  are guilty of a "science fiction mind-set" and do  this 
nation  a disservice.   Perhaps,  but the cost of finding out  is 
quite modest indeed and if we are right,  the payoff in  economic 
growth  and national spirit is enormous.   Can we afford the risk 
of  leaving this adventure to others?   I believe it is  Dr.  Van 
Allen who does his country a disservice.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #329
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA23130; Thu, 3 Jul 86 03:01:50 PDT
	id AA23130; Thu, 3 Jul 86 03:01:50 PDT
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 86 03:01:50 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8607031001.AA23130@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #330

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 330

Today's Topics:
			  Manned vs Unmanned
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 2 Jul 86 16:45:25 EDT
From: Hank.Walker@unh.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: Manned vs Unmanned
To: BBoard.Maintainer@a.cs.cmu.edu

Given that shuttles are needed for flexibility, and unmanned rockets are
needed for backup, fixed costs are irrelevant.  Initially due to the
backlog, everything will be used to capacity.  Eventually you'll want to use
the marginally cheaper booster whenever you can.  The Titan 34D7 will cost
$150-200M, which is probably cheaper than a shuttle launch will be,
particularly with a renewed emphasis on safety.  Similarly Delta and Atlas
will probably be cheaper for shuttle missions with less than a full load.
In addition, the shuttle will be ruled out for some set of missions, such as
polar launches, and Centaur upper stages.

By the mid-90s, I expect that the majority of satellites will launch on
expendables, while the majority of shuttle flights will be devoted to
scientific or military experiments, satellite maintenance, and space station
construction.

I am assuming that a fourth shuttle will not be built.  More expendable
boosters will be becoming available before it could be completed, and with
production lines open, there will be an economy of scale in purchasing
expendables.  For the price of a new shuttle, 16-20 Titan boosters could be
purchased, which represents 4-5 years of shuttle use at four flights per
year.  Not too long after that, a TAV prototype should be flying, with a
payload of several tons.  This design will be sufficient to carry out many
simple maintenance-type operations in LEO.

Dr. van Allen is wrong to say we should suspend manned flights, but lets use
hard-headed economics and utility, rather than sentimentality, when deciding
on launch and LEO operational capability.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #330
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA02578; Fri, 4 Jul 86 03:01:52 PDT
	id AA02578; Fri, 4 Jul 86 03:01:52 PDT
Date: Fri, 4 Jul 86 03:01:52 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8607041001.AA02578@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #331

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 331

Today's Topics:
		   Re: A response to Dr. Van Allen
		Re: Soviets are 10 years ahead of U.S.
		    No concrete, no spaceflight...
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted-Date: Thu 3 Jul 1986 12:42:14 EST
Date: Thu 3 Jul 1986 12:42:14 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Re: A response to Dr. Van Allen
To: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
In-Reply-To: Dale.Amon's message of 1 Jul 1986 00:20-EDT 
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa

>The  question  of  whether unmanned launchers  are  cheaper  than 
>Shuttle  is  answered differently depending on who is  doing  the 
>accounts.  Shuttle critics add in the NASA institutional overhead 
>that is charged against the shuttle program.   (NASA has no other 
>convenient  place to charge it.)  Shuttle advocates consider this 
>a fixed cost.  It won't go away just by stopping shuttle flights; 
>the charges would show up somewhere else.   Instead, they deal in 
>marginal costs.  In the former case, present-day unmanned systems 
>are somewhat less costly;  in the latter,  the Shuttle wins by  a 
>considerable margin.

You really should state your assumptions when costs are estimated.  You
may be refering to standard NASA cost figures of something like $180
million per flight.  I think this figure assumes a flight rate of six
flights per shuttle per year, which is probably unrealistic.
Remember also that, at this point, the hardware cost of another orbiter
is a marginal cost, so should be included when deciding whether to build
another one.

I'd also like to know what "institutional overhead" consists of.
Salaries for workers who refurbish the shuttles?  Engineering effort
in support of the shuttle program?  All that would go away if the
shuttles never fly again (which seems unlikely).

>  Shuttle 
> is a new technology;  we have never done anything like it before.  
> Its  reusable  technology has great cost  improvement  potential, 
> quite possibly as much as two orders of magnitude. 

This is unfair, unless you stretch the meaning of the shuttle's reusable
technology to include any reusable launcher.  I have my doubts about
expensive vertical takeoff launchers begin able to be 100x cheaper than
current boosters, simply because they have  to be made extremely reliable
or else the cost of replacing them when they blow up will dominate launch
costs.  Making the shuttle that reliable will be very difficult; for
example, the SRB's are expected to fail once every hundred flights or
so even with the fixes being made.

>  The Shuttle could have been designed to fly 
> unmanned;  it  would have about 5,000 lb.  more payload and would 
> have required considerable added investment for automation to  do 
> what  the  pilots  do. 

I question this figure, unless you mean stripping out the crew cabin
and life support and changing nothing else.  The proposed heavy lift
shuttle variant has, as I recall, a lifting capacity several times
that of the shuttle.

> The cost question we should be asking is what launcher technology 
> has the greatest economic POTENTIAL?

I think not the shuttle.  I'd bet on automated airbreathing
horizontal takeoff launchers, with the ability to carry people in place
of cargo if needed.

>  We still study the surface of 
> Earth (by manned exploration) and WE HAVE BEEN AT IT A LONG TIME!

Oh, come on:  transportation and life support costs are FAR lower
on Earth than out in space.  We do use unmanned machines where these costs
are high: in deep water, in the upper atmosphere and deep underground
(in drilled holes).

Van Allen's objection to a "science fiction mindset" is hard to
stomache, I admit.

------------------------------

Posted-Date: Thu 3 Jul 1986 13:43:36 EST
Date: Thu 3 Jul 1986 13:43:36 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Re: Soviets are 10 years ahead of U.S.
To: Henry Spencer <ucbcad!nike!ll-xn!adelie!axiom!linus!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu>
In-Reply-To: ucbcad!nike!ll-xn!adelie!axiom!linus!utzoo!henry's message of 24 Jun 86 21:56:35 GMT
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa

>> Are there any significant military functions astronauts can perform
>> that satellites cannot?  I know of none.
>
>Sure there are.  To name one -- a prominent one -- assume you are the
>President.  There are indications that a Soviet attack may be underway.
>Which would you rather believe:  a computer telling you that the satellite
>sensors are definitely reporting Soviet ICBM launches, or an astronaut in
>orbit telling you that he can see the missile tracks with his binoculars?

This is nonsense.  A manned space station will be in low inclination
orbits and at low altitudes: it couldn't see Soviet launch sites.  Even
a station in a high inclination orbit would be over the Soviet Union
only a small fraction of the time, and the astronauts are not going to
spend all their time staring out the window looking for missile
launches.

If I were President I'd rather look at a real-time image from an
orbiting telescopic TV camera, and have multiple independent confirmations
before I did anything rash.  And do you expect a manned space station
over the Soviet Union would be allowed to make such a report in the event
of nuclear war?  At the very least communications would be jammed, at
worst, it would get shot down.

------------------------------

Date:  3 Jul 1986 17:42-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: No concrete, no spaceflight...

The following was quoted in L5 News from Space Commerce Bulliten:

"...the Celestis Group, the Florida based company working with Space
Services Inc. to launch cremated remains into space, has run afoul of
Florida state law: the company doesn't own 15 acres of land in space,
and even if it did, it doesn't have a paved road to get there. The
complaint was filed by the State Comptroller, but the final outcome was
still pending at the time of writing."

Let's hear it for Florida, the "Gateway to Space????" I wonder, do they
still require people to carry lanterns in front of horseless carriages
at night so that horses won't be frightened on the Interstates?

Actually I'm being unfair. The Florida mafia will make a fortune trying
to build the road, and I'm sure the Florida Comptroller will be able to
afford a much bigger yacht and private island than he can buy on his
cocaine payoffs alone...

Anyway, why don't those of you who are in Florida write in and tell the
honorable(?) comptroller what a total moron he is? Please be as
insulting as possible.  I think such idiocy deserves the most severe
approbation you can deliver.

				Ad astra,
			   Ad escape peabrains,
				Dale Amon

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #331
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA09367; Tue, 8 Jul 86 03:01:45 PDT
	id AA09367; Tue, 8 Jul 86 03:01:45 PDT
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 86 03:01:45 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8607081001.AA09367@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #332

*** EOOH ***
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 86 03:01:45 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #332

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 332

Today's Topics:
			    Should I see?
	    Re: Using the Moon's Helium-3 as a fusion fuel
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 7 Jul 86 08:48:03 pdt
From: eugene@ames-nas.arpa (Eugene Miya)
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Should I see?

The public image of space is something which concerns me.  I was wondering
if I should go see the kiddy flick "Space Camp."  Send replies directly to
me (I'm curious how many with reply).  DON'T SEND replies to the net
(those who do should be banned from the net, but I don't have any say).
There's still a lot of fluff [my officemate recently started reading space].
If there's interest, I'll just post a tally.

--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  "Don't reply to the newsgroup, send mail"
  eugene@ames-nas
  {ihnp4,hao,tektronix,hplabs}!ames!amelia!eugene

  p.s. for those who have send me mail in the past.  I thank you.
	to keep you appraised, I am getting involved with computing
	requirements in space to the year 2035.  [gawd, will I be around?]

------------------------------

Posted-Date: Mon 7 Jul 1986 22:46:04 EST
Date: Mon 7 Jul 1986 22:46:04 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Re: Using the Moon's Helium-3 as a fusion fuel
To: ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
In-Reply-To: ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn's message of Mon, 16 Jun 86 19:51:51 PDT
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa

Hot diggidy dog!  They're probably talking about burning deuterium and
helium-3, but the cleanest reaction would be He3 (He3,2p) He4; it's
aneutronic (Popular Science will now proclaim the home fusion reactor
is just around the corner).

I guess the He3 is generated by spallation reactions from cosmic rays
hitting moon rock, and from decay of tritium produced similarly (He3
produced on Earth by the same process would end up in the atmosphere,
from which it would quickly escape).  This would argue that asteroids
and comets contain even larger quantities of He3, since their (combined)
surface areas are much larger than the moon's.  Indeed, if comets are
aggregates of small icy particles that were in interstellar space before
the creation of the solar system then they may contain huge amounts
of He3.

I assume that the article meant there is enough He3 to supply the
US energy demand for 500,000 years, not "500,000 times over".

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #332
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA25121; Fri, 11 Jul 86 03:02:12 PDT
	id AA25121; Fri, 11 Jul 86 03:02:12 PDT
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 86 03:02:12 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8607111002.AA25121@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #333

*** EOOH ***
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 86 03:02:12 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #333

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 333

Today's Topics:
			  Sally Ride Lecture
		     Clusters and Olber's paradox
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Thu, 10 Jul 86 9:44:21 EDT
From: Les Eastman  <lreastma@crdc-vax3.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Subject:  Sally Ride Lecture


Notice for those in the Washington, Baltimore, Philadelphia Area


PUBLIC LECTURE

                     Dr. Sally K. Ride
                           of the
                 NASA Johnson Space Center
                       Houston, Texas

                       will speak on

                    "THE SPACE SHUTTLE"

                Thursday, September 25, 1986
                         7:30 p.m.

                    Kraushaar Auditorium
                      Goucher College
                      Towson, Maryland

                       Tickets: $2.00

Available at: Kraushaar Auditorium Box Office (301) 337-6333
              Goucher College

              University Union Ticket Office (301) 321-2244
              Towson University


     Part of the series of Centennial Lectures entitled

                    SCIENCE IN PROGRESS

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Jul 86 00:34:05 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@mc.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: Clusters and Olber's paradox
To: JOSH@ibm.com
Cc: KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@mc.lcs.mit.edu, REM%IMSSS@su-ai.arpa, Space@s1-b.arpa

 Sorry for the late reply.  I only got this message this week thanks to
major mailer lossage.

    Date: 7 Mar 86 11:41:26 EST
    From: JOSH@ibm-sj.arpa

    Basically, the same point is ignored when arriving at the (erroneous)
    conclusion that the sky is infinitely bright in the usual Olbers
    paradox:  neglecting the finite size of stars.

  Not infinitely bright, just as bright as the sun, everywhere.  Like
solid sun-stuff from horizon to horizon.  This is the case if and only
if one's line of sight always intersects a star at SOME distance, however
far (and also ignoring redshift).

    I am less certain about the question of clustering on large scales.  It
    is true that if the self similarity of clustering continues to larger
    and larger scales, it may not be possible to define a universal average
    density.

  The universal average density would be exactly zero.

    However, at any particular size scale, there is a definable
    average density (for the Universe inside that size scale).

  Not true.  For any given volume around the sun (or around any other
star in the universe) there would be some average density.  The larger
the volume, the lower the density, without limit.  (Note that this does
NOT violate homogeneity or isotropy.)  But the average density of that
volume around a randomly chosen point in the universe would be exactly
zero.

    For larger and larger scales, the average density may fluctuate around
    and never converge to anything,

  It converges to zero.

    but above some size scale, for example whatever
    size it would take to have every line of sight end on a star for a
    homogeneous (unclustered) distribution of stars times some suitable
    large factor, further clustering is irrelevant since all lines of sight
    have already terminated (with high probability).

  True, but it never need reach that point.
  What would the sky look like if stars were arranged on the grid points
X,Y,Z where X,Y, and Z have to be plus or minus positive-integer-powers
of two?  Allow the stars to meander slightly from these positions so they
don't form rows that block eachother's view of eachother.  There would be
infinitely many stars, but the average density would be zero and the sky
would be dark even if there was no red shift and even if this system was
arbitrarily old.  For a more interesting and realistic pattern, let X,Y,
and Z be the sums and differences of exactly two positive-integer powers
of two.  A star is at every point whose coordinates meet those criteria
and at no points whose coordinates don't meet those criteria.  Try
plotting that on your PC.
  Note that homogeneous is NOT the same as unclustered.  It can be
infinitely clustered and yet homogeneous, if the clustering has the same
global properties everywhere.
  On a historical note, this concept ('infinite heirarchy') as a solution
to Olber's paradox came long before fractals were discovered (invented?).

								...Keith

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #333
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA27761; Sat, 12 Jul 86 03:01:48 PDT
	id AA27761; Sat, 12 Jul 86 03:01:48 PDT
Date: Sat, 12 Jul 86 03:01:48 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8607121001.AA27761@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #334

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 334

Today's Topics:
			     mailing list
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:"forschler scott%b.mfenet"@lll-mfe.arpa  Fri Jul 11 15:54:29 1986
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 86 15:39 pst
From: "forschler scott%b.mfenet"@lll-mfe.arpa
Subject: mailing list      
To: space@mc.lcs.mit.edu

Could you put me on the space mailing list?
Address is:
7661%mfe@lll-mfe.arpa

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #334
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA00747; Mon, 14 Jul 86 03:01:47 PDT
	id AA00747; Mon, 14 Jul 86 03:01:47 PDT
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 86 03:01:47 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8607141001.AA00747@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #335

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 335

Today's Topics:
			    Re: Population
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 Jul 86 17:01:33 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@mc.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Population
To: jon@csvax.caltech.edu
Cc: KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@mc.lcs.mit.edu, Space@s1-b.arpa

  Sorry this reply is four months late.  I only got your message
this week, thanks to mailer lossage.

    From: jon@csvax.caltech.edu

    ... space colonies are NOT a
    solution to population pressure on Earth. I want to go, presumably you
    want to go, but the majority of people do NOT want to go.  Should we
    force them?

  There is no question of force.  Anyone who wants to go, and can afford
to go, can go.  If population pressures make Earth unpleasant, quite a
few will want to.  Since there will be a manpower shortage in the space
colonies, they will probably be willing to pay the fare for immigrants,
to be deducted from their salaries.  Much as was the case with indentured
servants in the British new world colonies.
  I doubt there will be any serious population pressures.  People like
to live grouped together.  Notice how people cluster into towns and cities,
leaving the vast majority of the Earth's surface virtually empty.  Notice
that the countries with high standards of living have little or no
population growth.  At this point it looks like the world population will
stabilize at about ten billion, which is a good long term population.
Representing an average of 4 acres per person, it is hardly overcrowded.

        Do you believe that we can solve Earth's ecological and population
    problems by exporting people to space?  This may be our central
    disagreement.  To even keep the population steady, we'd have to get
    rid of tens of millions per year.  This is certainly not practical in
    the 'short term' as I think of it (~100 years).

  I think it is perfectly practical.  Not that I think that the world
population will continue to increase at that rate.  Consider that there are
several HUNDRED million airline passengers each year.  This is 83 years
after there were none at all.  Might there be that many space flight
passengers 83 years after 1961?

    >   3) The more people there are the more geniuses there will be.  There

        There are a lot of potential geniuses right  now  who  never  have
    the chance to contribute due to poor education and malnutrition (which
    affects how well their brains develop).

  Certainly not trillions of them.
  What if they had told Columbus not to search for new lands as long as
anyone was hungry in Europe?  We ARE allowed to solve problems in parallel,
you know.  Anyway, hunger is 100% curable.  So is ignorance.  Nobody is
stopping YOU from donating your money, food, and time to the third world,
if you feel that strongly about it.

        Are we to have office buildings parachuting into downtown
    Manhattan?  This seems mildly dangerous, to say the least :-).  Why
    should we cover our planet with such abominations?  Even in Manhattan
    people presumably like to get away to the countryside on weekends.

  Huh?  Surely office buildings are more valued than wilderness at least
some of the time.  Otherwise why would people go to such effort to build
them?   And what's wrong with a way to make them more cheaply?

    Most people appreciate solitude at least  occasionally;  it's  awfully
    hard to get in large cities.

  It's easy to get in space. :-)
  I don't see your point.  The more cheaply things can be made the more
money people will have for what's important for them.  People spend a lot
on buildings - look at new house prices.  Ask your boss what monthly rent
he pays for your office.  If building and cars and fuel and food were less
expensive, people could afford to take long vacations in the wilderness.

        Depends on how good your  distribution  systems  are.   Firing  CD
    players to outback towns on Pluto would probably increase  their  cost
    just a wee bit.

  How about firing a fusion powered CD factory to Pluto?

    It won't increase the economies of scale for food,
    shelter, clothing, and such; it's probably good for luxuries.

  Why won't it?

    Great, millions of channels of dreck. Aren't a few dozen enough?

  Perhaps if there were more than a few, they would not all be designed
for the lowest common denominator.  Especially if TV programs were much
less expensive to create.

    It's not as though you can see more than one at a time anyway.

  You can't read more than one book at a time.  Or eat more than one
food at a time.  So?

    Where do we find the frequency space for them?

  In space, there is no frequency ceiling.

    Geosync orbit is crowded already.

  See, another 'limited resource' nobody had dreamed of a few decades
ago.  Amazing how many new ones we find.  Everything from commercial
minutes during TV broadcast of the Superbowl to landing slots at
airports.

    Of course, creative people will no doubt figure out ways...

  And the more creative people the better.

    There is only so much one person can experience in a lifetime.

  My point was that the person would have more CHOICES.  For instance you
could have a database with which to find the books you would enjoy best
out of billions of possible books to read.

    That won't change without various speculative technologies (life
    extension, brain-computer hookups, RNA memory transfer for example).

  With millions of researchers working on EACH of these, and on hundreds
of even more speculative technologies you and I have never dreamed of,
these will stop being speculative.

    Why is multiplying the number of people whom you never meet
    by some huge amount going to improve your quality of life?

  Because you have more CHOICES as to who to meet and what organizations
to join.
  And because they are all busily working on things that will improve
your life.  Everything from developing these speculative technologies
to writing books, creating TV programs, growing delicious food, developing
new kinds of food, developing new branches of science and matematics,
building CD players, etc, etc.
  Besides, what if they DON'T improve YOUR quality of life?  The universe
doesn't revolve around you.  They are of inestimable value to THEMSELVES.
How can you calculate the value of a person's existance to that person?

    True, if you have a mystical belief that sheer mass of people is a
    Good Thing, you'll benefit;

  I think I have demonstrated that my belief is anything but mystical.

        There could also be millions of new and creative ways to oppress
    and destroy people; imagine Hitler with planet-busting bombs!

  Better educated people, especially ones who are not in the midst of a
terrible economic depression, would not follow a Hitler.

    Sheer mass of people offers many terrible possibilities as well as
    good ones.

  See above.  But the only really SURE way to reduce terrible possibilities
is to reduce population.  And the only sure way to ELIMINATE terrible
possibilities is to ELIMINATE population.  Is this what you favor?  Or is
the elimination of mankind itself a terrible possibility?  If so, why is the
INCREASE of mankind not a WONDERFUL possibility?

        Scientific reason: studying yet another planet which has been
    dismantled to make CDs, space colonies, and more people is likely to
    be less instructive than the same planet in one piece.

  I doubt it could be COMPLETELY studied unless it WAS dismantled.  Just
as most archeology is now done in excavations dug for new buildings.  And
why BOTHER studying a planet at all if you are not going to use it for
anything?  And who can study more planets, a small population or a large
one?

        Artistic/Aesthetic reason: personally I prefer to look at living
    and growing things other than people some of the time.

  Me too.  There will be far more wilderness in space than there ever was
or could be on Earth.  Giant O'Neill colonies filled with forests.  Perhaps
some of them could be re-creations of eons gone by.  One in the lower
Jurassic, one in the upper Tertiary, etc.  Perhaps some would contain
wildlife from other solar systems.  Or life that never formed naturally,
but was designed by brilliant ecology designers, perhaps as a work of art.

    These 'barren' worlds will have their own unique beauty and value to
    be appreciated

  Only from afar, it seems.  The mere presense of mankind would spoil it,
right?  If not, and if people like to look at the barren landscape, why
not have houses there?  Each one beyond the horizon from eachother.  There
are certainly enough barren worlds to go around.  And if there aren't, we
can build more.  If the mere presense of man DOES spoil it, then what's
the problem?  However far we spread through the universe there will be more
barren planets a little further out.  The fact that we aren't there yet
is precisely what makes them valuable to you, so you can hardly complain
that there are no 'unspoiled' planets HERE if your mere presense would
serve to spoil them!

    There's at least a chance that many worlds out there support
    different forms of life;

  Good!  We can learn much from mutual trade.  There are plenty of worlds
for everyone.  (If there weren't, we would have found aliens in the solar
system by now.)

    there's an even greater chance that new and
    unpredictable forms of life will develop (are developing?) on other
    worlds.  Earth probably looked pretty barren 4 billion years ago; we're
    lucky some real-estate developer didn't turn it into apartment buildings.

  Perhaps we are lucky.  But the universe itself isn't all that old, or at
least our galaxy isn't.  4 billion years is a pretty hefty chunk of its
history, and it seems quite likely that there wasn't anyone out there 4
billion years ago.  It seems quite likely that there is nobody out there
now.  SOMEBODY has to be the elder race.  It might as well be us.
  I can understand not interfering with an existing intelligent race, but
this idea of not messing with barren planets on the chance that intelligent
races will evolve eventually is quite radical.  Is every race to do just
that until the end of time, no civilization ever developing beyond its own
planet for fear of interfering with some hypothetical future civilization?
Note that the argument applies equally here on Earth.  Don't swat that fly!
It's greatgreat...greatgrandchildren might form a great civilation!  Same
with any bacteria in your body.  They are much less than 4 billion years
away from being a starfaring race.  And they are killed off automatically
by your body's defenses whether you like it or not.  The only way to prevent
us from preventing a future race is to all suicide right now.  The future
race if and when it evolves in a few eons must immediately do the same to
get out of the way of yet ANOTHER hypothetical future race.  And so on until
all life is extinct, either through this bizarre suicide or because the Sun
finally goes out.

        So I feel it's of benefit to all of us - humans now and later,
    and all the forms of life that may develop out there - to proceed
    cautiously.

  Cautiously?  It has taken us billions of years to get to this point.
You mean not at all, don't you?

        -  Here's a possible 'solution' to population pressure: Suppose we
    	define some optimum population X for a planet (space colony,
    	whatever).  X is a criteria arrived at through consensus of
    	the (hopefully well informed) inhabitants, including technical,
        engineering, artistic, religious, etc. facts,
    	opinions, and values. When the population reaches X, things
    	go into steady state mode; no more than 2 children/woman ...

  That is a totalitarian solution.  Why should a family's private life
be decide on by consensus?  And by religious leaders (among others) no
less.  I wouldn't want the likes of Fallwell in MY bedroom!
  Things 'go' into steady state mode.  That word 'go' hides a lot, like
bloodshed and warfare, people trying to regain control over their own
lives.  As long as a couple can afford to raise a child, it is nobody
else's business.

        -  I think X for the planet Earth (considered as a whole) should
    	CERTAINLY be no greater than the current  population.

  So you want to start the tyranny now.  With you in charge, no doubt.

  I have decided to CC this to the SPACE list.  It has been much
too quiet (less than one message per day) lately.
								...Keith

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #335
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA03397; Tue, 15 Jul 86 03:01:52 PDT
	id AA03397; Tue, 15 Jul 86 03:01:52 PDT
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 86 03:01:52 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8607151001.AA03397@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #336

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 336

Today's Topics:
	      Economics or Why I believe in the Shuttle
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Mon, 14 Jul 86 16:40:50 CDT
From: Carl Rosene <animal@rice.edu>
Subject:  Economics or Why I believe in the Shuttle
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa
Cc: milazzo@rice.edu

Gentlemen,

A lot of people criticize the Shuttle based on economics and then play fast 
and loose with the economics of their own schemes. I would like to take a
moment to try to expose the most glaring of these errors.

For instance, Paul Deitz gives erroneous figures on the marginal cost of a
shuttle flight. He says $180 million for marginal cost. That is around
the cost of full recovery-including research, development, and management
overhead. The real figure is about $50 million for the MARGINAL COST of ONE
FLIGHT. As you increase the number of flights you drive the cost toward
the marginal value. So Fly!
 
You can compare vehicles on the marginal cost or partial recovery or full
recovery or on a lot of other schemes. But if you are going to use the
marginal cost of an expendable, then you should use the marginal cost of
the Shuttle. In fact, while fixed costs of the Shuttle and unmanned
systems are comparable, marginal costs greatly favor the Shuttle.

Using the more correct number, it is no longer so clear that you should launch
on an expendable. But, let's consider one more thing. Suppose that you
believe that for one reason or another, we need a manned space capability.
Suppose even that the marginal cost of an expendable is just slightly 
LESS than that of the Shuttle. Should you use expendables for those items not 
requiring man?

Yes? No! Unless expendables are VERY MUCH marginally cheaper than the
Shuttle, we should not undergo the fixed cost of keeping them and the
requisite trained personnel around. It will certainly be cheaper to maintain a
SINGLE launch system than several. Somewhere there is a point where you win
be keeping an additional launch system, but I don't think we are anywhere
near it. 

I do not believe it makes sense to undergo the cost of restarting a launch
program using almost-obsolete technology. We should keep the shuttle and
use it like we meant to when we started. 

The one almost legitimate argument for keeping expendables is the worry
about an accident grounding the shuttle when a flight MUST go for
national security reasons. However, this argument ignores the fact that
future flights are not more likely to fail because of a failure, rather we
merely know now they are more likely to fail than we thought. If a flight
MUST go, it can go. For all the terrible effects of
51-L, it is only a single failure, and the shuttle system remains the most
reliable, safest vehicle we have ever flown.

Those who think differently are forgetting what really happened in
Mercury, Gemnini, and Apollo. We sold ourselves too well on our safety
record myth. In fact people died or almost died on flights of all
three systems. (i.e. System failures that were life threatening. I hear 
that in Mercury the estimated probability of losing the crew on any single 
flight was 20%).

In short, the Shuttle is given a bad rap. It hasn't met all its claims but
then it hasn't fallen short of all of them either. We should look at it
fairly, with neither rosy glasses nor jaundiced eyes. Only then will we be
ready to move forward to the next generation of launch vehicle.

This is already longer than I meant it to be, so let me turn to one more
myth being waved about. The TAV. A lot of people seem to think that merely
because it might use jets, or it might be horizontally launched it will be
cheaper and more reliable than the present system. Putting aside the
ridiculous claims of when such a system might be ready, let me state a few
things:
 1) Jets are heavier, more complicated, and less reliable than rockets.
    The reason a 747's jets work so well is that a lot of work has been put
    into them. They are not anywhere as powerful as the Shuttle engines,
    if they were, they would have had a lot more development problems.
    I do not believe that the jet engines required for an orbital mission
    will be easily developed or that they will be more reliable than the 
    SSME's. The reason we used rockets in the first place was that we 
    could make them work at the power levels required.
 2) In fact, vertical launches are energetically favored. The only reasons
    I see for a horizontal launch are to allow you to use the jet engines I 
    talked about earlier.
 3) If we switch to a TAV, all the problems of payload integration,
    flight readiness verification, and mission training WILL NOT GO AWAY!
    Most of the same things that keep us from a two week turn around of an 
    orbiter will keep us from a fast turn around of any other vehicle.
    And, if you solve those problems with the other vehicle, then the same
    techniques can be applied to the shuttle with the same benefit.

In short, concerning the TAV, I wish people would show more skepticism to 
a program I believe is motivated by the Air Force's desire to regain
turf in space.

Sorry this is so long,

Carl Rosene

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #336
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA07369; Wed, 16 Jul 86 03:01:53 PDT
	id AA07369; Wed, 16 Jul 86 03:01:53 PDT
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 86 03:01:53 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8607161001.AA07369@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #337

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 337

Today's Topics:
	    Re: Economics or Why I believe in the Shuttle
		Hi-ho Silver! Answer to Halley riddle
			Re: Shuttle economics
		Scott Jorgenson - please phone home...
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Jul 86 15:46 EDT
From: Chris Jones <clj@sapsucker.scrc.symbolics.com>
Subject: Re: Economics or Why I believe in the Shuttle
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
In-Reply-To: <8607151013.AA03642@s1-b.arpa>

    From: Carl Rosene <animal@rice.edu>
    To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa
    Cc: milazzo@rice.edu
...
		      But, let's consider one more thing. Suppose that
    you believe that for one reason or another, we need a manned space
    capability.  Suppose even that the marginal cost of an expendable is
    just slightly LESS than that of the Shuttle.  Should you use
    expendables for those items not requiring man?

But, let's consider that there very well may be cargos that you would
rather launch unmanned.  The Centaur has been scrapped from the
shuttle since the idea of an emergency landing with a loaded liquid
fuel booster in the cargo bay was considered too risky.  (Dumping the
Centaur fuel during the abort was no day at the beach either).  I
think there is going to be an ongoing need for unmanned launches, and
I don't think that the shuttle can be converted to serve that need.
Probably pieces of the shuttle system can, however, and I'd like to
see those avenues explored since then we'd be getting benefits of
marginal costs (e.g. if we could develop an unmanned, maybe even
reusable launch vehicle that could use the SRBs and SSMEs, the
development costs of those subsystems could be amortized over more
launches).
  ...
    Those who think differently are forgetting what really happened in
    Mercury, Gemnini, and Apollo. We sold ourselves too well on our safety
    record myth. In fact people died or almost died on flights of all
    three systems. (i.e. System failures that were life threatening. I hear 
    that in Mercury the estimated probability of losing the crew on any 
    single flight was 20%).

Fooey.  It is a *fact* that the only people ever to die in an American
spacecraft in flight did so on the shuttle.  The Rogers Commission
Report mentions other instances where failure of the O-rings occurred.
We aren't flying Apollo, we're supposed to be flying the shuttle, so
making it safer is what counts.

    In short, the Shuttle is given a bad rap. It hasn't met all its claims but
    then it hasn't fallen short of all of them either. We should look at it
    fairly, with neither rosy glasses nor jaundiced eyes. Only then will we be
    ready to move forward to the next generation of launch vehicle.

I agree with this, but I don't see why we shouldn't have expendables
too.  I believe they must be cheaper than man-rated launch vehicles.
...

------------------------------

Date:  Tue, 15-JUL-1986 15:26 CDT
From: W. Skeffington Higgins  <HIGGINS%FNALB.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu>
To: <SPACE@s1-b.arpa>
Subject:  Hi-ho Silver! Answer to Halley riddle

  Remember a couple of months ago, when I asked if anybody knew why
silver appeared so prominently in the mass spectrograph data of
Halley's Comet?  Well, an issue of *Nature* (15 May 1986) has appeared
which explains the mystery.  It contains papers by scientific teams
reporting results from all five comet probes-- Soviet, Japanese, and
European.
  The graph I saw, to refresh your memory, showed a large abundance of
carbon and oxygen, a somewhat smaller amount of nitrogen, a fair
selection of other light elements, and a modest bump representing
iron.  Way out in the heavy elements, there was a strong peak for
silver, showing it to be as abundant as oxygen.  Was Halley's comet
made of precious metal?
  The data, it seems, came from a dust impact mass analyzer called
PUMA aboard the Soviet Vega probes.  Dust particles associated with
the comet struck the detector at high velocity, penetrating a target
in front of the mass spectrometer.  The energy liberated is enough to
form some positive ions, which are conducted through the mass spec to
be analyzed. And what is the target made of?  You guessed it-- it's
silver.  Target material is vaporized and ionized, too, and that
accounts for the high proportion of silver in the spectrum.
  The same team flew a nearly identical instrument on ESA's Giotto
probe, and its results are summarized in another paper in the same
issue.

				 Bill Higgins
				 Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory

P.S.  The 4 July issue of *Science* is the all-Voyager Uranus issue, too.

===========================================================================
J. Kissel, R.Z. Sagdeev, et al, "Composition of comet Halley dust particles
from Vega observations," Nature, v. 321, p. 280 (15 May 1986).

------------------------------

Date: 15 Jul 1986 21:12-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Re: Shuttle economics


	There are indeed good reasons for keeping the shuttle flying,
and in fact for for building a replacement orbiter. But let's face
facts. NASA is out the commercial launch business, and I suspect it may
be for good.

There are a few Delta's left which are being offered to a few customers
such as Indonesia as alternatives to the shuttle, which won't begin
flying again until 1988.

With three orbiters we do not have the capacity of launching a space
station. If we order a fourth orbiter now, we BARELY have the capacity
for it. We do not have spare capacity for commercial satellite
launches until the mid nineties unless we order a fifth orbiter now.

What are the alternatives? Deltas, Titans, etc are known quantities and
can be built (relatively) quickly. They also can be commercialized with
a lot less pentagon flak than the shuttle. Transpace is (I've heard)
having talks with NASA on arrangements to help them get off the ground
with their rights to the Delta vehicle. Hopefully, Transpace will take
over after NASA launches the four out of stock. IF they (at NASA) are smart
enough to do things that way. The only thing that gives me hope is the
fact that Jim Fletcher is running the show now, and I'm DAMN sure he
has the smarts to see it that way.

Now the shuttle still has a niche, as was pointed out by Mr. Rosene.
The problem is that the lead times are such that even in "Le mieux des
mondes possible" it cannot fill that niche for at least five years, and
under any likely congressional funding scenario, probably will never be
able to fill it completely. If a company such as Transpace makes a go
of it, prices will drop because a private company will have FAR lower
marginal costs AND fixed costs than NASA does. I doubt a private
company will keep the kind of parts record that NASA does, because to a
private company it will be more cost effective to just assume
a certain percentage of failures as the cost of doing business and
simply ignore them, or at most have a small team of experts keep an eye
out for indicators of decreasing quality control on the part of the
rocket vendor.

So I will assume that commercial satellite business will not be handled
by NASA shuttles from here on out. They will be dedicated to
scientific, military, hardware development and concept testing, space
station payloads, satellite repair and so forth. And as I stated
before, we have so little capacity that we may have to pick and choose
among even these items.

I have serious doubts that the government is going to directly fund a
replacement orbiter. But don't lose hope, because I have suspicions
that a privately funded orbiter may be in the offing because:

	A) Deficit conscious congress will give lip service but will
	   probably not support it (ref: AW&ST)
	B) Everyone knows we are up a creek without it.
	C) NASA has (quietly) begun to show more interest in
	   setting real policy for private shuttle purchases.
	D) The administration is between a rock and a hard place
	   on calling for another orbiter because of the private launch
	   industry and the apparent national requirements.

I believe we are going to see at least a plan for a private company to
fund and operate a shuttle starting around 1991 or 92. 

Now, as to the TAV technology; I'm afraid I will have to tell Mr.
Rosene that he doesn't know what he is talking about. 

A TAV is a full blown airplane. It does not have to burn a large amount
of fuel to fight gravity because the wings generate lift to counteract
gravity. Fuel is used to gain speed and altitude. ALso you can optimize
the velocity/altitude profile to minimize drag losses. It also can be
built lighter than the shuttle and under some schemes can execute a
reentry profile that keeps the skin temperatures so low that ceramics
are not required (see July L5 News). This makes the dry weight down
and thus allows more useful payload. It also gets rid of the inventory
and maintainance headaches of tiles. No problems of tiles cracking from
moisture in the air. No replacing loose tiles. No repairs to elevons
or ailerons with burn throughs.

Admittedly the engine is a bit of a technological challenge, but the
craft will not carry the enormous quantity of fuel, and will most
likely operate much farthur inside of it's performance envelope than a
shuttle engine. Anyone who doubts the SSME's are on the hairy edge
should take a look at the maintainance record. The SSME is nearly as
bad as a British Leyland sports car, and for the same reason: the more
performance you pack into a package, and the more of it you use under
normal operations, the more hours you are going to spend in the shop.
I don't believe that a commercial TAV engine will be any closer to that edge
than a modern commercial aircraft powerplant. (I don't expect this to be
true of the x-plane however, because it will be a government/military
job and will push everything to the absolute limits.)

This is not to say that there are not ways of building vertical takeoff
rockets that are reasonably cost effective (such as the Phoenix E
concept).

I also have suspicions that the TAV program is MUCH furthur along than we
suppose. I would not be surprised if the test vehicle is already under
construction. There is scuttlebutt around that the USAF had a "dark"
program in their budget to develop this vehicle which has now become
part of the TAV effort. This partly comes from the renaming of the
project. (I think it was changed from X-31 to X-30A)

As I see it, ELV's will have the upper hand for at least the next five years
because they will have no competition at all. The Shuttle will serve as
a means of keeping our manned presence in space, and private add-on shuttles
will start taking over the launch market by the 1994 time frame. The
shuttle is expensive and too complicated, so there will be a market
pressure for the development of a commercial TAV. I suggest that Boeing
will build one and have it ready for sale to 'spacelines' somewhere
between 1998 and 2000. The TAV's will then drive the shuttles into
mothballs. I suspect most ELV companies will switch to TAV's to stay in
business as light cargo haulers or else they will have gone into the HLLV
market which should be strong by then.

It simplistic to suggest that ELV's or shuttle or TAV is the only
solution now and forever. Each will have it's time and it's mission,
and each is necessary to our plans for the next 15 years.

					Ad Astra,
					Dale Amon
			Chairman, 6th Space Development Conference
			  Pittsburgh Hilton, March 27-29, 1987

------------------------------

Date: Tue 15 Jul 86 23:01:06-PDT
From: Marcus MacNeill <KILROY@su-sushi.arpa>
Subject: Scott Jorgenson - please phone home...
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa


-------

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #337
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA03759; Thu, 17 Jul 86 03:01:50 PDT
	id AA03759; Thu, 17 Jul 86 03:01:50 PDT
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 86 03:01:50 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8607171001.AA03759@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #338

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 338

Today's Topics:
			 SDI Launch Vehicles
	      Economics or Why I believe in the Shuttle
			 Re: Private Shuttle?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted-Date: Mon 14 Jul 1986 17:45:19 EST
Date: Mon 14 Jul 1986 17:45:19 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: SDI Launch Vehicles
To: space@s1-b.arpa

AW&ST (7/14/86, page 113) describes a series expendable and partially
reusable launch vehicles for use in SDI.  The first consists of two
(redesigned) solid rocket motors attached to a hydrogen/oxygen tank
propelled by a single expendable "reduced cost" SSME.  This vehicle
could place 85,000 lb. in LEO.  The SRM's can be recovered and reused.

The next vehicle has a larger tank, two SRMs and two SSME's.  The engines
and booster avionics are mounted on a small recoverable module that sits
below the fuel tank; the only parts discarded are the fuel tank and
payload fairing.  This vehicle could place 150,000 lb. in LEO.

Finally, there are two vehicles that use one or two flyback boosters
propelled by advanced LOX/hydrocarbon rockets.  These flyback boosters
replace the SRMs.  The largest vehicle could place 400,000 lb. in LEO.

In a separate story, AWST reported (pages 26-27) that NASA faces deep
budget cuts now that the Supreme Court has overturned parts of
Graham-Rudman.  Previously, NASA could have expected equal treatment
when automatic cuts were applied, but now congress may cut it
disproportionately.  David Webb, who was on NCOS, was reported
to speculate that Donald Regan's recent change of heart on a new orbiter
(from opposing it to supporting it) stemmed from the realization
that congress won't ok the money for one anyway.  This lets the
administration off the hook.

------------------------------

Posted-Date: Wed 16 Jul 1986 12:21:57 EST
Date: Wed 16 Jul 1986 12:21:57 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Economics or Why I believe in the Shuttle
To: Carl Rosene <animal@rice.edu>
In-Reply-To: Carl Rosene's message of Mon, 14 Jul 86 16:40:50 CDT
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa

Carl,

 PLEASE be explicit about your assumptions when discussing the
economics of the shuttle!  You state the marginal cost of the
shuttle is $50 million per flight.  What exactly is included in
this figure?  Is this just the cost of the hardware & fuel
expended on each flight, or what?  If this cost is approached
as the flight rate increases, what flight rate is required
to get close (say, to $75M)?  The cost figures I've seen vary
so wildly (by a factor of 5) that I find bald assertions useless.

  Also, when considering funding a new orbiter, the orbiter cost IS
a marginal cost.  At (optimistically) $2 billion, spread over ten
years at 4 flights per orbiter per year, that's $50 million per
flight right there (more if interest costs are included).  This
assumes a shuttle can be flown for 40 flights without being destroyed.

  You state that the shuttle is one of the most reliable, safest systems
known.  This is true if you count failures per launch.  However, since
the shuttle is supposedly reusable for 100 flights, the 51-L accident
destroyed 90 flights worth of launch capability.  An expendable failure
destroys the payload, but (aside from possible pad damage, redesign
and insurance costs, and investigation delays) does not affect other
launches.

------------------------------

Date: 16 Jul 1986 16:37-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
To: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Re: Private Shuttle?

Reply to Paul Dietz letter

Cancellation or long delay of the space station certainly sounds like
being up the creek without a paddle to me, and it is striking quite a
few people of more influence than myself in the same way. You can talk
about all the great technology we are going to have that will be around
in 15 years, but if we wait 15 years, we are not going to be a major
space nation. As it is, the USSR will have TEN YEARS lead on us in
experimentation and science on their space station. That means that
they will be USING space processing for real products both for military
and for export, before we even get out of the starting gate. There are
times you have to say, "Gee, that idea is neat. But what have we got
RIGHT NOW???" Complain all you want about what should have been done,
but let's deal with the deck we've been dealt. The "right way" of doing
something is difficult to define and is very often not related to the
engineering definition so much as to what is possible at the moment,
what hardware and capabilities and people are available at the moment,
WHO is willing to put the money up and what their biases are, the need
to hold a competitive position (you often don't get a second chance in
a market, regardless of your politics), the current perception of
'national security' requirements and much more.

As to private shuttle, there are indeed things going on, but I am only
privy to hints and innuendo from those who know for sure. I think there
is something very big in the wind, and I think it is going to happen
relatively soon (a few months), if at all.

I will say that I am relatively convinced that there will be a move to
have a private company purchase and operate a subsidized shuttle. SUch
a move will appear to all parties (congress, white house, NASA, OMB,
DOD) as a compromise that satisfies national security, this (midterm
election) year deficit reduction fever, the protectionist fear of
losing aerospace business to foreign competition, the free market
faction desire for private launching, the NASA need for space station
launch capacity without cutting into space station budget, a director
of NASA unbeholden to politicians and with a recent past position  with
a private space company and a known leaning towards private launch
capability...

It all seems to come together, and is beginning to look to me like a
forced move. There really is no choice; it is only a matter of time
before all of the key players realize there is no other way.

I am personally not very interested in how we SHOULD open the space
frontier. I am interested in how we CAN open the frontier.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #338
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA03036; Fri, 18 Jul 86 03:01:47 PDT
	id AA03036; Fri, 18 Jul 86 03:01:47 PDT
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 86 03:01:47 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8607181001.AA03036@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #339

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 339

Today's Topics:
			 Re: Private Shuttle?
			    Re: Spacecamp
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted-Date: Thu 17 Jul 1986 08:30:01 EST
Date: Thu 17 Jul 1986 08:30:01 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Re: Private Shuttle?
To: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
In-Reply-To: Dale.Amon's message of 16 Jul 1986 16:37-EDT 
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa

Please reread my letter (which I don't believe I sent to the space
mailing list; why did you cc your response there?).  I wasn't saying
the station was a bad idea, I was merely disputing your assertion
that the space station is perceived in congress as vital.  The USSR
will have an N year lead in certain applications of microgravity, but
will congress view that as significant?  With the economy sliding into
recession, the deficit growing and the voters getting restless, it's
unclear.  If the station isn't perceived as vital, there's nothing
forcing congress to get another shuttle or subsidize a private one
(which I'm told will be more expensive than just buying one outright;
the only reason to do it is as an acconting gimmick so the cost doesn't
show up in the deficit immediately).

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 17 Jul 86 15:57:47 pdt
From: eugene@ames-nas.arpa (Eugene Miya)
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Re: Spacecamp

Thank you, to all to responded, you amused me long enough to wait for
Aliens (tomorrow).  I received 7 responses (two from here at Ames).
Three thumbs up, three thumbs down, one "side-ways" (I kid you not).
I probably won't see it, it sounds like the robot character is dumb.
People probably said that about Artee-Deco and you know who from
you know what.  I received no mail from the space regulars, I can
only trust that I didn't lose all respect from them.  

--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center

Movie quote for the day:
	"So this is deterrence?"

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #339
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA06171; Sat, 19 Jul 86 03:01:53 PDT
	id AA06171; Sat, 19 Jul 86 03:01:53 PDT
Date: Sat, 19 Jul 86 03:01:53 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8607191001.AA06171@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #340

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 340

Today's Topics:
		    To the stars, by steam engine
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted-Date: Fri 18 Jul 1986 17:50:08 EST
Date: Fri 18 Jul 1986 17:50:08 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%SLB-DOLL.CSNET@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: To the stars, by steam engine
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Cc: amon@h.cs.cmu.edu, dietz%SLB-DOLL.CSNET@csnet-relay.arpa

Nature (7/10/86, page 98) has a report about the HOTOL.  According to
Bob Parkinson, British Aerospace's Launch Vehicle Project Manager,
"HOTOL is a conceptual, not a technological breakthrough", meaning
it can be built with off-the-shelf technology.  NASP, by contrast,
is a technology driven program.

This is curious.  What have the folks at British Aerospace discovered?
According to their spokesman, HOTOL will breath air up to about Mach 5,
then switch over to LOX/LH rockets.  Rumor has it the engine cools
the air to counter compressional heating.

The first thought is that this engine uses its fuel, liquid hydrogen,
to cool the incoming air.  Hydrogen has a tremendous specific heat,
about 3.4 cal/gr C at 25 C.  But Dale Amon tells me this poses
engineering problems.  A leak in the heat exchanger would be catastrophic.
On reflection, I also don't see how the heat exchanger could be made
light enough or small enough.  HOTOL models show a rather small air
intake near the tail of the craft.

So how do you cool the air?  Mix it with something cold, or, rather,
with something that can absorb heat, and that is also nonflammable.  My next
thought was to use liquid oxygen, which the HOTOL will carry.  But O2
doesn't have a terribly high specific heat (.219 cal/gr C at 25 C).

Much better would be water.  Not only does water have a higher specific heat
(around .45 to .5 cal/gr C for steam, 1 cal/gr C for the liquid) but water
has a tremendous heat of vaporization: 540 cal/gr at 100 C.

(Sanity check: air at Mach 5 (sea level) has about 346 cal/gr in kinetic
energy, enough energy to vaporize about .55 grams of cold water.  This
seems a reasonable amount of water; somewhat less would be required
if the inlet temperature is high.  Also, not all the kinetic energy
will be converted to heat; some will go into compression.)

Has this idea been thought of before in the US?  It seems too simple.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #340
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA19784; Wed, 30 Jul 86 03:01:57 PDT
	id AA19784; Wed, 30 Jul 86 03:01:57 PDT
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 86 03:01:57 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8607301001.AA19784@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #341

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 341

Today's Topics:
		 Re: HOTOL: helium instead of water?
		  Re: To the stars, by steam engine
		SCIENCE MAGAZINE CLARIFICATION NEEDED
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 28 Jul 86 22:40:13 GMT
From: ihnp4!ihwpt!knudsen@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (mike knudsen)
Subject: Re: HOTOL: helium instead of water?
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> A second thought on HOTOL: instead of water as a coolant, it may
> make sense to mix the air with helium.  Liquid helium is very cold,
> and helium gas has an excellent specific heat (1.24 cal/gr C at 25 C).
> Problems here would be helium's lower density and higher costs compared
> to water.  According to the 1985 CRC handbook helium costs around
> $7/kilogram, which might be acceptable.  How large are helium reserves?
                                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I've often wondered about helium reserves Earth-wide.
Helium was first discovered by spectroscopy in the Sun
(hence its name), which prompted scientists to look for it
on Earth in natural gas deposits (it's the one gas left when
everything else has been liquified).

In the 1930's the stuff was so rare that we wouldn't sell the
Germans a little bit for their airships (remember the Hindenburg?
Still wanna fly in a craft full of H2?).

Every time I see a tank of helium being used to pass out free balloons
to the kiddies, I wonder how long we can waste the gas this way
before we run out.	--mike k
-- 
Mike J Knudsen  __   ...ihnp4!ihwpt!knudsen
              / NO \
Bell Labs    / BABY \   (312)-979-4132 (work)
 (AT & T)   /ON BOARD\
            \GO AHEAD/    BORED SAILORS
IH 6D-319    \ & HIT/   go BOARDSAILING.
x4132         \ ME /
                --

------------------------------

Date: 28 Jul 86 22:33:38 GMT
From: ihnp4!ihwpt!knudsen@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (mike knudsen)
Subject: Re: To the stars, by steam engine
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> then switch over to LOX/LH rockets.  Rumor has it the engine cools
> the air to counter compressional heating.
> 
> The first thought is that this engine uses its fuel, liquid hydrogen,
> to cool the incoming air.  Hydrogen has a tremendous specific heat,
> about 3.4 cal/gr C at 25 C.  But Dale Amon tells me this poses
> engineering problems.  A leak in the heat exchanger would be catastrophic.
> So how do you cool the air?  Mix it with something cold, or, rather,
> with something that can absorb heat, and that is also nonflammable.
> Much better would be water.  Not only does water have a higher specific heat
> (around .45 to .5 cal/gr C for steam, 1 cal/gr C for the liquid) but water
> has a tremendous heat of vaporization: 540 cal/gr at 100 C.
> 
> Has this idea been thought of before in the US?  It seems too simple.

Good posting.  I wonder if you couldn't use the liquid H2
to cool the air, by simply spraying it into the stream
right at the intake.  The trick now is to prevent the
flame wall of combustion from moving forward from the
proper combustion chamber up to the injection point.
No, I don't know how.  Also you have to keep the air cool enough
that the heat of compression doesn't spontaneously ignite
the hydrogen (see Rudolph Diesel's patent attorney :-) ).
So your H2O notion sounds good to me.

BTW, water injection is a good old trick to get a little extra
power out of piston aircraft engines.  What makes your idea
appealing is that it is so counter-intuitive (not just "simple")
that we Americans will never guess it, right?	--mike k

"And what do I see them puttin' in the fuel tanks?
Water! Jist plain water" -- Joe Sweeney, _Destination Moon_ (1956).

-- 
Mike J Knudsen  __   ...ihnp4!ihwpt!knudsen
              / NO \
Bell Labs    / BABY \   (312)-979-4132 (work)
 (AT & T)   /ON BOARD\
            \GO AHEAD/    BORED SAILORS
IH 6D-319    \ & HIT/   go BOARDSAILING.
x4132         \ ME /
                --

------------------------------

Date: 28 Jul 86 16:41:04 GMT
From: sun!wdl1!gerolima@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: SCIENCE MAGAZINE CLARIFICATION NEEDED
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

Some time ago, someone mentioned that the "July 4th" edition of 
SCIENCE magazine was devoted to the Voyager at Uranus
(your-ane-us? you-RANUS? yur-an-us? urine-us?)...

SCIENCE is a bi-monthly magazine.

Clarify, please!
-Mark

(P.S. Please send the response directly, as our system admin-types like
to clear out old notesfiles quite frequently)

	"For almost a quarter of a century..."

"...Change Baby, Don't Worry!...	Mark Gerolimatos
 ...Welcome! Welcome!... 		ARPA:	gerolima@ford-wdl1.arpa
 ...Change Baby, Don't Worry!...	UUCP:	{sun,fortune}!wdl1!gerolima
 ...Box! Box! Box! Box!...		AT&T:	(415) 852-4105
 ...Now, We Say Good-Bye...		Mail:	c/o Ford Aerospace
 ...Welcome to the GALATT...			3939 Fabian Way
 ...G-A-L-A-T-T We're GALATT..."		Palo Alto CA 94306
 -English phrases from a Japanese song		Mail Stop X20

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #341
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA23664; Thu, 31 Jul 86 03:03:09 PDT
	id AA23664; Thu, 31 Jul 86 03:03:09 PDT
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 86 03:03:09 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8607311003.AA23664@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #342

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 342

Today's Topics:
			      Re: Helium
		      Re: H2 injection at inlet
		    Astronaut Memorial in trouble
		 Re: HOTOL: helium instead of water?
		       Re: Private Launch Firms
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 30 Jul 1986 13:49-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Re: Helium
In-Reply-To: Space's mail message of Wed, 30 Jul 86 03:09:45 PDT

I wouldn't worry particularly about running out of Helium. It may not
be the most common thing on this mudball, but it ranks number 2 right
behind H2 for the rest of the universe. It's much more common than Si,
Fe, C, N and all the other things which our terracentric viewpoint
leads us to call 'common'.

------------------------------

Date: 30 Jul 1986 13:54-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Re: H2 injection at inlet

I would expect immediate combustion to take place if you injected a
mist of H2 into the ram air inlet. My intuition says the heat generated
by the supersonic airflow compression would be sufficient to initiate
the burning. I'd be curious to hear if anyone knows the amount of
energy required initiate combustion in a less than optimal H2/O2/N2 mix.

I also wonder if an unseperated atmospheric gas mix would create a
great deal of NO2, N2O, HNO and other ions/molecules as by products. I
suspect you really don't want to feed the N2 into such high temperature
combustion unless you can't avoid it.

I was under the impression that part of the beauty of the liquid air
cycle engine was that the incoming gases were liquified so that the N2
could be rejected. If I am incorrect, please correct me.

------------------------------

Date: 30 Jul 1986 14:16-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Astronaut Memorial in trouble

The American Astronaut Memorial effort, which has been moving so
smoothly up to now, has hit a snag. Senator Malcolm Wallop, (Wyoming,
Chair of the Subcommittee on Public Lands, Reserved Water and Resource
Conservation, of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee) has not
scheduled the bill for a hearing in his committee, and if he does not
do so, S.J.Res.372 is dead for this year.

If the bill is not scheduled by the end of next week, it will not be
considered in the Senate this year, and will then be dropped in the
House (HJR-504) as well. For those interested, the L5 Society has an
alert out on this matter requesting letters, mailgram and phone to this
individual by late next Thu (8/7/86) night asking for scheduling of a
hearing.

Please distribute this information to friends and ask them to take action as
well.

------------------------------

Date: Wed 30 Jul 86 13:21:28-PDT
From: Christopher Schmidt <SCHMIDT@sumex-aim.arpa>
Subject: Re: HOTOL: helium instead of water?
To: ihnp4!ihwpt!knudsen@ucbvax.berkeley.edu, space@s1-b.arpa

    [...]  In the 1930's the stuff was so rare that we wouldn't sell the
    Germans a little bit for their airships (remember the Hindenburg?  [...])

We stopped selling helium to the Germans for political reasons; not
because of rarity.  The House approved sale, but although the majority
of senators initially favored it, two of them successfully lobbied
their peers until the sale was killed.  Their fear was that the Germans
might use helium-filled zeppelins as trans-atlantic bombers.

    Every time I see a tank of helium being used to pass out free balloons
    to the kiddies, I wonder how long we can waste the gas this way
    before we run out.      --mike k

Actually, huge amounts of helium are produced by the oil and natural
gas industry as a byproduct and the vast majority of it is vented into
the atmosphere because there is no commercial use for it.  The federal
government used to buy some of this helium and stockpile it in a
strategic reserve in Oklahoma, but this practice was discontinued by
the Carter administration as a money-saving measure.
--Christopher
-------

------------------------------

Date: 29 Jul 86 16:35:36 GMT
From: ucla-cs!sdcrdcf!lwall@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Larry Wall)
Subject: Re: Private Launch Firms
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

In article <2776@sdcc6.ucsd.EDU> ir682@sdcc6.UUCP (Gerald Steinberg) writes:
>There is very little
>in the real world
>that is actually
>"proved", but the
>weight of the
>evidence is that
>OTRAG was up to no
>good.  In my
>...

Does anyone know if current Russian technology is limited to 20 column
terminals?  Think about it...

;-)

Larry Wall
sdcrdcf!lwall

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #342
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA27232; Fri, 1 Aug 86 03:02:38 PDT
	id AA27232; Fri, 1 Aug 86 03:02:38 PDT
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 86 03:02:38 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8608011002.AA27232@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #343

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 343

Today's Topics:
			  Russian technology
	       Looks like the gateway is down again...
	      Re: SCIENCE MAGAZINE CLARIFICATION NEEDED
				Helium
		 Re: HOTOL: helium instead of water?
			 SPACE Digest V6 #342
			 SPACE Digest V6 #342
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 31 Jul 86 06:13:13 pdt
From: warren hik <hik%cascade.carleton.cdn%ubc.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Russian technology


>In article <2776@sdcc6.ucsd.EDU> ir682@sdcc6.UUCP (Gerald Steinberg) writes:
>>There is very little
>>in the real world
>>that is actually
>>"proved", but the
>>weight of the
>>evidence is that
>>OTRAG was up to no
>>good.  In my
>>...
>
>
>Does anyone know if current Russian technology is limited to 20 column
>terminals?  Think about it...

I thought about it.  Why?

It must be a technique developed at the Moscow Exhibition of Soviet Achievements
to get otherwise ignored messages, talked about.

------------------------------

Date:     Thu, 31 Jul 86 12:19:02 CDT
From: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI <wmartin@almsa-1.arpa>
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject:  Looks like the gateway is down again...

It appears that the USENET net.space > ARPA Space Digest gateway is down
and has not been functioning for at least some weeks. I no longer have
USENET access, so cannot tell if the ARPA-to-USENET feed is working or not. 
If people on the USENET side see this and the other ARPA-originated
discussions, then that half of the gateway is up and working. However,
you on the USENET side should be aware that no one on ARPA is seeing
your followups or queries.

It would be good if the gateway could be restored; if it is brought back
up, could the unexpired USENET-originated net.space traffic be sent out
to the ARPA side, perhaps as a series of special "make-up" Digests?

(I'm sending this to the list address, rather than the -Request address,
in the hope that it does make it over to the USENET and is seen by 
someone who can fix the gateway.)

Regards,
Will Martin
wmartin@ALMSA-1.ARPA   (USENET address of ...!seismo!brl-smoke!wmartin
                        may still be working)

------------------------------

Date: 30 Jul 86 14:30:32 GMT
From: ucbcad!nike!think!mit-eddie!cybvax0!frog!john@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (John Woods, Software)
Subject: Re: SCIENCE MAGAZINE CLARIFICATION NEEDED
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> Some time ago, someone mentioned that the "July 4th" edition of 
> SCIENCE magazine was devoted to the Voyager at Uranus
> (your-ane-us? you-RANUS? yur-an-us? urine-us?)...
> SCIENCE is a bi-monthly magazine.
> Clarify, please!
> -Mark
                                                 .
What was meant by that poster was the issue of SCIENCE magazine which has
"July 4" on the cover.  I don't have that issue in my office, so I can't
tell you the Volume/Issue number.  By the way, either Science is a weekly,
or aliens from Sirius have been sending me fake copies of Science on alternate
weeks...

--
John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (617) 626-1101
...!decvax!frog!john, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw%mit-ccc@MIT-XX.ARPA

"Don't give me this intelligent life crap,
just find me a planet I can blow up."

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 31 Jul 86 23:08:11 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@mc.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: Helium
To: ihnp4!ihwpt!knudsen@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Cc: KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@mc.lcs.mit.edu, Space@s1-b.arpa

    From: ihnp4!ihwpt!knudsen@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (mike knudsen)

    I've often wondered about helium reserves Earth-wide.

  In natural gas it is very plentiful.  Unlimitted amounts can be
gotten (at a higher price) out of the air.

    In the 1930's the stuff was so rare that we wouldn't sell the
    Germans a little bit for their airships ...

  We refused to sell not because of the rarity but because it has
military uses.

  We can always use fusion to manufacture it out of hydrogen. :-)

								...Keith

------------------------------

Date: 30 Jul 86 16:23:12 GMT
From: ucbcad!nike!lll-crg!caip!clyde!cbatt!cbuxc!cbuxb!cbrma!aka@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Andy Kashyap)
Subject: Re: HOTOL: helium instead of water?
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

In article <1020@ihwpt.UUCP> knudsen@ihwpt.UUCP (mike knudsen) writes:
>> ... How large are helium reserves?
>I've often wondered about helium reserves Earth-wide. ...
>... Every time I see a tank of helium being used to pass out free balloons
>to the kiddies, I wonder how long we can waste the gas this way
>before we run out.	--mike k

I don't think you can run out. Helium is inert; it doesn't react with 
anything, and when it [rarely] does, it's unstable. It may be expensive
to keep capturing Helium, but it's there, so keep 'em balloons flying high.

					- andy k
-- 

+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
: Jim, what's the value of Pi?                         : Andy Kashyap       :
: About 3.14159. Why do you ask, Doctor?               : AT&T Bell Labs     :
: Actually, Captain, the exact value is 3.1415926538...: Columbus OH        :
: Kirk & McCoy: Shut Up, Spock!!!                      : ..!cbosgd!cbrma!aka:
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1986  05:12 EDT
From: MINSKY%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Cc: Space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #342
In-Reply-To: Msg of 31 Jul 1986  06:27-EDT from Ted Anderson <ota at s1-b.arpa>

In fact, the Tip-Top gas formation in Wyoming (I think) contains
over 7% helium - most of which is wasted.

If the Tom Gold hypothesis about deep gas wells turns out correct, there
will be abundant supplies of helium exuding from the earth.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1986  05:12 EDT
From: MINSKY%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Cc: Space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #342
In-Reply-To: Msg of 31 Jul 1986  06:27-EDT from Ted Anderson <ota at s1-b.arpa>

In fact, the Tip-Top gas formation in Wyoming (I think) contains
over 7% helium - most of which is wasted.

If the Tom Gold hypothesis about deep gas wells turns out correct, there
will be abundant supplies of helium exuding from the earth.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #343
*******************


1,forwarded,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA02708; Sat, 2 Aug 86 03:02:41 PDT
	id AA02708; Sat, 2 Aug 86 03:02:41 PDT
Date: Sat, 2 Aug 86 03:02:41 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8608021002.AA02708@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #344

*** EOOH ***
Date: Sat, 2 Aug 86 03:02:41 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #344

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 344

Today's Topics:
	      Re: SCIENCE MAGAZINE CLARIFICATION NEEDED
		 Re: HOTOL: helium instead of water?
				HOTOL
	       Re: Re: HOTOL: helium instead of water?
			  Astronaut Memorial
		     Ionospheric Laser Powersats
			      Re: Helium
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 31 Jul 86 01:13:12 GMT
From: ucla-cs!sdcrdcf!ism780c!tim@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: SCIENCE MAGAZINE CLARIFICATION NEEDED
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

>SCIENCE is a bi-monthly magazine.

Huh?  When did this happen?  Are you sure you are not confusing this
with some other magazine?
-- 
Tim Smith                       USENET: sdcrdcf!ism780c!tim || ima!ism780!tim
"hey, bay-BEE'...hey, bay-BEE'" Compuserve: 72257,3706
				Delphi || GEnie: mnementh

------------------------------

Date: 1 Aug 86 02:38:23 GMT
From: bellcore!petrus!karn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Phil R. Karn)
Subject: Re: HOTOL: helium instead of water?
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

Helium is a non-renewable resource. Once vented into the atmosphere, helium
atoms are light enough that ordinary thermal motion will cause them to
eventually escape from the earth's atmosphere forever.

There may be plenty of it in the universe, but there's precious little still
on the earth.

Phil

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 1 Aug 86 17:36:11 edt
From: Paul Rodman <mfci!rodman%UUCP@yale.arpa>
Subject: HOTOL
To: space@s1-b.arpa


  I have two questions reguarding the recent postings about the HOTOL:

     1) The following calculation was done to support the idea of water
        cooling the Mach 5 air intake to the HOTOL air breathing engine:

     >   (Sanity check: air at Mach 5 (sea level) has about 346 cal/gr in kinetic
     >   energy, enough energy to vaporize about .55 grams of cold water.  This
     >   seems a reasonable amount of water; somewhat less would be required
     >   if the inlet temperature is high.  Also, not all the kinetic energy
     >   will be converted to heat; some will go into compression.)

        I can't belive that it is possible to carry anywhere near .55 grams
        of water for every gram of air to be cooled. If so, just screw the
        air and bring a gram of O2. Whats the story here?

     2) The on board H2 supply was ruled out by the following paragraph:

    >    The first thought is that this engine uses its fuel, liquid hydrogen,
    >    to cool the incoming air.  Hydrogen has a tremendous specific heat,
    >    about 3.4 cal/gr C at 25 C.  But Dale Amon tells me this poses
    >    engineering problems.  A leak in the heat exchanger would be catastrophic.

        Don't most liquid-fueled rockets use the H2 (or one of the
        propellants) to cool the engine nozzles?
        Is the thought that the exchanger would be more prone to failure? I don't
        think the situation is much worse, after all you're only cooling the air
        stream (not a nozzle with incredible temperatures inside after being
        VERY cold).

  I recall seeing in AWAST an article about the air forces' current reasearch
  in a runway-to-orbit test vehicle. It uses a old-tech rocket engine (from Delta?)
  and had an option of a new design jet engine to get all the way to rocket ignition
  or a hybrid that used a more conventional jet engine and ramjet that took over
  at high mach numbers. The disadvantage of the latter was the payload lossage with
  the extra engine system. The worst problem is the hot-soak the thing gets on
  reentry or long sub-orbit "dashes". 
                                                 Paul Rodman
                                                 Multiflow Computer

-------

------------------------------

Date: 1 Aug 86 08:06:03 GMT
From: ucdavis!ucrmath!hope!corwin@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (John Kempf)
Subject: Re: Re: HOTOL: helium instead of water?
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> 
>> A second thought on HOTOL: instead of water as a coolant, it may
>> make sense to mix the air with helium.  Liquid helium is very cold,
>> and helium gas has an excellent specific heat (1.24 cal/gr C at 25 C).
>> Problems here would be helium's lower density and higher costs compared
>> to water.  According to the 1985 CRC handbook helium costs around
>> $7/kilogram, which might be acceptable.  How large are helium reserves?
>                                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> I've often wondered about helium reserves Earth-wide.

Hey, we are talking about using helium for space travel (well,
ground to orbit at least), right?  There was an article a while
back in either net.space or net.sci about he[3] on the moon.  The
point of the article was something to do with more efficient or
safer or something fusion reactors, and the idea was to import it
from the moon using the shuttle.  Does anyone know anything about
this?  Is it feasable?  if so, it would seem (to me at any rate)
to solve the helium supply problem.
-cory
"Welcome my son, Welcome to the machine"
VOICE:  (714) 788 0709
UUCP:   {ucbvax!ucdavis,sdcsvax,ucivax}!ucrmath!hope!corwin
ARPA:   ucrmath!hope!corwin@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu  
USNAIL: 3637 Canyon Crest apt G302
        Riverside Ca.  92507

------------------------------

Date:  1 Aug 1986 23:42-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
To: "Email.space" <Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu>
Subject: Astronaut Memorial

--------

As Dale Amon mentioned in his last message, it is critical that the
Astronaut Memorial be scheduled for a hearing in order for the bill
to go through this year.  However, what you might not realize is
the fact that the future of the memorial itself depends on getting
this hearing.

Now, I can hear you saying, "Right.  Yet another 'but our future
depends on it' message to call a Senator."  Or "Well, my call won't
make that much difference."  Or "I'm sure lots of other people will
call, so I really don't need to."  Or "Oh, this is just another bill,
things will go along just fine if it doesn't pass."  Frankly, these
are the kinds of things I say to myself every time I get a message
over the Net or a call from the Phone Tree or a piece of mail from
Spacepac.

But this time, things ARE different.  If the memorial effort does
not get this hearing, our bill will not go through until next year.
We will have to start over making our contacts in Washington, we
will have to start over getting cosponsors in Congress to push the
bill through, and we will lose a lot of public support.  Why?  Well,
people have alarmingly short memories sometimes.  For many, the
events of January 28 have already faded.  We could also lose many
of the people who are working so hard to get this memorial built.
The memorial the space effort deserves might not ever get built.

If you care about seeing a memorial dedicated to the American
effort to take humanity into space and to those who have given their
lives in this effort, I urge you to make that phone call.  It won't
take long, it won't cost much, and it will be worth a tremendous
amount.  I'm going to make that call.  I hope you'll join me.

		      Lauri Rohn
		      Operations Administrator,
			 American Space Memorial Foundation
		      rohn@rand-unix.arpa

------------------------------

Posted-Date: Fri 1 Aug 1986 21:27:53 EST
Date: Fri 1 Aug 1986 21:27:53 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Ionospheric Laser Powersats
To: space@s1-b.arpa

I just an interesting report that mentioned a new way to collect solar
energy in space.  The idea is to exploit population inversions existing
in upper planetary atmospheres and extract energy by stimulated
emission.  Such inversions are known to exists on Mars and Venus, where
there is enhanced emission at the 10 micrometer CO2 line.  As far as
I know no such line has yet been discovered in earth's atmosphere, but
it is known that the upper atmosphere is significantly excited by
solar ultraviolet.

The paper I read gave some sample power figures that could conceivably
be produced.  A pair of one meter diameter satellites in low orbit could
potentially extract tens of megawatts of power.  This seems to offer
the possibility of very high power/mass ratios, solving the biggest
problems of solar power satellites.  The power from one such pair
could be reflected to a relay satellite in geosynchronous orbit and
back to a receiving station on earth.

Even if this isn't feasible near earth, it should be feasible around
Mars, possibly providing a source of energy for a Mars base or for
operations on the martian moons.

------------------------------

Date: 1 Aug 86 00:05:54 GMT
From: ihnp4!cuae2!ltuxa!ttrdc!levy@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Daniel R. Levy)
Subject: Re: Helium
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

In article <523129756.amon@h.cs.cmu.edu>, Dale.Amon@H.CS.CMU.EDU writes:
>I wouldn't worry particularly about running out of Helium. It may not
>be the most common thing on this mudball, but it ranks number 2 right
>behind H2 for the rest of the universe. It's much more common than Si,
>Fe, C, N and all the other things which our terracentric viewpoint
>leads us to call 'common'.

Well, STILL we might not want to waste all the helium till we can actually
get it from outer space.  I'd like to see how that could be implemented.
Y'know, just run this big long pipe out to the sun.... :-)

(I wonder how much helium might be present underground on the moon and the
nearby planets?  Jupiter has a whole bunch of it in its atmosphere so I've
heard, but it's not exactly next door....)
-- 
 -------------------------------    Disclaimer:  The views contained herein are
|       dan levy | yvel nad      |  my own and are not at all those of my em-
|         an engihacker @        |  ployer or the administrator of any computer
| at&t computer systems division |  upon which I may hack.
|        skokie, illinois        |
 --------------------------------   Path: ..!{akgua,homxb,ihnp4,ltuxa,mvuxa,
	   go for it!  			allegra,ulysses,vax135}!ttrdc!levy

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #344
*******************


1,forwarded,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA01950; Sun, 3 Aug 86 03:01:53 PDT
	id AA01950; Sun, 3 Aug 86 03:01:53 PDT
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 86 03:01:53 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8608031001.AA01950@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #345

*** EOOH ***
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 86 03:01:53 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #345

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 345

Today's Topics:
			   Re: shuttle news
		  Re: Astronaut Memorial in trouble
				HOTOL
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 1 Aug 86 08:16:20 GMT
From: uwvax!uwmacc!uwmcsd1!uwmeecs!debbie@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Debra L. Wolden)
Subject: Re: shuttle news
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

i heard someone mention recent news that several astronauts may have
survived the challenger explosion.  something about "air packs".  can
anyone fill me in on this?

------------------------------

Date: 31 Jul 86 21:05:09 GMT
From: ucbcad!nike!lll-crg!seismo!sundc!hadron!klr@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Kurt L. Reisler)
Subject: Re: Astronaut Memorial in trouble
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

In article <523131389.amon@h.cs.cmu.edu>, Dale.Amon@H.CS.CMU.EDU writes:
> The American Astronaut Memorial effort, which has been moving so
> smoothly up to now, has hit a snag. Senator Malcolm Wallop, (Wyoming,
> Chair of the Subcommittee on Public Lands, Reserved Water and Resource
> Conservation, of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee) has not
> scheduled the bill for a hearing in his committee, and if he does not
> do so, S.J.Res.372 is dead for this year.
> 
> If the bill is not scheduled by the end of next week, it will not be
> considered in the Senate this year, and will then be dropped in the
> House (HJR-504) as well. For those interested, the L5 Society has an
> alert out on this matter requesting letters, mailgram and phone to this
> individual by late next Thu (8/7/86) night asking for scheduling of a
> hearing.
> 
> Please distribute this information to friends and ask them to take action as
> well.

	The bill in question (S.J. Res 372) is sponsored by Sen. Paul Tribble
	or Virginia.  According to the mechanics of getting a bill through
	the US Congress, a hearing on the bill must be requested by the
	bill sponsor before it will be scheduled for a committee hearing.
	According to Sen. Tribble's office, he signed a letter to Sen.
	Wallop requesting that the bill be scheduled for a hearing.  Senator
	Wallop will not "express an opinion on the bill", untill it has
	come before his committee in a hearing.  Senator Tribble also plans
	to make a personal visit to Sen. Wallop to push the bill.

	According to Sen. Wallop's office, this is one of 19 bills that
	have been introduced to build a memorial in the DC area.  The
	National Park Service is concerned that there is only designated
	space for 50 more memorials in the DC area.

	Senator Tribble's office would like you to contact your local Senator
	and request that he push to get this legislature through committe.
	In addition, calls and letters to both Senators Wallop and Tribble
	won't hurt.

	Kurt Reisler
	..!seismo!hadron

------------------------------

Posted-Date: Sat 2 Aug 1986 17:11:36 EST
Date: Sat 2 Aug 1986 17:11:36 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: HOTOL
To: Paul Rodman <mfci!rodman%UUCP@yale.arpa>
In-Reply-To: Paul Rodman's message of Fri, 1 Aug 86 17:36:11 edt
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa

In response to Paul Rodman's questions about the HOTOL speculations:

(1) Yes, you could just carry oxygen.  However, this would cause the
same combustion enery to be spread over less exhaust mass, so thrust
would be lower.

(2) About heat exchangers:  rocket nozzles do use liquid hydrogen to keep
the nozzle from melting, but that's a far cry from extracting most of the
heat from the airstream, as a cryojet's heat exchanger would have to do.
The cryojet's heat exchanger would need a much larger surface area to
get adequate heat flow, so it couldn't be as robust.

(3) Others have asked why HOTOL needs a novel engine to get to Mach 5, if
conventional air turboramjets can get that high already.  The reason, I
think, has to do with engine weight.  The "Star-Raker" concept used
this approach, had a take-off weight of 2.5 million pounds, and a
payload ratio of 2.5% -- not very good.  It's a real penalty to have to
drag a heavy airbreathing engine into space with you.

I suspect the HOTOL designers have found some way to merge the air
breathing and rocket engines so the weight penalty is reduced.  This
is confirmed by looking at HOTOL models: they have three rocket-like
nozzles on the tail but nothing that looks like a jet engine exhaust.

Let me propose yet another idea about how the HOTOL might operate.
A compressor pushes air into a tank containing a considerable mass of
water.  The liquid water is being constantly pumped through a heat exchanger
dumping heat into hydrogen.  This heat exchanger should be much smaller
than an air/hydrogen heat exchanger.  Cooled air is extracted from the
water by some sort of gas/liquid separation system, is further compressed
and pumped into the combustion chambers (one can afford to lose some
water in the process).  When the vehicle nears Mach 5 water is pumped
into the combustion chambers along with the air, adding to thrust,
and reducing the mass that must be carried to orbit.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #345
*******************


1,forwarded,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA05804; Mon, 4 Aug 86 03:01:53 PDT
	id AA05804; Mon, 4 Aug 86 03:01:53 PDT
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 86 03:01:53 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8608041001.AA05804@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #346

*** EOOH ***
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 86 03:01:53 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #346

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 346

Today's Topics:
		 Re: HOTOL: helium instead of water?
			   Re: shuttle news
			   Re: shuttle news
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 1 Aug 86 14:04:25 GMT
From: ucbcad!nike!cit-vax!elroy!smeagol!usc-oberon!sdcrdcf!darrelj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Darrel VanBuer)
Subject: Re: HOTOL: helium instead of water?
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

Historically, the supply of helium has far outstripped demand.  However, He
released to the atmosphere is effectively lost because the concentration in
air is so low, isolation is infeasible; further because of its lightness, it
tends to reach escape velocity in the upper atmosphere.
Most He is isolated from natural gas deposits (where it accumlated as a
byproduct of radioactive decay of uranium, etc in the surrounding rocks).
If you take a very long view (i.e. more than the few centuries supply now
stockpiled or projected from future gas supplies), it needs to be jealously
guarded.  [Of course, by then we could be scooping it out of Jupiter or some
other, yet unimagined, technique]

-- 
Darrel J. Van Buer, PhD
System Development Corp.
2525 Colorado Ave
Santa Monica, CA 90406
(213)820-4111 x5449
...{allegra,burdvax,cbosgd,hplabs,ihnp4,orstcs,sdcsvax,ucla-cs,akgua}
                                                            !sdcrdcf!darrelj
VANBUER@USC-ECL.ARPA

------------------------------

Date: 3 Aug 86 03:01:51 GMT
From: ucbcad!nike!caip!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: shuttle news
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> i heard someone mention recent news that several astronauts may have
> survived the challenger explosion.  something about "air packs".  can
> anyone fill me in on this?

Recent news reports claim that several of the astronauts' emergency
oxygen packs had apparently been activated, suggesting that at least some
of the astronauts were alive and conscious at least briefly after the
disintegration of the orbiter.  This has been considered a possibility
ever since it became clear that the crew compartment remained more-
or-less intact.
-- 
EDEC:  Stupidly non-standard
brain-damaged incompatible	Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
proprietary protocol used.	{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 2 Aug 86 16:06:13 GMT
From: nbires!isis!scicom!galyen@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: shuttle news
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

In article <397@uwmeecs.UUCP>, debbie@uwmeecs.UUCP (Debra L. Wolden) writes:
> i heard someone mention recent news that several astronauts may have
> survived the challenger explosion.  something about "air packs".  can
> anyone fill me in on this?

I remember (vaguely) an article in the Rocky Mountain News (day?) stating
some of the air was gone from two airpacks, suggesting that someone may have
tried to use the packs.  To me this indicates there was time and presence of
mind to go for the packs and to turn the packs on then off again.  Perhaps my
information is incorrect; but, given the circumstances I find this difficult
to believe.  --robert--

---------------------------------
What is mine is mine.   Would anyone else claim this. . .please?

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #346
*******************


1,forwarded,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA12829; Tue, 5 Aug 86 03:01:53 PDT
	id AA12829; Tue, 5 Aug 86 03:01:53 PDT
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 86 03:01:53 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8608051001.AA12829@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #347

*** EOOH ***
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 86 03:01:53 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #347

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 347

Today's Topics:
			    Re: Astronauts
				errata
			  Astronaut Memorial
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  4 Aug 1986 13:32-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Re: Astronauts
In-Reply-To: Space's mail message of Mon, 4 Aug 86 03:09:08 PDT

I'm amazed anybody could have missed the details on this.

Mike Smith's last words, recorded on the INTERNAL tape, recovered 
after 6 weeks in salt water and read with great difficulty, were:

	"Uh, Oh..."

The time was at the instant of the main explosion. The full text of
this internal tape, including banter and expletives deleted is in the
7/29/86 New York Times.

In addition, 4 of the emergency air packs were recovered. Three were
activated. Scobee's was not, Smiths was, and the other two could not be
associated with particular astronauts.

The pilot and commander cannot reach these airpacks since they are
behind their seats. It is thus apparent that someone else on the flight
deck assisted Smith.

The airpacks are not intended for this purpose. They are for escape
through noxious fumes in an emergency egress on the pad.

The contents of the bags were signicantly depleted. 3/4 or 7/8 used by
readings on the two gauges recovered.

All safety harnesses were tight at the time of impact.

The picture is that the astronauts were aware of the explosion. Either
Resnik or McNair was conscious long enough turn on Smith's airpack.
There is a good chance that all seven were concious for at least ten
seconds afterwards. Even if unconscious, their normal breathing
reaction would deplete the airsacks.

The fact that all the harnesses were attached indicates that all were
unconscious at impact, but does not guarantee it.

The possibility should also be considered that one or more may have
either remained conscious through the entire fall or have regained
consciousness before impact, given the 3-4 minute fall time (very rough
estimate based on ~55,000ft at explosion, 200mph impact velocity,
and assuming some extra time for the upward part of the arc after the
explosion)

If anyone were conscious, I think they'd have been better off getting
out and free falling on their own, since a human body has a terminal
velocity of 120mph spread eagled. Minimal chance of surviving a high
dive at that speed, but better than nothing, and it HAS happened (A
stewardess was blown out a door and lived to talk about it. See Guinness
Book of World Records). It is virtually certain that anyone who was
alive immediately following the explosion was alive at impact.

There will be more cries for escape mechanisms, and such, and it is
horrible to imagine awaiting death for 4 minutes. But I would ask you
all to remember a certain KAL airliner with over a hundred people
aboard. It did not go down in a dive, but a spiral. If you want real
nightmares, don't think of seven, think of a hundred men, women and
children in a dark broken airplane, watching the water rise up to smite them.

Now I ask, how many demands have their been retrofit parachutes on to the
passenger compartment of all 747's? Has there been any call to make
747's invulnerable to attack by paranoia-crazed barbarians?

I will stick with the Chuck Yeager school of flying. You know the
risks, you accept the risks, you accomplish greatness or you die
horribly. No one ever said it was going to be easy.

					Ad Astra,
					Dale Amon
			Chairman, 6th Space Development Conference
			   Pittsburgh Hilton, March 27-29,1987

------------------------------

Date:  4 Aug 1986 16:33-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: errata

Correction: upper deck was Onuzuka, to McNair.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 4 Aug 86 17:34:16 pdt
From: ucdavis!clover!hildum@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Eric Hildum)
To: ucdavis!space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Astronaut Memorial


One other place to call:

Executive Office of the President: (202) 456-7639

I have called them on another subject - they do take the time to listen
to what you want to say.

				Eric Hildum
				ucbvax!ucdavis!clover!hildum

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #347
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA16620; Wed, 6 Aug 86 03:01:52 PDT
	id AA16620; Wed, 6 Aug 86 03:01:52 PDT
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 86 03:01:52 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8608061001.AA16620@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #348

*** EOOH ***
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 86 03:01:52 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #348

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 348

Today's Topics:
			   Re: shuttle news
		       Re KAL-007 and free fall
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 5 Aug 86 00:39:37 GMT
From: ucbcad!nike!caip!meccts!rjg@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Robert J. Granvin)
Subject: Re: shuttle news
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

4 airpacks were recovered from the accident.  Of the 4, 3 had been
activated.  It has been stated that at least some of the airpacks
would need the assistance of other astronauts to activate them, as
crew members such as the pilot would be too busy/contricted in an
emergency to reach his/her own airpack.

Also note that Cmdr Scobee's last heard words on the tape were not
"Roger, go with throttle up" as had been stated for 1.5 months by
NASA, but was in actuality "Uh oh".  It is believed that this was
said just moments before the explosion when he saw the flame from the
booster.  Unfortunately, we will probably never know.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 5 Aug 86 09:49:28 pdt
From: ucdavis!clover!hildum@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Eric Hildum)
To: ucdavis!space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Re KAL-007 and free fall


Another comment on the KAL-007 crime.  That plane, while fatally damaged, would
not have experienced the shocks that the crew compartment did.  That coupled
with the builtin O2 supply would have ensured that most of the passengers would
have remained aware for the entire twelve to fifteen minutes it took for the
plane to crash.

					Eric

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #348
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA20917; Thu, 7 Aug 86 03:01:55 PDT
	id AA20917; Thu, 7 Aug 86 03:01:55 PDT
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 86 03:01:55 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8608071001.AA20917@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #349

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 349

Today's Topics:
			   Re: shuttle news
	      Re: SCIENCE MAGAZINE CLARIFICATION NEEDED
			   Re: shuttle news
			   Re: shuttle news
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 6 Aug 86 18:50:43 GMT
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!lwall@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Larry Wall)
Subject: Re: shuttle news
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

In article <476@meccts.UUCP> rjg@meccts.UUCP (Robert J. Granvin) writes:
> Also note that Cmdr Scobee's last heard words on the tape were not
> "Roger, go with throttle up" as had been stated for 1.5 months by
> NASA, but was in actuality "Uh oh".  It is believed that this was
> said just moments before the explosion when he saw the flame from the
> booster.  Unfortunately, we will probably never know.

I don't think he could possibly have seen the flame.  The shuttle doesn't
have rear-view mirrors, to the best of my knowledge.  Much more likely is
that he saw that the right booster's thrust was dropping radically due to
the blowout, or some manifestation of the drop in thrust, such as excessive
or prolonged gimballing of the engines to compensate for the uneven thrust.

At least he had better last words than most airline pilots do.  On the vast
majority of cockpit recordings things go along very calmly and professionally
until the last instant when the pilot realizes he's lost it, and says,
you guessed it, "Oh, sh*t!"  End of recording.

Larry Wall
{allegra,burdvax,cbosgd,hplabs,ihnp4,sdcsvax}!sdcrdcf!lwall

------------------------------

Date: 6 Aug 86 20:52:53 GMT
From: ucbcad!nike!lll-crg!seismo!caip!steiner@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dave Steiner)
Subject: Re: SCIENCE MAGAZINE CLARIFICATION NEEDED
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> From: gerolima@wdl1.UUCP
> 
> Some time ago, someone mentioned that the "July 4th" edition of 
> SCIENCE magazine was devoted to the Voyager at Uranus
> (your-ane-us? you-RANUS? yur-an-us? urine-us?)...
> 
> SCIENCE is a bi-monthly magazine.
> 
> Clarify, please!
> -Mark

"Science" (the journal of the AAAS (American Association for the
Advancement of Science)) is a weekly journal.  "Science86" is a
bimonthly magazine which is (was actually, see below) put out by the
same people.  It's intended for the general reader as "Science" can
get rather technical (how's that for an understatement ;-).
Unfortunatly AAAS was really losing money on "Science86" and have
stopped publishing it.  They have offered to continue subscriptions
with Time, INC.'s magazine "Discover" as AAAS's next best choice (or
you can get a refund for the rest of your subscription).  Oh well, it
was a fine magazine.

ds
-- 

uucp:   ...{harvard, seismo, ut-sally, sri-iu, ihnp4!packard}!topaz!steiner
arpa:   Steiner@RUTGERS.ARPA or Steiner@RED.RUTGERS.EDU

------------------------------

Date: 6 Aug 86 21:55:11 GMT
From: hplabs!hplabsb!bl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Bruce T. Lowerre)
Subject: Re: shuttle news
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

In article <2937@sdcrdcf.UUCP>, lwall@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Larry Wall) writes:
> In article <476@meccts.UUCP> rjg@meccts.UUCP (Robert J. Granvin) writes:
> > Also note that Cmdr Scobee's last heard words on the tape were not
> > "Roger, go with throttle up" as had been stated for 1.5 months by
> > NASA, but was in actuality "Uh oh".  It is believed that this was
> > said just moments before the explosion when he saw the flame from the
> > booster.  Unfortunately, we will probably never know.
> 
> I don't think he could possibly have seen the flame.  The shuttle doesn't
> have rear-view mirrors, to the best of my knowledge.  Much more likely is
> that he saw that the right booster's thrust was dropping radically due to
> the blowout, or some manifestation of the drop in thrust, such as excessive
> or prolonged gimballing of the engines to compensate for the uneven thrust.

Or he could have heard the booster break loose and hit the shuttle's right
wing.
 
> At least he had better last words than most airline pilots do.  On the vast
> majority of cockpit recordings things go along very calmly and professionally
> until the last instant when the pilot realizes he's lost it, and says,
> you guessed it, "Oh, sh*t!"  End of recording.

The KLM pilot of the 747 that hit the other 747 on the runway in the
Canary Islands said "God Damn", in Dutch of course.  Then there was the
JAL pilot who put his plane down in Tokyo bay; he was whistling a tune.

------------------------------

Date: 6 Aug 86 18:17:00 GMT
From: ihnp4!houxm!mtuxo!mtgzy!ecl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (e.c.leeper)
Subject: Re: shuttle news
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> Also note that Cmdr Scobee's last heard words on the tape were not
> "Roger, go with throttle up" as had been stated for 1.5 months by
> NASA, but was in actuality "Uh oh".  It is believed that this was
> said just moments before the explosion when he saw the flame from the
> booster.  Unfortunately, we will probably never know.

No, it was Michael Smith who said "Uh-oh."  To quote U.S. NEWS & WORLD
REPORT (August 11,1986):
	Yet the astronauts' final words stir as much admiration as
	anguish.  Theye reveal the wondrous grit of people willing to be
	hurled into the heavens strapped to the equivalent of a bomb.
	"Alll riight," Judith Resnick declares at takeoff.  Smith says,
	"Here we go," and seconds later he adds, "Go, you mother."
	Sixty seconds into flight, an unidentified voice exclaims,
	"Woooo-hoooo."  At T-plus-70 seconds, Francis Scobbe says, "Go
	at throttle up."  A scant 2-1/2 seconds later comes the
	explosion and then Smith's "Uh-oh."  The recording ends.

	Experts cannot determine how long the astronauts remained
	conscious.  It is certain they died instantly when the cabin
	struck the water 2 minutes and 45 seconds after the shuttle
	explosion, if not sooner.  Smith and at least some of the others
	were conscious long enough to feel fear.  And that adds to the
	dignity of their deaths because, in the words of Mark Twain,
	courage is "mastery of fear--not absence of fear".

					Evelyn C. Leeper
					(201) 957-2070
					ihnp4!mtgzy!ecl
					mtgzy!ecl@topaz.rutgers.edu

It's not reality that's important, but how you perceive things.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #349
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA24687; Fri, 8 Aug 86 03:01:55 PDT
	id AA24687; Fri, 8 Aug 86 03:01:55 PDT
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 86 03:01:55 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8608081001.AA24687@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #350

*** EOOH ***
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 86 03:01:55 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #350

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 350

Today's Topics:
			Re: shuttle transcript
		   Columbia "near-disaster" reports
		     Re: Re KAL-007 and free fall
----------------------------------------------------------------------

To: "e.c.leeper" <ihnp4!houxm!mtuxo!mtgzy!ecl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu>
Cc: space@mc.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: Re: shuttle transcript
In-Reply-To: Your message of 06 Aug 86 18:17:00 +0000.
Date: Thu, 07 Aug 86 11:15:36 -0400
From: Frank Hollander <hollande@dewey.udel.edu>

What about Judy Resnick's "[expletive] hot"?  US NEWS doesn't seem
to report that.  I saw a transcript in the NY Times, I think.

Frank Hollander

------------------------------

Date:     Thu, 7 Aug 86 10:12:21 CDT
From: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI <wmartin@almsa-1.arpa>
To: risks@csl.sri.com, space@s1-b.arpa
Subject:  Columbia "near-disaster" reports

Just as a side comment, are other people out there irritated by the 
seemingly-universal referring in news stories about this incident
to liguid oxygen as "fuel"? Even sources like MacNeil-Lehrer, who should
know better, used the term "fuel" -- I don't recall seeing "oxidizer"
or hearing any comment to the effect that the reporters/commentators
realized that the term "fuel" was not really correct.

Did the original NASA/Commission press release use the term "fuel"?

Will

------------------------------

Date: 7 Aug 86 16:00:05 GMT
From: bellcore!petrus!purtill@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Mark Purtill)
Subject: Re: Re KAL-007 and free fall
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> 
> Another comment on the KAL-007 crime.  That plane, while fatally damaged, would
> not have experienced the shocks that the crew compartment did.  That coupled
> with the builtin O2 supply would have ensured that most of the passengers would
> have remained aware for the entire twelve to fifteen minutes it took for the
> plane to crash.
> 
There was also the JAL 747 that slammed into a mountain  a while back.  
Apparently the passangers knew something was wrong long before the 
actual crash as they had written farewell message to their families and
such like.
x

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #350
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA12046; Sat, 9 Aug 86 03:01:56 PDT
	id AA12046; Sat, 9 Aug 86 03:01:56 PDT
Date: Sat, 9 Aug 86 03:01:56 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8608091001.AA12046@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #351

*** EOOH ***
Date: Sat, 9 Aug 86 03:01:56 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #351

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 351

Today's Topics:
		  shuttle news (pilot's last words)
		       Columbia "near disaster"
			Re: JAL and free fall
		       columbia "near disaster"
	      Re: Re KAL-007, free fall, the end is near
			     SFMSS thanks
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 8 Aug 86 04:33:55 GMT
From: cbosgd!ukma!sean@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Sean Casey)
Subject: shuttle news (pilot's last words)
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa


I once read an extensive article in Flying about what pilots do just before
they crash.  They analyzed radio records and flight recorder logs and came
up with interesting statistics.  The pilots represented represented a broad
cross section of general and commercial aviation, all types of ratings and
hours.

(Note: the following is paraphased, not a direct quote)

1.	Almost to a one, the pilots were calm right until the crash.
	Regardless of how bad the situation was, they kept on flying
	the aircraft and attempting to remedy the situation right until
	their aircraft struck the ground.  Some of them took the wrong
	action, obviously, but the calm was universal.

2.	The most common last word(s) were:
		"Damn"
		"Shit",  "Oh shit"
		"We're going to hit"

What really choked me up was one airline co-pilot that said "I love ya Ma.",
about half a second before the plane impacted the ground, killing him.

Sean

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Casey                UUCP:  cbosgd!ukma!sean        CSNET:  sean@uky.csnet
University of Kentucky    ARPA:  ukma!sean@anl-mcs.arpa
Lexington, Kentucky     BITNET:  sean@ukma.bitnet

------------------------------

Date: 8 Aug 86 08:25 EDT
From: (Richard Kenner) <KENNER@nyu-cmcl1.arpa>
To: <SPACE@s1-b.arpa>
Subject: Columbia "near disaster"

I am also very irritated about the reporting of this, though not because they
"simplified" it by calling LOX "fuel".  There are several other problems with
the reporting:

(1) It is not a "new" story.  It was mentioned, I believe, in John Young's
letter which was release in March or so.  I certainly first heard about it
many months ago in a published forum ("World Spaceflight News").

(2) I was listening to Dial-A-Shuttle during the referenced launch abort.
From what I heard, at least, they were nowhere close to launching without at
least recycling to T-20 (when I assume the error would have been corrected via
normal fill procedures).  Although they didn't know about the low LOX quantity,
there were simply too many LCC violations to be ignored.

(3) Even if they HAD ignored these violations and launched with 31,000 lbs
less LOX, it isn't at all clear that there would have been a "disaster".
I would expect that they would certainly be able to execute an AOA, which is
a fairly safe abort procedure as it involves an Edwards landing.  They might
even have been able to execute an ATO (though they might have to come back
almost immediately because it might exhaust lots of RCS/OMS fuel to do so).
There would almost certainly have been a "loss of mission" but almost certainly
not "loss of vehicle" or "loss of life".  Does anyone have any information to
contradict this?

-------

------------------------------

To: Mark Purtill <bellcore!petrus!purtill@ucbvax.berkeley.edu>
Cc: space@mc.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: Re: JAL and free fall 
In-Reply-To: Your message of 07 Aug 86 16:00:05 +0000.
Date: Fri, 08 Aug 86 08:34:49 -0400
From: Frank Hollander <hollande@dewey.udel.edu>

>There was also the JAL 747 that slammed into a mountain  a while back.  
>Apparently the passangers knew something was wrong long before the 
>actual crash as they had written farewell message to their families and
>such like.

This plane "flew" for something like 30 minutes, essentially out of
control, until it hit the mountain.  Apparently, the pilot was quite
brilliant, but the damage to the plane was too severe for him to do
anything but keep it in the air for awhile.  The passengers had plenty
of time for terror and farewell messages.

Frank Hollander

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 8 Aug 86 09:48:13 edt
From: John Pierre <jpierre@nrl-css.arpa>
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: columbia "near disaster"

	one comment about the recent hype concerning the columbia incidents.
when they actually happened, the news media gave them very little coverage.
i am refering to the low *oxidizer* incident and the dislodged gauge-in-the
fuel line incident.  I did hear about them on the news when they happened,
so why is the media reporting as if they've uncovered some new secret?

------------------------------

Date: 8 Aug 86 16:57:36 GMT
From: hplabs!hplabsb!bl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Bruce T. Lowerre)
Subject: Re: Re KAL-007, free fall, the end is near
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

In article <259@petrus.UUCP>, purtill@petrus.UUCP (Mark Purtill) writes:
> > 
> > Another comment on the KAL-007 crime.  That plane, while fatally damaged, would
> > not have experienced the shocks that the crew compartment did.  That coupled
> > with the builtin O2 supply would have ensured that most of the passengers would
> > have remained aware for the entire twelve to fifteen minutes it took for the
> > plane to crash.
> > 
> There was also the JAL 747 that slammed into a mountain  a while back.  
> Apparently the passangers knew something was wrong long before the 
> actual crash as they had written farewell message to their families and
> such like.
> x

The rear bulkhead blew out taking with it part of the tail and all 4
hydraulic systems.  The most amazing thing about this crash is that the
pilot managed to keep the plane "afloat" for about 20 minutes with NO
aerodynamic control what so ever.  All he had was engine power.

Also, there was the (in)famous DC-10 crash outside Paris where the rear
baggage door blew open and took out a row of seats (three) with passengers
and also severed control lines.  The plane hit the ground at near super-sonic
speed.  The passengers knew what was happening.  Also, there were reports
of screems being heard near where the three passengers fell.

Now ask me why I'm a pilot.

------------------------------

Date:  8 Aug 1986 19:30-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
To: "/usr/amon/SFMSS/Email.sfmss" <Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu>
Subject: SFMSS thanks

To SFMSS people:

I have received feedback that key people have been impressed with the
quantity and quality of your letters on the subject of the Space
Station. Thank you for your assistance. It DOES make a difference.

						Ad Astra,
						Dale Amon

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #351
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA15718; Sun, 10 Aug 86 03:01:57 PDT
	id AA15718; Sun, 10 Aug 86 03:01:57 PDT
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 86 03:01:57 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8608101001.AA15718@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #352

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 352

Today's Topics:
		  Re: Re: shuttle news [last words]
			 SPACE Digest V6 #351
			   Re: shuttle news
		       Space Station Statement
	       Technology Used Against Mental Disorder
		 Space Station increase JSC manpower
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 8 Aug 86 22:34:23 GMT
From: ihnp4!riccb!rjnoe@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Re: shuttle news [last words]
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

In reference to Michael Smith's reported last words ("Uh-oh."):

> At least he had better last words than most airline pilots do.  On the vast
> majority of cockpit recordings things go along very calmly and professionally
> until the last instant when the pilot realizes he's lost it, and says,
> you guessed it, "Oh, sh*t!"  End of recording.
> 
> Larry Wall

Yes, but what about Judy Resnik's last words?  From the transcript I saw, it
sort of looks like the last thing she might have said that was recorded was
"F***ing hot!"  What I read had "(expletive)" in that place, but I can't think
of anything else that would fit in its place that would get edited out.
--
Roger Noe			ihnp4!riccb!rjnoe

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 9 Aug 1986  15:26 EDT
From: MINSKY%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #351
In-Reply-To: Msg of 9 Aug 1986  06:17-EDT from Ted Anderson <ota at s1-b.arpa>

For airplanes, oxidizers is air and the rest is fuel.  For rocket ships
the LOX is just as rightly called fuel as H2.  In reducing atmospheres,
the oxidizers are called fuel and the others are called something else.

------------------------------

Date: 6 Aug 86 19:28:53 GMT
From: tektronix!uw-beaver!fluke!ssc-vax!bcsaic!pamp@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (wagener)
Subject: Re: shuttle news
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

In article <476@meccts.UUCP> rjg@meccts.UUCP (Robert J. Granvin) writes:
>4 airpacks were recovered from the accident.  Of the 4, 3 had been
>activated.  It has been stated that at least some of the airpacks
>would need the assistance of other astronauts to activate them, as
>crew members such as the pilot would be too busy/contricted in an
>emergency to reach his/her own airpack.
>
>Also note that Cmdr Scobee's last heard words on the tape were not
>"Roger, go with throttle up" as had been stated for 1.5 months by
>NASA, but was in actuality "Uh oh".  It is believed that this was

Actually NASA was right. The above was the last words of Smith
not Scobee.

>said just moments before the explosion when he saw the flame from the
>booster.  Unfortunately, we will probably never know.

------------------------------

Date: 9 Aug 86 15:38:55 GMT
From: nbires!isis!scicom!markf@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Mark Felton)
Subject: Space Station Statement
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

Space Station Program Statement
	Dr. James C. Fletcher, NASA Administrator, issued (July 31) the 
following statement concerning the Space Station program after a press
briefing he attended with Senators Phil Gramm of Texas and Jake Garn of
Utah:
	"Over the last few days, I have spent considerable time studying
the Space Station program in great detail.
	"Today, I'd like to acknowledge that NASA did not sufficiently
consult with the Congress on decisions pertaining to Space Station management
prior to the announcement on June 30 of those decisions. 
	"Considerable misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the intent of
the decision on the Space Station work package realignment has resulted. There-
fore, I have decided not to implement that decision for a period of up to 90
days.
	"I intend to conduct a thorough review of all aspects of Space Station
design, work package assignments and functions, and conduct extensive conver-
sations with Members of Congress during this period so there will be a complete
understanding of the direction we plan to go."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA News Release 86-103
Mark Hess Headquarters, Washington, D.C. July 31, 1986
Reprinted with permission for electronic distribution
Any persons on the net objecting to the posting of this material should send
mail to isis!scicom!markf

------------------------------

Date: 9 Aug 86 14:45:24 GMT
From: nbires!isis!scicom!markf@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Mark Felton)
Subject: Technology Used Against Mental Disorder
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

NASA News Release 86-99 July 25, 1986
NASA Technology Studied For Use Against Mental Disorder
	NASA technology is being studied for use in controlling hydrocephalus,
an impairment characterized by an accumulation of fuluids in the brain and
accompanying enlargement of the head which can lead to mental disorders.
	NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md., has awarded a
$696,000 contract to Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, to perform
an engineering feasibility study leading to development of a medical device to
improve control of hydrocephalus. Hydrocephalus is caused by excess fluid in 
the brain and spinal column which increases pressure on the brain and can 
lead to mental retardation.
	Case Western Reserve University has teamed with Johns Hopkins Univer-
sity's Applied Physics Laboratory, Laurel, Md.; Cordis Corporation, Miami, 
Fla., and Barrow Neurological Institute, Phoenix, Ariz., to perform the feas-
ibility study. 
	According to Don Friedman of Goddard's Commercial Programs Office, the
device could be ready for application by 1990. The device would keep cerebro-
spinal fluid compartments at normal capacity by use of a microprocessor con-
trolled cerebrospinal fluid outflow regulating system which employs the aero-
space technology. Friedman said NASA's expertise in microelectronics and other
miniaturized instruments is directly applicable to the design of this system,
called a Cerebrospinal Fluid (CSF) Control System. 
	Friedman said NASA technology has been used in other miniaturized
medical devices. One example is the Programmable Implantable Medication System
which dispenses medication within the body, on command.
	Hydrocephalus is not a disease in itself but results from serious im-
pairment of normal circulation or reabsorption of the cerebrospinal fluid. The
disorder can result from birth defects, infection or injury to the brain.
	Current treatment primarily consists of surgical insertion of a shunt
to divert fluid from the brain to other parts of the body. While this treatment
has helped many people, problems still exist and improved systems are needed.
Medical reports indicate that about 50 percent of hydrocephalus patients re-
quire repeat surgery to replace or repair the implanted shunt.
	The system being developed can be programmed and reprogrammed to meet
the changing needs of a growing child and can be used later to wean the patient
from shunt dependence. Friedman said the system also would improve management 
of hydorcephalus and could reduce health care costs by decreasing the number
of operations and by eventually weaning the patient from the shunt.
---------------------------------
NASA News Release 86-89
Leon N. Perry Headquarters, Washington, D.C. 
David W. Thomas Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md.
Reprinted with permission for electronic distribution
______________________________________________________
Persons wishing this information removed from the net please contact me
by mail isis!scicom!markf

------------------------------

Date: 9 Aug 86 15:27:24 GMT
From: nbires!isis!scicom!markf@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Mark Felton)
Subject: Space Station increase JSC manpower
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

Space Station Will Increase JSC Manpower Level 
	Dr. James C. Fletcher, NASA Administrator, released the following
statement (July 24) following a meeting with members of Congress concerning
Space Station manpower levels at the Johnson Space Center in Houston:
	Current projections indicate that the total on or near site em-
ployment at the Johnson Space Center will increase from the current level
of about 12,600 to an average of 14,000 during Space Station development.
These figures take into account changes made in program management. This
projected employment level could increase by another 1000 personnel through
potential assignment of additional Space Station tasks to JSC. "Another way
to look at this is that without the Space Station program, JSC's employment
level likely will not grow significantly over the next few years."
	These figures come from a joint analysis by NASA Headquarters and JSC
on the impact on manpower levels of recent decisions about Space Station
management. As a result of these decisions, management of the Space Station
program will be shifted from JSC to NASA Headquarters and responsibility for
developing systems for the habitation module and airlock shifted from JSC
to Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala.
	Andrew Stofan, the Associate Administrator for the Space Station, has
been instructed to review the June 30 work package decisions to determine how
they can be properly implemented and to develop recommendations concerning
remaining decisions relative to the JSC work package role. These decisions 
address JSC's larger integration role and the manner in which it is to be
implemented. 
	"I also have instructed Mr. Stofan to incorporate in his review the
formal assumption that JSC shall retain its long term role as NASA's pre-
eminent center of excellence for the development of manned spacecraft systems
and have reiterated my view that the JSC role in crew and crew related act-
ivities, trainers and simulators is not to be diminished as a result of the
restructuring of work package roles between JSC and MSFC.
	The decision to shift responsibility for the Space Station's habit-
ation module systems from the Johnson Space Center to the Marshall Space Flight
Center has raised concern at JSC and in the Houston area about possible loss 
of identification as the focal point of NASA's manned space flight activities.
	"I understand this concern. Houston has proudly emphasized its role 
with humans in space for many years.
	"In this regard I want to assure my NASA colleagues at the Johnson
Space Center and the citizens of Houston that this identification will not
be lost. Houston is and will be mission control for Space Shuttle flights.
Houston is and will be the training center for and home of the corps of astro-
nauts. It is and will continue to be the center for planning and directing 
Space Shuttle missions.
	"Concerning the Space Station, the responsibility to outfit the 
habitation module was shifted to the center that is developing the module
structure, or shell, because such a move will increase efficiency and simp-
lify management communication, coordination and decision making. JSC will
have technical direction over development of habitation related systems as
is appropriate for the center which is pre-eminent for manned space flight.
	"Does this mean that JSC will lose its role in manned flight in the 
Space Station era? Absolutely not. The Johnson Space Center is the focal point
of expertise in human activity in space. Much of the actual work related to 
the development of habitation module systems will be done at the Johnson Space
Center. Astronauts who man the Space Station will be trained there. The mis-
sions to assemble and support the Space Station will be planned and controlled
from Houston.
	"In short, the Johnson Space Center's role as NASA's pre-eminent center
of excellence in manned spacecraft systems is not changing. In the Space Sta-
tion era it will be enhanced. We anticipate that any benefits to the economy
of the Houston region that proceed with this association with manned flight
will continue and will, indeed, be enhanced in the future."
------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA News Release 86-89 
Mark Hess Headquarters, Washington, D.C.
Reprinted with permission for electronic distributions
If any persons object to this material on the net, please contact me
by mail isis!scicom!markf

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #352
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA19786; Mon, 11 Aug 86 03:01:51 PDT
	id AA19786; Mon, 11 Aug 86 03:01:51 PDT
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 86 03:01:51 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8608111001.AA19786@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #353

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 353

Today's Topics:
			Challenger replacement
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 9 Aug 86 23:21:49 GMT
From: hplabs!pyramid!nsc!amdahl!jon@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Jonathan Leech)
Subject: Challenger replacement
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa


    From an article in Friday's paper (first published in the Chicago
Tribune):

    PRESIDENT TO OK NEW SPACE SHUTTLE

    WASHINGTON - President Reagan, overriding a division in his
    administration, plans to approve construction of a fourth
    orbiter to replace the space shuttle Challenger and has only
    to determine how to pay for it before making a public
    announcement, White House officials disclosed Thursday.
    ...
    Other senior officials, however, led by White House Chief of
    Staff Donald Regan, had questioned whether a new orbiter was
    worth the cost and whether the vehicle would be outdated by
    the time construction was completed.

    Reagan is expected to announce his decision by the end of
    next week on an orbiter to replace Challenger.

    -------------------------------------------------------------

    Hopefully that 'only' won't prevent construction from starting
real soon.

    -- Jon Leech (...seismo!amdahl!jon)
    UTS Products / Amdahl Corporation
    __@/

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #353
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA23583; Tue, 12 Aug 86 03:02:11 PDT
	id AA23583; Tue, 12 Aug 86 03:02:11 PDT
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 86 03:02:11 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8608121002.AA23583@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #354

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 354

Today's Topics:
		       open letter in Lythande
		       Is This Trip Necessary?
			       Geostar
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 10 Aug 86 04:14:05 GMT
From: ucdavis!ucrmath!hope!corwin@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (John Kempf)
Subject: open letter in Lythande
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

/*
The following open letter was found at the end of the book
Lythonde by Marion Zimmer Bradley, buried amongst the
advertisements in the back.  -cory
*/

 		    AN OPEN LETTER 
		TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE


	Astronauts Francis (Dick) Scobee, Michael Smith, Judy Resnik,
Ellison Onizuka, Ronald McNair, Gregory Jarvis, and Christa McAuliffe
understood the risk, undertook the challange, and in so doing embodied
the dreams of us all.
	Unlike so many of us, they did not take for granted the safety
of riding a torch of fire to the stars.
	For them the risk was real from the beginning.  But some are
already seizing upon their deaths as proof that America is unready for
the challenge of manned space flight.  This is the last thing the
seven would have wanted.
	Originaly five orbiters were proposed; only four were built.
This tragic reduction of the fleet places an added burden on the
remaining three.
	But the production facilities still exist.  The assembly line
can be reactivated.  The experiments designed for the orbiter bay are
waiting.  We can recover a program which is one of our nation's
greatest resources and mankind's proudest achievements.
	Soon Congress will determine the immediate direction the space
program must take.  We must place at highest priority the restoration
and enhancement of the shuttle fleet and resumption of a full launch
schedule.
	For the seven.
	In keeping with the spirit of dedication to the future of
space exploration and with the depest respect for their memory, we are
asking you to join us in urging the President and the Congress to
build a new shuttle orbiter to carry on the work of these seven
courageous men and women.
	As long as their dream lives on, the seven live on in the
dream.

		SUPPORT SPACE EXPLORATION!
	
		Write to the President at
		1600 Pennsylvania Avenue,
		Washington, D.C. 20500.

/*

comments?

*/

------------------------------

Date: 11 Aug 86 18:08:59 GMT
From: ihnp4!houxm!mtuxo!mtgzy!ecl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (e.c.leeper)
Subject: Is This Trip Necessary?
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa


		from the BARCELONA TIMES

BARCELONA, April 30, 1492--Racked with a deficit left over from the
Crusades, plus the heavy burden the recently completed Moorish wars have
placed upon the treasury, our Good Queen Isabella has seen fit to
underwrite the peregrinations of an itinerant Genoan boat bum who can't
even get the support of his own government.

Why?  To find a new route to the Indies...a place we can reach perfectly
well by land!  First, he's an odds-on favorite to fall off the edge of
the earth.  Second, even if he doesn't fall off, it doesn't mean we're
going to discover any new routes.  Third, there are far more pressing
projects.  We've got an Inquisition to fund.  Our fight with the Moors
won't be finished until every last one has been converted.

Moreover, national defense is paramount.  Our enemies hound our
flanks...and one of them will probably capture Columbus's entire
expedition anyway.

We would be better off increasing our subsidy of the Flat Earth Society
and leaving the trailblazing to the Dutch, or any other nation foolish
enough to pursue it.  If The Throne feels it must pursue the matter, it
should send unmanned craft on such a dangerous expedition.


[Reprinted without permission from NASA TECH BRIEFS, July/August 1986]

					Evelyn C. Leeper
					(201) 957-2070
					ihnp4!mtgzy!ecl
					mtgzy!ecl@topaz.rutgers.edu

An age is called Dark not because the light fails to shine,
	but because people refuse to see it.

------------------------------

Date: 12 Aug 86 01:06:50 GMT
From: ucbcad!nike!lll-crg!seismo!amdahl!jon@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Jonathan Leech)
Subject: Geostar
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa


    Does anyone know if Geostar (a firm marketing satellite location
and communication services, started by Gerard O'Neill of space colony
fame), is selling stock to the public? If so, what stock exchange is
trading going on in, and what symbol is it listed under?

    Thanks,
    Jon Leech (...seismo!amdahl!jon)
    UTS Products / Amdahl Corporation
    __@/

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #354
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA27253; Wed, 13 Aug 86 03:02:04 PDT
	id AA27253; Wed, 13 Aug 86 03:02:04 PDT
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 86 03:02:04 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8608131002.AA27253@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #355

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 355

Today's Topics:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 12 Aug 86 10:19:26 pdt
From: mkane@acc-sb-unix.arpa (Mike Kane)
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa



There was a while back, a couple of postings here having to
do with the commercial potential of space flight. There wasn't
a lot of reponse to these, so this one too, may pass into the
night.

I think that NASA should get out of the space flight "business".
Now. The sooner the better. Nothing in their charter, or their
management, or their financing, allows them and certainly doesn't
prepare them to hold a monopoly on space flight for profit. Yet they
have deliberately and succesfully squelched past attempts at private
attempts to reach space.

Congress should instruct NASA to draft a plan that moves NASA out
of their current mode of operation, and into a mode akin to the
relationship that the FAA has with commercial and general aviation.

The commercial entities now involved with NASA would still be the 
ones building the hardware, they could now fly the hardware, and
benefit from that hardware. The technology would be cheaper, and
far more up to date; and it would in a few years time, bring
the U.S. back to a leadership position in space flight. All because
of healthy, profit motivated competition.

But for this to happen congress and NASA will have to step out of a 
thirty year old attitude of who is best equipped to be the purveyor
of space flight.

The Air Force and Navy would be ecstatic beacuse military space
flight would revert to where it arguably belongs. Rockwell, Boeing
and Martin (among others) would be ecstatic because their profit 
margins would be market driven rather than negotiated.     

Commercial consortiums of potential space craft manufacturers, and 
users (like A.T. & T., for example) certainly have enough financial
wherewithall to fund commercial space ventures. And Congress could
expedite the entire process with a little tax encentive here and  
there.  Other encentives could be assignments of orbit altitudes or
mineral rights, etc.

My feeling is that if we don't incentivize the commercialization of
space, someone else (like the Japanese) will. And while we watch
particle beam generators launched into low earth orbit, the rest of 
the world will be mining the asteroids and the moon, and building
semiconductors in space stations.

If things don't change pretty quick, I'm afraid that we're going to
have to book that first space flight on JAL, rather than PAN AM.


Mike Kane (mike@acc.arpa)

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #355
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA01512; Thu, 14 Aug 86 03:02:25 PDT
	id AA01512; Thu, 14 Aug 86 03:02:25 PDT
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 86 03:02:25 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8608141002.AA01512@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #356

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 356

Today's Topics:
			      Not Again!
			     Robert Truax
		       Space Commercialization
	 "Space science needs a variety of launch vehicles"?
		     Re: commercial space flight
		     Re: Is This Trip Necessary?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 12 Aug 86 23:05:26 GMT
From: ihnp4!houxm!mtuxo!mtgzy!ecl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (e.c.leeper)
Subject: Not Again!
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa


			from the PALOS POST

PALOS, March 15, 1493--Crepuscular Chris is back, with the Santa Maria wrecked
and the Nina badly damaged.  Just as we predicted, no benefits.  His new route
to the Indies ends up in an uncivilized area of the boondocks which is
inhabited by naked savages to whom the wheel is big news.  Their mechanical
ability is exceeded only by their artistic expression, which seems to consist
of painting their bodies with mud before eating each other.  And they smell
just as good as you'd expect.

And he has the gall to want 17 more ships to go on another expedition?
Columbus's ventures are a hole in the water into which our Good Queen is
determined to throw money.  It is high time Ferdinand brought her to her senses
and determined a sensible policy for Spanish exploration.  The monarchy should
assign the Navy a goal that justifies risking lives at sea.  Resuming the old
policy is not the way to learn from the Nina and Santa Maria disasters.  The
loss of these ships is the right occasion to free the Navy from its aimlessness
and at long last give its engineers another project worthy of its skill...an
Armada, for example.


[Reprinted without permission from NASA TECH BRIEFS, July/August 1986]

					Evelyn C. Leeper
					(201) 957-2070
					ihnp4!mtgzy!ecl
					mtgzy!ecl@topaz.rutgers.edu

An age is called Dark not because the light fails to shine,
	but because people refuse to see it.

------------------------------

To: space@mc.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: Robert Truax
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 86 11:17:01 -0500
From: tbmoore@athena.mit.edu

Greetings.
   Does anyone know what happened to Robert Truax and his company? As I
recall, he was trying to produce really cheap boosters that would send humans
into sub-orbital space. Although this end may be kind of silly, the cheap
boosters would be useful in any kind of commercial space operation. Truax was
a pioneer in booster technology. I remember hearing about this venture when I
was in junior-high, and I haven't heard anything since.

			      Tim Moore
		  tbmoore@athena.mit.edu  (internet)

------------------------------

Date: 13 Aug 86 16:32:55 EDT
From: Hank.Walker@unh.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: Space Commercialization
To: BBoard.Maintainer@a.cs.cmu.edu

The fundamental problem with all commercial launching ventures is that all
launchers are currently heavily subsidized (NASA, Ariane, Long March 3,
etc.) so private US contractors can't compete.  The Department of
Transportion has some office to help private ventures, but I don't think
anything significant on the commercial front will happen until a political
solution to the subsidy problem is found.  One interim possibility similar
to the LANDSAT deal is to turn things over to industry and provide them with
a subsidy until open competition is possible.  I believe the group opposed
to a new shuttle takes the position that moving more heavily to expendable
launchers is the first step in this direction.

------------------------------

Date:         Wed, 13 Aug 86 18:25:42 EDT
From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
To: space digest <space-incoming@s1-b.arpa>
Subject:      "Space science needs a variety of launch vehicles"?

The appended letter is one which I wrote to _Physics Today_ in
reply to the editorial "Space Science Needs a Variety of Launch
Vehicles" in the July 1986 issue.  Some of you may find it of
interest.

Dear Editor,
   It has become rather popular, in the aftermath of the shuttle failure,
to point out (as Thomas Donahue does in his editorial
"Space science needs a variety of launch vehicles," July 1986)
how "obvious" it is that the US made a drastic mistake in trying
to rely on a single system (namely the shuttle) for transportation
to orbit.
     In the presence of unlimited amounts of funding,
development of a wide spectrum of launch vehicles is clearly a good idea.
Given limited funding, however, it was (and is) very reasonable
to focus effort on a single launch technology, rather than spread the
same money overa large number of different technologies.
One good reason to do this is to achieve
economies of scale.  Another is that as experience--ie., number of
launches on a specific type of vehicle--increases,
efficiency rises and and costs decrease.
In order to get maximum use out of the learning curve,
it is again preferable to pick one particular technology
and use it to the maximum extent possible.
     It is clear that the management procedures of NASA had been allowed
to become disasterously flawed.  However,
Congress and the OMB must also shoulder blame for the failure, by
their continuous whittling away of the development and operations
budget for the space shuttle, deleting funding for quality control
and inspection personnel, eliminating the needed fifth orbiter
(and thus putting a larger launch schedule burden on the remaining
vehicles), and
decreasing operations funding for the program to the
point where sufficient spare parts are not even available to
make all of the existing shuttles operational at the same time.
     Unmanned space science advocates such as James Van Allen
often seem to take the viewpoint that if funding for
manned space flight is cut, the money saved will be used
for unmanned space science.  I think that this point of view
is naive, and that in fact there is a very good case to be
made that long-term funding for space science
*increases* with the budget for manned space flight.
Space science will be best served when routine access to
space is guaranteed not only to astronauts, but to
working physicists, technicians, and even grad students.
     We should not forget the fact that the space shuttle, despite its
failures, has still proven to be by far the most reliable
transportation to LEO in its payload class, with a considerably
better record than Titan or Arianne vehicles (whose failures
do not normally attract as much publicity), and at a cost which,
if not the $600/kg cost once promised (for a fully reusable shuttle
considerably different from the "bargain-basement" version
finally funded) is nevertheless competitive with
unmanned vehicles.
     Finally, I would like to take specific issue with Donahue's
final two sentences, where he states "...the Soviet approach (of
incremental improvements)... has been much more productive since
the 1960's than the American propensity for grandiose
technological quantum leaps."  The American approach has resulted
in detailed geological information on the Moon and Mars,
probes to Mercury, Venus, Jupiter, Saturn, and Uranus; and
exciting results in space-based astronomy in spectral ranges from the
IR (IRAS) through the UV, all the way up to X-ray and Gamma ray
astronomy (Einstein).   It is unclear to me which results
Donahue is refering to when he calls the Soviet approach "much
more productive".
     The obvious next step for space science is clearly to
move to a fully-reusable, air-breathing "next-generation"
aerospace plane capable of carrying payloads to orbit
for a realisticly low cost.  However, such a vehicle will
unlikely not become operational until at least the late
1990's.  In the interim, the space shuttle is the best,
most reliable transportation to orbit currently available.
It is important that a single, well-publicised failure not
blind us to the fact that the program *is*
worthwhile.  A replacement for Challenger, and even a fifth shuttle
to relieve some of the launch pressure on the existing fleet,
would be a wise investment.
                   --Geoffrey A. Landis, Brown University
                     Reply to: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA

------------------------------

Date:           Wed, 13 Aug 86 12:04:54 PDT
From: Jordan Brown <lcc.jbrown@locus.ucla.edu>
To: mkane@acc-sb-unix.arpa
Cc: Space@s1-b.arpa
Subject:        Re: commercial space flight
In-Reply-To:    Message of Wed, 13 Aug 86 03:10:54 PDT
                    from "Ted Anderson <ota@s1-b.arpa>"
                    <8608131010.AA27445@s1-b.arpa>


> From: mkane@acc-sb-unix.arpa (Mike Kane)

> I think that NASA should get out of the space flight "business".
> Now. The sooner the better. Nothing in their charter, or their
> management, or their financing, allows them and certainly doesn't
> prepare them to hold a monopoly on space flight for profit. Yet they
> have deliberately and succesfully squelched past attempts at private
> attempts to reach space.

There is one significant problem with commercial launches.  Corporations
have to make money.  When a failure occurs, they will be under
tremendous pressure to apply a "band-aid" fix to the problem, and get
flying again, rather than shut down and spend the time to fix the problem
right.  This may result in a higher loss rate than with NASA, where
(as evidenced by recent events) they are willing to (and in fact insist on)
shutting down operations until problems are found and resolved.

As an example of this problem, look at Ariane.  ESA is trying to make
Ariane a fully commercial launcher.  Out of 18 flights, they've had 3
flights where the spacecraft was lost because the third stage failed
to ignite.  Supposedly, each was caused by something different going
wrong, but... Maybe the problem really is that the third stage design
is just too sensitive, and the third stage needs to be redesigned.
Will they do this?  I don't know.

I'm not sure how I feel about this tradeoff.  It's not hard to decide on
an "acceptable" loss rate for unmanned launchers, but what is "acceptable"
for manned ones?

------------------------------

Date: 13 Aug 86 22:53:35 GMT
From: voder!kontron!cramer@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: Is This Trip Necessary?
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> 		from the BARCELONA TIMES
> 
> BARCELONA, April 30, 1492--Racked with a deficit left over from the
> Crusades, plus the heavy burden the recently completed Moorish wars have
> placed upon the treasury, our Good Queen Isabella has seen fit to
> underwrite the peregrinations of an itinerant Genoan boat bum who can't
> even get the support of his own government.
> 
> Why?  To find a new route to the Indies...a place we can reach perfectly
> well by land!  First, he's an odds-on favorite to fall off the edge of
> the earth.  Second, even if he doesn't fall off, it doesn't mean we're

No educated person of the fifteenth century thought the Earth was flat.
They were just correct about how big the planet was -- Columbus wasn't.

> going to discover any new routes.  Third, there are far more pressing
> projects.  We've got an Inquisition to fund.  Our fight with the Moors
> won't be finished until every last one has been converted.
> 

Inquisition wasn't expensive -- in fact, expelling the Jews from Spain
is how Columbus' voyage was financed.  Also, the objective of Ferdinand 
& Isabella was regaining political control of the Spain from the Moors --
not conversion of them.

> Moreover, national defense is paramount.  Our enemies hound our
> flanks...and one of them will probably capture Columbus's entire
> expedition anyway.
> 
> We would be better off increasing our subsidy of the Flat Earth Society
> and leaving the trailblazing to the Dutch, or any other nation foolish
> enough to pursue it.  If The Throne feels it must pursue the matter, it
> should send unmanned craft on such a dangerous expedition.
> 

And notice how well-off Spain ended up from its New World adventures?
Not to mention how well-off the Indians were because of the expedition? :-)
If the New World hadn't been discovered for another 50 years, we might
all be better off today.

> 
> [Reprinted without permission from NASA TECH BRIEFS, July/August 1986]
> 
> 					Evelyn C. Leeper

An amusing satire -- but it shows a great ignorance of the Age of
Exploration, and little understanding of the complexities of economics.

If we can't get into space with a free market, maybe we shouldn't go.

Clayton E. Cramer

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #356
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA05536; Fri, 15 Aug 86 03:02:02 PDT
	id AA05536; Fri, 15 Aug 86 03:02:02 PDT
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 86 03:02:02 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8608151002.AA05536@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #357

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 357

Today's Topics:
	     Columbus Mismanagement Mounts into Millions
		   Re: Re: Is this trip necessary?
			INTERNATIONAL SHUTTLE
       Re: "Space science needs a variety of launch vehicles"?
			     Re: Geostar
		       Re: SPACE Digest V6 #356
		      Re: INTERNATIONAL SHUTTLE
		       Re: SPACE Digest V6 #356
			Re: Freemarket comment
				errata
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 13 Aug 86 17:26:44 GMT
From: ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtgzy!ecl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (e.c.leeper)
Subject: Columbus Mismanagement Mounts into Millions
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa


		from the SANTANDER SENTINEL

SANTANDER, January 12, 1499--Columbus, his contractors, and staff (some of
whom are his family) have wasted millions of Spanish doubloons on the Indian
expeditions, despite warning after warning from Empire courtiers that these
losses were occurring through bad management.  Not only was the entire first
settlement wiped out by Indians, but the current Hispaniola settlement seethes
with discontent because of poor food, poor living conditions, and inept native
labor that produces far less gold than Columbus had promised.  It is obvious
that his vainglorious project will never be commercially viable.

Experts inside and outside the Empire says such fault administration procedures
have severely hurt the Spanish exploration program.  The Admiral of the
Mosquitos has brought the Empire only the discovery of lands of vanity and
delusion which have been the ruin of many a Spanish gentleman.  It is at least
heartening to know that Bobadilla is investigating the whole mess and has sent
Cornucopia Chris and his brothers back to Spain in chains for a full
accounting.


[Reprinted without permission from NASA TECH BRIEFS, July/August 1986]

					Evelyn C. Leeper
					(201) 957-2070
					ihnp4!mtgzy!ecl
					mtgzy!ecl@topaz.rutgers.edu

An age is called Dark not because the light fails to shine,
	but because people refuse to see it.

------------------------------

Date: 14 Aug 1986 08:26:34-EDT
From: rachiele@nadc.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Re: Re: Is this trip necessary?


Now I've seen everything!  Was it really necessary to pick apart a humorous
story with an interesting point to make, as if it were a technical piece?
I don't normally send flames to people, but this is too much!  And next I'm
sure I will get some yahoo flaming me about my spelling (there must be 
something spelled wrong in this message).  Well in advance I don't care.
My meaning is clear even if my spelling is bad.
         Jim

------------------------------

Date: 13 Aug 86 18:56:49 GMT
From: ihnp4!inuxc!inuxe!fred@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Fred Mendenhall)
Subject: INTERNATIONAL SHUTTLE
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***

I caught part of a story on NPR, after getting whipped
at Tennis again, last night about a plan to make the replacement
shuttle an International project.  The idea was to have North
American Rockwell make the parts and to have Japan and ESA 
construct and test the new bird. This plan would save
the USA something like a billion dollars and would allow
us to proceed faster with the space station.

Needless to say, the labor unions were extremely unhappy with
the idea, loss of American jobs, and NASA isn't happy cause they
do not want to share control of anything we fly.

However, the plan makes some sorta sense to me. First of all we are
not transferring new technology, while the shuttle may be the state of
the art orbiter its technology, as frequently pointed out on this 
net, is at least a decade old. The Russians have taken a commanding
lead in spaceflight and America has shown a lack of resolve to 
counter this situation. So maybe it is time to form a truly 
International Space Program.

After that last paragraph I can smell the flame throwers going
on at terminals across the country, so while I put on my asbestos 
suit let me say this. America has shown the lack of resolve to 
compete in a meaningful fashion by refusing to adequately fund
its own space program. We have established history of poorly funding
NASA and I don't see a major long term commitment to changing the trend. 

Furthermore, while there is broad popular support for the space
program no one has successfully harnessed that support into 
political power. The politically most effective space interest group,
the L5 Society, has in the last 8 years only managed to increase
its membership from about 3000 to 7000 and though they have 
accomplished near miracles they lack the size needed to have real 
clout. 

Lets not make any mistakes about this, the US/Free World space
program is in a deep hole. What we choose to do or not do in
the next 24 months will have critical results for the rest of 
our lifetimes. From that position I think an International 
Shuttle needs to be considered carefully and not discounted out
of American arrogance.

					Fred Mendenhall

------------------------------

Posted-Date: Thu 14 Aug 1986 08:10:59 EST
Date: Thu 14 Aug 1986 08:10:59 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Re: "Space science needs a variety of launch vehicles"?
To: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
In-Reply-To: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET's message of Wed, 13 Aug 86 18:25:42 EDT
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa

Geoffrey,

  A number of comments on your letter to Physics Today...

  It has become popular to point out that the US made a serious mistake
in depending on the shuttle because, from the user's point of view, it
WAS a tremendous mistake.  Look at the number of military and scientific
payloads stacked up.  It's a pretty disasterous situation, no?

  Also, when deciding on the soundness of the shuttle decision it is
unfair to compare the shuttle with current unmanned launchers.  Rather,
ask what kind of unmanned launchers we would have if NASA had put the
shuttle money into their development (or, if private firms, not
believing that NASA would undercut them, had done so).  A smaller
semireusable unmanned booster based on shuttle technology would have at
st twice the shuttle's payload.  Less advanced vehicles like the Hughes
Jarvis concept could have been developed.

  I agree with the assertion that with limited amounts
of funding it is reasonable to concentrate on a single launch
technology.  Your arguments concerning economies of scale, experience,
and so on make sense.  So why was the shuttle developed??  Also, it
is strange to harp on the limits to funding at the same time
complaining that Congress skimped on shuttle development.  Perhaps
Congress was misled from the beginning about program costs because
they would wisely not have funded the program otherwise.  NASA should
then be criticized for believing it could then extract more money from
Congress after the program was sufficiently advanced.

  Your comment about the shuttle being the most reliable transportation
system to LEO is simply untrue, unless you use a raw
explosions-per-launch figure.  But the shuttle is reusable, so one
failed launch destroys many future launch slots, and one delayed
launch delays all of that orbiter's future flights.  As the current
problems demonstrate, the shuttle takes much longer to get back on its
feet after a disaster.  From a user's point of view it has been a
very unreliable launch system.

------------------------------

Date: 13 Aug 86 20:34:35 GMT
From: cbosgd!cbdkc1!blb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  ( Ben Branch 3S315 CB x4790 WSB )
Subject: Re: Geostar
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

Geostar is only available through privately sold investments. You
have to be able to put up a pretty good amount of money and be able
to prove that you can afford to lose it. E.G. it's still more of
a venture capital arrangement.

------------------------------

Date: Thu 14 Aug 86 10:35:56-PDT
From: Andy Freeman <ANDY@su-sushi.arpa>
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V6 #356
To: Space@s1-b.arpa, ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
In-Reply-To: <8608141012.AA01639@s1-b.arpa>

Geoffrey A. Landis (ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA) wrote:
    Space science will be best served when routine access to space is
    guaranteed not only to astronauts, but to working physicists,
    technicians, and even grad students.	      ^^^^^^^^^^

I liked the letter, but physics and astronomy aren't the only sciences
that "need" space access.  There are some computer designs that can't
be used on earth.  (I'm not referring to fabrication; they have to run
in space.)  There are similar examples in other sciences.  It's time
to weaken the stranglehold that physicists have on science in space.

-andy
-------

------------------------------

Date: 14 Aug 86 20:26:34 GMT
From: brahms!desj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (David desJardins)
Subject: Re: INTERNATIONAL SHUTTLE
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

In article <843@inuxe.UUCP> fred@inuxe.UUCP (Fred Mendenhall) writes:
>
>I caught part of a story on NPR ... about a plan to make the replacement
>shuttle an International project.  The idea was to have North American
>Rockwell make the parts and to have Japan and ESA construct and test the
>new bird.
>
>Needless to say ... NASA isn't happy cause they do not want to share
>control of anything we fly. [???]
>
>After that last paragraph I can smell the flame throwers going
>on at terminals across the country ... [???]

   I find it hard to believe that any Americans could be against such a
wonderful idea, as you seem to imply.  Certainly I would expect NASA to
have enough sense to be all in favor of it.  The hard part has got to be
to convince the Japanese and Europeans to go along with it, right?  After
all, they are the ones who don't really get anything out of it.  They get
to invest billions of dollars in a huge money-losing proposition -- hard
to believe that they are going to jump at the chance.
   But it certainly would be great if we could talk them into it.  Just
imagine if in a few years we could have Japan building shuttles, the
Europeans building shuttles, maybe even othr countries.  Perhaps the
greatest benefit would be not to have the entire space program subject
to the whims of Congress!  And also, when the time comes to build HLVs
(or whatever the next generation of space craft may be), it could be a
completely international project, with the costs shared among the various
countries, and development hopefully would proceed much more quickly than
otherwise.  Truly a heartwarming thought.

   -- David desJardins

------------------------------

Date: 14 Aug 1986 16:44-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V6 #356

The acceptable loss rate for manned flyers is the rate at which you can
still hire qualified pilots that are willing to fly it and you are
still making enough money to afford the replacements. 

Let those who fly make the choice on what is worth dying for. Don't try
to ram the standards of a society of gutless earthworms down their
throats. If Challenger had belonged to a corporation, the shuttles
would be flying again by now, albiet under restricted launch
conditions. And I, for one, would be more than happy to volunteer for
the flight.

					Ad astra,
					Dale Amon
			Chairman, 6th Space Development Conference
			 Pittsburgh Hilton, March 27-29, 1987

"Wats'a'matta?
Ya wanna live ferever?"

PS: Bill Nelson (FL) is reported to have introduced a bill in congress for
the purchase of a 4th orbiter and an amendment requests that one of the
existing ones should be sold to private industry.

------------------------------

Date: 14 Aug 1986 16:58-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Re: Freemarket comment

If we don't colonize space in the next 50-75 years, we probably won't
HAVE an earth on which to PUT our free markets.

					Dale Amon
				(a card carrying libertarian)

------------------------------

Date: 14 Aug 1986 18:15-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: errata

Correction and additional info:

Nelson orbiter funding authorization passed, has wording which would
allow exploration of alternative funding methods. Torricelli amendment,
which I alluded to, was not passed. Note that authorization only says
that congress is allowed to fight over allocating money to it. IT does
NOT mean that the 4th orbiter is in the budget. It only means that a
foruth orbiter MIGHT be placed in the budget if someone can find the
money for it.

There is some expectation that Reagan will make a policy statement this
Saturday. Not certain, but I'll be keeping my eyes open.

A commercial ELV market is beginning to look pretty certain, although
as one might expect with government and DOD involved, the actors who
will probably get the nod are Martin Marietta and General Dynamics,
instead of really competitive firms.

The USAF call on Delta's could delay things for Transpace, the company
that has been attempting to commercialize the Delta.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #357
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA09497; Sat, 16 Aug 86 03:01:59 PDT
	id AA09497; Sat, 16 Aug 86 03:01:59 PDT
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 86 03:01:59 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8608161001.AA09497@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #358

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 358

Today's Topics:
		      Re: INTERNATIONAL SHUTTLE
		     Re: commercial space flight
		  KGB Sabotage of US Space Program!
			    Re: Not Again!
		Re: KGB Sabotage of US Space Program!
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 14 Aug 86 15:21:54 GMT
From: ihnp4!inuxc!inuxm!arlan@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (A Andrews)
Subject: Re: INTERNATIONAL SHUTTLE
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> 
> I caught part of a story on NPR, after getting whipped
> at Tennis again, last night about a plan to make the replacement
> shuttle an International project.  The idea was to have North
> American Rockwell make the parts and to have Japan and ESA 
> construct and test the new bird. This plan would save
> the USA something like a billion dollars and would allow
> us to proceed faster with the space station.
> 
> 
> After that last paragraph I can smell the flame throwers going
> on at terminals across the country, so while I put on my asbestos 
> suit let me say this. 
> 
> Lets not make any mistakes about this, the US/Free World space
> program is in a deep hole. What we choose to do or not do in
> the next 24 months will have critical results for the rest of 
> our lifetimes. From that position I think an International 
> Shuttle needs to be considered carefully and not discounted out
> of American arrogance.
> 
> 					Fred Mendenhall
> 					
I second your motion, Fred.  Maybe even the others could whip one
together faster than we could.  I'd just add a license fee and let
them build whatever they want, to be used with us or on their own.

--arlan andrews

>

------------------------------

Date: 14 Aug 86 16:14:49 GMT
From: ihnp4!ihlpa!animal@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (D. Starr)
Subject: Re: commercial space flight
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> 
> > From: mkane@acc-sb-unix.arpa (Mike Kane)
> 
> > I think that NASA should get out of the space flight "business".
> > Now. The sooner the better. Nothing in their charter, or their
> > management, or their financing, allows them and certainly doesn't
> > prepare them to hold a monopoly on space flight for profit. Yet they
> > have deliberately and succesfully squelched past attempts at private
> > attempts to reach space.
> 
> There is one significant problem with commercial launches.  Corporations
> have to make money.  When a failure occurs, they will be under
> tremendous pressure to apply a "band-aid" fix to the problem, and get
> flying again, rather than shut down and spend the time to fix the problem
> right.  This may result in a higher loss rate than with NASA, where
> (as evidenced by recent events) they are willing to (and in fact insist on)
> shutting down operations until problems are found and resolved.

Huh?  I must have missed something.  The Rogers commission concluded that
NASA kept on launching shuttles for precisely the reasons you mention
above well after they had established that there was a potentially catastrophic
problem with the SRB seals.  And they did not (as a business operation,
trying to protect a multibillion-dollar investment, would have) even apply
a band-aid such as only launching in warm weather.

Note also, that the attempts to halt the Challenger launch came from the
business side (Thiokol and Rockwell engineers), who were eventually beaten
down by NASA management.
> 
> As an example of this problem, look at Ariane.  ESA is trying to make
> Ariane a fully commercial launcher.  Out of 18 flights, they've had 3
> flights where the spacecraft was lost because the third stage failed
> to ignite.  Supposedly, each was caused by something different going
> wrong, but... Maybe the problem really is that the third stage design
> is just too sensitive, and the third stage needs to be redesigned.
> Will they do this?  I don't know.
> 
> I'm not sure how I feel about this tradeoff.  It's not hard to decide on
> an "acceptable" loss rate for unmanned launchers, but what is "acceptable"
> for manned ones?

Depends on the failure, and whether you are planning to lose the laucher
or the crew.  The Ariane's failure mode (third-stage ignition failure) is
survivable as long as you have a re-entry vehicle--something you would 
certainly expect to have in manned flight.  If the price is right, it is
quite acceptable to have to pluck the crew out of the Atlantic and send them
up on the next flight from time to time.  On the other hand, we've all
seen the Shuttle's failure mode.

------------------------------

Date: 14 Aug 86 19:33:35 GMT
From: ihnp4!houxm!hou2d!lws@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (lws)
Subject: KGB Sabotage of US Space Program!
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa



*
Has anybody else received the _URGENTGRAM_ from LT. General
Daniel O. Graham (RET) detailing the Soviet sabotage of the
American Space Program?

The General suspects KGB sabotage of the Ariane and the Shuttle,
and leaving us open to attack by the sneaky Commie bastards!
He urges sending enclosed postcards to my congressional members
and signing a petition urging Meese to conduct an investigation!

He calls his organization High Frontier.

He also wants $26.50.

He included a reprint of an article which appeared in
the LA Times, 6/6/86 which confirms all his suspicions.

I think he must have gotten my name and address from NASA
TECH BRIEFS because it is spelled (incorrectly) the same
on his _URGENTGRAM_ and my latest copy of NTB.

Whats the story on General Graham (RET), and how did
he get my name from NASA TECH BRIEFS?

LWS
hou2sd
hou2d!lws
*

------------------------------

Date: 15 Aug 86 12:24:23 GMT
From: magic!stolfi@decwrl.dec.com  (Jorge Stolfi)
Subject: Re: Not Again!
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

Evelyn C. Leeper writes in article <1931@mtgzy.UUCP>:
>   
>                       from the PALOS POST 
>   
>   PALOS, March 15, 1493--Crepuscular Chris is back, with the
>   Santa Maria wrecked and the Nina badly damaged.  Just as we
>   predicted, no benefits. [...]   
>   And he has the gall to want 17 more ships to go on another
>   expedition?  Columbus's ventures are a hole in the water into
>   which our Good Queen is determined to throw money.  [...]
>   Resuming the old policy is not the way to learn from the Nina
>   and Santa Maria disasters.  The loss of these ships is the
>   right occasion to free the Navy from its aimlessness and at
>   long last give its engineers another project worthy of its
>   skill...an Armada, for example.  

Is the intent of the author what I think it is, namely 
justifying continuation of the Shuttle program by comparing
it to Columbus' expedition? If so, then sorry --- I don't
think the analogy holds.

Columbus' trip was a project with a definite goal and dedicated leadership,
that produced invaluable results with an extremely modest expense.

The Shuttle was lagely a plan conceived by a huge federal bureaucracy
to keep money flowing to its members and clients.  The need for it was
never fully justified; instead, the approval was obtained through heavy
court lobbying, overly optimistic claims, and outright lies.
Its completion drained resources from other worthy programs and forced
the suspension of many of them.  When the Shuttle finally was
delivered, it turned out to be an expensive white elephant,
and its (predictable but unpredicted) failure crippled the nation for
years to come.

If analolgies are to be drawn between Spanish history and our space
program, then Columbus' adventure could perhaps be compared to the
Voyager mission, but the Shuttle affair must necessarily be equated to
tale of the Invincible Armada...

    jorge stolfi
    
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ARPA: stolfi@src.dec.com
UUCP: ..{..decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4,allegra}!decwrl!stolfi
DISCLAIMER: The above opinions are not the sort of stuff my employer,
my teachers, my friends, or my mother would like to be associated with.

------------------------------

Date: 15 Aug 86 06:05:59 GMT
From: petrus!ka9q!karn@bellcore.arpa  (Phil Karn)
Subject: Re: KGB Sabotage of US Space Program!
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

The notion that "foreign sabotage" is to blame when a nation's technological
pride and joy ends up in the drink seems to be a popular knee-jerk reaction
these days. It's always the first question the reporters ask at the
post-launch-failure press conference.  Why? It's a very comfortable and
tempting escape from reality.  If we could blame Libya or the USSR or some
state-sponsored terrorist group for the failure of the Shuttle or Ariane or
Delta or Titan, then we wouldn't have to worry about what we might find if
we looked at ourselves too hard.

Of course, review boards should always consider sabotage in their
investigations. But when a thorough search of the evidence reveals no
evidence of sabotage, but rather abundant design errors, poor mismanagement
and silly human mistakes by our own people, it's time to face the fact that
we haven't yet fully mastered either the laws of nature or human nature.

No doubt this bothers the General even more than your average Red-Blooded
Patriotic American, because he firmly believes (or at least says he
believes) that we have the technical ability to do *anything* in space, even
to build an utterly impenetrable shield against Soviet missiles.  Well,
enough to sell the President on it, anyway.  I suspect that the findings of
the Rogers Commission have been too much for the poor guy; nothing is more
earthshattering for a fervently religious person than being confronted with
something that contradicts his beliefs.  Now he's gone off the deep end
grasping at straws, desperately trying to shake his "faith crisis" in the
Peace Shield.

Sad.

Phil

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #358
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA12152; Sun, 17 Aug 86 03:01:51 PDT
	id AA12152; Sun, 17 Aug 86 03:01:51 PDT
Date: Sun, 17 Aug 86 03:01:51 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8608171001.AA12152@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #359

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 359

Today's Topics:
		  KGB Sabotage of US Space Program!
		     Re: commercial space flight
		   Columbus, NASA, shuttle, budget
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 14 Aug 86 18:24:59 GMT
From: ihnp4!houxm!hou2d!lws@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (lws)
Subject: KGB Sabotage of US Space Program!
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa



*
Has anybody else received the _URGENTGRAM_ from LT. General
Daniel O. Graham (RET) detailing the Soviet sabotage of the
American Space Program?

The General suspects KGB sabotage of the Ariane and the Shuttle,
and leaving us open to attack by the sneaky Commie bastards!
He urges sending enclosed postcards to my congressional members
and signing a petition urging Meese to conduct an investigation!

He calls his organization High Frontier.

He also wants $26.50.

He included a reprint of an article which appeared in
the LA Times, 6/6/86 which confirms all his suspicions.

I think he must have gotten my name and address from NASA
TECH BRIEFS because it is spelled (incorrectly) the same
on his _URGENTGRAM_ and my latest copy of NTB.

Whats the story on General Graham (RET), and how did
he get my name from NASA TECH BRIEFS?
Who is this guy and how did he get my name from NTB?

LWS
hou2sd
hou2d!lws
*

------------------------------

Posted-Date: Sat 16 Aug 1986 14:07:11 EST
Date: Sat 16 Aug 1986 14:07:11 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Re: commercial space flight
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> 
> As an example of this problem, look at Ariane.  ESA is trying to make
> Ariane a fully commercial launcher.  Out of 18 flights, they've had 3
> flights where the spacecraft was lost because the third stage failed
> to ignite.  Supposedly, each was caused by something different going
> wrong, but... Maybe the problem really is that the third stage design
> is just too sensitive, and the third stage needs to be redesigned.
> Will they do this?  I don't know.

They decided there is a design flaw in the third stage igniter, and
they're redesigning the engine.  Read some recent AW&ST's for details.
I think they said they'd be flying again in six months.

------------------------------

Date: 16 Aug 86 09:41:26 GMT
From: ucdavis!ucrmath!hope!corwin@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (John Kempf)
Subject: Columbus, NASA, shuttle, budget
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa



>                                 The need for it (the Shuttle) was
> never fully justified; instead, the approval was obtained through heavy
> court lobbying, overly optimistic claims, and outright lies.

all research is justified that way.  Sometimes it pays off immediately,
others it takes a bit longer.

> Its completion drained resources from other worthy programs and forced
> the suspension of many of them.

What other "worthy programs" were you refering to?  welfare?
between the apollo program and the shuttle, not too many americans went
up in space.
>                                   When the Shuttle finally was
> delivered, it turned out to be an expensive white elephant,
> and its (predictable but unpredicted) failure crippled the nation for
> years to come.

By this logic, shouldn't we scrap ANY research project that doesn't go
100% without a hitch?  I fail to see how a design failure in one of the
components of the shuttle system equates to the entire space shuttle
program being a complete waste.  The only thing that cripples the
american space program is the rather short-sighted american congress (ei
funding, et al).
>
>     jorge stolfi
> ARPA: stolfi@src.dec.com
> UUCP: ..{..decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4,allegra}!decwrl!stolfi

> DISCLAIMER: The above opinions are not the sort of stuff my employer,
> my teachers, my friends, or my mother would like to be associated with.
I can see why.

-cory
"Welcome my son, Welcome to the machine"
VOICE:  (714) 788 0709
UUCP:   {ucbvax!ucdavis,sdcsvax,ucivax}!ucrmath!hope!corwin
ARPA:   ucrmath!hope!corwin@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu  
USNAIL: 3637 Canyon Crest apt G302
        Riverside Ca.  92507

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #359
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA16015; Mon, 18 Aug 86 03:01:54 PDT
	id AA16015; Mon, 18 Aug 86 03:01:54 PDT
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 86 03:01:54 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8608181001.AA16015@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #360

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 360

Today's Topics:
		      Re: INTERNATIONAL SHUTTLE
		   Columbus, NASA, shuttle, budget
				Sanger
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 15 Aug 86 13:54:37 GMT
From: clyde!watmath!utzoo!utcsri!hogg@caip.rutgers.edu  (John Hogg)
Subject: Re: INTERNATIONAL SHUTTLE
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

In article <843@inuxe.UUCP> fred@inuxe.UUCP (Fred Mendenhall) writes:
>I caught part of a story on NPR about a plan to make the replacement
>shuttle an International project.  The idea was to have North
>American Rockwell make the parts and to have Japan and ESA 
>construct and test the new bird. This plan would save
>the USA something like a billion dollars and would allow
>us to proceed faster with the space station...
>Lets not make any mistakes about this, the US/Free World space
>program is in a deep hole. What we choose to do or not do in
>the next 24 months will have critical results for the rest of 
>our lifetimes. From that position I think an International 
>Shuttle needs to be considered carefully and not discounted out
>of American arrogance.

An interesting idea, but there's more than hypothetical American arrogance
going against it.  An underlying assumption of this posting is that Japan
and Europe would want to come aboard.  This sounds questionable.

ESA and the American Congress are presently in profound disagreement as to
what research Europeans will be able to do in their part of the space
station, and also on the question of what will and will not be free-flying.
Fletcher is trying his best to paper over the cracks, but the EC must be
getting the idea that working with the Americans is not the easiest way to
do things.  And NASA is not the only game in town by any means.

Hermes is in the works, and I doubt that the French will want to drain funding
away from this to build a foreign-controlled orbiter.  They are slowly bringing
all of ESA behind them on this project, but the spillover is likely to go
to the REAL future: HOTOL.  If that falls through, the Germans are waiting
in the wings with Spanger, a proposal for an orbiter to be launched from a
Mach 6-10 aircraft.  (Aside: this is named after a WWII designer who
suggested something similar as an intercontinental bomber.  I suppose this
shouldn't bother me too much; after all, it never reached Halifax.)

Well, how about the Japanese?  If I were in their place, I'd be polite.
Period.  They appear to have the most advanced expendable technology in the
world, or at least will when their H-2 is in operation.  And they too are
working on their own shuttle equivalent.  Why play with somebody else's
toys?

This last question is perhaps the most critical.  What is another orbiter
needed for at this stage, anyway?  Both Europe (barring current problems)
and Japan seem to have an adequate launch capacity for their own needs; the
people who are screaming most are (a) American scientists, and (b) the
American military, not necessarily in that order.  Put simply, why would
Japan want to sink 0.x billion dollars into supporting Star Wars?  This
current adequacy of lauch capacity, by the way, is also the answer to the
point that non-US reusable craft are at present all paper tigers.  Nobody
has much to bring back - yet.

The American space program is in deep trouble at present.  The "Free World"
space program certainly isn't - it's just beginning to flex its wings.  It
will be interesting to see who develops the strongest presence in space
manufacturing over the next decade or two.  I see it as a race between
Britain with their high-risk, next-generation approach, and Japan with
their excellence in proven technology.  If I thought that there was a hope
in hell of pulling it off, I'd try to convince my government to buy in on a
forward-looking HOTOL instead of a moribund station.  Once you have the
former, the latter becomes much simpler.
-- 

John Hogg
...utzoo!utcsri!hogg

------------------------------

Posted-Date: Sun 17 Aug 1986 09:44:52 EST
Date: Sun 17 Aug 1986 09:44:52 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Columbus, NASA, shuttle, budget
To: John Kempf <ucdavis!ucrmath!hope!corwin@ucbvax.berkeley.edu>
In-Reply-To: ucdavis!ucrmath!hope!corwin's message of 16 Aug 86 09:41:26 GMT
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa

It is a bald faced lie to claim the shuttle was only a research
vehicle.  NASA sold the shuttle as a working replacement for expendable
boosters.  A research-oriented shuttle program would have been far
different (for example, they would only build one or two vehicles rather
than the 8 or so they orginally wanted), and certainly would not have
included the suppression of the US expendable booster industry.

>> Its completion drained resources from other worthy programs and forced
>> the suspension of many of them.
>
>What other "worthy programs" were you refering to?  welfare?
>between the apollo program and the shuttle, not too many americans went
>up in space.

Examples:  US Halley probe.  VOIR.  X ray astronomy has been eliminated.
Solar polar mission.  CRAF.  I'm sure there are lots of other examples from
space science I don't know about.  In other areas: the US commercial
booster lead was squandered.  The US lead in earth-sensing satellites
was lost.  Development of more reasonable reusable launchers was not
conducted.  Sure, we can put people in space and the europeans can't;
they're crying all the way to the bank.

------------------------------

Posted-Date: Sun 17 Aug 1986 10:12:28 EST
Date: Sun 17 Aug 1986 10:12:28 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Sanger
To: space@s1-b.arpa

There's yet another entry in the air-breathing launcher race.  The
Germans have come up with a design called Sanger.  It is a two stage
vehicle, both stages winged.  The first stage uses six turboramjet
engines and could reach around Mach 6 and about 18 km altitude.
The second stage is powered by a conventional oxygen-hydrogen rocket.
The first stage might be pushed to Mach 10 if scramjets could be
developed; the Germans are investigating the tradeoffs.  I imagine
they could also replace the second stage by an unmanned booster, perhaps
with some capability of retrieving the avionics and engines from orbit for
reuse.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #360
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA19467; Tue, 19 Aug 86 03:01:57 PDT
	id AA19467; Tue, 19 Aug 86 03:01:57 PDT
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 86 03:01:57 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8608191001.AA19467@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #361

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 361

Today's Topics:
			    Re: S(p)anger
	      Re: Re: KGB Sabotage of US Space Program!
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted-Date: Mon 18 Aug 1986 08:12:35 EST
Date: Mon 18 Aug 1986 08:12:35 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Re: S(p)anger
To: John Hogg <clyde!watmath!utzoo!utcsri!hogg@caip.rutgers.edu>
In-Reply-To: clyde!watmath!utzoo!utcsri!hogg's message of 15 Aug 86 13:54:37 GMT
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa

That's Sanger, not Spanger (see AW&ST, 8/11/86, pages 70-71).
The Sanger is named after the late German aerospace engineer Eugen
Sanger.  MBB has spent 150,000 man-hours on the vehicle design so far.
An interesting spin-off of Sanger could be the first stage -- a derivative
of which could serve as an "Orient Express" hypersonic transport
carrying 200 passengers 8000 miles.

------------------------------

Date: 17 Aug 86 08:38:37 GMT
From: ucdavis!ucrmath!hope!corwin@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (John Kempf)
Subject: Re: Re: KGB Sabotage of US Space Program!
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

Wasn't this idea proposed as a joke here about 2-3 months ago?
Nobody is taking it seriously, are they?
-cory

"No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife between the shoulder blades
will seriously cramp his style."

VOICE:  (714) 788 0709
UUCP:   {ucbvax!ucdavis,sdcsvax,ucivax}!ucrmath!hope!corwin
ARPA:   ucrmath!hope!corwin@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu  
USNAIL: 3637 Canyon Crest apt G302
        Riverside Ca.  92507
-- 
-cory

"No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife between the shoulder blades
will seriously cramp his style."

VOICE:  (714) 788 0709
UUCP:   {ucbvax!ucdavis,sdcsvax,ucivax}!ucrmath!hope!corwin
ARPA:   ucrmath!hope!corwin@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu  
USNAIL: 3637 Canyon Crest apt G302
        Riverside Ca.  92507

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #361
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA23104; Wed, 20 Aug 86 03:01:58 PDT
	id AA23104; Wed, 20 Aug 86 03:01:58 PDT
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 86 03:01:58 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8608201001.AA23104@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #362

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 362

Today's Topics:
			space program problems
		 Re: Columbus, NASA, shuttle, budget
			    Re: Not Again!
		  Re: Re: shuttle news [last words]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 19 Aug 86 05:10:59 PDT
From: space-request@s1-b.arpa
Apparently-To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa

------------------------------

Date: 18 Aug 86 22:29:03 GMT
From: clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@caip.rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space program problems
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

The following letter appeared in the letters column of the July 21 AW&ST.
It makes a good point.

	I look at our space program and the shambles it has become
	and I wonder.  If this had happened in Russia, they would
	have swept the debris under the rug and hoisted the next
	vehicle onto the launch pad and started counting.  Anyone
	who objected would have been told where to go or would have
	been sent there.

	Long ago, we would have responded in a similar manner.  Not
	in a brutal or unfeeling way, but with a go-get-'em spirit
	and a faith in American know-how that always seemed to overcome
	the toughest problems.  We won some and lost some, but we
	didn't quit.  We didn't stand around hollering accusations or
	looking for someone to blame.  We'd pull the suspect part and
	massage it or rebuild it and put it back and ask who would
	want to try it.  Everybody's hand would go up.

	Ah--but that was long ago.
							Don W. Vogel
							Brandon, Vt.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 19 Aug 86 08:28:55 GMT
From: magic!stolfi@decwrl.dec.com  (Jorge Stolfi)
Subject: Re: Columbus, NASA, shuttle, budget
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

I wrote: 
> >
> > The need for it (the Shuttle) was
> > never fully justified; instead, the approval was obtained through heavy
> > court lobbying, overly optimistic claims, and outright lies.

John Kempf replied in article <567@hope.UUCP> 
>
> all research is justified that way.  

Huh?  I most emphatically disagree.  A lot of research may be funded that way,
but it certainly should NOT be.  
(-: Perhaps you meant `all NASA research'? :-) 

Besides, the shuttle was sold as a production tool, not a research
project.  

> > Its completion drained resources from other worthy programs and forced
> > the suspension of many of them.
> 
> What other "worthy programs" were you refering to?  welfare?
> between the apollo program and the shuttle, not too many americans went
> up in space.

The unmanned planetary exploration program, for example. 

> > [the Shuttle] turned out to be an expensive white elephant,
> > and its failure crippled the nation for years to come.
> 
> By this logic, shouldn't we scrap ANY research project that doesn't go
> 100% without a hitch?  
> I fail to see how a design failure in one of the components of the shuttle
> system equates to the entire space shuttle program being a complete waste.

We certainly should scrap a program that failed to deliver its basic
promise, the only reason why funding was approved in the first place: to
provide a CHEAPER and MORE RELIABLE way to put things in orbit than
expendable rockets.  And this is obviously a design failure that cannot be
fixed by pouring MORE billions into the program.  

Considering how deeply in trouble the US space program is now, I think it
is fair to say that the shuttle program was NOT a complete waste.
It was worse --- a `negative sucsess'...  

> The only thing that cripples the american space program is the rather 
> short-sighted american congress (ei funding, et al).

First, I don't see how congress can be blamed for the shuttle woes.
The funding they approved initially was what NASA said was enough, right?
And when the shuttle turned out to be MUCH more expensive than that,
congress did approve additional funding, right?  Correct me if I am wrong,
but NASA never said clearly to congress `look, either you give us X more
billions, or the shuttle will not do half of what we promised it would do.' 

Second, the current state of affairs shows that congress --- in questioning
the value of the shuttle program --- was actually less short-sighted than
NASA.  

Third, if you think the congress is short-sighted, the right thing to go is
to change their minds, not try to get around them by lobbying the president
of the military.  If you cannot convince the majority of the taxpayers
(hence, presumably, their representatives) that your pet project ought to
be funded, then so be it.  (This used to be called `democracy', I believe.)
Even NASA friends now admit that the shuttle program was never adequately
justified to the public or to the congress.  How could you expect them to
be enthusiastic about it?  


  jorge stolfi
    
    "An age is dark not because light fails to shine, but because
     some people are busy making a lot of smoke in front of it."
     
       (with apologies to whomever-it-was-who-said-something-like-this)

> > DISCLAIMER: The above opinions are not the sort of stuff my employer,
> > my teachers, my friends, or my mother would like to be associated with.
>
> I can see why.

So be it...

------------------------------

Date: 18 Aug 86 20:36:51 GMT
From: crowl@rochester.arpa  (Lawrence Crowl)
Subject: Re: Not Again!
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

In article <1014@magic.DEC.COM> stolfi@magic.UUCP (Jorge Stolfi) writes:

>Columbus' trip was a project with a definite goal and dedicated leadership,

Show me evidence that the politics of his voyages were substantially different
from those that occur today.  I think you are romanticizing history.  

>that produced invaluable results ...

Did his voyages produce these invaluable results within a decade?  His voyages
represented a substantial loss over the first decade, not invaluable results.
If you are going to compare Columbus' voyages with the space shuttle, you must
use the same criteria.  What will the results of a century of vigorous space
exploration be?  Columbus opened a century of exploration, he DID NOT produce
the immediate results that you expect out of the shuttle program.

> ... with an extremely modest expense.

Back this up.  Show me the cost of Columbus's voyages as a percentage of the
Spanish governmental budget, as a percentage of the Spanish Gross National
Product, and as a percentage of median individual income.  Compare them
with the space shuttle realistically.  My memory says those voyages were
extremely expensive, in both money and lives.  If you are going to make such
claims, you must back them up.

You are missing the point of the "Columbus News Reports" entirely.  They are
demonstrating the fallibility of evaluating long term investments on the basis
of short term payoffs.  You are using this same evaluation for the space
shuttle, but not for Columbus' voyages.
-- 
  Lawrence Crowl		716-275-5766	University of Rochester
			crowl@rochester.arpa	Computer Science Department
 ...!{allegra,decvax,seismo}!rochester!crowl	Rochester, New York,  14627

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 19 Aug 86 14:06:56 pdt
From: David Smith <dsmith%hplabsc@hplabs.hp.com>
To: ihnp4!riccb!rjnoe@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Re: shuttle news [last words]
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa

Date: 8 Aug 86 22:34:23 GMT
From: ihnp4!riccb!rjnoe@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Re: shuttle news [last words]
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> Yes, but what about Judy Resnik's last words?  From the transcript I saw, it
> sort of looks like the last thing she might have said that was recorded was
> "F***ing hot!"  What I read had "(expletive)" in that place, but I can't think
> of anything else that would fit in its place that would get edited out.


The phrase was undoubtedly "s**t hot."  That is a standard fighter jock
phrase, according to Airpower.  They ran a picture of a Phantom at a
William Tell meet, with the phrase painted on the rudder just for the occasion.

			David Smith

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #362
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA26327; Thu, 21 Aug 86 03:01:59 PDT
	id AA26327; Thu, 21 Aug 86 03:01:59 PDT
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 86 03:01:59 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8608211001.AA26327@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #363

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 363

Today's Topics:
			space program problems
			Americans & Scramjets
			An answer to Jorge...
		  Info on the recent Japanese launch
			shuttle, budget, etc.
		  shuttle needed for manned flight?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 20 Aug 86 05:05:31 GMT
From: husc6!bu-cs!bzs@zarathustra.think.com  (Barry Shein)
Subject: space program problems
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa


>	Long ago, we would have responded in a similar manner.  Not
>	in a brutal or unfeeling way, but with a go-get-'em spirit
>	and a faith in American know-how that always seemed to overcome
>	the toughest problems.  We won some and lost some, but we
>	didn't quit.  We didn't stand around hollering accusations or
>	looking for someone to blame.  We'd pull the suspect part and
>	massage it or rebuild it and put it back and ask who would
>	want to try it.  Everybody's hand would go up.
>
>	Ah--but that was long ago.

Ya know, at this point in time, in retrospect, I'm not completely
convinced that this isn't basically what is happening. The investigation
is over, we found some flaws, nothing earth shattering. Reagan just
announced support for a new shuttle, it seems like the country is
pretty much in agreement that we should push forward, interest in
the possibility of a space station seems to be picking up.

I dunno, maybe I'm a blind optimist, or maybe we romanticize the
past and wring our hands too much over the present.

I suspect 20 years from now something else will happen and people
on this list will be saying "gee, if only we could be more like
we were when the challenger disaster happened, two years and we
were right back up there, not like today..."

Maybe we're getting a little too caught up in history to maintain
our perspective.

	-Barry Shein, Boston University

------------------------------

Date:           Tue, 19 Aug 86 11:40:56 PDT
From: Todd Johnson <lcc.todd@locus.ucla.edu>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Subject:        Americans & Scramjets

I am really pretty annoyed with the pessimistic, "I can't do anything",
"the US is out of it",attitude being displayed in this forum. I've lived
in Ireland for 15 years and served in the US Army in Germany for four years, so I believe that I have a decent grasp of the strengths of the European Community.
I have a great deal of respect for the Europeans and their efforts with the ESA,
equally I have high admiration for the quality which the Japanese have
managed to put into almost all their products. 
	I have noticed that the US has invariably broken new ground in a
vast number of fields and lost it due to some idiosyncrasy which seems best
summed up by "we invented it, they'll buy from us!" and "we don't have to
make a better product, the American people'll buy what WE tell them to!". 
We spent a great deal of effort and lives in the '60s and early '70s becoming
the greatest spacefaring nation on Earth only to squander it when Vietnam
proved a greater burden (and profit for several defense contractors).
	America's greatest asset was that it was a nation of pioneers, of
people unafraid of adventure and the very real dangers involved. We seemed
to have lost that in the '70s and now prefer to be self-indulgent and hedonistic(I quite like being hedonistic but only to a degree). And now, when the going
has (once again - remember Grissom, White and Chafee?) gotten tough, the
nation is wimping out. 
	But not all of the nation. Certainly in this forum there appears to
be a majority of wimps but NASA has done some interesting things. In the
June issue of Mechanical Engineering (the ASME's magazine) there is an article
on NASA's progress with Scramjets. Get this people  - 
	SCRAMJETS HAVE BEEN TESTED ON THE GROUND TO MACH 8! Not only that,
the engine is a dual mode ramjet/scramjet. I would be happier if the emphasis
of this forum switched from crying about our problems to considering their
solutions.
	One way to solve our problem is to write your Congressmen and Senators.
They know who put them in office. TELL them what you want. Or at least tell
them that what you don't want - and I hope that most of you will tell them that
you don't want America to become a has-been in space.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 20 Aug 86 08:58:51 PDT
From: crash!pnet01!adamsd@nosc.arpa (Adams Douglas)
To: crash!noscvax!space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: An answer to Jorge...

What kind of space program would you have wanted without the shuttle, Jorge?
Unmanned missions only perhaps? Besides, the shortsightedness of Congress
referred to by others here is not so much in giving NASA what they finally
negotiated them down to, but in not giving them MORE than they asked for. The
reason we got to the moon when we did was partially because, as Michael
Collins wrote in _Carrying the Fire_, "no one ever told us we were spending
too much money." If that attitude had prevailed, we would have dozens of
industries in orbit now, and the costs of many basic items would have dropped
considerably. And all for still less money than the cost overruns of many
military projects. Pollution would be less everywhere as well.

But I know that in the environment we have today we have to either {_put a lot
of pressure on members of congress to change their basic attitude towards
space fundaing, so that both manned and unmanned missions can be performed
with ease, or we have to stick with the military pressure to use the shuttle
just so we can get up there and then use that momentum to increase space
exploration exponentially--by insuring it becomes more and more indespensable
both strategically and economically.

Let's stop arguing and work together to get up there anyway we can. Once we're
there--anything becomes possible, regardless of why we originally went.

------------------------------

Date: 20 Aug 86 02:54:39 GMT
From: ka9q!karn@petrus.arpa  (Phil Karn)
Subject: Info on the recent Japanese launch
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

In case anyone is interested, I've been placing a fair amount of followup
information about the successful Japanese H-1 launch last week in the
net.ham-radio newsgroup. (One of the payloads was the Japanese amateur radio
satellite JO-12, formerly known as JAS-1).  I mention it here because there
has also been quite a bit of interesting information about the primary
payload EGP, which was featured on the cover of a recent AW&ST issue.

It's also interesting to watch NORAD confuse the tiny amateur satellite with
the 685kg EGP and/or its launcher, and the usual fun-and-games that follow
as everybody tries to sort it all out (this sort of thing seems to happen on
every launch).

Remember, though, soon we'll be able to tell warheads from decoys with 100%
certainty in a matter of seconds.  (Sorry. Couldn't resist).

Phil Karn

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 20 Aug 86 10:14:33 pdt
From: ucdavis!clover!hildum@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Eric Hildum)
To: ucdavis!space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: shuttle, budget, etc.

>Date: 19 Aug 86 08:28:55 GMT
>From: magic!stolfi@decwrl.dec.com  (Jorge Stolfi)
>Subject: Re: Columbus, NASA, shuttle, budget
>Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
>To: space@s1-b.arpa
>
.
.
.
>
>> > Its completion drained resources from other worthy programs and forced
>> > the suspension of many of them.
>> 
>> What other "worthy programs" were you refering to?  welfare?
>> between the apollo program and the shuttle, not too many americans went
>> up in space.
>
>The unmanned planetary exploration program, for example. 
>

	See the 'Far Side' cartoon by Gary Larson about Conastoga
wagons...

>> > [the Shuttle] turned out to be an expensive white elephant,
>> > and its failure crippled the nation for years to come.
>> 
>> By this logic, shouldn't we scrap ANY research project that doesn't go
>> 100% without a hitch?  
>> I fail to see how a design failure in one of the components of the shuttle
>> system equates to the entire space shuttle program being a complete waste.
>
>We certainly should scrap a program that failed to deliver its basic
>promise, the only reason why funding was approved in the first place: to
>provide a CHEAPER and MORE RELIABLE way to put things in orbit than
>expendable rockets.  And this is obviously a design failure that cannot be
>fixed by pouring MORE billions into the program.  
>
	You are of course correct - in fact the fix will cost about
$500 million - considerably short of the billions that was worried
about.  This paragraph indicates some problems understanding
engineering failures, of which the shuttle loss was, as compared to
other types of failures such as those based in physical properties.
(This is of course skipping the management aspects of the launch.)  A
design failure may ALWAYS be corrected with the expenditure of a
finite amount of resources.  Only those failures which are cause by a
failure to understand physical laws may not be corrected this way.  In
other words, the shuttle failed in a manner that is trivial to fix.
(Further - it{was a major, catastrophic failure - which in general
makes it easier to find the cause and ensure that the correct 
action to fix the problem will be taken.)

>Considering how deeply in trouble the US space program is now, I think it
>is fair to say that the shuttle program was NOT a complete waste.
>It was worse --- a `negative sucsess'...  
>
>> The only thing that cripples the american space program is the rather 
>> short-sighted american congress (ei funding, et al).
>
>First, I don't see how congress can be blamed for the shuttle woes.
>The funding they approved initially was what NASA said was enough, right?

	Wrong.

>And when the shuttle turned out to be MUCH more expensive than that,
>congress did approve additional funding, right?  Correct me if I am wrong,
>but NASA never said clearly to congress `look, either you give us X more
>billions, or the shuttle will not do half of what we promised it would do.' 

	However, each time Congress reduced the funding for the
shuttle, NASA went off and redesigned it to within the new budget, and
presented the new, reduced designs to congress.

>Second, the current state of affairs shows that congress --- in questioning
>the value of the shuttle program --- was actually less short-sighted than
>NASA.  
>
	Remember, it is the current state of affairs, not a well
thought out on going process.

>Third, if you think the congress is short-sighted, the right thing to go is
>to change their minds, not try to get around them by lobbying the president
>of the military.  If you cannot convince the majority of the taxpayers
>(hence, presumably, their representatives) that your pet project ought to
>be funded, then so be it.  (This used to be called `democracy', I believe.)
>Even NASA friends now admit that the shuttle program was never adequately
>justified to the public or to the congress.  How could you expect them to
>be enthusiastic about it?  
>
	1. This government was never intended to be a democracy.  It
is a republic...

	2. Why not go to the President - after all, he too is allowed
and required to participate in the legislative process...

	3. Most congressmen are only concerned with the pork barrel
projects that can be placed into their own districts (remember what
happens when the DoD tries to shut down a base or a weapons program?)


>
>  jorge stolfi
>    
>    "An age is dark not because light fails to shine, but because
>     some people are busy making a lot of smoke in front of it."
>     
>       (with apologies to whomever-it-was-who-said-something-like-this)
>
	Must be in some smoked filled back room...

					Eric
dt

------------------------------

Date: 20 Aug 86 17:26:53 GMT
From: ernie.Berkeley.EDU!mazlack@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Lawrence J. Mazlack)
Subject: shuttle needed for manned flight?
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

>What kind of space program would you have wanted without the shuttle, Jorge?
>Unmanned missions only perhaps? Besides, the shortsightedness of Congress
> ...

I'm not Jorge and I'm not very convinced that we need the shuttle for manned
flight. We got to the moon without it and there is no reason to believe that
we wouldn't still be up there if we didn't decide to have it.  Maybe with
cheap expendables or resuable, rebreathables.  In many ways the shuttle
was a political abortion choice.

Even if with the shuttles, we don't have very good capacity.  We can only
get up into LEO (low earth orbit).  We can't go polar or service quite a
lot of the satelites without a MMU.  A space station built with the shuttles
has to be in LEO, thus requiring almost constant boost (I saw one study that
said every 2-3 minutes, I'm sure that somebody out there knows better than
me :-) ).  The reboost makes the space station a crummy platform for astronomy
or some of the zero-g industrial applications that have been proposed.

The way I understand the economics, it would be cheaper to use expendables
to get people up there as well a material.  Now, I would prefer a reusable
and I suspect that we won't have a "permanent presence in space" (to quote
NASA's space station justification) until we have a GOOD reusable vehicle.

A lot of the shuttle's technology is 20 years old - especially the computer
stuff.  This is because the design itself is pretty old, and the design could
only incorporate existing, proven technology.

Sure, build a another shuttle - if you think that we need it emotionally.
But, would you really advocate building 3 more, or 10 more, etc.??  I guess
that we would all love to fly in one, so maybe a whole batch would be good
for tourism.  But are they really the right choice for getting and keeping
men and women permanently in space?

Larry Mazlack
  UUCP		{tektronix,dual,sun,ihnp4,decvax}!ucbvax!ucbernie!mazlack
  New style	mazlack@ernie.berkeley.edu	
  ARPA | CSNET	mazlack%ernie@berkeley.ARPA
  BITNET   	mazlack@ucbernie.BITNET
  telephone     (415) 528-0496
  snail         CS Dept, 571 Evans, U. California, Berkeley, CA 94720

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #363
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA29470; Fri, 22 Aug 86 03:01:58 PDT
	id AA29470; Fri, 22 Aug 86 03:01:58 PDT
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 86 03:01:58 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8608221001.AA29470@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #364

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 364

Today's Topics:
	    Soviet Sabotage of Shuttle! (transcript-long)
		Re: KGB Sabotage of US Space Program!
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 19 Aug 86 16:06:21 GMT
From: ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!hou2d!lws@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (lws)
Subject: Soviet Sabotage of Shuttle! (transcript-long)
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa




*
Many of you have asked for a posting of the pseudo telegram I
recently received from an organization previously unknown to me, 
called HIGH FRONTIER.

Misspellings of my last name and title on this letter and the
address label of NASA TECH BRIEFS suggest that HIGH FRONTIER
obtained my name from NTB.

The URGENTGRAM came with a yellow bordered, upper case written,
pseudo telegram- complete with a UG mimicing the WU of Western
Union on the corner. Also two pre-written telegrams addressed
to members of congress, and a re-print from a Los Angeles Times (I
am led to believe it is THE Los Angeles Times and not some other
sound-alike namesake) of an July 6th 1986 article entitled
"SABOTAGED MISSILE LAUNCHES? Explosions, Key Air Force Officer's
Disappearance Probed" by Tad Szulc, a "Washington journalist
who has long covered intelligence matters." (what does that mean?)

Can any of you L.A. based net.people dig this up for us? I'd like to
find out if the article did appear.



-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Text of contents of letter follow- reprinted without permission:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------




LT. GENERAL DANIEL O. GRAHAM
HIGH FRONTIER
1010 VERMONT AVE., NW            UG  URGENTGRAM
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005

PRIORITY TRANSMISSION            FROM:
TIME:    10:00 a.m.                      LT. GENERAL DANIEL O. GRAHAM
SERIES:  7305
REG:     N88   OPER: A.S.

OFFICIAL
REGISTRY       081515            RE:
FILE                                     SOVIET SABOTAGE OF AMERICAN
NUMBER                                   SPACE PROGRAM




DEAR FELLOW AMERICAN:

URGENT YOU RESPOND IMMEDIATELY!

HAVE WRITTEN SUPPORTERS LIKE YOU BEFORE ABOUT MY FEARS THAT THE
SOVIETS TRYING TO KILL AMERICAN SPACE PROGRAM AND PRESIDENT
REAGAN'S SDI DEFENSE PROGRAM.

NOW NEW FACTS INDICATE STRONG POSSIBILITY SOVIET KGB SECRETLY
"BLEW UP" CHALLENGER SHUTTLE, FOUR OTHER AMERICAN ROCKETS AND
FRENCH ROCKET THIS YEAR!

FRENCH GOVERNMENT ALREADY INVESTIGATING POSSIBLE SOVIET SABOTAGE
(SEE ENCLOSED NEWSPAPER ARTICLE).

BUT DESPITE MY URGENT, REPEATED REQUESTS THAT CONGRESS EXAMINE
POSSIBILITY OF SOVIET KGB SABOTAGE, NOTHING EVER DONE!

ALL FOUR AMERICAN ROCKETS, PLUS FRENCH "ARIANE" ROCKET CARRIED
AMERICAN RECONNAISSANCE SATELLITES.

NOW-- AMERICA HAS ONLY ONE "SPY-IN-THE-SKY" SATELLITE LEFT TO
MONITOR SOVIET NUCLEAR WEAPONS DEPLOYMENTS AND SERVE AS EARLY
WARNING SYSTEM AGAINST SOVIET NUCLEAR ATTACK!!!

WORSE!: PRESIDENT REAGAN'S EFFORT TO GET SDI, NON-NUCLEAR 
SPACE-BASED DEFENSE NOW GROUNDED -- PERHAPS PERMANENTLY!!

ALL FOUR AMERICAN SPACE ROCKETS VERY RELIABLE IN PAST: (SPACE
SHUTTLE: 24 SUCCESSFUL MISSIONS!!), ("NIKE-ORION" ROCKET: 120
CONSECUTIVE!!), ("DELTA" ROCKET: 43 STRAIGHT!!), ("TITAN"
ROCKET: 95% RELIABILITY).

CHANCES OF FOUR MALFUNCTIONING -- ONE AFTER THE OTHER -- ARE
1 IN 250 MILLION!

BUT SUSPICIOUS "COINCIDENCES" MAKE SABOTAGE VERY LIKELY:

FACT 1:     THREE YEARS AGO, CAPT. WILLIAM HUGHES, KEY AIR FORCE
            OFFICER IN SPACE LAUNCH COMMAND, CONTROL AND
            COMMUNICATIONS FOR SPACE RELATED WEAPONS, MYSTERIOUSLY
            DISAPPEARED IN THE NETHERLANDS.

            U.S. INTELLIGENCE OFFICERS BELIEVE HUGHES CAPTURED BY
            SOVIET AGENTS OR VOLUNTARILY DEFECTED. SAID ONE AGENT,
            "HUGHES IS WORTH HIS WEIGHT IN GOLD TO THE RUSSIANS
            IN TERMS OF FUTURE 'STAR WARS'."

FACT 2:     FOR FIRST TIME IN HISTORY, SOVIET ELECTRONIC SPY SHIPS
            NORMALLY OF CAPE CANAVERAL FOR EVERY SHUTTLE LAUNCH,
            SUDDENLY, MYSTERIOUSLY LEFT AREA AT HIGH SPEED ONLY
            FOUR HOURS BEFORE CHALLENGER "ACCIDENT".

FACT 3:     RELIABLE SOURCES TELL ME KGB HELD MAJOR CELEBRATION
            OF A "PERFECT ACTIVE MEASURE" -- THEIR TERM FOR
            DIRTY WORK -- AT KGB HQ, ON

                                 (MORE TO FOLLOW: OVER, PLEASE)



EMERGENCY TELEGRAM FROM LT. GEN. DANIEL O. GRAHAM
PAGE TWO



            NIGHT OF CHALLENGER EXPLOSION!

FACT 4:     AFTER CHALLENGER TRAGEDY, SOVIET "CONDOLENCES" CAME
            ONLY TWO HOURS AFTER EXPLOSION -- IN PAST SOVIETS
            HAVE WAITED DAYS, EVEN WEEKS.

FACT 5:     RECENTLY, SOVIET-SUPPORTED WEST GERMAN TERRORISTS
            USED REMOTE-CONTROLLED BOMB TO KILL COMPANY EXECUTIVE
            KARL BECKURTS.

            NOTE LEFT A SCENE SAID BECKURTS WAS KILLED BECAUSE
            HE WAS COLLABORATOR IN SDI.

AS FORMER HEAD OF DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY (DIA), I KNOW
SOVIET KGB WOULD STOP AT NOTHING TO CRIPPLE AMERICAN SPACE
PROGRAM AND ESPECIALLY REAGAN SDI DEFENSE. EVEN OF IT MEANT
KILLING 7 SHUTTLE ASTRONAUTS.

AND IF SOVIETS HAVE FOUND A WAY TO SABOTAGE U.S. SPACE ROCKETS,
THAN SOVIETS COULD SUCCEED AT KILLING SDI PERMANENTLY!

NOW MORE AND MORE IT LOOKS LIKE THEY CAN DO IT! REMEMBER SOVIET
SPYS: WALKER BROTHERS, WHITWORTH AND FORMER FBI RICHARD
MILLER CAUGHT THIS YEAR ALONE!

THAT'S WHY NEED YOUR HELP NOW! URGENT YOU AND OTHER HIGH FRONTIER
/SDI SUPPORTERS GET TRUTH ABOUT SOVIET SABOTAGE.

HAVE ENCLOSED VITAL PETITION TO ATTORNEY GENERAL ED MEESE
DEMANDING JUSTICE DEPARTMENT INVESTIGATE POSSIBILITY OF
"FOUL PLAY" IN CHALLENGER TRAGEDY AND FOUR OTHER AMERICAN LAUNCHES
THIS YEAR.

ALSO HAVE ENCLOSED TWO POSTCARDS TO SEN. DAVID DURENBERGER, CONG.
LEE HAMILTON, CHAIRMEN OF SENATE AND HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEES ON
INTELLIGENCE.

URGING COMMITTEE HOLD HEARING, POTENTIAL SABOTAGE MUST NOT BE
COVERED UP!

URGENT YOU ACT NOW!

ASKING YOU TO DO TWO THINGS IMMEDIATELY:

    1. MAIL POSTCARDS CALLING ON CONGRESS TO HOLD HEARINGS.

    2. SIGN PETITION TO ATTORNEY GENERAL ED MEESE AND RETURN
       PETITION TO ME AT PROJECT HIGH FRONTIER ALONG WITH A
       SPECIAL EMERGENCY CONTRIBUTION TO HELP SAVE U.S. SPACE
       PROGRAM AND SDI!

HAVE SUGGESTED AMOUNT FOR YOUR EMERGENCY GIFT ON PETITION/REPLY.
THIS MINIMUM HIGH FRONTIER MUST RECEIVE FROM EACH AND EVERY
PERSON WE WRITE IN ORDER TO PRESS INVESTIGATION AT JUSTICE AND 
IN CONGRESS.

HIGH FRONTIER IS A NON-PROFIT EDUCATIONAL ORGANIZATION, OUR
PIONEERING STUDY WAS BASIS FOR PRESIDENT REAGAN'S SDI PROGRAM
TO DEFEND THIS NATION AGAINST SOVIET NUCLEAR MISSILES.

IN PAST WE'VE TAKEN ON THE SOVIET ANTI-PROPAGANDA MACHINE.
LIBERALS IN CONGRESS LED BY TIP O'NEILL AND TED KENNEDY, AND 
NUCLEAR FREEZE MOVEMENT --WE'VE WON WITH HELP OF PATRIOTIC
SUPPORTERS LIKE YOU.

WE'VE SAVED SDI FROM BEING TRADED AWAY AT LAST NOVEMBER'S
SUMMIT.

NOW FACING SOVIET KGB. AND ENTIRE AMERICAN SPACE PROGRAM IN
JEOPARDY. IF SOVIETS HAVE FOUND A WAY TO SABOTAGE AMERICAN
ROCKETS, SPACE PROGRAM AND SDI MAY BE GROUNDED PERMANENTLY.

PLEASE DON'T HESITATE. REPLY IMMEDIATELY. MAIL POSTCARDS. SIGN
PETITIONS AND RETURN PETITION AND EMERGENCY CONTRIBUTION TO
HIGH FRONTIER.

THREAT TO NATIONAL SECURITY VERY REAL! URGENTLY NEED YOUR HELP!

I ANXIOUSLY AWAIT YOUR REPLY.

SIGNED:   LT. GEN. DANIEL O. GRAHAM, USA (RET.)
          DIRECTOR, HIGH FRONTIER

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Text of petition/reply follows- reprinted without permission:
------------------------------------------------------------------------


General Graham:
If the Soviets have found a way to secretly destroy our space rockets
then the American space program may be grounded permanently. And
President Reagan's SDI defense will never be deployed to protect
us against Soviet nuclear attack!

We must find out the truth! You can count on me to help you press
for an investigation of Soviet sabotage. I have:

  ( ) Mailed my postcards to Sen. Durenberger and Cong. Hamilton
  ( ) Signed this petition and am returning it to you along with my
      special emergency gift to High Frontier

      **Minimum Gift Necessary: $26.50  Amount Enclosed: $______

  **This is the minimum amount we must receive from you and every
    one we write in order to launch this sabotage investigation.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Text of two pre-printed postcards addressed to congressional members-
Reprinted without permission:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


Dear Senator/Congressman ______________,
     
    There are too many suspicious "coincidences" surrounding the
 Challenger space shuttle tragedy and the four failed American
launches this year.

    The possibility of Soviet sabotage is too great to be ignored
or covered up. Four rockets launched by four different agencies all
with very reliable histories do not fail one after the other.

I urge you as the Chairman of the Senate/House Select Committee
on Intelligence, to hold hearings to investigate the possibility
of Soviet sabotage.

Please let me hear back from you on this important issue.

                            Signed:_________________________


-----------------------------------------------------------------------



...I know, I couldn't believe it either!

Comments?




LWS
hou2d!lws
*

------------------------------

Date: 21 Aug 86 14:53:48 GMT
From: husc6!bu-cs!bzs@zarathustra.think.com  (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: KGB Sabotage of US Space Program!
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa


Re: KGB sabotage and hysteria

>>But when a thorough search of the evidence reveals no evidence of sabotage,

>But did they concentrate on that kind of evidence?
>Graham thinks not - do you know differently?

etc etc

Oh c'mon Jan. I'm sure it never occurred to our government that outside
sabotage may have been involved in the Challenger et al disasters. And,
without this nut's telegrams, would just ignore or drop evidence that
the KGB blew up the Challenger...uh huh.

Let's get serious, please?

Besides, if you remember the time when it happened, it was Khaddaffi that
was threatening to do something dramatic like that.

I'd be more concerned about the thought that something like this was
involved but knowledge was supressed from the public than try to
weave fanciful theories that it never occurred to NASA, DOD et al.
The former is disturbing, the latter is downright terrifying (that
they're that stupid.)

Please Jan, you'd be a more effective anti-communist propagandist if
you could hold onto reality a little. This is wild.

	-Barry Shein, Boston University

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #364
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA02397; Sat, 23 Aug 86 03:02:01 PDT
	id AA02397; Sat, 23 Aug 86 03:02:01 PDT
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 86 03:02:01 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8608231002.AA02397@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #365

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 365

Today's Topics:
		Re: KGB Sabotage of US Space Program!
			  Re: Re: Not Again!
		   Re: Soviet Sabotage of Shuttle!
		   Re: Re: Is This Trip Necessary?
	  Re: Soviet Sabotage of Shuttle! (transcript-long)
		   NASA/ESA Space Station Agreement
			    News from mail
			  Greenhouse effect
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 20 Aug 86 20:48:23 GMT
From: nbires!atkins@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Brian Atkins)
Subject: Re: KGB Sabotage of US Space Program!
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

In article <139@ka9q.bellcore.com> karn@ka9q (Phil Karn) writes:
>
>evidence of sabotage, but rather abundant design errors, poor mismanagement
							  ^^^^

You must mean EXCELLENT mismanagement, they were very good at it :-(

Brian Atkins   ...{attunix, hao, allegra, ucbvax}!nbires!atkins
NBI Inc., P.O. Box 9001, Boulder CO 80301	(303) 444-5710

------------------------------

Date: 21 Aug 86 01:07:14 GMT
From: aurora!al@ames-titan.arpa  (Al Globus)
Subject: Re: Re: Not Again!
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> 
> The Shuttle ...
> drained resources from other worthy programs and forced
> the suspension of many of them.

This is often repeated bunk.  The shuttle has cost about $17 billion
over a period of fifteen years.  I don't know the exact number, but
in this time the federal government has spent at least $5-10 TRILLION.
Whatever spent this gigantic amount of money, it wasn't the shuttle.
That the shuttle pushed these projects out is an illusion created since
they were managed by the same agency (NASA).  Fact is, the proponents
of these systems didn't make their case to the nation.

Obviously, many space scientist are unhappy with NASA.  Perhaps we
should use the Japanese model.  Japan has a separate agency for
space science that is funded separately from the development
agency.  This way, space science would be separated from NASA in
its own agency.  It could lobby Congress directly for funds and
use whatever launcher met its nees.  NASA could concentrate on
building the space infrastructure mandated by the National
Commision on Space, and the new agency could concentrate on
the commision's scientific goals.

------------------------------

Date: 20 Aug 86 22:22:51 GMT
From: iris!michael@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Tom Slone [(415)486-5954])
Subject: Re: Soviet Sabotage of Shuttle!
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

In article <1142@hou2d.UUCP> lws@hou2d.UUCP (lws) writes:
>Many of you have asked for a posting of the pseudo telegram I
>recently received from an organization previously unknown to me, 
>called HIGH FRONTIER.

High Frontier is a Lyndon LaRouche front organiztion.  Disinformation recieved
from them should be treated as such.
michael@ucbiris.berkeley.edu	michael%ucbiris@berkeley.arpa
{arizona|decwrl|decvax|hplabs|ihnp4|sun}!ucbvax!ucbiris!michael

------------------------------

Date: 21 Aug 86 00:39:53 GMT
From: aurora!al@ames-titan.arpa  (Al Globus)
Subject: Re: Re: Is This Trip Necessary?
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> Xref: aurora net.space:4805 net.columbia:2140
> 
> 
> If we can't get into space with a free market, maybe we shouldn't go.
> 
> Clayton E. Cramer

If we can't get into space, I know of a large 
powerful, non-free market organization that will control space.
I'll give you a hint, they have two space stations in orbit today,
they launch about 100 satellites a year, they've put landers on
Venus, they sent a probe to Halleys, they put the first man in
space, they put the first woman in space, they put the first black
in space, and the first object in space.  They like big parades
on May Day.


Incidentally, they've had several serious launch and landing failures.
It didn't stop them, a couple of failures shouldn't stop us.

------------------------------

Date: 20 Aug 86 16:53:46 GMT
From: ka9q!karn@petrus.arpa  (Phil Karn)
Subject: Re: Soviet Sabotage of Shuttle! (transcript-long)
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

My oh my. The General really has gone off the deep end.

Ariane V-18 was carrying an Intelsat V. The allegation that it was (also)
carrying an American observation satellite is patently ludicrous. Anybody
who thinks you can a) fit anything else under an Ariane shroud with an
Intelsat V and b) get the French to agree to launch a secret American military
satellite with no security procedures and no leaks (until now) is dreaming.

Personally, if the Challenger disaster DID kill Star Wars, that'd be the one
silver lining in an otherwise very dark cloud. Mother Nature (and Edsel
Murphy) have been trying very hard to send us a message this year.

What really scares me is that Reagan apparently LISTENS to this guy.

Phil

------------------------------

Date: 16 Aug 86 14:25:02 GMT
From: nbires!isis!scicom!markf@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Mark Felton)
Subject: NASA/ESA Space Station Agreement
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

NASA News - August 1, 1986
NASA AND ESA REACH STATION PHASE B PROGRAM LEVEL AGREEMENT

	The National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the European
Space Agency (ESA) announced today (Aug 1) they have reached agreement on 
hardware elements of the Space Station that ESA will carry into preliminary
design.
	As ratified by NASA Administrator Dr. James C. Fletcher and ESA Dir-
ector General Professor Reimar Luest, the agreement marks a major milestone
in defining specific Space Station elements in preparation for beginning dev-
elopment of the project next spring.
	The agreement calls for ESA to conduct preliminary design of a perm-
anently attached pressurized laboratory module and a polar orbiting platform
for the remainder of the definition and preliminary design study (Phase B)
which extends through early 1987.
	Discussion and negotiation on technical details related to the outfit-
ting of the permanently attatched laboratory will continue through the remain-
der of the Phase B studies. The polar orbiting platform will be used primarily
for Earth observation.
	ESA will conduct preliminary design of a man tended free flyer (pres-
surized module and resource module) for international utilization primarily in
the fields of material and life sciences and fluid physics, requiring a long-
duration undisturbed micro-gravity environment.
	In addition, NASA and ESA jointly will study the man-tended free-flyer.
This joint study, to be completed in January 1987, will concentrate on user re-
quirements and development and operational impacts on the Space Station as a
whole and will provide a basis for determination of the utility of the man-
tended free flyer to the Space Station system.
	ESA also will study a coorbiting platform based on an enhanced version
of their European Retrievable Carrier (EURECA). This platform initially will
be ground based. But when the Space Station is operational, the platform will
be serviced at the Space Station.
	The present agreement only covers the remainder of the Phase B period
and does not obligate ESA to develop this hardware. The undertaking of a coop-
erative program to cover development of the hardware elements will be subject
to satisfactory negotiations of an agreement for cooperation in the develop-
ment, operation and utilization of the Space Station system.
	At the direction of President Reagan, NASA is developing a permanently
manned Space Station, designed for operation in the mid 1990s, and has in-
vited friends and allies of the United States to participate in the project.
As part of that effort, NASA is conducting an 18-month definition and pre-
liminary design study (Phase B) to better understand the technical content,
schedule and cost of the program before proceeding with development. A base-
line configuration for the Space Station was announced in May 1986, marking
the end of the definition phase and the beginning of the preliminary design
phase.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Release No: 86-104
Mark Hess Headquarters, Washington, D.C.
Reprinted by permission for electronic distribution
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 16 Aug 86 15:05:35 GMT
From: nbires!isis!scicom!markf@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Mark Felton)
Subject: News from mail
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

NASA News - August 5, 1986
CLOUDS MAY OFFSET "GREENHOUSE EFFECT"

	Recent measurements of Earth and its atmosphere by NASA scientific
instruments indicate that clouds may have a significant effect on our climate 
and weather patterns.
	Preliminary data from NASA's Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE)
suggests that clouds reflect more heat than they retain. Clouds appear to cool
Earth's climate, possibly offsetting the atmospheric "greenhouse effect."
	The ERBE instruments measure Earth's heat "budget," the amount of sun-
light that reaches and is absorbed by Earth and the amount of energy radiated
back to space. Even small changes in any component of the budget can have im-
portant effects on weather and climate. The instrume's accuracy in identify-
ing clouds and clear parts of the atmosphere is helping to resolve many scien-
tific questions about the future of Earth's climate.
	Scientists have long known that the atmosphere acts as a greenhouse,
letting in sunlight and preventing much of the heat from escaping. The green-
house effect has been expanding for the past 50 years. The problem will in-
crease with the continued use of fossil fuels that release carbon dioxide into
the atmosphere, blocking heat from escaping to space.
	The anticipated change in the greenhouse effect caused by increased
carbon dioxide is less than about 1 percent. Scientists believe that even this
small amount of change will be significant and could be associated with 
droughts and rising sea levels. However, reliable estimates are not yet pos-
sible of how the Earth's climate will be altered by the greenhouse effect.
	Winds and ocean currents are another important influence on Earth's
climate because they are closely related to the flow of energy from the sun
to the Earth and space. Some scientists think that changing cloud patterns
will alter the energy flow and influence the amount of heat stored in the 
ocean, thereby modifying the movement of heat from one part of the ocean to
another.
	Earth's energy budget has been studied for decades with sounding 
rockets, balloons and satellites. However, the studies have been limited
by incomplete coverage and sporadic observations.
	ERBE is a three satellite project that began in October 1984, when
ERBS was deployed into orbit from the Shuttle Challenger.
	A second ERBE instrument package is aboard NOAA-F, a National Ocean-
ic and Atmospheric Administration weather satellite launched into polar 
orbit in December 1984. A third ERBE package is scheduled to be sent into 
polar orbit aboard the NOAA-G satellite later this year.
	The ERBE instruments measure the average mothly heat budget on reg-
ional, zonal and global scales; track the seasonal movement of heat from the
tropics to the poles and determine the average daily variation in heat on a 
620 mile regional and a monthly scale. 
	Each ERBE package contains two radiometer instruments called a scanner
and a non-scanner. The scanner is a narrow field-of-view scanning radiometer
that makes shortwave measurements of reflected solar energy and longwave meas-
urements of Earth emitted energy.
	The non-scanner has two wide field-of-view sensors that view the entire
disc of Earth from limb to limb, two medium field-of-view sensors that view
a 10-degree region of Earth and a solar monitor that measures the total output
of the sun's radiant energy.
	The ERBE satellites were developed by NASA's Goddard Space Flight Cent-
er, Greenbelt, Md. The ERBE instruments were developed by scientists and eng-
ineers at NASA's Langley Research Center, Hampton, Va. The Atmospheric Sciences
Division at the Langley center maintains scientific management responsibility
for the program.
	For the next several years, a team of scientists from around the world
will continue to examine ERBE data in an attempt to improve understanding of
the global heat flows tht interact to keep Earth's climate in balance.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Release 86-105
Leon N. Perry Headquarters, Washington, D.C.
Maurice Parker Langley Research Center, Hampton, Va.
NASA News Releases originate at NASA Headquarters in Washington, D.C.
Reprinted with permission for electronic distribution
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 16 Aug 86 15:18:16 GMT
From: nbires!isis!scicom!markf@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Mark Felton)
Subject: Greenhouse effect
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

NASA News - August 5, 1986
CLOUDS MAY OFFSET "GREENHOUSE EFFECT"

	Recent measurements of Earth and its atmosphere by NASA scientific
instruments indicate that clouds may have a significant effect on our climate 
and weather patterns.
	Preliminary data from NASA's Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE)
suggests that clouds reflect more heat than they retain. Clouds appear to cool
Earth's climate, possibly offsetting the atmospheric "greenhouse effect."
	The ERBE instruments measure Earth's heat "budget," the amount of sun-
light that reaches and is absorbed by Earth and the amount of energy radiated
back to space. Even small changes in any component of the budget can have im-
portant effects on weather and climate. The instrume's accuracy in identify-
ing clouds and clear parts of the atmosphere is helping to resolve many scien-
tific questions about the future of Earth's climate.
	Scientists have long known that the atmosphere acts as a greenhouse,
letting in sunlight and preventing much of the heat from escaping. The green-
house effect has been expanding for the past 50 years. The problem will in-
crease with the continued use of fossil fuels that release carbon dioxide into
the atmosphere, blocking heat from escaping to space.
	The anticipated change in the greenhouse effect caused by increased
carbon dioxide is less than about 1 percent. Scientists believe that even this
small amount of change will be significant and could be associated with 
droughts and rising sea levels. However, reliable estimates are not yet pos-
sible of how the Earth's climate will be altered by the greenhouse effect.
	Winds and ocean currents are another important influence on Earth's
climate because they are closely related to the flow of energy from the sun
to the Earth and space. Some scientists think that changing cloud patterns
will alter the energy flow and influence the amount of heat stored in the 
ocean, thereby modifying the movement of heat from one part of the ocean to
another.
	Earth's energy budget has been studied for decades with sounding 
rockets, balloons and satellites. However, the studies have been limited
by incomplete coverage and sporadic observations.
	ERBE is a three satellite project that began in October 1984, when
ERBS was deployed into orbit from the Shuttle Challenger.
	A second ERBE instrument package is aboard NOAA-F, a National Ocean-
ic and Atmospheric Administration weather satellite launched into polar 
orbit in December 1984. A third ERBE package is scheduled to be sent into 
polar orbit aboard the NOAA-G satellite later this year.
	The ERBE instruments measure the average mothly heat budget on reg-
ional, zonal and global scales; track the seasonal movement of heat from the
tropics to the poles and determine the average daily variation in heat on a 
620 mile regional and a monthly scale. 
	Each ERBE package contains two radiometer instruments called a scanner
and a non-scanner. The scanner is a narrow field-of-view scanning radiometer
that makes shortwave measurements of reflected solar energy and longwave meas-
urements of Earth emitted energy.
	The non-scanner has two wide field-of-view sensors that view the entire
disc of Earth from limb to limb, two medium field-of-view sensors that view
a 10-degree region of Earth and a solar monitor that measures the total output
of the sun's radiant energy.
	The ERBE satellites were developed by NASA's Goddard Space Flight Cent-
er, Greenbelt, Md. The ERBE instruments were developed by scientists and eng-
ineers at NASA's Langley Research Center, Hampton, Va. The Atmospheric Sciences
Division at the Langley center maintains scientific management responsibility
for the program.
	For the next several years, a team of scientists from around the world
will continue to examine ERBE data in an attempt to improve understanding of
the global heat flows tht interact to keep Earth's climate in balance.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Release 86-105
Leon N. Perry Headquarters, Washington, D.C.
Maurice Parker Langley Research Center, Hampton, Va.
NASA News Releases originate at NASA Headquarters in Washington, D.C.
Reprinted with permission for electronic distribution
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #365
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA05156; Sun, 24 Aug 86 03:01:59 PDT
	id AA05156; Sun, 24 Aug 86 03:01:59 PDT
Date: Sun, 24 Aug 86 03:01:59 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8608241001.AA05156@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #366

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 366

Today's Topics:
		    Amateur Use of Space Telescope
		      Re: space program problems
       Re: "Space science needs a variety of launch vehicles"?
		Re: KGB Sabotage of US Space Program!
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 17 Aug 86 15:45:45 GMT
From: nbires!isis!scicom!markf@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Mark Felton)
Subject: Amateur Use of Space Telescope
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

NASA News - August 7, 1986
AMATEUR ASTRONOMERS TO HAVE OBSERVING TIME ON SPACE TELESCOPE

	NASA and the Space Telescope Science Institute, Baltimore, Md.,
announced that U.S. amateur astronomers will be given the opportunity to 
make observations with the Hubble Space Telescope (HST). 
	The announcement was made by Dr. Riccardo Giacconi, director of the
institute, which is under contract to NASA. He said that a small amount of
observing time is being reserved for amateurs from the director's discretion-
ary time, which is set aside for astronomical targets of opportunity.
	Dr. Giacconi said that amateur astronomers also could use Space Tele-
scope data and pictures archives and conduct cooperative observation projects,
using their own telescopes for observations in concert with Space Telescope
observations.
	With a 94-1/2 inch mirror, the HST will be the largest astronomical
telescope ever placed in space. Because it will be above the Earth's atmos-
phere, astronomers expect the telescope to detect celestial objects 50 times
fainter and see them with 10 times the clarity of ground-based telescopes.
	Amateur astronomers have made significant contributions to astronomy
since the telescope was intvented nearly 4 centuries ago. There are at least a
quarter million amateur astronomers in the U.S.
	In announcing this program, Dr. Giacconi said, "The Professional ast-
ronomy community is deeply grateful to amateur astronomers for decades of val-
uable assistance in our observational programs and for helping to interpret
our findings to the public at large. I look to amateur astronomers to ask
refreshingly new questions and I expect that they will make a real contri-
bution to the advancement of astronomy."
	To explore and implement cooperative scientific efforts with the HST
project on behalf of amateur astronomers, the following nationally recognized
leaders of amateur astronomer activities have agreed to serve as the Hubble
Space Telescope Amateur Astronomers Working Group:
	Dr. David W. Dunham - President, International Occultation Timing Assoc
	Stephen J. Edberg - President, Western Amateur Astronomers
	Jesse B. Eichenlaub - President, Independent Space Research Group
	George D. Ellis - President, Astronomical League
	Dr. Janet A. Mattei - Director, American Assoc. of Variable Star 
				Observers
	Gerald Persha - International Amateur Professional Photoelectric
				Photometry
	Dr. John E. Westfall - Acting Director, Assoc. of Lunar and 
				Planetary Observers
	
	Plans by the working group for soliciting and evaluating amateur
astronomer proposals for use of the HST will be announced shortly. The working
group has selected Stephen J. Edberg as its chairman. Mike Potter, research
assistant at the Space Telescope Science Institute, is serving as project ad-
visory officer.
	On behalf of the Hubble Space Telescope Amateur Astronomers Working
Group, Edberg responded, "We are grateful for the trust that NASA, the Space
Telescope Science Institute and Dr. Giacconi have shown in amateur astronomers.
We look forward to continuing our long tradition of amateur contributions to 
astronomy as we join our professional colleagues in taking the next great step
in the study of the cosmos."
	The HST is a project of international cooperation between NASA and the
European Space Agency (ESA). NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville,
Ala., is the lead center for the development of the Hubble Space Telescope. 
NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md., is responsible for develop-
ment of American scientific instruments aboard the Hubble Space Telescope, for 
spacecraft operations and management of the Space Telescope Science Institute.
ESA has furnished the Space Telescope with one of its instruments and its solar
arrays for electric power.
	Prime contractor for the telescope optics was Perkin-Elmer Corporation,
Danbury, Conn. Lockheed Missiles and Space Company, Inc., Sunnyvale, Calif.,
was prime contractor for the HST and support systems. The scientific instru-
ments for Space Telescope were designed by teams of scientists and construct-
ed by aerospace corporations, NASA centers and universities.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Release 86-108
James F. Kukowski Headquarters, Washington, D.C.
James Elliot Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md.
Dr. Mark Littmann Space Telescope Science Institute, Baltimore, Md.
Reprinted with permission for electronic distribution
NASA News releases originate from NASA Headquarters - Washington, D.C.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 19 Aug 86 19:02:45 GMT
From: ihnp4!ihlpa!animal@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (D. Starr)
Subject: Re: space program problems
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> The following letter appeared in the letters column of the July 21 AW&ST.
> It makes a good point.
> 
> 	I look at our space program and the shambles it has become
> 	and I wonder.  If this had happened in Russia, they would
> 	have swept the debris under the rug and hoisted the next
> 	vehicle onto the launch pad and started counting.  Anyone
> 	who objected would have been told where to go or would have
> 	been sent there.
> 
> 	Long ago, we would have responded in a similar manner.  Not
> 	in a brutal or unfeeling way, but with a go-get-'em spirit
> 	and a faith in American know-how that always seemed to overcome
> 	the toughest problems.  We won some and lost some, but we
> 	didn't quit.  We didn't stand around hollering accusations or
> 	looking for someone to blame.  We'd pull the suspect part and
> 	massage it or rebuild it and put it back and ask who would
> 	want to try it.  Everybody's hand would go up.
> 
> 	Ah--but that was long ago.
> 							Don W. Vogel
> 							Brandon, Vt.
> -- 
> 				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
> 				{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry


Yes, and it was also in a galaxy far, far away.  Mr. Vogel apparently
doesn't remember the recriminations and blame-seeking that followed
all the Vanguard failures (or the fact that Von Braun and his crew
had been ordered--for political and inter-service rivalry reasons--
specifically *not* to orbit a satellite several months earlier).  
Nor does he seem to remember how the fur flew, and how much of the
program ground to a total halt, after the Apollo 1 fire.  I can remember
a great deal of debate in the media and in political circles over 
whether this trip was really necessary.  I still suspect that the 
only reason the program kept moving was the spectacularly successful
first flight of the Saturn V a few months later.

I think a fundamental difference between the Apollo program and the
shuttle is the attitude toward small problems. Apollo was openly 
experimental, so small problems were expected, and immediately remedied
before they became big problems.  By comparison, when small problems
such as O-ring erosion in warm-weather launches popped up on the Shuttle,
NASA ...
> 	...swept the debris under the rug and hoisted the next
> 	vehicle onto the launch pad and started counting.  Anyone
> 	who objected would have been told where to go or would have
> 	been sent there.
> 
Indeed.

Dan Starr

------------------------------

Date: 19 Aug 86 17:30:55 GMT
From: clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@caip.rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: "Space science needs a variety of launch vehicles"?
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

>   Also, when deciding on the soundness of the shuttle decision it is
> unfair to compare the shuttle with current unmanned launchers.  Rather,
> ask what kind of unmanned launchers we would have if NASA had put the
> shuttle money into their development... Less advanced vehicles like the
> Hughes Jarvis concept could have been developed.

They were.  They were called "Saturn 1B" and "Saturn V".  Congress wouldn't
provide the money to keep them operational.  The Jarvis is basically a
somewhat scaled-down, somewhat modernized Saturn V.  We *had* a bigger
version of the Jarvis operational fifteen years ago, funded and built
by NASA!  The production line was closed after the first 15 because that's
all Congress would fund.  (NASA had to fight hard to get 15, in fact.)
Two of them were left to rust because Congress wouldn't provide funds to
use them for anything.

Discussions of what would have happened if X had been done should include
a realistic assessment of whether X would have been funded or not.

>   I agree with the assertion that with limited amounts
> of funding it is reasonable to concentrate on a single launch
> technology.  Your arguments concerning economies of scale, experience,
> and so on make sense.  So why was the shuttle developed??...

Partly because, on paper, it looked more versatile.  Partly because NASA
people wanted to do something new rather than ringing further variations
on an old theme.  But also partly because there was no money for ringing
further variations on an old theme.  Much of the NASA hardware in places
like the Air&Space Museum wasn't meant to end up there.

> Perhaps Congress was misled from the beginning about program costs because
> they would wisely not have funded the program otherwise...

This is probably true, if one omits the "wisely" part which is a value
judgement that many people would not agree with.  It's also true of an
awful lot of other government-funded programs these days; in order to
sell them to Congress, one must cut them to the bone even though one
knows that this is unrealistic in terms of actually finishing the job.
And half the time one then gets told to do it for 15% less, or else.
These are systematic and widespread problems, not evidence of rot within
NASA in particular.

> ... As the current
> problems demonstrate, the shuttle takes much longer to get back on its
> feet after a disaster...

To some extent a valid point, but any "national showpiece" program requiring
really major funding from a reluctant Congress would have much the same
problem.  If there had been strong high-level support for getting the
shuttle operational again quickly, including willingness to pay the bill
and accept some risks, we'd probably have seen a (cautious, conservative)
test flight by now.  The test program for a new aircraft isn't paralyzed
for two years by one crash!  The cause is determined, a quick fix (often
in the form of restrictions on operations) with a large safety margin is
applied to permit the program to keep moving, and the engineering team
sorts out the proper and minimal fix while flying continues.  The SRB
joints are a marginal design, but shuttle flights could continue with
temporary band-aids (no cold launches, tape over the joints to keep rain
out, revised stacking and testing procedures to minimize seal problems,
extra care, light loads and cautious missions) while a serious redesign
was done... if the political will was there.  It's not.  NASA cannot
spend money without being sure things will work, and in particular NASA
absolutely cannot risk another shuttle loss.  Not because there is any
intrinsic reason these things are unacceptable -- look at the loss and
death statistics for a major military aircraft development sometime --
but because the political support for the program is tenuous, and delay
is therefore preferable to even the slightest chance of another failure.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 20 Aug 86 05:44:00 GMT
From: adelie!mirror!gabriel!inmet!janw@ll-xn.arpa
Subject: Re: KGB Sabotage of US Space Program!
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa


[karn@ka9q ]
>The notion that "foreign sabotage" is to blame  when  a  nation's
>technological  pride  and  joy ends up in the drink seems to be a
>popular knee-jerk reaction these  days.  It's  always  the  first
>question  the  reporters  ask  at  the  post-launch-failure press
>conference.

Strange - I never saw the notion discussed in the media  at  all.
That LA Times article must be an exception.  Even though the idea
is quite natural, since the Soviets exhibit such anxiety over SDI
and space weaponry in general, and develop it so vigorously them-
selves. If they could sabotage it, one should presume they  would
- which does not prove they did, of course. But there's no reason
to pooh-pooh the possibility.

>Why? It's a very comfortable and tempting escape from reality. If
>we  could blame Libya or the USSR or some state-sponsored terror-
>ist group for the failure of the Shuttle or Ariane  or  Delta  or
>Titan, then we wouldn't have to worry about what we might find if
>we looked at ourselves too hard.

Not really. Instead of, or besides, our inability to make
it work, we would have to worry about our inability to stop them
from breaking it.

>Of course, review boards should always consider sabotage in their
>investigations.

Good. That's all Graham asks, isn't it?

>But when a thorough search of the evidence reveals no evidence of sabotage,

But did they concentrate on that kind of evidence?
Graham thinks not - do you know differently?

>but rather abundant design errors, poor mismanagement and silly human
>mistakes by our own people, it's time to face the  fact  that  we
>haven't yet fully mastered either the laws of nature or human nature.

One does not preclude the  other,  does  it?  Sabotage  or  "poor
mismanagement" - there is no compulsion to resign to it and blame
human nature. Some things do work, after all, in  spite  of  "not
yet  fully  mastered  laws  of  nature".  I've  never seen such a
universal cop-out.

>No doubt this bothers the General even  more  than  your  average
>Red-Blooded Patriotic American, because he firmly believes (or at
>least says he believes) that we have the technical ability to  do
>*anything* in space, even to build an utterly impenetrable shield
>against Soviet missiles.  Well, enough to sell the  President  on
>it, anyway.

I doubt he believes  in our omnipotence. He does believe
in a version of SDI, though his version was different from the
one adopted.  But the "we" that can do it, in his estimate,
may be different from the "we" that mismanaged the shuttle.
After all, capabilities of people and organizations differ;
and they also change in time. 

In view of the Vietnam war, isn't it ridiculous to think that
the USA could've won WWII ? :-(

>I suspect that the findings of the Rogers  Commission  have  been
>too  much for the poor guy; nothing is more earthshattering for a
>fervently religious person than being confronted  with  something
>that contradicts his beliefs.

If I understand your position, the findings refute his belief  by
demonstrating  that  the USA is a nation of bunglers, always will
be and can do nothing in space, ergo not SDI.

That argument displays a fine CAN'T DO spirit, but  is  not  very
rational, is it? After all, Apollo succeeded, some other programs
worked very well - why can't we do even  better  in  the  future,
having  overcome  whatever  structural  problems  destroyed Chal-
lenger? Why use *this* to predict our capabilities?

>Now he's gone off the deep end grasping  at  straws,  desperately
>trying to shake his "faith crisis" in the Peace Shield.

And, once more, blaming it on sabotage does not  change  the  as-
sessment  one  way or the other. Bungling or sabotage are equally
problems to overcome - or to resign to.  You  apparently  propose
abdication  -  you  could  do it as easily if you shared Graham's
suspicions. You could say: if we  couldn't  protect  the  shuttle
from sabotage, how can we protect the SDI? 

This argument is not really about SDI - which may or may not be
the thing to do. Your line of reasoning would apply equally to
any great projects in space of any kind. It goes from a case
of mismanagement to abdicating the future.

> Sad.

Sad.

		Jan Wasilewsky

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #366
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA08695; Mon, 25 Aug 86 03:02:01 PDT
	id AA08695; Mon, 25 Aug 86 03:02:01 PDT
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 86 03:02:01 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8608251002.AA08695@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #367

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 367

Today's Topics:
		     NASA Pollution Breakthrough
		     Re: Is This Trip Necessary?
			    high frontier
		   Re: Soviet Sabotage of Shuttle!
		      Re: Americans & Scramjets
	      Re: High Frontier a LaRouche front group?
		 Re: NASA/ESA Space Station Agreement
		    Re: A parachute ride to earth.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 16 Aug 86 14:15:24 GMT
From: nbires!isis!scicom!markf@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Mark Felton)
Subject: NASA Pollution Breakthrough
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

NASA News - (News releases from NASA Headquarters - Washington, D.C.)
NASA Technician Makes Breakthrough in Air Polution Control - July 30, 1986

	An electronics controller, developed to reduce particulate air 
pollution at NASA's Langley Research Center Refuse-Fired Steam Generating
Facility, Hampton, Va., is called "a major technology breakthrough" by two
major, international suppliers of pollution control equipment.
	David F. Johnston, an electronics technician in Langley's Micro-
electronics Development Section, invented the automatic voltage controller
for the facility's electrostatic precipitators. The precipitators remove
particle matter from the combustion gases prior to their release into the
atmosphere.
	Jointly operated by NASA, the U.S. Air Force and the City of Hampton,
the facility disposes of all trash from the research center, Langley Air Force
Base, other area government installations and about 70 percent of Hampton's 
municipal trash. Principal financier for the project, Hampton earns revenues
from trash disposal fees and the sale of steam to Langley Research Center. The
steam generated by burning waste also reduces the fuel normally used at the 
research center by about 2 million gallons a year.
	The controller proved to be the answer to efficient precipitator oper-
ation at the Hampton facility and is adaptable to any electrostatic precipit-
ator. Advanced features have been added to the controller, offering a reliable,
high technology method of upgrading existing precipators, whether they burn
coal, oil or refuse.
	Application of this pollution control equipment has been expanded from
refuse-fired incinerators to include power plants/utilities, steel mills, pulp
and paper mills, cement plants and automobile industry incinerators.
	Use of Johnston's equipment at chronic air pollution trouble spots has
produced millions of dollars in savings in equipment and operation costs,
including thousands of man-hours for installation and maintenance time. The
controller, during testing, was projected to produce a $400,000 (43 percent)
annual savings in operating power costs and to reduce equipment cost payback
time to 8 months at a coal-burning power plant in Saskatchewan, Canada.
	A cement plant in Michigan was confronted with air pollution standard
violations. Johnston's invention not only produced a $2.9 million equipment
cost savings and a 90 percent reduction in installation time, but also reduced
the pollution level to 75 percent bellow Environmental Protection Agency 
Standards.
	At a steel mill in Kentucky, in violation of pollution standards,
installation of Johnston's controller assured compliance with EPA particulate
air pollution regulations in only 1 day and, in addition, produced a 50 percent
savings in equipment cost.
	Effective air pollution control required development of an advanced
electronic control for the Hampton facility's electrostatic precipitators, 
which remove particulate matter from the combustion gas before it is expelled
through a smokestack. The gas is passed through a precipitator chamber and
exposed to an electrostatic field. Particles in the gas become electrically
charged and attracted to collecting surfaces under the influence of the elec-
tric field, thus cleaning the smoke.
	To maximize particle capture, a precipitator must operate at the high-
est practical voltage. Limiting operational factors are the phenomena known as
"sparking" and "arcing," essentially electrical breakdown of the gas that, 
uncontrolled, would damage the precipitator.
	After the Hampton facility was built, researchers encountered a prob-
lem, according to Johnston. When standard fuels are burned, the smoke is of
constant composition and the highest practical voltage is fairly constant. Once
the voltage is set, only small changes in precipitator voltage are needed, as
long as the same type of fuel is used.
	When trash is used as fuel, however, the composition of the smoke 
changes continuously, requiring corresponding changes in precipitator voltage
over a very wide range. Johnston explained that if a constant voltage were
applied in a refuse-burning facility, the voltage would have to be set very
low to prevent sparking. Therefore, the precipitator would be less efficient.
	To insure minimal atmospheric pollution, Johnston developed a micro-
processor-based control that automatically senses changes in smoke composi-
tion and adjusts the precipitator voltage and current to permit maximum part-
icle collection.
	In addition to the international recognition received for his inven-
tion, Johnston recently was presented with a NASA Space Act Award of $5,000.
Johnston's invention is now marketed worldwide by a California company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Release 86-101 by
Debra J. Rahn Headquarters, Washington, D.C.
Jean Drummond Clough Langley Research Center, Hampton, Va.
Reproduced with permission for electronic distribution
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 15 Aug 86 17:35:59 GMT
From: tektronix!reed!omssw2!ogcvax!sequent!brian@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Brian Godfrey)
Subject: Re: Is This Trip Necessary?
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

>> [Reprinted without permission from NASA TECH BRIEFS, July/August 1986]
>> 
>> 					Evelyn C. Leeper
>
>An amusing satire -- but it shows a great ignorance of the Age of
>Exploration, and little understanding of the complexities of economics.

   Well *I* enjoyed it and the second in the series enough that I couldn't
wait for the third. So I dug out my unread NASA Tech Briefs and looked it
up. (I know, that's cheating.) I think the point was well made in these
"articles" and any slight historical inaccuracies are irrelevent. Thank you, 
Evelyn, for sharing these with us.

--Brian

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 22 Aug 86 10:07:36 pdt
From: ucdavis!clover!hildum@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Eric Hildum)
To: ucdavis!space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: high frontier


Is this General Daniel Graham actually the director of High Frontier?  I had
thought this was a more scientifically slanted organization than this letter
implies....  Is there anyone out there who could state what High Frontier's
goals and charter are?

				Eric

------------------------------

Date: 22 Aug 86 16:44:21 GMT
From: voder!kontron!cramer@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: Soviet Sabotage of Shuttle!
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> In article <1142@hou2d.UUCP> lws@hou2d.UUCP (lws) writes:
> >Many of you have asked for a posting of the pseudo telegram I
> >recently received from an organization previously unknown to me, 
> >called HIGH FRONTIER.
> 
> High Frontier is a Lyndon LaRouche front organiztion.  Disinformation recieved
> from them should be treated as such.
> michael@ucbiris.berkeley.edu	michael%ucbiris@berkeley.arpa

I'm quite sure that you are wrong about that.  I have NEVER seen such
an assertion made before, and a number of the people associated with
High Frontier are not LaRouchies.

Clayton E. Cramer

------------------------------

Date:           Fri, 22 Aug 86 11:01:28 PDT
From: Todd Johnson <lcc.todd@locus.ucla.edu>
To: dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject:        Re: Americans & Scramjets


> I agree about scramjets (and other advanced launchers) completely.
> But NASA just cut the TAV budget to help pay for the dead-end shuttle!
> NASA is spending money trying to prop up past mistakes (for example,
> by building a space station so the shuttle has somewhere to go)
> when it should be scrapping those mistakes and concentrating on
> developing tommorrow's technology (like scramjets).

> I've said it before, but that $2+ billion being spent on the new
> shuttle would be far better spent on advanced launcher R&D.  If and
> only if such launchers reduce the cost of going into orbit will
> people in space pay their way.

Actually, I believe that the scramjet people with be more than happy
with a measly $1 billion but I take contention about the shuttle. I
was both not of voting age and out of the country when the worst of
the shuttle budget battles were being waged but I have the recollection
that what NASA wanted and what Congress gave them were two different
things altogether. The funding was subsequently cut for a while and increased,
even though NASA had said loud and long that any such action would increase
the final cost of the shuttles which it did and for which Congress blamed
NASA (politicians and rationality have NEVER been mutually compatible).
I do remember that NASA spent a large part of the late '60s and early '70s
simply trying to survive, especially with many hawks calling for its
destruction  and the utilization of its funds for the war effort. I 
know for a fact that my least favorite of Presidents, Nixon, cut the funding
for the final lunar missions, diverting the remaining hardware into the
Skylab program instead of Apollos 18,19 and 20. He could afford to do so
because the American public was "bored" with the lunar effort. 

We now know that there is a lot more work required on the Moon to come to
any assessment about how best to use its resources. (see NASA SP 428:
Space Resources and Space Habitats (? - I'm not sure about the title, 
I know that the SP number is right and it has Space Resources in the
title somewhere)). 

I think that we should still view space in the same manner as the Louisiana
Purchase was viewed during the time of the Lewis and Clark expedition: unknown
but potentially rich territory that still has to be explored and has been only
partly exploited. The cost of such exploration (as in the cost of the 
acquisition of both the Louisiana Purchase and Alaska) will be questioned at
the time but will ultimately reap for this nation rewards at least equal 
to the effects of the Louisiana Purchase. 

With this view, it is understandable that the government should expend the
major burden of money in its exploration (this view obviously implies that
certain UN treaties/promises concerning the equal sharing of the resources
of space are junk) and exploitation (we're talking about mining for titanium
on the Moon, using the sun's great energy to refine the metal and construct
merchandise) while the citizens (and obviously, corporations) reap the 
benefits. 

The government maintains the highways of this nation, I do not see why 
our government should not also maintain the space ways for its people.
In as much as Reagan has taken NASA out of the commercial space business (for
which it was as suited as the US Army for commercial activities) I should
like to see him return it to the role of exploration for which it is suited.
I believe that the space station is a good starting point but only if it is
part of an integrated plan that sees the return to the Moon and trips to 
near Earth orbit asteroids with a view to exploiting their potentials.

I think that it is a fundamental element in the spirit of our nation to be
a pioneering people and that we lose too much when we close ourselves from
new frontiers and new challenges. The United States is a nation composed
of all peoples to be found on this planet and draws its strength from 
this mixtures of cultures and ideas. I think that we should continue to
build that strength and I would like to be able to have people once again
read "Give your old, your poor, your hungry.." in the spirit it was intended.
Expanding the frontier of space would certainly allow us to expand the
spirit of America.

I'm sorry that this message is so long, it took a while to write and will
doubtless take as long to read. I hope that those who read it find it
worthwhile. Further, those that agree with the basic sentiment I encourage
(and beg) to write their congress people and urge them into action. Goodness
knows that we all pay enough taxes that we should be able to ensure the
future and continued greatness of our country by enforcing our will upon
our duly elected representatives.

------------------------------

Date: 23 Aug 86 23:18:25 GMT
From: mcb@lll-tis-b.arpa  (Michael C. Berch)
Subject: Re: High Frontier a LaRouche front group?
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

In <1135@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> michael@iris.berkeley.edu (Tom Slone) writes:
> In article <1142@hou2d.UUCP> lws@hou2d.UUCP (lws) writes:
> >Many of you have asked for a posting of the pseudo telegram I
> >recently received from an organization previously unknown to me, 
> >called HIGH FRONTIER.
> 
> High Frontier is a Lyndon LaRouche front organiztion.  Disinformation recieved
> from them should be treated as such.

I would be interested in seeing "proof" of this, rather than
unsupported allegation. I have met several people who have been
associated with High Frontier over the last few years, one of them
quite well-known, and THEY do not seem to be LaRouche-ites at all.
I'm pretty sure the organization is NOT a LaRouche front, but I am
willing to be convinced by evidence.

I hope that Tom is not simply classing the two groups together since
they are both ardent supporters of SDI...

Michael C. Berch
ARPA: mcb@lll-tis-b.ARPA
UUCP: {ihnp4,dual,sun}!lll-lcc!styx!mcb

------------------------------

Date: 22 Aug 86 17:43:39 GMT
From: adelie!axiom!linus!utzoo!henry@ll-xn.arpa  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: NASA/ESA Space Station Agreement
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> 	The National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the European
> Space Agency (ESA) announced today (Aug 1) they have reached agreement... 
> 	... ESA to conduct preliminary design of a perm-
> anently attached pressurized laboratory module...
> 	Discussion and negotiation on technical details related to the outfit-
> ting of the permanently attatched laboratory will continue...

Sounds to me like they've decided to announce the things that have been
agreed on, and define everything else as "negotiations continuing".  I note
in particular that there is no mention of the big stumbling block, to wit
ESA's desire to use the lab module for materials work and the US Congress's
desire to make sure that ESA gets no commercial benefits out of the Space
Station "partnership".
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 24 Aug 86 03:09:22 GMT
From: adelie!axiom!linus!utzoo!henry@ll-xn.arpa  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: A parachute ride to earth.
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

>   I had a rather vivid, strange dream the other night.  I  was
>   out  in  space, in orbit around the earth, and I got home by
>   parachuting (without a space ship)  all the  way  down...  Do
>   you  think  that  there  is ANY way that this could be done?

It's pretty much possible.  The idea of a one-man emergency re-entry
rig has been studied, as a way of escaping from a malfunctioning
spacecraft or space station.  Some years ago I saw descriptions of
some of the proposals.  All of them ended with descent and landing by
a normal parachute, but there was more variation in the methods
used for thermal protection.  Most used fairly conventional ablative
heat shields, but I remember one scheme which put the passenger at the
center of the concave side of a large (30 ft?) blunt cone -- almost a
disk -- of some fairly ordinary material, relying on low deceleration
rates at very high altitude to keep heating under control.  Perhaps
this approach could be extended to something like the dream.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #367
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA12990; Tue, 26 Aug 86 03:02:03 PDT
	id AA12990; Tue, 26 Aug 86 03:02:03 PDT
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 86 03:02:03 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8608261002.AA12990@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #368

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 368

Today's Topics:
			  A Cosmic Slingshot
		   Re: Soviet Sabotage of Shuttle!
			Re: A Cosmic Slingshot
		   Re: Soviet Sabotage of Shuttle!
	  Re: Soviet Sabotage of Shuttle! (transcript-long)
	       Lack of interest in space exploration...
		      Re:  SPACE Digest V6 #365
	       Re: Soviet Sabotage of Shuttle! (transc
	       Re: Soviet Sabotage of Shuttle! (transc
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted-Date: Sun 24 Aug 1986 08:43:49 EST
Date: Sun 24 Aug 1986 08:43:49 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: A Cosmic Slingshot
To: space@s1-b.arpa

Four physicists (Phys. Rev. D, V. 34, p 944) have suggested that a
very unusual object that had been identified as a supernova remnant
(Nature, 1/10/85) is actually a cosmic string.  The object, G357.7-0.1,
is perhaps 10 kpc away.

Cosmic strings are one dimensional loop-shaped defects in space-time.
Their existence is predicted by some grand unified theories.  The
strings are created very early in the universe and may act as seeds
around which galaxies are created.  Strings are very massive (the
ones responsible for galaxy formation would have a mass of about
1E22 grams per centimeter).  They are under tremendous tension and emit
copious long wavelength gravity waves as they oscillate.

Some recent superstring theories (superstrings are not to be confused with
cosmic strings) predict the existence of lighter cosmic strings.  These
strings may be capable of carrying electric currents, and would be
superconducting.  Their oscillations would cause them to whip through
the interstellar plasma at relativistic speeds.  The strings' magnetic
field would cause shock waves to dissipate energy in the plasma, causing
the emission of synchrotron radiation.

The object identified as caused by a cosmic string, G357.7-0.1, looks
quite peculiar.  It has been imaged with the VLA at 1.4 and 4.9 GHz.
The images look like a stack of elliptically shaped emission regions,
with the major axes of successive ellipses offset by 90 degrees,
which might be what you'd get from an oscillating string.

It seems to me these strings could make excellent slingshots. During
each oscillation two points on the cosmic string reach the speed of light;
a spaceship near the string at those points might be passively accelerated
to very high speed.  This could be a good way of launching highly
relativistic intergalactic payloads.

Whether G357.7-0.1 is caused by a cosmic string or not will not be hard to
determine, since the filaments in the image should move at relativistic
speeds.

------------------------------

Date: 21 Aug 86 22:04:37 GMT
From: ubc-vision!alberta!calgary!radford@uw-beaver.arpa  (Radford Neal)
Subject: Re: Soviet Sabotage of Shuttle!
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

In article <1135@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>, michael@iris.berkeley.edu (Tom Slone [(415)486-5954]) writes:

> High Frontier is a Lyndon LaRouche front organiztion.  Disinformation recieved
> from them should be treated as such.

Interesting, do you have evidence of this? I thought High Frontier was one
of those Jim Bean, L5 society, etc. associated groups. (Note: this isn't
a sarcastic query, I really would like to know if you have evidence...)

Personally, I think there *are* enough coincidences here that the US
government ought to be investigating, if they have any sense. But neither
would I jump to any conclusions.

      Radford Neal

------------------------------

Date: 25 Aug 86 02:19:32 GMT
From: sher@rochester.arpa  (David Sher)
Subject: Re: A Cosmic Slingshot
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

Out of curiousity, could a solar system type system with earth-like
planets form about a cosmic string (possibly  rotating about the string).
The gravitational field of a cosmic string is inverse distance instead
of inverse square (assuming the string is large and locally straight) which
must create interesting stable orbits (if any exist).  
-- 
-David Sher
sher@rochester
seismo!rochester!sher

------------------------------

Date: 25 Aug 86 04:53:54 GMT
From: osmigo1@ngp.utexas.edu  (Ron Morgan)
Subject: Re: Soviet Sabotage of Shuttle!
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

In article <330@vaxb.calgary.UUCP> radford@calgary.UUCP (Radford Neal) writes:
>
>Personally, I think there *are* enough coincidences here that the US
>government ought to be investigating, if they have any sense. But neither
>would I jump to any conclusions.
>
>      Radford Neal

I'll admit that a few points were somewhat jarring; that is, they "had that
funny smell," e.g., Soviet ships leaving the area just before the launch
instead of hanging around as they *ALWAYS* do, and the party they threw
that evening for the unspecified "successful dirty operation," and the 
highly improbable failure of 4 consecutive launches on 4 different launch
systems. The Soviets' utter paranoia regarding SDI certainly constitutes a
motive. 

The "evidence" has some faulty items, though. He felt it was unusual that
the Soviets expressed their condolences "hours" after the 51L incident, instead
of "3 or 4 weeks" as they "usually do." What does he mean by that? We don't
have a shuttle blowup every day, you know! Also, the 51L blowup has been 
pretty well established to be a result of mismanagement and poor quality
assurance policy. Still, some of those items left me saying, "well, uhhhh...."

It is quite possible that they *are* investigating, but aren't letting the
media in on it, for painfully obvious reasons. 

Speaking of the media, I'm willing to bet that the media hoopla and foofooraw
over the next manned launching will make the "Liberty Day" celebration look
small-time. To think the unthinkable, if *it* blows up *too*, God help us.

Ron Morgan

-- 
osmigo1, UTexas Computation Center, Austin, Texas 78712
ARPA:  osmigo1@ngp.UTEXAS.EDU
UUCP:  ihnp4!ut-ngp!osmigo1  allegra!ut-ngp!osmigo1  gatech!ut-ngp!osmigo1
       seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!osmigo1  harvard!ut-sally!ut-ngp!osmigo1

------------------------------

Date: 25 Aug 86 01:12:31 GMT
From: smith@oberon.usc.edu  (Dennis R. Smith)
Subject: Re: Soviet Sabotage of Shuttle! (transcript-long)
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa


The sited article did appear in the July 6 Los Angeles Times... in the
"OPINION" (Editorials/Analysis/Comment) section.  The attribution line
at the end said "Tad Szulc is a Washington journalist who has long
covered intelligence matters."  The article was fairly accurately quoted.
-- 
--
Dennis R Smith                ARPA:   {Smith@ECLC.USC.EDU, Smith@USC-ECLC.ARPA}
University Computing Services UUCP:   {sdcrdcf,uscvax}!usc-oberon!eclc!smith
University of Southern Calif. BITNET: {smith@uscvaxq, smith@ramoth}
Los Angeles, CA 90089-0251    Tele:   213-743-2957

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 25 Aug 86 09:02:24 pdt
From: ucdavis!clover!hildum@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Eric Hildum)
To: ucdavis!space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Lack of interest in space exploration...


Recently, someone compared the exploration of space to the Louisiana
Purchase.  On this subject, one of the reasons the territory was
developed so quickly was that property rights could be established
easily (ignoring, for the sake of this discussion the rights of those
already there), and the fruits of ones labor were clearly one's own.

In the case of the Apollo expeditions to the moon, as I recall, the
moon was claimed for "all mankind," instead of for the United States.
I would imagine this brings into doubt the ownership of any territory
and derivative products (I am sure the third world nations would have a
field day with any corporation that attempted to start operations on
the moon, much as problems have occurred in the exploration of the
sea).  Suppose instead of taking this view, the United States had, as
in the traditions of the past, declared the moon to be United States
territory, as was clearly our right to do...  What would the effect of
this been on the exploration of space, in particular in the United
States?

I suspect that I would have resulted in:

1. Most of the rest of the world screaming about it.

2. A longer term commitment to the exploration of the moon - in
particular, the establishment of agencies and partnerships with the
private sector to extract the resources of the moon.

3. A much larger and more intense focus on space as part of national
policy (ie, instead of concentrating on the defense aspects, space
would be considered in a more general sense).

4. A permanent presence of the United States in space...


It is my belief that by claiming the moon for all mankind, the public
and government lost interest in space because we prevented the easy
development of our closest neighbor in space.

{One wonders what the Soviets would have done had they gotten there
first.}

I would like to see your comments on this...

				Eric

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 25 Aug 86 11:42:17 PDT
From: mcgeer%sirius.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Rick McGeer)
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Re:  SPACE Digest V6 #365
Cc: iris!michael, mcgeer%sirius.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.berkeley.edu,
        ota@s1-b.arpa


>Date: 20 Aug 86 22:22:51 GMT
>From: iris!michael@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Tom Slone [(415)486-5954])
>Subject: Re: Soviet Sabotage of Shuttle!
>Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
>To: space@s1-b.arpa
>
>In article <1142@hou2d.UUCP> lws@hou2d.UUCP (lws) writes:
>>Many of you have asked for a posting of the pseudo telegram I
>>recently received from an organization previously unknown to me, 
>>called HIGH FRONTIER.
>
>High Frontier is a Lyndon LaRouche front organiztion.  Disinformation recieved
>from them should be treated as such.
>michael@ucbiris.berkeley.edu	michael%ucbiris@berkeley.arpa
>{arizona|decwrl|decvax|hplabs|ihnp4|sun}!ucbvax!ucbiris!michael

	This is not true.  High Frontier is run by a former head of the DIA,
Lt. Gen. Daniel O. Graham, US Army (Ret).  No one has suggested any connection
between Gen. Graham and LaRouche, and there is no evidence whatever to
suggest such a connection.  High Frontier may or may not be a terrible idea,
but it's not LaRouche's.

					-- Rick.

------------------------------

Date: 25 Aug 86 05:11:00 GMT
From: pyrnj!mirror!gabriel!inmet!janw@caip.rutgers.edu
Subject: Re: Soviet Sabotage of Shuttle! (transc
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa


[karn@ka9q.bellcore.com ]
>My oh my. The General really has gone off the deep end.

Yes, now he's done it. Suspect the Soviets of playing foul!
Quote LA Times! Ask for an investigation! Obviously demented. :-)

>Ariane V-18 was carrying an Intelsat V. The  allegation  that  it
>was (also) carrying an American observation satellite is patently
>ludicrous. Anybody who thinks you can a) fit anything else  under
>an  Ariane  shroud  with  an  Intelsat V and b) get the French to
>agree to launch a secret  American  military  satellite  with  no
>security procedures and no leaks (until now) is dreaming.

That does not matter, but this does:

>Personally, if the Challenger disaster DID kill Star Wars, that'd
>be  the one silver lining in an otherwise very dark cloud. Mother
>Nature (and Edsel Murphy) have been trying very hard to send us a
>message this year.

Well: the Soviets love Star Wars even less than you do. This gives
them a motive far greater than another observation satellite.

>What really scares me is that Reagan apparently LISTENS  to  this
>guy.

And a lot of technical experts do, too. 

But what's so scary - that he might get his investigation?
Or something it might disclose? Or what?

		Jan Wasilewsky

------------------------------

Date: 25 Aug 86 04:54:00 GMT
From: pyrnj!mirror!gabriel!inmet!janw@caip.rutgers.edu
Subject: Re: Soviet Sabotage of Shuttle! (transc
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa


>[michael@iris.UUCP ]
>In article <1142@hou2d.UUCP> lws@hou2d.UUCP (lws) writes:
>>Many of you have asked for a posting of the pseudo telegram I
>>recently received from an organization previously unknown to me, 
>>called HIGH FRONTIER.

>High Frontier is a Lyndon LaRouche front organiztion.  

I wonder what makes you say that ?

>Disinformation recieved from them  should  be  treated  as  such.
>michael@ucbiris.berkeley.edu    michael%ucbiris@berkeley.arpa
>{arizona|decwrl|decvax|hplabs|ihnp4|sun}!ucbvax!ucbiris!michael

How should we treat disinformation received from others?


		Jan Wasilewsky

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #368
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA14874; Wed, 27 Aug 86 03:01:54 PDT
	id AA14874; Wed, 27 Aug 86 03:01:54 PDT
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 86 03:01:54 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8608271001.AA14874@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #369

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 369

Today's Topics:
			  Re: High Frontier
		   Re: Soviet Sabotage of Shuttle!
		       Re: Larouche retraction
		      Re: INTERNATIONAL SHUTTLE
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 25 Aug 1986 21:14-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Cc: iris!michael@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: High Frontier

I wish to correct a VERY, VERY misinformed statement by Mr. Tom Slone
in V6-365. High Frontier is not only not a LaRouche organization, it is
utterly despised and has been publicly attacked by LaRouche during his
presidential election rantings on network TV. General Graham may 
be seeing too many commies under his bed lately, but he is most
certainly NOT a certifiable nut with pretensions to demagoguery like
Lyndon.

One should be careful when publicly making such assertions about a
national organization. You don't have to agree with High Frontier, but
you shoudl recognize that they are professionals, they operate within
the law, and are usually quite reasonable people. They should not be
equated with the crazed followers of a would-be world dictator.

------------------------------

To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Re: Soviet Sabotage of Shuttle!
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 86 09:11:28 -0500
From: Sheri L. Smith <ltsmith@mitre.arpa>

More on Graham's faulty "evidence":  it certainly is not unusual for
the soviets to express their condolences hours after a devastating incident.
Deaths of heads of state are responded to, as are deaths of individuals who
have caught Soviet imagination...Samantha Smith is a recent example. The
shuttle missions have long piqued the imaginations --and envy-- of the rest
of the world. While the USSR has proven time and again their peasant boorish-
ness, they really couldn't afford to ignore this particular disaster.

I tend to agree with Ron's hypothesis that sabotage *is* being investigated
(or has been) but that the media is being kept in the dark; with good
reason no doubt.

sheri

------------------------------

Date: 26 Aug 1986 14:54-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
To: michael%iris.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Re: Larouche retraction
In-Reply-To: michael's mail message of Tue, 26 Aug 86 11:50:23 pdt

It is not suspicious at all, and is in fact fairly common tactics for
people like LaRouche who are out for nothing but personal power. The
LaRouche tactics are to take over issues for their own and to attempt
to discredit all others.

We are talking about the difference between an Adolf Hitler type
personality and someone who is just a bit over board on their distrust
of the USSR. Since General Graham is a retired spook, that type of
suspiciousness is not so hard to understand, if it is at times
disagreeable.

------------------------------

Date: 25 Aug 86 18:13:26 GMT
From: milano!wex@im4u.utexas.edu
Subject: Re: INTERNATIONAL SHUTTLE
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

In article <3258@utcsri.UUCP>, hogg@utcsri.UUCP (John Hogg) writes:
> ...Hermes is in the works, and I doubt that the French will want to drain
> funding away from this to build a foreign-controlled orbiter.  They are
> slowly bringing all of ESA behind them on this project, but the spillover
> is likely to go to the REAL future: HOTOL.  If that falls through, the
> Germans are waiting in the wings with Spanger, a proposal for an orbiter to
> be launched from a Mach 6-10 aircraft.

For the ignorant (like me), could we have some details on what Hermes, HOTOL
et al are?  I guess it would be best to send replies to me and I'll
summarize to the net if there's anough interest.

-- 
Alan Wexelblat
ARPA: WEX@MCC.ARPA or WEX@MCC.COM
UUCP: {ihnp4, seismo, harvard, gatech, pyramid}!ut-sally!im4u!milano!wex

"It is quite impossible for any design to be `the logical outcome of the
requirements' simply because, the requirements being in conflict, their
logical outcome is an impossibility."

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #369
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA01595; Thu, 28 Aug 86 03:01:55 PDT
	id AA01595; Thu, 28 Aug 86 03:01:55 PDT
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 86 03:01:55 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8608281001.AA01595@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #370

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 370

Today's Topics:
			    Re: Not Again!
	    High Frontier, L-5, and other pro-space groups
		      Re: space program problems
		      Re: An answer to Jorge...
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 26 Aug 86 07:47:00 GMT
From: magic!stolfi@decwrl.dec.com  (Jorge Stolfi)
Subject: Re: Not Again!
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> > = Me (Jorge Stolfi) in <1014@magic.DEC.COM>,

> = Lawrence Crowl (crowl@rochtest.UUCP)  in <20216@rochester.ARPA>;

> >    Columbus' trip was a project with a definite goal and dedicated
> >    leadership, 
>   
>   Show me evidence that the politics of his voyages were
>   substantially different from those that occur today.

Well, I don't know where to begin.  Perhaps it would be easier for you
to tell me more specifically what similarities do you see between
Columbus' enterprise and the Shuttle program.  For one thing, who is
the modern Columbus?  

> >    that produced invaluable results ...
>
>   Did his voyages produce these invaluable results within a
>   decade?

Yes, right away: he found an entire new continent.  He himself may have
not brought in the expected profits, but the value of his discovery was
quickly recognized, and well before that decade was over he had been
followed by several expeditions, by Spain and by other countries.
Now, what exactly is the `new continent' discovered by the Shuttle?  

>   If you are going to compare Columbus' voyages with the space
>   shuttle, you must use the same criteria.  What will the results
>   of a century of vigorous space exploration be?
>   Columbus opened a century of exploration, he DID NOT produce
>   the immediate results that you expect out of the shuttle
>   program.  

Even ignoring the Challenger accident, I can't see how the Shuttle can
be viewed as `opening up a century' of `vigorous space exploration'.  
In fact, the US haven't engaged in any significant space exploration
since the Voyager was launched, largely because of the Shuttle program.

> > ... with an extremely modest expense.
>
>   Back this up.  Show me the cost of Columbus's voyages as a
>   percentage of the Spanish governmental budget, as a percentage
>   of the Spanish Gross National Product, and as a percentage of
>   median individual income.  

Hm, do you want the answer in constant 1492 dollars,
in inflation-corrected 1776 rubles, or in tax-adjusted 1966 Swedish
pesetas? :-) 

>   Compare them with the space shuttle realistically.  My memory
>   says those voyages were extremely expensive, in both money and
>   lives.  

In terms of lives perhaps, but MY memory says Columbus' three small ships
were a rather modest expense compared to the Spanish government budget.

>   If you are going to make such claims, you must back them up.  

OK, I will try; just give me some time to dig the data. Meanwhile, why
don't you back up yours?

>   You are missing the point of the "Columbus News Reports"
>   entirely.  They are demonstrating the fallibility of evaluating
>   long term investments on the basis of short term payoffs.
>   You are using this same evaluation for the space shuttle, but
>   not for Columbus' voyages.  

No, I object to the Shuttle program because of its LONG term
prospects. I don't see any way the Shuttle can ever turn in a 
scientific, monetary, or even technological profit: the 
longer it is kept alive, the bigger our losses will be.

Moreover, I object to the attempt to equate the Shuttle program to
Columbus' trip.  The ideals, personalities, events, politics and
outcomes were quite different.  As I said, the Shuttle enterprise
looks to me more like that of the Spanish Armada.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
ARPA: stolfi@src.dec.com
UUCP: ..{..decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4,allegra}!decwrl!stolfi
DISCLAIMER: The above opinions are not the sort of stuff my employer,
my teachers, my friends, or my mother would like to be associated with.

------------------------------

Date: 26 Aug 86 19:41:58 GMT
From: nsc!amdahl!jon@hplabs.hp.com  (Jonathan Leech)
Subject: High Frontier, L-5, and other pro-space groups
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

In article <330@vaxb.calgary.UUCP>, radford@calgary.UUCP (Radford Neal) writes:
> In article <1135@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>, michael@iris.berkeley.edu (Tom Slone [(415)486-5954]) writes:
> 
> > High Frontier is a Lyndon LaRouche front organiztion.  Disinformation recieved
> > from them should be treated as such.
> 
> Interesting, do you have evidence of this? I thought High Frontier was one
> of those Jim Bean, L5 society, etc. associated groups. (Note: this isn't
> a sarcastic query, I really would like to know if you have evidence...)
> 
> Personally, I think there *are* enough coincidences here that the US
> government ought to be investigating, if they have any sense. But neither
> would I jump to any conclusions.
> 
>       Radford Neal

    The L-5 Society should not be linked with High Frontier. L-5 has
explicitly and intentionally avoided taking a stance on SDI, since we
will alienate a large fraction of our membership no matter what position
is taken. Please do not make assertions like this.

    It's true that several current or former members of the L-5 Board(s)
are pushing SDI, Jerry Pournelle and Ben Bova being notable examples.
Big deal. People like Freeman Dyson - hardly a noted supporter of SDI -
and Marvin Minsky are also among the L-5 leadership.

    The purpose of L-5 is to get PEOPLE into space, not weapons.

    Ad Astra,
    Jon Leech (...seismo!amdahl!jon)
    __@/

------------------------------

Date: 26 Aug 86 21:03:42 GMT
From: hplabsc!dsmith@hplabs.hp.com  (David Smith)
Subject: Re: space program problems
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> ... the recriminations and blame-seeking that followed
> all the Vanguard failures (or the fact that Von Braun and his crew
> had been ordered--for political and inter-service rivalry reasons--
> specifically *not* to orbit a satellite several months earlier).  
> Nor does he seem to remember how the fur flew, and how much of the
> program ground to a total halt, after the Apollo 1 fire.  I can remember
> a great deal of debate in the media and in political circles over 
> whether this trip was really necessary.  I still suspect that the 
> only reason the program kept moving was the spectacularly successful
> first flight of the Saturn V a few months later.

May I support your suspicion by quoting form "Appointment on the Moon",
by Richard S. Lewis (Ballantine, 1969).

	It had been customary to test the first stage of a new rocket
	separately and then fly it in combination with one or more upper
	stages.  But, according to James Webb, cutbacks in NASA's budget
	requests, starting in the 1964 fiscal year, had forced the agency
	to abandon step-by-step flight testing of the Saturn 5.
	...
	Reduced by $420,000,000, the 1968-fiscal-year budget of $4.6
	billion which was finally approved for NASA late in the year
	allowed the agency to do little other than press on to the
	lunar landing.  Project Voyager, programmed earlier in the
	year to land a life-detection capsule on Mars in 1973, was
	wiped out as a line item in the budget.  Other less costly
	planetary reconnaissance projects were shelved.
	...
	In the event of a failure [of the first Saturn 5] which
	indicated the need for a major redesign of the launch vehicle,
	it was considered likely that Apollo would be shelved until
	after a settlement of the Vietnam war, and the [Kennedy's] deadline
	would be irretrievably lost.  Flight articles already built would
	be put in storage.  NASA centers would be reduced to stand-by
	status, with skeleton forces.  The engineering and technical teams
	which provided the brains and sinews of American space capability
	would be broken up and scattered throughout industry.

			David Smith

------------------------------

Date: 26 Aug 86 18:36:19 GMT
From: magic!stolfi@decwrl.dec.com  (Jorge Stolfi)
Subject: Re: An answer to Jorge...
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

Adam Douglas (adamsd@pnet01.UUCP) writes in  <8608201617.AA10129@cod.ARPA>:

>   What kind of space program would you have wanted without the
>   shuttle, Jorge?  Unmanned missions only perhaps?  

For one thing. There are lots of great unmanned missions we could have done,
but didn't. I don't have to list them, do I?

Even if we assume that manned flights are worth the cost, we could probably
have done much better without the Shuttle.  Remember Spacelab and Apollo?
We would probably have a space station by now.  

Finally, even if we assume that reusables are the way of the future, 
we should have tried it first in a smaller scale (say, like
the French Hermes proposal). 

>   Besides, the shortsightedness of Congress referred to by others
>   here is not so much in giving NASA what they finally negotiated
>   them down to, but in not giving them MORE than they asked for.  

How much more? Would that have made the Shuttle into the money-saver
it was purported to be? How?

>   The reason we got to the moon when we did was partially
>   because, as Michael Collins wrote in _Carrying the Fire_, "no
>   one ever told us we were spending too much money." 

Yes, because everybody agreed that setting foot on another world was
(justly, in my opinion) worth all that money, and more.  There was no
substitute for that scientific and psychological experience; we had to
do it, just to know what it would feel like, just to be sure we were
able to do it.

Nothing of that applied or applies to the Space Shuttle.  We had proved our
worth with the Apollo mission; we proved that space flight was possible,
and we knew what it felt like.  There was no point, and there still isn't,
in doing it again and again, for the same motives.  Can we fault congress
and the people for not wanting still more of the same thing?  Can we blame
them for wanting SOME other reason to continue spending billions in space
flight?  

>   If that attitude had prevailed, we would have dozens of
>   industries in orbit now, and the costs of many basic items
>   would have dropped considerably.  

Yeah, perhaps we could buy plastic callibration microspheres for
electron microscopes at $5/ton.  Perhaps even less, considering that
there would be less electron microscopes and microscopists to buy them. :-) 

Seriously, I don't see any reason to believe your statement.
We could as well have ended up with a dozen shuttles on the ground.
Moreover, the few commercial uses of space we have so far ---
telecommunications, navigation, remote sensing, etc.  --- are more
expensive now because of the Shuttle.  I fail to see how spending ten
times more on the Shuttle would have made them cheaper.  

>   And all for still less money than the cost overruns of many
>   military projects.  

Yeah. Like, for example, the overruns of the Shuttle program...

>   Pollution would be less everywhere as well.  

You must be kidding.  Just think of how much pollution (on Earth and in
orbit) is generated in the manufacture, fueling, and launching of a
single Shuttle.  Compare that to the pollution generated on Earth by
those industries that can be moved to space.  

>   But I know that in the environment we have today we have to
>   either put a lot of pressure on members of congress to change
>   their basic attitude towards space funding, ...  

No, we have to CONVINCE them that space development is worth the cost.
It doesn't have to be for economic reasons, but it has to be
SOME reason that makes sense to those who foot the bill.

>   ..., or we have to stick with the military pressure to use the
>   shuttle just so we can get up there and then use that momentum
>   to increase space exploration exponentially--by insuring it
>   becomes more and more indespensable both strategically and
>   economically.  

Apart from the fact that this is not the way to run a democracy, I 
thoroughly dislike the idea of a military-run space development program.
For one thing, we will be only expanding into space the awful mess
we now have on Earth. Far from making mankind more secure against 
destruction, it will only make the latter more likely and more
complete.

Furthermore, I don't see why the military commitment to manned space
exploration is anything more than a ephemeral infactuation.
The justification for manned military vehicles and platformas are much
less clear than for industrial and scientific ones.  With continuing
advances in automation and communications, a human crew is bound to
become more a military liability than an asset.

If we let the military run the show, I think it quite possible that one
that we will wake up one morning to discover that the manned
exploration program has been permanently cancelled for `strategic
reasons'.  Remember how quickly they turned their backs to the shuttle,
when it no longer served their needs?  

>   Let's stop arguing and work together to get up there anyway we
>   can.  

No, let's keep arguing until we all have some idea of why we are going up
there, how we are going to do it, and what we are going to do once we
are there.

>   Once we're there--anything becomes possible, regardless of why
>   we originally went.  

That is very much in question, now more than ever.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
ARPA: stolfi@src.dec.com
UUCP: ..{..decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4,allegra}!decwrl!stolfi
DISCLAIMER: The above opinions are not the sort of stuff my employer,
my teachers, my friends, or my mother would like to be associated with.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #370
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA04040; Fri, 29 Aug 86 03:02:06 PDT
	id AA04040; Fri, 29 Aug 86 03:02:06 PDT
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 86 03:02:06 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8608291002.AA04040@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #371

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 371

Today's Topics:
			  Magazine articles
			    A late opinion
		   Re: Soviet Sabotage of Shuttle!
Re: Who owns the Moon? (was: Lack of interest in space exploration...)
	     Re: Lack of interest in space exploration...
		      Re: shuttle, budget, etc.
		   Re: Soviet Sabotage of Shuttle!
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Thu, 28 Aug 86 8:24:05 EDT
From: Les Eastman  <lreastma@crdc-vax3.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Subject:  Magazine articles

The August 25 issue of Chemical & Engineering News contains a couple of
interesting articles.

The first presents some findings of the Comet Halley probes, mainly about
chemistry, dust particles and interaction with the solar wind.

The second article, starting on page 30, tells how the tapes from the
Challenger were restored enough to hear the cockpit conversations of the
crew.  The orbiter was not equipped with a "black box" like airplanes, so
the tapes were severely damaged by exposure to seawater and resultant
chemical reactions.

------------------------------

Date: 26 Aug 86 14:12:17 GMT
From: trwrb!gilmore@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Larry A. Gilmore)
Subject: A late opinion
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

Sorry to be so late on this, but I just got back on after a long
hiatus. One of the major problems with the shuttle technology is that
it is essentially 3000 years old. The Chinese were using this
propulsion method at least that long ago. Come on, all you geniuses,
let's get a reactionless drive going!!

------------------------------

Date: 26 Aug 86 17:48:18 GMT
From: tektronix!tekgen!tekred!joels@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Joel Swank)
Subject: Re: Soviet Sabotage of Shuttle!
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> 
> [karn@ka9q.bellcore.com ]
> >My oh my. The General really has gone off the deep end.
> 
> Yes, now he's done it. Suspect the Soviets of playing foul!
> Quote LA Times! Ask for an investigation! Obviously demented. :-)
> 
> 
> >Personally, if the Challenger disaster DID kill Star Wars, that'd
> >be  the one silver lining in an otherwise very dark cloud. Mother
> >Nature (and Edsel Murphy) have been trying very hard to send us a
> >message this year.
> 
> Well: the Soviets love Star Wars even less than you do. This gives
> them a motive far greater than another observation satellite.
> 
> >What really scares me is that Reagan apparently LISTENS  to  this
> >guy.
> 
> And a lot of technical experts do, too. 
> 
> But what's so scary - that he might get his investigation?
> Or something it might disclose? Or what?
> 
> 		Jan Wasilewsky

What's scary is that Reagan might take some inappropriate action against the
Soviets because of this rumor.

The reason I doubt that the Soviets sabotoged the shuttle, is that they
didn't need to. The incompetence of the project management did quite well
at this. Disaster was inevitable. Read the Commission report if you don't 
believe it. The motivation for blaming the Soviets can only be to cover
up this incompetence. It won't work. Investigate if you like, but I'm
confident that the blame rests right here in the USA.

Joel Swank
Tektronix, Redmond, Oregon

------------------------------

Date: 27 Aug 86 02:36:24 GMT
From: tektronix!orca!kendalla@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Kendall Auel)
Subject: Re: Who owns the Moon? (was: Lack of interest in space exploration...)
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

In article <...@clover.ucdavis.edu> hildum@clover.UUCP (Eric Hildum) writes:
>
>In the case of the Apollo expeditions to the moon, as I recall, the
>moon was claimed for "all mankind," instead of for the United States.
>  . . . . .
>      Suppose instead of taking this view, the United States had, as
>in the traditions of the past, declared the moon to be United States
>territory, as was clearly our right to do...  What would the effect of
>this been on the exploration of space, in particular in the United
>States?

Recently, I went to the Smithsonian and saw a replica of the plaque placed
on the moon by the Apollo project. It said (as I remember) "We came in peace
for all mankind". It did NOT say "We claim this territory in the name of
all mankind".

Going to the Moon was very much like going to the South Pole. No country
(to my knowledge) OWNS Antarctica. The US, USSR, Britain, and others work
together on Antartica to broaden mankind's understanding of the Earth.

Any resources taken from Antartica belong to whoever has the desire to
go get them. The same applies to the Moon. I presume that there is some
international regulation which tries to control any abuses. But let's say,
just for fun, that you started mining Titanium from the Moon. You build
a large orbiting fabrication facility which produces zero-G alloys. Who
the hell is going to STOP you???

- Kendall Auel
<Disclaimer>

------------------------------

Date: 27 Aug 86 17:22:01 GMT
From: voder!kontron!cramer@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: Lack of interest in space exploration...
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> In the case of the Apollo expeditions to the moon, as I recall, the
> moon was claimed for "all mankind," instead of for the United States.
> I would imagine this brings into doubt the ownership of any territory
> and derivative products (I am sure the third world nations would have a
> field day with any corporation that attempted to start operations on
> the moon, much as problems have occurred in the exploration of the
> sea).  Suppose instead of taking this view, the United States had, as
> in the traditions of the past, declared the moon to be United States
> territory, as was clearly our right to do...  What would the effect of
> this been on the exploration of space, in particular in the United
> States?
> 

The U.S. signed a treaty in the mid-1960s, along with the Soviet Union
and most of the rest of the U.N. giving up all territorial rights in
outer space.  At the time, we were quite willing to do so because it
appeared that the Soviet Union would get there first.

> It is my belief that by claiming the moon for all mankind, the public
> and government lost interest in space because we prevented the easy
> development of our closest neighbor in space.
> 
> {One wonders what the Soviets would have done had they gotten there
> first.}
> 

Abrogated the treaty.

Clayton E. Cramer

------------------------------

Date: 26 Aug 86 20:39:55 GMT
From: magic!stolfi@decwrl.dec.com  (Jorge Stolfi)
Subject: Re: shuttle, budget, etc.
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

>   > = me (Jorge Stolfi),

> = Eric Hildum (hildum@clover.UUCP) 

>   >   [The shuttle] failed to deliver its basic promise, the only
>   >   reason why funding was approved in the first place: to provide
>   >   a CHEAPER and MORE RELIABLE way to put things in orbit than
>   >   expendable rockets.  And this is obviously a design failure
>   >   that cannot be fixed by pouring MORE billions into the program.  

>   You are of course correct - in fact the fix will cost about
>   $500 million - considerably short of the billions that was
>   worried about.  This paragraph indicates some problems
>   understanding engineering failures [...] A design failure may
>   ALWAYS be corrected with the expenditure of a finite amount of
>   resources.  Only those failures which are cause by a failure to
>   understand physical laws may not be corrected this way.
>   ...  In other words, the shuttle failed in a manner that is
>   trivial to fix.  

You missed the point.  The design failure I am alluding to is not the
seal problem ($500,000,000 to fix), or the presently -uh- disconnected
state of Challenger ($2,000,000,000 to fix).  I was also not thinking
of the pad design problems at Vanderberg, (what was it,
$200,000,000 to fix?), or the Centaur fiasco ($umptillions to fix), or
the cost of maintaining all payloads, personnel and facilities idling
on the ground for a couple of years ($gazillions).  

The basic design problem is that, even ignoring all those costs, the
shuttle is more expensive to operate than expendable rockets.
THIS is a design problem you cannot solve by spending still more money.

>   >   First, I don't see how congress can be blamed for the shuttle
>   >   woes.  The funding they approved initially was what NASA said
>   >   was enough, right?  

>   Wrong.  

NASA: `We have this spiffy design for a Space Shuttle that will
       let us go to space much more easily and cheaply. I need$ X billion.'
       
Congress: `What? You call that "cheap"? No way --- I don't want to
       spend more than  $Y billion in space stuff. If you can't do it
       with this money, forget it.'
       
NASA:  `Why, er, yes, I can do it with $Y billion.
       It is going to take longer, and it would not be that great, but sure
       we can do it.  I'll just trim some expenses here and there, make it
       a bit smaller, and cancel some scientific missions.  Don't worry
       about the scientific losses --- once the Shuttle is ready, we will
       we will quickly recover the lost ground.' (muttering to iself: `I am
       obviously going to run out of money halfway through, but by then it
       will be easier to get more).' 
       
Congress: `Are you really sure it will be cheaper than what we have now?'

NASA:  `Hm, well, yes, you can count on that.' (to self: `Of course
       it will be more expensive, but we need the shuttle anyway for
       resons that these bean-counters will never understand. 
       Once it is there, people will use it, whatever the price
       --- especially since there won't be any alternatives.')

Congress: `Hm, I am still not convinced...'

NASA: `Aw, c'm'on. Mr. President, wouldn't you help me get this project
      approved, as Kennedy did with Apollo? Besides, psst psst psst...'
      
President: `Sure. Hey, you guys, stop stalling --- let's do it!'

Congress: `Oh well, OK --- let's do it.'

   (OK, so this is a utterly distorted view of history.
   Unfortunately, it seems to be shared by a lot of people, including many
   that are otherwise supporters of space development.  You are invited to
   post your own version, and try to convince me it is more accurate than
   the above.) 
   
>   >   Third, if you think the congress is short-sighted, the right
>   >   thing to go is to change their minds, not try to get around
>   >   them by lobbying the president of the military.  (This used to
>   >   be called `democracy', I believe.) 

>   1.  This government was never intended to be a democracy.

Why, yes, how stupid of me to suggest otherwise... :-)

>   It is a republic...  

> 2. Why not go to the President - after all, he too is allowed
> and required to participate in the legislative process...

`Partecipate' seems a bit of an understatement for his role
in space policy.

>   3.  Most congressmen are only concerned with the pork barrel
>   projects that can be placed into their own districts
>   (remember what happens when the DoD tries to shut down a base
>   or a weapons program?) 

...  whereas pro-NASA support by the President and by congressmen from
Texas and Florida is not so narrowly motivated, right?  

Were it true that congressmen cared only for their constituencies.
Indeed, the reason for having so many congressmen is to try to get
national policy be determined by national interests, not just those of
a small group of people.  The system may not work very well, but I
believe that in the long run it is better than the alternatives.
The history and current state of the Shuttle program have only
reinforced this belief.

  Jorge Stolfi

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARPA: stolfi@src.dec.com
UUCP: ..{..decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4,allegra}!decwrl!stolfi
DISCLAIMER: The above opinions are not the sort of stuff my employer,
my teachers, my friends, or my mother would like to be associated with.

------------------------------

Date: 27 Aug 86 21:18:26 GMT
From: felix!daver@hplabs.hp.com  (Dave Richards)
Subject: Re: Soviet Sabotage of Shuttle!
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

In article <1142@hou2d.UUCP> lws@hou2d.UUCP (lws) writes:
>Many of you have asked for a posting of the pseudo telegram I
>recently received from an organization previously unknown to me, 
>called HIGH FRONTIER.
>
>DEAR FELLOW AMERICAN:
>
>URGENT YOU RESPOND IMMEDIATELY!
>
>HAVE WRITTEN SUPPORTERS LIKE YOU BEFORE ABOUT MY FEARS THAT THE
>SOVIETS TRYING TO KILL AMERICAN SPACE PROGRAM AND PRESIDENT
>REAGAN'S SDI DEFENSE PROGRAM.
>[remainder of "telegram" deleted]>

I have seen these phony telegrams before.  I believe this format is used 
because (a) it looks important, (b) the writers don't know how to use articles
and prepositions correctly, and (c) most of the people that read these things
don't understand articles, prepositions and proper grammar anyway. 

>      **Minimum Gift Necessary: $26.50  Amount Enclosed: $______

Hopefully they will use some of the money to hire a good proofreader.  

But seriously folks, what if you filled in the 'Amount Enclosed' line with a
pretty high number like $500 and didn't enclose anything?  I wonder how much
time and money they would waste in correspondence trying to get their "gift"?
The thought warms my heart.
 
Dave 

"I've got a good mind to write a nasty letter to my congressman if he could
only read it."    Walt Kelly

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #371
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA06310; Sat, 30 Aug 86 03:02:04 PDT
	id AA06310; Sat, 30 Aug 86 03:02:04 PDT
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 86 03:02:04 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8608301002.AA06310@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #372

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 372

Today's Topics:
			Re: "High Frontier(R)"
			 Claiming the Moon...
		      Re: shuttle, budget, etc.
			  Re: high frontier
			  Re: high frontier
	       Re: Soviet Sabotage of Shuttle! (transcr
	       Re: Re: High Frontier a LaRouche front g
		Re: KGB Sabotage of US Space Program!
			  Re: high frontier
		    Re: Soviet Sabotage of Shuttle
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 28 Aug 86 01:51:33 GMT
From: ssc-vax!eder@uw-beaver.arpa  (Dani Eder)
Subject: Re: "High Frontier(R)"
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> 
> >Date: 20 Aug 86 22:22:51 GMT
> >From: iris!michael@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Tom Slone [(415)486-5954])
> >Subject: Re: Soviet Sabotage of Shuttle!
> >Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
> >To: space@s1-b.arpa
> >
> >In article <1142@hou2d.UUCP> lws@hou2d.UUCP (lws) writes:
> >>Many of you have asked for a posting of the pseudo telegram I
> >>recently received from an organization previously unknown to me, 
> >>called HIGH FRONTIER.
> >
> >High Frontier is a Lyndon LaRouche front organiztion.  Disinformation recieved
> >from them should be treated as such.
> >michael@ucbiris.berkeley.edu	michael%ucbiris@berkeley.arpa
> >{arizona|decwrl|decvax|hplabs|ihnp4|sun}!ucbvax!ucbiris!michael
> 
> 	This is not true.  High Frontier is run by a former head of the DIA,
> Lt. Gen. Daniel O. Graham, US Army (Ret).  No one has suggested any connection
> between Gen. Graham and LaRouche, and there is no evidence whatever to
> suggest such a connection.  High Frontier may or may not be a terrible idea,
> but it's not LaRouche's.
> 
> 					-- Rick.
     "High Frontier" is also a trademark of the Space Studies Institute
of Princeton, NJ.  This is the organization founded by Dr. Gerard K. O'Neil,
who was one of the first major proponents of space colonies.  SSI funds
research on the critical technologies that are needed to make such things
possible.  Gen. Graham apparently picked the name 'High Frontier' because
it had the right ring to it, but was unaware that the phrase had been in
use already for several years.  This has led to some confusion.

Dani Eder/Advanced Space Transportation/Boeing
ssc-vax!eder

------------------------------

Date: 28 Aug 86 01:40:19 GMT
From: ssc-vax!eder@uw-beaver.arpa  (Dani Eder)
Subject: Claiming the Moon...
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

[comparison of space exploration to Louisiana Purchase]
[US did not claim Moon in 1969]
> sea).  Suppose instead of taking this view, the United States had, as
> in the traditions of the past, declared the moon to be United States
> territory, as was clearly our right to do...  What would the effect of
> this been on the exploration of space, in particular in the United
> States?
> 
[description of consequences of claiming Moon for US]
> 
> It is my belief that by claiming the moon for all mankind, the public
> and government lost interest in space because we prevented the easy
> development of our closest neighbor in space.
> 
> {One wonders what the Soviets would have done had they gotten there
> first.}
> 
> I would like to see your comments on this...
> 
> 				Eric
     If I am not mistaken, in international law, a Nation has to exercise
sovereignty over a territory in order make a claim stick.  According to
a coworker of mine who spent a winter in Antartica, one of the functions 
of the US base at the South Pole is to PREVENT anyone else from making a
claim to Antartica.  By having a permanent presence, no one else can say
its 'our territory and you keep out'.  Several countries have made conflicting
claims to Antarctica territory.  For the same reason, I believe Canada
spends a fair amount of money sending military patrols way up north, to
maintain its claims to the Northwest Territories and the northern islands.

     How this relates to space, as I see it, is in order to make your claim
stick, you have to be able to do something about it.  A case in point is
the Geosynchronous orbit over various equatorial countries.  At times they
have claimed the orbit over their territory, but these claims are generally
ignored since they have no way to enforce them.  When we set up a permanent
base on the Moon, then a claim to a reasonable area surrounding the base would 
be in order, perhaps out to five or ten km.  In all likelyhood some
bureaucratic mindfogging will be used such as 'interference with experiments'
or 'fuel storage hazard zone'.  The practical effect will be to exclude
other nations from approaching without our permission.  From this
beginning, real property rights may evolve.

     Dani Eder/ Advanced Space Transportation/ Boeing/ssc-vax!eder
(Designers of the Jarvis launch vehicle)

------------------------------

Date: 28 Aug 86 18:49:50 GMT
From: ernie.Berkeley.EDU!mazlack@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Lawrence J. Mazlack)
Subject: Re: shuttle, budget, etc.
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

>You missed the point.  The design failure I am alluding to is not the
>...
>The basic design problem is that, even ignoring all those costs, the
>shuttle is more expensive to operate than expendable rockets.
>THIS is a design problem you cannot solve by spending still more money.
>...

I am not so sure that cost effectiveness, alone, should be the determiner
here.  I think that a little ineffectiveness is probably worth the
learning experience. BUT,

The real problem is that the shuttle has locked us into a pretty
uninteresting long term scenario: <a> LOW earth orbit activities
because the shuttle can't get very high, <b> non-polar activities
because of the launch angle (fixable by flying from Vandeberg), and
<c> a focus on earth orbit activities to the exclusion of planetary
missions (we could be on Mars now, if the money had been spent on 
that instead), <d> continuation of 20 year old technology instead
of developing new stuff.

Larry Mazlack
  UUCP		{tektronix,dual,sun,ihnp4,decvax}!ucbvax!ucbernie!mazlack
  New style	mazlack@ernie.berkeley.edu	
  ARPA | CSNET	mazlack%ernie@berkeley.ARPA
  BITNET   	mazlack@ucbernie.BITNET
  telephone     (415) 526-0180
  snail         CS Dept, 571 Evans, U. California, Berkeley, CA 94720

------------------------------

Date: 26 Aug 86 00:53:37 GMT
From: aurora!al@ames-titan.arpa  (Al Globus)
Subject: Re: high frontier
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> 
> 
> Is this General Daniel Graham actually the director of High Frontier?  

Yes.  I saw him speak at an L5 Society meeting some years ago when
the High Frontier program (now known as Star Wars) first got started.
By the way, High Frontier and the L5 society seem pretty thoroughly
entwined.  It explains, in part, why the L5 society hasn't grown much
in the last few years (and why I quit the society).

------------------------------

Date: 28 Aug 86 18:36:39 GMT
From: voder!kontron!cramer@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: high frontier
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> Graham's organization was, to a fair extent, the inspiration behind SDI...
> although it only vaguely resembles the approach they were pushing.  They
> have a very strong military slant, with an eye peeled for the Soviet Threat
> at all times.  I don't believe the claims about them being a Lyndon Larouche
> front are correct, although they're definitely at the same end of the
> political spectrum.
> -- 
> 				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology

Larouche spent most of the 1970s heading up the Trotskyite U.S. Labor
Party.  How does this put him at the same end of the spectrum as Gen.
Graham?

Any kook politician becomes "right-wing" (whatever that means) in the
eyes of the media -- regardless of the facts.

Clayton E. Cramer

------------------------------

Date: 26 Aug 86 21:49:00 GMT
From: princeton!siemens!george@caip.rutgers.edu
Subject: Re: Soviet Sabotage of Shuttle! (transcr
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa


Tad Szulc is a respected journalist, formerly with the New York Times, where
his byline often appeared on front page stories.

						George Chaikin
						Siemens RTL
						105 College Road East
						Princeton, NJ  08540

						(609) 734 - 3316

------------------------------

Date: 26 Aug 86 20:37:00 GMT
From: princeton!siemens!george@caip.rutgers.edu
Subject: Re: Re: High Frontier a LaRouche front g
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa


High Frontier is a registered service mark of the Space Studies Institute
of Princeton, NJ, an organization founded by Dr. G. O'Neill to promote
space colonization.  It is also the title of a book by O'Neill, which I
understand won a Phi Beta Kappa book award the year of its publication.

The General's organization has the same name, but has no connection with
the Space Studies Institute, and apparently began using the name after SSI did.

LaRouche's organization has also used the term ( at least on a sign I saw in
Dallas Airport), but I don't know whether they have an organization associated
with their usage.

				George Chaikin
				Siemens RTL
				105 College Road East
				Princeton, NJ  08540

				(609) 734 - 3316

------------------------------

Date: 25 Aug 86 16:39:19 GMT
From: adelie!axiom!linus!utzoo!henry@ll-xn.arpa  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: KGB Sabotage of US Space Program!
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

Blaming the Soviets for Titan or Delta might be reasonable, but not
the shuttle.  The Challenger investigation has uncovered more than enough
things wrong with the Shuttle design to account for the failure; if 51L
was sabotaged, in the long run that may have done us a favor.

Even the expendable failures seem unlikely to be sabotage.  The Delta
investigation may not have a complete explanation for the failure, but it
has turned up enough hints to strongly suggest what happened.  The
Ariane failure was in a known trouble area of the design.  The Titan
failure is the most cryptic, since the investigation pretty definitely
concluded that insulation debonding was the problem but was unable to
suggest why it happened.  Even there, sabotage seems dubious:  causing
debonding at a location away from a joint would seem to require sabotage
at the factory, and that Titan booster segment was made about five years
ago.  Timing it to coincide with the other failures would be difficult.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 25 Aug 86 16:29:58 GMT
From: adelie!axiom!linus!utzoo!henry@ll-xn.arpa  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: high frontier
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> Is this General Daniel Graham actually the director of High Frontier?  I had
> thought this was a more scientifically slanted organization than this letter
> implies...

Beware confusion potential here:  the words "High Frontier" have been used
in two very different meanings by two very different groups.  The first was
Gerard O'Neill's space-colonies book of that name, and followup work by his
Space Studies Institute, which now claims "High Frontier" as a service mark.
The second is Graham's "High Frontier" organization, which is in business
to push, primarily, space-based missile defences.

SSI is a scientific organization aimed at civilian space development;
they have done pioneering work on mass-drivers and chemical processing of
lunar soil, among other things.  They are not happy about Graham's
appropriation of the term "High Frontier".  I don't recall their position
on SDI etc., but either "we have no official opinion on the matter" or
"it would be nice if space was developed for non-military purposes" would
be the most likely one.  (I was an SSI member for a while, but they don't
seem good about sending out renewal notices and my membership would appear
to have lapsed.)

Graham's organization was, to a fair extent, the inspiration behind SDI...
although it only vaguely resembles the approach they were pushing.  They
have a very strong military slant, with an eye peeled for the Soviet Threat
at all times.  I don't believe the claims about them being a Lyndon Larouche
front are correct, although they're definitely at the same end of the
political spectrum.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 27 Aug 86 21:27:49 GMT
From: csustan!smdev@lll-lcc.arpa  (Scott Hazen Mueller)
Subject: Re: Soviet Sabotage of Shuttle
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

In a recent issue of _Analog_ (either last month's or the month previous to
that, I believe) G. Harry Stine commented in his "Alternate View" column that
he had predicted a few years ago that there would be some sort of shuttle
disaster eventually.  Of course, this may be no more that the "standard gypsy"
prediction regarding the probable location of tall, dark men - but, the point
to remember is that the nature of this activity is such that there will always
be danger and death involved (or at least for as long as human beings remain
fallible).  The real tragedy of the space shuttle is that it was such a
stupid thing to have happen.

                                    \scott

In space, stupidity is a capital offense.

-- 
Scott Hazen Mueller                         lll-crg.arpa!csustan!smdev
City of Turlock                             work:  (209) 668-5590 -or- 5628
901 South Walnut Avenue                     home:  (209) 527-1203
Turlock, CA 95380                           <Insert pithy saying here...>

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #372
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA08384; Sun, 31 Aug 86 03:02:01 PDT
	id AA08384; Sun, 31 Aug 86 03:02:01 PDT
Date: Sun, 31 Aug 86 03:02:01 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8608311002.AA08384@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #373

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 373

Today's Topics:
Re: Re: Who owns the Moon? (was: Lack of interest in space exploration...)
		      Re: Americans & Scramjets
		      A parachute ride to earth.
	     space science, space station, two proposals
	rmgroup net.columbia?  (Ouch! Wait! Read the article!)
	       Re: Re: High Frontier a LaRouche front g
		      1957 Disney space program
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 29 Aug 86 00:27:58 GMT
From: aurora!al@ames-titan.arpa  (Al Globus)
Subject: Re: Re: Who owns the Moon? (was: Lack of interest in space exploration...)
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> 
> In article <...@clover.ucdavis.edu> hildum@clover.UUCP (Eric Hildum) writes:
> Let's say that you started mining Titanium from the Moon. You build
> a large orbiting fabrication facility which produces zero-G alloys. Who
> the hell is going to STOP you???
> 

This brings up an excellent point.  Ownership ultimately derives from
force; the physical ability to protect something.  In well run societies
we use law to define ownership, but the law is backed by the overwhelming
force of the state.  The reason no one owns the Moon is therefor simple,
no one is physically capable of forcing much of anything on the Moon
since no current military or police systems can operate there.  This is
also true of most orbits.

If SDI is deployed all this will change.  Governments (not all of them
friendly) will be capable of using force in space on a large scale.  
For example, if SPOT were to
take compromising pictures it could be destroyed.  There has even
been some speculation along these lines at the Pentagon.  Whoops, SPOT
is a French Earth resources satellite.  It's pictures are available
commercially.  It has been used to show us Chernobyl and the Soviet
shuttle ground systems, amoung other things.

I would very much like to see more systems like SPOT with better
resolution.  The US and USSR have had a monopoly on spy satellite
info for too long, and the CIA and KGB don't share.  One proposol
to UN would have the UN field a spy satellite system and use the
data to help piece keeping efforts.  Couldn't possibly work worse
that the current approach.

------------------------------

Date: 27 Aug 86 19:40:02 GMT
From: ihnp4!ihwpt!knudsen@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (mike knudsen)
Subject: Re: Americans & Scramjets
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> be a majority of wimps but NASA has done some interesting things. In the
> June issue of Mechanical Engineering (the ASME's magazine) there is an article
> on NASA's progress with Scramjets. Get this people  - 
> 	SCRAMJETS HAVE BEEN TESTED ON THE GROUND TO MACH 8! Not only that,
> the engine is a dual mode ramjet/scramjet.

Great!  How does this compare with the British HOTOL project's
super-whammy engines that the Brits don't want to share with
anyone?  I forget the alleged specs on those.
Are NASA's scramjets sufficient to build a HOTOL?
If so, let's get going on it.... mike k
-- 
Mike J Knudsen /  \   ...ihnp4!ihwpt!knudsen
              / NO \
Bell Labs    / BABY \   (312)-979-4132 (work)
 (AT & T)   /ON BOARD\
            \GO AHEAD/    BORED SAILORS
IH 6D-319    \ & HIT/   go BOARDSAILING.
x4132         \ ME /
               \  /
Bell Labs pays  \/   me for my thoughts; my opinions are all mine!

------------------------------

Date: 24 Aug 86 00:16:45 GMT
From: clyde!watmath!utzoo!utcsri!james@caip.rutgers.edu  (James P. Rowell)
Subject: A parachute ride to earth.
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa


  I had a rather vivid, strange dream the other night.  I  was
  out  in  space, in orbit around the earth, and I got home by
  parachuting (without a space ship)  all the  way  down.   It
  was  quite  exciting.   When  I  woke up I thought that this
  might not be impossible.  I haven't studied physics  or  any
  of  the  subjects  that might tell me whether I'm just being
  fanciful or not, so I thought I'd put it to some of you.  Do
  you  think  that  there  is ANY way that this could be done?
  The benefits would be that stranded people  in  space  could
  get back, although it would be scary.

  I won't propose any of the problems (and possible  solutions)
  that  I thought up, since I'm sure you'll be able to come up
  with them should they be legitimate. Have fun with the idea!

-------------------
James Philip Rowell             University of Toronto
UUCP    {ihnp4  utzoo   decwrl  uw-beaver}!utcsri!james
CSNet   james@toronto

      Just take a little piece of P.E.I., and old Saskatchewan,
       Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, Quebec and Newfoundland,
              Alberta and Manitoba, Ontario and B.C.,
 and you'll have found the Stompin' Grounds of all my friends and me.

------------------------------

Date: 29 Aug 86 00:50:05 GMT
From: al@ames-aurora.arpa  (Al Globus)
Subject: space science, space station, two proposals
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

Space science:  I would like to propose that the US create a new,
independent agency for space science.  This agency would
be responsable for the conduct of space science.  It would use
whatever launch vehicles it felt appropriate (and could afford).
NASA would then become an purely engineering and applied research
organization chartered to develop an orbital infrastructure:
space stations, launch vehicles, Moon bases and so forth.  NASA
would only conduct research that was directly applicable to
these goals.  The new agency could use whatever part of NASA's
infrastructure was appropriate to achieve purely scientific
goals.

Space science funding would then be independent of any NASA work.
Space scientist would, of course, then need to justify their funding
directly to Congress, but I'm sure their up to the task.


Space station:  The problem with the space station is two fold: first,
there is only one of them.  If disaster strikes, the entire manned
space effort goes down the tubes.  Second, the single station is so
expensive that it is unlikely to be duplicated and therefor must serve
many disciplies with conflicting requirements at the same time.  
I would like to 
propose that we design the smallest possible space station that can
meet a good size chunk of the requirements for ONE discipline.  Say
life science.  Since it's small, it's cheap.  So we build another
for materials science, another for technology development.  Then
France buys one for itself.  We get tired of the first one and
sell it to Brazil.  Rockwell builds one for proprietary work.  Then
Lucas film buys another used one to make space movies....

Each station is integrated on the ground.  This is much
easier than on orbit integration and the station can be
customized for the discipline it is meant to serve.  New technology is
integrated into new stations on the ground, again much easier than
on orbit.  Since we make a lot of them we can set up an assembly
line and bring costs down.

This is the way to a truely massive presence in orbit; not huge,
expensive, multi-purpose (i.e., doesn't suit anyone) systems such
as the current station design.

------------------------------

Date: 29 Aug 86 01:23:38 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!dciem!msb@seismo.css.gov  (Mark Brader)
Subject: rmgroup net.columbia?  (Ouch! Wait! Read the article!)
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

References:


The most recent newsgroups list that I have says:
> net.columbia		The space shuttle and the STS program.
> net.space		Space, space programs, space related research, etc.

Although not stated here, it is also understood that net.columbia is
supposed to be for "timely bulletins" that might not be available
through the general news media.

With the Challenger disaster, all this has changed.  What news events
there are about the shuttle program are of much wider interest, and
much of the traffic in net.space is about, or partly about, the shuttle
program.  The great wave of messages in the first week after the disaster
came in both groups about equally.

Of the two groups, only net.space is gatewayed to and from Arpanet.
Therefore only net.space has any NASA sites on it.  For this reason
alone there is bound to be considerable shuttle program traffic in
net.space.

I claim that net.columbia has lost its identity and should be rmgrouped.

When the shuttle program is resumed on an active basis, it can always be
created again if there is a demand again; by that time any number of
things may have happened.  But for now, let's give net.columbia a decent
burial, and incidentally let the Arpa people see all the traffic on the
topic of the shuttle program by concentrating the messages in net.space
(soon to be sci.space).

As usual, do not post votes; mail them to me.  Counter or supporting
arguments may be posted, but to net.news.group only.

		{ decvax | ihnp4* | watmath | ... } !utzoo!dciem!msb
Mark Brader		also via	  uw-beaver!utcsri!dciem!msb
			also via hplabs!seismo!mnetor!lsuc!dciem!msb
*Avoid -- overloaded.

	"The conversation never became heated, which would have been difficult
	 in any argument where there is a built-in cooling-down period between
	 any remark and its answer."		-- Hal Clement, STAR LIGHT

------------------------------

Date: 28 Aug 86 17:36:00 GMT
From: princeton!siemens!george@caip.rutgers.edu
Subject: Re: Re: High Frontier a LaRouche front g
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa


I have just learned that, in addition to the citations I added earlier, that
"High Frontiers" (in plural form) is the name of a magazine published in 
Berkeley for acid heads.  This is mentioned in the latest issue of "Whole
Earth Review", the successor to the Whole Earth Catalog.

					George Chaikin

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 29 Aug 86 12:07:30 pdt
From: ucdavis!clover!hildum@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Eric Hildum)
To: ucdavis!space@s1-b.arpa

>
>Going to the Moon was very much like going to the South Pole. No country
>(to my knowledge) OWNS Antarctica. The US, USSR, Britain, and others work
>together on Antartica to broaden mankind's understanding of the Earth.
>
>Any resources taken from Antartica belong to whoever has the desire to
>go get them. The same applies to the Moon. I presume that there is some
>international regulation which tries to control any abuses. But let's say,
>just for fun, that you started mining Titanium from the Moon. You build
>a large orbiting fabrication facility which produces zero-G alloys. Who
>the hell is going to STOP you???
>
>- Kendall Auel

The orginal exploration of Antarctica resulted in a large number of
conflicting territorial claims - some based on actual visits, others
based on sailing into the waters off the coast, and others (I think)
on the proximity to the southernmost countries.  These claims and
counterclaims were set aside temporarily in the interest of scientific
exploration.  Those signatory also agreed not to take any action to
further territorial claims, and not to begin any commercial
development of the resources.  There are some other aspects to this in
regards to the establishment of research bases and the like, of
course, but this is the treaty in a nutshell.  (Oh, also, no military
establishments...)


*****************************************************
>> {One wonders what the Soviets would have done had they gotten there
>> first.}
>> 
>
>Abrogated the treaty.
>
>Clayton E. Cramer
>

Hmmm.  You may be right.

***************************************************************	
>
>>   1.  This government was never intended to be a democracy.
>
>Why, yes, how stupid of me to suggest otherwise... :-)
>
>>   It is a republic...  
>
>  Jorge Stolfi
>
	Oops.  I am sorry, that came out much harsher than I intended
it to.  Please accept my apologies.

			Eric Hildum

------------------------------

Sender: "David_G._Opstad.osbunorth"@xerox.com
Date: 29 Aug 86 08:56:41 PDT (Friday)
Subject: 1957 Disney space program
From: Opstad.osbunorth@xerox.com
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Cc: Opstad.osbunorth@xerox.com
In-Reply-To: ota%s1-b:ARPA's message of 29 Aug 86 03:25:57 PDT (Friday)


  A marvellous bit of nostalgia was on the Disney Channel last night,
and those of you with access to that cable channel might want to mark
your calendars for this coming Sunday, the 31st of August, at 2:10 p.m,
when it will be repeated. It was a rebroadcast of a "Wonderful World of
Disney" show from 1957 on the subject of plans then being formulated for
construction of a space station and a trip around the moon. Wernher von
Braun speaks for about 15 minutes, using detailed models that are
strongly reminiscent of the old "Colliers" space program articles. If
you're at all interested in the wonderful sense of optimism and
technological can-do that used to be the norm here, then catch this
program!
  
  Dave Opstad (Opstad.osbunorth@Xerox.COM)

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #373
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA11331; Mon, 1 Sep 86 03:02:00 PDT
	id AA11331; Mon, 1 Sep 86 03:02:00 PDT
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 86 03:02:00 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8609011002.AA11331@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #374

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 374

Today's Topics:
	       Re: Soviet Sabotage of Shuttle! (transc
		  Antarctica (was Claiming the Moon)
	       Re: Soviet Sabotage of Shuttle! (transc
			 South Pole Ownership
			      Listserver
	     dangerous ignorance about political crazies
		       Re: High Frontier and L5
			    Re: Not Again!
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 28 Aug 86 05:24:00 GMT
From: pyrnj!mirror!gabriel!inmet!janw@caip.rutgers.edu
Subject: Re: Soviet Sabotage of Shuttle! (transc
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa



[from an e-mail response]
>Remember Senator McCarthy.  Now you understand why some people are get
>worried when others start seeing Communists under every stone.  Not that
>there might not be some justification to checking.  Considering the
>general's position and his wording of his allegations, you have to look
>at the situation with a bit of worry.

In principle, I agree:  McCarthyite  hysteria  could  also  be  a
danger.  In particular, I disagree: there was nothing in Graham's
wording (what little I saw of it) or  his  position  (head  of  a
private R&D group) that is worrisome.

In particular, he did not mention Communists or any other  Ameri-
can ideological group. If he did, that would have been a mistake,
both for the reasons you indicate, and because Soviet  spies  un-
covered  in recent years were all non-ideological. 

Thus the problem of "Communists under every stone" does  not  arise.

It seems that we've swung to the other extreme from  McCarthyism.
The Soviet Union spends billions on its secret  network  in  this
country, why not consider the possibility that they achieve some-
thing by it. Sabotage is just one of possible explanations  of  a
disaster; but the evidence (if any) won't be found unless someone
is willing to look for it, and that means considering the  possi-
bility even before the evidence is discovered.

I believe some postings were McCarthyite themselves in their  ap-
proach to Graham. That is, they stick an ideological label on him
and proceed to accuse him - one of lunacy,  another  of  being  a
LaRouche front. They see an anti-communist under every stone...

This kind of left-wing McCarthyism is far more  widespread  these
days  than the original right-wing kind. All the talk of Falwell
in your bedroom and Reagan spoiling for a nuclear  war  is  rabid
paranoia, whipped up for political reasons.

If we just let the USSR sabotage anything they want, for fear  of
McCarthyism,  they'll  destroy us. It is hardly the lesser of two
dangers. Why not treat this  rationally  and  investigate  impar-
tially - subject the Soviets to at least as much scrutiny as a US
defense contractor suspected of cheating Pentagon.

Even if they did not do it, knowledge that the possibility
is not ignored may deter them from doing it another time.

        	Jan Wasilewsky

------------------------------

Date: 29 Aug 86 17:17:08 GMT
From: husc6!talcott!cfa!willner@rsch.wisc.edu  (Steve Willner)
Subject: Antarctica (was Claiming the Moon)
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

The situation in Antarctica is not entirely analogous to that of the
Moon or other space objects. There is a treaty, _ratified_ by the US,
USSR, and most other nations, that forbids territorial claims
in Antarctica during the life of the treaty. The "Moon Treaty" was not
ratified by the US (or, I believe, by the USSR) and is of no legal
effect in countries that have not ratified it. By the way, the
Antarctica treaty is due to expire in a few years (1989??), and
Argentina and Chile are already maneuvering to press territorial claims.
Argentina has gone so far as to establish a year-round colony with
families, children, school... It will be interesting to see what effect
these efforts will have.
-- 
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: 29 Aug 86 00:59:13 GMT
From: clyde!watmath!utzoo!dciem!msb@caip.rutgers.edu  (Mark Brader)
Subject: Re: Soviet Sabotage of Shuttle! (transc
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> > My oh my. The General really has gone off the deep end.
> Yes, now he's done it. Suspect the Soviets of playing foul!
> ... Ask for an investigation! Obviously demented. :-)

Some people seem to be forgetting that the Challenger explosion
*was* the subject of a rather detailed investigation, and the
possibility of sabotage *was* covered -- and ruled out -- in
the commission's report.

Mark Brader 		"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible"
utzoo!dciem!msb						  -- Lord Kelvin

------------------------------

Date: 30 Aug 86 05:07:52 GMT
From: ernie.Berkeley.EDU!mazlack@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Lawrence J. Mazlack)
Subject: South Pole Ownership
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

>>Going to the Moon was very much like going to the South Pole. No country
>>(to my knowledge) OWNS Antarctica. The US, USSR, Britain, and others work
>>together on Antartica to broaden mankind's understanding of the Earth.
>
>The orginal exploration of Antarctica resulted in a large number of
>conflicting territorial claims - some based on actual visits, others
>based on sailing into the waters off the coast, and others (I think)
>on the proximity to the southernmost countries.  These claims and
>counterclaims were set aside temporarily in the interest of scientific
>exploration.  Those signatory also agreed not to take any action to
>further territorial claims, and not to begin any commercial
>...

I believe that the South Pole territory is fairly well demarked as to 
claims of who owns what.  There are several maps available indicating
national territory.

Larry Mazlack
  UUCP		{tektronix,dual,sun,ihnp4,decvax}!ucbvax!ucbernie!mazlack
  New style	mazlack@ernie.berkeley.edu	
  ARPA | CSNET	mazlack%ernie@berkeley.ARPA
  BITNET   	mazlack@ucbernie.BITNET
  telephone     (415) 526-0180
  snail         CS Dept, 571 Evans, U. California, Berkeley, CA 94720

------------------------------

Date:         Fri, 29 Aug 86 11:42:46 FIN
From: Kaj Wiik  <S-KW%FINHUTC.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu>
Subject:      Listserver
To: SPACE@s1-b.arpa


In order to avoid unnecessary network load, we have developed
a local redistribution system for Arpanet mailing lists.  Only
one copy is sent to Finland and a Listserver redistributes
it here.  Therefore I ask you to delete the following individuals
from the list
                S-KW@FINHUTC.BITNET

and add the Listserver to it

                SPACE@FINHUTC.BITNET

Also if it is possible to search the mailing list for any other
finnish subscribers (BITNET nodes starting with FIN), I would be
pleased to hear about them.

   Kaj Wiik
   S-KW@FINHUTC.BITNET

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1986  13:38 EDT
From: AGRE%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: dangerous ignorance about political crazies

> Date: 28 Aug 86 18:36:39 GMT
> From: voder!kontron!cramer@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Clayton Cramer)
> Subject: Re: high frontier
> To: space@s1-b.arpa
> 
> > Graham's organization was, to a fair extent, the inspiration behind SDI...
> > although it only vaguely resembles the approach they were pushing.  They
> > have a very strong military slant, with an eye peeled for the Soviet Threat
> > at all times.  I don't believe the claims about them being a Lyndon Larouche
> > front are correct, although they're definitely at the same end of the
> > political spectrum.
> > -- 
> > 				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
> 
> Larouche spent most of the 1970s heading up the Trotskyite U.S. Labor
> Party.  How does this put him at the same end of the spectrum as Gen.
> Graham?
> 
> Any kook politician becomes "right-wing" (whatever that means) in the
> eyes of the media -- regardless of the facts.

Why why why don't people check their facts on this mailing list?  You're
sending mail to thousands of people; don't you worry that you might make 
a fool of yourself when you flame ignorantly about others' grasp of
"the facts"?

Lyndon LaRouche has gone through some major changes in the years since
you last had your facts straight.  He has come out as a raving paranoid
right-winger, a fanatical supporter of directed-energy ABM weapons (long
before Reagan's Star Wars speech, I might add), a revolting racist and
anti-Semite, and a vociferous anti-drug crusader.  (The list goes on.)
For the last six or so years he has devoted his organization's energies 
to an attempt to subvert the Democratic Party.  He has been remarkably 
successful in this (having, for example, gotten two of his candidates on 
the Democratic ticket in Illinois, leading the Party to attempt to disband
the ticket and guaranteeing a Republican victory).  His vicious infighting
tactics have been vaguely Trotskyite in their general flavor though his
rhetoric has definitely been from the right.  

In particular, everyone on this list should be aware of the LaRouchites'
penchant for issuing unsigned and forged literature on the topics that
concern them, particularly the reputations of Democratic Party figures and
of principals to the SDI debate.

"The media" have been slow to pick up on LaRouche but their portrayals
have been perfectly accurate.  I know this because I have read a fair
amount of LaRouche literature and spent several hours over the last few
years talking to LaRouche followers.  These people are in bad shape;
they make the Moonies look like summer camp.  As a socialist who is sick
of being identified with everything from Jane Fonda to the Soviet Union,
I am very pleased that the right is having to bear the weight of *its* 
crazies for a change.

Phil Agre

------------------------------

Date: 30 Aug 1986 20:58-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Re: High Frontier and L5
In-Reply-To: Space's mail message of Sat, 30 Aug 86 03:12:38 PDT

Response to Al Globus:

Sigh. I really do get tired of having to give this stock response.

The L5 Society is not entwined with High Frontier. The L5 Society has
not now, or ever taken nor will it take a stand on the issue of SDI.

We are friendly towards General Graham as we are friendly towards many
other pro space groups. This does not mean we endorse his or anybody
else's policy. We present an open forum in which such opinions can be
aired, sometimes heatedly.

Quite a few of our members our pro SDI. Quite a few of our members are
also computer programmers.

A number of very vocal individuals, such as Jerry Pournelle, are
involved in both organizations. Many other members are involved with
AMSAT, NSS, Spacepac, Moose, Elks, Kiwanis, and whatever you want to
name.

I myself often express pro SDI sentiments. These are not to be taken as
L5 policy. Any time when I feel there may be a confusion, I always give
a disclaimer that these are personal views and not those of the
society. Most other individuals that can claim to speak on L5 policy
issues make similar distinctions, whether they have a personal pro, con
or don't-give-a-flying opinion on the issue.

------------------------------

Date: 29 Aug 86 21:58:36 GMT
From: sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen@hplabs.hp.com  (Stanley Friesen)
Subject: Re: Not Again!
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

In article <1041@magic.DEC.COM> stolfi@magic.UUCP (Jorge Stolfi) writes:
>> = Lawrence Crowl (crowl@rochtest.UUCP)  in <20216@rochester.ARPA>;
>>   Show me evidence that the politics of his voyages were
>>   substantially different from those that occur today.
 
>Well, I don't know where to begin.  Perhaps it would be easier for you
>to tell me more specifically what similarities do you see between
>Columbus' enterprise and the Shuttle program.  For one thing, who is
>the modern Columbus?  

	Perhaps Goddard?

>>   Did his voyages produce these invaluable results within a
>>   decade?
 
>Yes, right away: he found an entire new continent.  He himself may have
>not brought in the expected profits, but the value of his discovery was
>quickly recognized,

	Really!? As I remember it, it took several voyages before they
realized that they had not reached China/India, but rather a new
continent.And given the length of time it took to cross the Atlantic
in those days, that sounds like the better part of a decade right
there. It certainly took more than a decade for regular commercial
trade routes to the Americas to be established. And it is in the area
of potential commercial developement that the shuttle is most
similar to Columbus' voyages.

>Now, what exactly is the `new continent' discovered by the Shuttle?  

	They are discovering just how much we *can* do in outer space,
and are leading the way towards regular utilization of the resources
available there. And the resources in outer space are *much* greater
than the measly resources of one or two little continents.

>>   Compare them with the space shuttle realistically.  My memory
>>   says those voyages were extremely expensive, in both money and
>>   lives.  
>
>In terms of lives perhaps, but MY memory says Columbus' three small ships
>were a rather modest expense compared to the Spanish government budget.

	Quite likely, but then the Shuttle program, indeed the entire
space program is a *very* small portion of the US Federal budget! Even
HUD has a larger budget, even after Reagan's cuts! So where is the
difference, both were expensive in human terms and cheap in
governmental terms!

>No, I object to the Shuttle program because of its LONG term
>prospects. I don't see any way the Shuttle can ever turn in a 
>scientific, monetary, or even technological profit: the 
>longer it is kept alive, the bigger our losses will be.

	OK, then how would you go about encouraging man's presence in
space and the economic developement of its resources? The huge quantities
of iron, silicate and other important raw materials in outer space are
simply staggering! Then there is the industrial potential in the form
of new manufacturing techniques that take advantage of the conditions
in outer space, an area we have barely begun to touch. And even
industries which do not particularly gain operationally from being in
outer space could still be placed there to preserve precious surface
area on the Earth for more aesthetic purposes. And all of these
require human presence at least during development and initial
construction. Also, space must be percieved as *accessible* before
commercial entities will risk capital on development there. Thus the
Shuttle has a certain sociological significance in motivating further
developement.
	Note, I do not say hang on to the Shuttle forever, only until
it is properly superceded by more modern technology. We cannot afford
to stagnate while we wait for the next generation of spaceship to be
designed. We must continue a vigorous space program, so that when we
have that new ship it we will know what to do with it, and so that it
will have fewer design problems.
---

				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)

UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen
ARPA: ??

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #374
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA14369; Tue, 2 Sep 86 03:02:04 PDT
	id AA14369; Tue, 2 Sep 86 03:02:04 PDT
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 86 03:02:04 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8609021002.AA14369@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #375

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 375

Today's Topics:
			  NOTE from AOVS752
			  Re: Disney Program
		 Re: Columbus, NASA, shuttle, budget
		       Re: SPACE Digest V6 #374
			  Re: Re: Not Again!
		Re: Re: Not Again! (Separate agencies)
	  Re: Soviet Sabotage of Shuttle!(High Frontier,L5)
		 Re: Columbus, NASA, shuttle, budget
		   Re: Not Again! (reply to Stolfi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 30 Aug 86 21:43:49 CST
To: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
From: AOVS752%UTA3081.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: NOTE from AOVS752

Date: 30 August 1986, 21:42:01 CST
From: Peter Halamek             (512) 471-4332       AOVS752  at UTA3081
To:   SPACE at S1-B

Subject:  Space research in Australia

Can anybody tell me if Australia has any substantial space effort of its
own going on at this time ?

------------------------------

Date: 31 Aug 1986 19:13-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Re: Disney Program
In-Reply-To: Space's mail message of Sun, 31 Aug 86 03:12:31 PDT

I remember the program well, and the comic book that covered the same
material. (Remember: "Smaller and still better"?). I think that was
part of what got me started as a space activist (although a young one
at that time). Both the show and the comic came out during the 1957
IGY.

------------------------------

Date: 1 Sep 86 05:15:25 GMT
From: brahms!web@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (William Baxter)
Subject: Re: Columbus, NASA, shuttle, budget
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

Thus far in my perusal of your network, I have found some interesting discussion
of commercial space, but no mention of Space Services, Inc., a company which
I work for, and which might be of some interest to the user community.  Space
Services was founded in 1980 by David Hannah, Jr.  In 1982, SSI successfully 
launched the Conestoga rocket, and has since received the first two licenses 
from the Department of Transportation's Office of Space Commercialization for
future commercial launches.  SSI is currently negotiating with some 18 organ-
izations who wish to use our launch services.  

The project which I am currently working on has some bearing on the particular
posting which this posting is a response to.  I would like the user community 
to know that SSI is organizing research flights for experimentation on our
suborbital rocket and our orbital rocket.  NASA is not the only organization
launching scientific research missions.  

I was curious on several points made in article #55.  In particular, as of 1986
the Venus Orbiting Imaging Radar was being funded under a new program 
designation, namely the Venus Radar Mapper.  X-ray astronomy is still being
carried out by a variety of organizations.  The solar polar orbiter was to be 
flown on a future shuttle mission, under the program name Ulysses.  The Ulysses
satellite was designed by the European Space Agency, but since it does the 
same thing as the solar polar satellite was supposed to, what difference does it
make that some other organization besides NASA is doing it?  

Anyway, this response is getting out of hand.  I'm sure I've generated plenty
of targets for flame-throwers around the world, so I will close.

------------------------------

Date:  2 Sep 1986 00:45-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V6 #374
In-Reply-To: Space's mail message of Mon, 1 Sep 86 03:13:50 PDT

Phil Agre:

I have done a considerable amount of research on Lyndon, and what
becomes very apparrent very quikcly is that the left calls him right
and the right calls him left. I have read both his literature and of
discussions of him by radicals on both sides of the fence. Extremists
of both stripes have amazingly similar personalities and can actually
switch from one set of extreme beliefs to another with hardly a loss of
a heartbeat.

He is not strictly speaking either left or right. LaRouche is more to
be compared with an Adolph Hitler than anything else. IE a 'national
socialist' type. His organization is largely a personality cult that
revolves around his desire to fix the world by running it himself.

LaRouche's history in politics goes back to WWII when he was a member
of the Communist Party and a conscientious objector until the USSR was
invaded.

He was part of SDS and was involved with a strong splinter group that
left it and then attempted to take on Gus Hall, head of the American
Communist Party. The attempted takeover failed, despite the use of
baseball bats as methods of convincing Gus Hall people to see the
light.

As the political scene shifted, La Rouche apparently saw that the high
tech game was a fertile ground for getting money and that quite a few
engineers and scientists were suckers for a good conspiracy theory. He
begin shifting to a more right policy, but kept many of his old ties
just the same.

Some sources think he currently taking money from the KGB and the
Klu Klux Klan (among others), simultaneously. His people are also known
for pulling scams on credit card numbers, phoney loan deals, etc. He
has numerous front organizations such as Fusion and EJR that are money
making operations.

The inner group is absolutely loyal, and in fact went through something
similar to the techniques of the weather underground cells. Probably
very similar since both groups are originally splinters of SDS. A large
number of his people have been trained by mercenaries in anti
assasination techniques and in covert operations. He runs what some
consider to be the largest and most effective private intelligence
network in the world. Purportedly governments buy information from him.
There is also a possibility the organization has been involved in 'wet
work'. The assasination in Sweden (or was it Norway?) is one
possibility.

His organization is international and has some support in third world
countries because his theories jive with what they want to believe
anyway: that there is a "Northern" conspiracy to prevent them from
developing. Just as was suggested about shuttle sabotage, it's easier
for them to blame outsiders than to take blame for their own
incompetence.

I would almost guarantee to you that if the country took a liberal
swing tomorrow, Lyndon would be publicly talking like a socialist
yesterday. Don't try to understand his credo from literature.
Understand him on the purist machiavellian pragmatics of personal power,
big lies and half truths ...and thank god he's not a young man. 


						Dale Amon

					"A Libertarian is a person who
					 can't tell right from left"

------------------------------

Date: 28 Aug 86 10:27:03 GMT
From: ihnp4!drutx!mtuxo!mtgzz!dls@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (d.l.skran)
Subject: Re: Re: Not Again!
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

Bravo Mr. Globus. Americans think they live in
a nation unconnected to the rest of the universe - 
a universe that may very soon be painted red.

Dale

------------------------------

Date: 28 Aug 86 10:30:21 GMT
From: ihnp4!drutx!mtuxo!mtgzz!dls@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (d.l.skran)
Subject: Re: Re: Not Again! (Separate agencies)
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

I think the separation of technology development from space
science would be a very fruitful direction to pursue, and would
probably benefit both programs.

Dale

I have see the future and it rises from the far Pacific Rim.

------------------------------

Date: 28 Aug 86 10:47:38 GMT
From: ihnp4!drutx!mtuxo!mtgzz!dls@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (d.l.skran)
Subject: Re: Soviet Sabotage of Shuttle!(High Frontier,L5)
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa


As an L5 member of many years, I assure all and sundry that the
L5 Society IS NOT IN ANY WAY affiliated with Graham's High Frontier.
The L5 Society neither supports nor opposes SDI. Isaac Asimov resigned
because we wouldn't take a stand against it, and others essentially
dropped out of active membership because we wouldn't take a stand for
SDI.

Since SDI is an important space issue, the current position is to
provide a forum for the discussion of SDI and other space issues from
a longer term perspective.

Jim Bean may well be a member of both groups, but this is this own
private affair.


Dale

------------------------------

Date: 28 Aug 86 10:12:23 GMT
From: ihnp4!drutx!mtuxo!mtgzz!dls@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (d.l.skran)
Subject: Re: Columbus, NASA, shuttle, budget
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

I give up stolfi. Let's resign. All this space stuff
can never be justified.

Kinda makes me wonder what the Soviets are doing up there in MIR?
What they will have done by 1995 or whenver we get around to
putting up what will no doubt be a half funded and inadequately
supported station?

What will the Japanese have done with that top-notch H-2 booster
of theirs? The Europeans with Columbus and Hermes and Ariane 5?

I have the feeling that they'll be carving out their futures
in space. We, on the other hand, will be justifying the  planned space
station and the proposed aerospace plane and the never really finished 
space shuttle in triplicate to stolfi for the next ten or twenty years.

The reality is that there are a couple of million stolfis out there,
and and couple of million more ten times as short sighted. The reality
is that groups like L5 are pathetically small and haven't really caught
fire, that NASA is a shrinking, doddering agency, and that the game is
just about up.

When I heard that Mac-Dac was considering importing(IMPORTING) a Japanese
stage to "stretch" the Delta I knew it was all over but the shouting.
They killed us on TVs and VCRs and cars and steel and ship building.
What arrogance leads us to think we're going to win this one?
Cause we're white? Cause we're Christian? Cause we're American?
Cause we're ahead? Well we were. Right now I'd say the ranking 
of operational capacity is
	USSR  	#1 by a large margin
	Japan   #2 only free world operational launch vehicle
	China	#3 it works, guys.
	ESA	#4 in the shop
	USA	#4 in the shop too.

I have seen the future, and it rises from the Pacific rim.

Dale

------------------------------

Date: 28 Aug 86 09:45:17 GMT
From: ihnp4!drutx!mtuxo!mtgzz!dls@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (d.l.skran)
Subject: Re: Not Again! (reply to Stolfi)
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

>> Evelyn C. Leeper writes in article <1931@mtgzy.UUCP>:
>> >   
>> >                       from the PALOS POST 
>> >   
>> >   PALOS, March 15, 1493--Crepuscular Chris is back, with the
>> >   Santa Maria wrecked and the Nina badly damaged.  Just as we
>> >   predicted, no benefits. [...]   
>> >   And he has the gall to want 17 more ships to go on another
>> >   expedition?  Columbus's ventures are a hole in the water into
>> >   which our Good Queen is determined to throw money.  [...]
>> >   Resuming the old policy is not the way to learn from the Nina
>> >   and Santa Maria disasters.  The loss of these ships is the
>> >   right occasion to free the Navy from its aimlessness and at
>> >   long last give its engineers another project worthy of its
>> >   skill...an Armada, for example.  
>> 
>> Is the intent of the author what I think it is, namely 
>> justifying continuation of the Shuttle program by comparing
>> it to Columbus' expedition? If so, then sorry --- I don't
>> think the analogy holds.

I think the intent of the author was to justify the space program
and by analogy any long range plan with  unclear benefits.

>> 
>> Columbus' trip was a project with a definite goal and dedicated leadership,
>> that produced invaluable results with an extremely modest expense.

And the shuttle program wasn't?  The shuttle HAD AND CONTINUES to HAVE
a definite GOAL: TO MAKE SPACE ACCESSABLE. That it was not funded adequately
or that its management blundered under pressure does not tarnish this
goal. As for cost: at twice the price the shuttle is still modest compared
to the endless extravaganza at HUD, HEW, & DOD.

>> 
>> The Shuttle was lagely a plan conceived by a huge federal bureaucracy
>> to keep money flowing to its members and clients.  The need for it was
>> never fully justified; instead, the approval was obtained through heavy
>> court lobbying, overly optimistic claims, and outright lies.

I sincerely doubt that Columbus was every fully justified, or that he
never made overly optimistic claims. As for the lies, well, I read the NYT's
"expose" of the shuttle, and all I can say is that if you deeply oppose the
shuttle and NASA in the first place, and then apply a little imagination,
as well as deliberately deceptive graphics and illustrations, you can
claim somebody at NASA lied. I am not impressed, however.

>> Its completion drained resources from other worthy programs and forced
>> the suspension of many of them.  When the Shuttle finally was
>> delivered, it turned out to be an expensive white elephant,
>> and its (predictable but unpredicted) failure crippled the nation for
>> years to come.

This is not the fault of the shuttle but of a nation that thought it
could buy greatness on the cheap. We got the shuttle we paid for.

>> 
>> If analolgies are to be drawn between Spanish history and our space
>> program, then Columbus' adventure could perhaps be compared to the
>> Voyager mission, but the Shuttle affair must necessarily be equated to
>> tale of the Invincible Armada...
>> 
>>     jorge stolfi
>>     

These analogies are absurd, and if intended seriously, reveal an incredible
ignorance of the Spanish Armada. I am unsure what the
correct analogy to Columbus' voyages would be; such things are only
clear in hindsight, but the Voyager mission has no real analogy in history -
previous exploratory missions were  relatively more expensive and
humanly dangerous than Voyager.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #375
*******************


1,forwarded,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA17913; Wed, 3 Sep 86 03:02:12 PDT
	id AA17913; Wed, 3 Sep 86 03:02:12 PDT
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 86 03:02:12 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8609031002.AA17913@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #376

*** EOOH ***
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 86 03:02:12 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #376

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 376

Today's Topics:
	       Re: Soviet Sabotage of Shuttle! (transc
		       Re: Claiming the Moon...
		 Ride assigned to Strategic Planning
			Turbopump Development
		Re: `Concerning Stories Never Written'
		  `Concerning Stories Never Written'
			       Re: SSIA
			    Re: Dale Skran
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 30 Aug 86 20:37:00 GMT
From: uiucdcsp!jenks@a.cs.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: Soviet Sabotage of Shuttle! (transc
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa


Has anybody directed this to Jerry Pournelle over on BIX?  He'd prolly be
interested, and might have a thing or two to say.  Sadly, I can't afford
BIX these days.  A cross-load, anybody?

------------------------------

Date: 31 Aug 86 01:31:41 GMT
From: clyde!watmath!looking!brad@caip.rutgers.edu  (Brad Templeton)
Subject: Re: Claiming the Moon...
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

In article <849@ssc-vax.UUCP> eder@ssc-vax.UUCP (Dani Eder) writes:
>For the same reason, I believe Canada
>spends a fair amount of money sending military patrols way up north, to
>maintain its claims to the Northwest Territories and the northern islands.

The USA is a big offender here.  Last year, the USA sent a ship through
the Northwest Passage, and deliberately did not ask the permission of
the Canadian government.  Canadian public and private aircraft few past
the ship (The "Polar Sea") and protests were lodged, but (unlike Libya,
where shots were fired) nothing else transpired.

One result is that now the government is going to spend close to the cost
of a Space Shuttle to build special icebreakers for regular patrol up there.

But this is nations bickering over land on Earth.  The situation in space
is far worse.  "High-minded" officials at the UN drafted resolutions that
forbid national claims and private property in space.

Now that the moon and other bodies "belong to all mankind" there will be
hell to pay getting these silly resolutions repealed.  Otherwise, "all mankind"
is certainly not going to make use of these resources.
-- 
Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473

------------------------------

Date: 31 Aug 86 16:12:54 GMT
From: nbires!isis!scicom!markf@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Mark Felton)
Subject: Ride assigned to Strategic Planning
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

NASA News -> August 18, 1986
ASTRONAUT RIDE NAMED SPECIAL ASSISTANT FOR STRATEGIC PLANNING

	Dr. Sally K. Ride has been detailed to the position of Special 
Assistant to the Administrator for Strategic Planning. In this position,
she will be responsible for reviewing NASA's goals and objectives for near
to long-term planning.
	Ride was selected by NASA as a astronaut candidate in 1978. She has
been a mission specialist on two Space Shuttle flights - STS-7 in June 1983
and STS 41-G in October 1984. Recently she served as a member of the Presid-
ential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident.
	A native of Los Angeles, Ride is a graduate of Stanford University,
where she received a B.S. degree in physics and a B.A. degree in English
in 1973, and M.S. and Ph.D. in physics in 1975 and 1978, respectively.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA News Release 86-114
Barbara Selby Headquarters, Washington, D.C.
Reprinted with permission for electronic distribution
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 31 Aug 86 16:10:09 GMT
From: nbires!isis!scicom!markf@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Mark Felton)
Subject: Turbopump Development
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

NASA News -> August 13, 1986
NASA SELECTS PRATT & WHITNEY FOR ALTERNATE TURBOPUMP DEVELOPMENT

	The National Aeronautics and Space Administration announced the
selection of United Technologies, Pratt & Whitney Aircraft, Government Products
Division, West Palm Beach, Fla., for negotiations leading to a contract award
for the design, development, test, flight certification and production verif-
ication of alternate high-pressure fuel and oxydizer turbopumps. These turbo-
pumps are intended to be interchangeable with the current Space Shuttle main
engine turbopumps, provide extended life capability and enhance safety margins.
	A cost-plus-award-fee contract is anticipated. Pratt & Whitney's pro-
posal reflected a cost of approximately $182 million and a period of perform-
ance of 5 to 6 years.
	One other firm submitted a proposal: Aerojet TechSystems Company, 
Sacramento, Calif.
	The contract will be managed by NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center,
Huntsville, Ala.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA News Release 86-112
Sarah Keegan Headquarters, Washington, D.C.
Bob Ruhl Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala.
Reprinted by permission for electronic distribution
---------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 1 Sep 86 20:55:18 GMT
From: chris@mimsy.umd.edu  (Chris Torek)
Subject: Re: `Concerning Stories Never Written'
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

In article <3215@umcp-cs.UUCP> I transcribed:
>... Presently they needed stormtroopers; they revived the Ku Klux
>Klan in everything but the name---sheets, passwords, grips and all.
>It was a ``good gimmick'' once and it still served.  Blood at the
>pools and blood in the streets, but Scudder won the election.

Make that `blood at the polls'.
-- 
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 1516)
UUCP:	seismo!umcp-cs!chris
CSNet:	chris@umcp-cs		ARPA:	chris@mimsy.umd.edu

------------------------------

Date: 1 Sep 86 16:49:09 GMT
From: chris@mimsy.umd.edu  (Chris Torek)
Subject: `Concerning Stories Never Written'
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

The following is excerpted from a short essay written in 1952 by
Robert A. Heinlein.  It touches upon several issues recently
discussed in net.legal and net.space (the Space Digest for ARPAnauts).
The full essay can be found in the back of _Revolt_in_2100_, recently
reprinted by Baen Books.

  ...

  I am aware that the themes of the unwritten stories linking the
  second and this third volume thus briefly stated above have not
  been elaborated sufficiently to lend conviction, particular with
  reference to two notions; the idea that space travel, once
  apparently firmly established, could fall into disuse, and secondly
  the idea that the United States could lapse into a dictatorship
  of superstition.  As for the first, consider the explorations of
  the Vikings a thousand years ago and the colonies they established
  in North America.  Their labors were fruitless; Columbus and his
  successors had to do it all over again.  Space travel in the near
  future is likely to be a marginal proposition at best, subsidized
  for military reasons.  It could die out---then undergo a renascence
  through new techniques and through new economic and political
  pressures.  I am not saying these things will happen, I do say
  they could happen.

  As for the second notion, the idea that we could lose our freedom
  by succumbing to a wave of religious hysteria, I am sorry to say
  that I consider it possible.  I hope that it is not probable.
  But there is a latent deep strain of religious fanaticism in
  this, our culture; it is rooted in our history and it has broken
  out many times in the past.  It is with us now; there has been
  a sharp rise in strongly evangelical sects in this country in
  recent years, some of which hold beliefs theocratic in the extreme,
  anti-intellectual, anti-scientific, and anti-libertarian.

  It is a trusim that almost any sect, cult, or religion will
  legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power
  to do so, and will follow it by suppressing opposition, subverting
  all education to seize early the minds of the young, and by
  killing, locking up, or driving underground all heretics.  This
  is equally true whether the faith is Communism or Holy-Rollerism;
  indeed it is the bounden duty of the faithful to do so.  The
  custodians of the True Faith cannot logically admit tolerance of
  heresy to be a virtue.

  Nevertheless this business of legislating religious beliefs into
  law has never been more than sporadically successful in this
  country---Sunday closing laws here and there, birth control
  legislation in spots, the Prohibition experiment, temporary
  enclaves of theocracy such as Voliva's Zion, Smith's Nauvoo, a
  few others.  The country is split up into such a variety of faiths
  and sects that a degree of uneasy tolerance now exists from
  expedient compromise; the minorities constitue a majority of
  opposition against each other.

  Could it be otherwise here?  Could any one sect obtain a working
  majority at the polls and take over the country?  Perhaps not---but
  a combination of a dynamic evangelist, television, enough money,
  and modern techniques of advertising and propaganda might make
  Billy Sunday's efforts look like a corner store comapred to Sears
  Roebuck.  Throw in a depression for good measure, promise a material
  heaven here on earth, add a dash of anti-Semitism, anti-Catholicism,
  anti-Negroism, and a good large dose of anti-``furriners'' in
  general and anti-intellectuals here at home and the result might
  be something quite frightening---particularly when one recalls
  that our voting system is such that a minority distributed as
  pluralities in enough states can constitute a working majority
  in Washington.

  I imagined Nehemiah Scudder [the evangelist in control at the
  beginning of _Revolt_in_2100_ -ACT] as a backwoods evangelist
  who combined some of the features of John Calvin, Savonarola,
  Judge Rutherford and Huey Long.  His influence was not national
  until after the death of Mrs. Rachel Biggs, an early convert who
  had the single virtue of being the widow of an extremely wealthy
  man who shared none of her religious myopia---she left Brother
  Scudder several millions of dollars with which to establish a
  television station.  Shortly thereafter he teamed up with an
  ex-Senator from his home state; they placed their affairs in the
  hands of a major advertising agency and were on their way to fame
  and fortune.  Presently they needed stormtroopers; they revived
  the Ku Klux Klan in everything but the name---sheets, passwords,
  grips and all.  It was a ``good gimmick'' once and it still
  served.  Blood at the pools and blood in the streets, but Scudder
  won the election.  The next election was never held.

  Impossible?  Remember the Klan in the 'Twenties---and how far it
  got without even a dynamic leader.  Remember Karl Marx and note
  how close the unscientific piece of nonsense called _Das_Kapital_
  has come to smothering out all freedom of throught on half a
  planet, without---mind you---the emotional advantage of calling
  it a religion.  The capacity of the human mind for swallowing
  nonsense and spewing it forth in violent and repressive action
  has never yet been plumbed.

  No.  I probably never will write the story of Nehemiah Scudder;
  I dislike him too thoroughly.  But I hope that you will go along
  with me in the idea that he _could_ happen, for the sake of the
  stories which follow.  Whether you believe in the possibility of
  the postulates of these stories or not, I hope that you will
  enjoy them---at my age it would be very inconvenient to have to
  go back to working for a living.

					Robert A. Heinlein

  Colorado Springs, Colorado
  October 1952
-- 
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 1516)
UUCP:	seismo!umcp-cs!chris
CSNet:	chris@umcp-cs		ARPA:	chris@mimsy.umd.edu

------------------------------

Date:  2 Sep 1986 07:56-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Re: SSIA

Glad to see we've got someone on board from one of the hardcore space
ventures. Now if we can get Gary Hudsen and maybe somone from AMROC...
(I know Gary is interested, but just hasn't gotten around to it.)

Anyway, I would liek to point out that Ulysses IS the solar polar
mission. It used to be INTERNATIONAL Solar Polar Mission (ISPM) before
the US copped out on it's half. ESA is plugging ahead anyway.

The intent of the mission was to have satellites simultaneously over
both the North and South Solar poles. This would have given extremely
valuable info for theorists. But one pole at a time is better than
nothing I suppose...

I am quite interested to hear that you have solid contacts for luanch
services. Other than Celestis, are any of these public information? I'm
sure many of us would be interested in knowing what your manifest
looks like over the next few years.

I would also like to note that I am running the 6th Space Development
Conference next March (3/27-3/29) in Pittsburgh. David Hannah took part
in the 2nd Conference in Houston (maybe others, but I specifically
remember him from that one) and I hope some of your people will be
coming up. Doug Ward from Astrotech (president) is my co-chair, and I'm
sure your people and the Astrotech crew would have BS to trade.

I have no idea what level you are at in your company, but if you are at
a decision making level, you are welcome to get in touch with me at
412-268-2627 or amon@h.cs.cmu.edu about conference participation. Try
any random time of the day or night. I'm in project hacking mode and
floating around the clock at the moment...

Also, if you run into Art Dula tell him I send my regards.

PS: It's a good idea to refer to your company as SSIA to avoid
confusion with SSI. SSI has got enough problems with ONE of their trade
marks (High Frontier) being stolen. I think they'd appreciate keeping
their name!!!

------------------------------

Date:  2 Sep 1986 08:27-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Re: Dale Skran

Dale Skran:

To avoid confusion to the Space Digest community, we should make sure
that we use our full names when posting...

					Dale Amon

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #376
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA02732; Thu, 4 Sep 86 03:02:14 PDT
	id AA02732; Thu, 4 Sep 86 03:02:14 PDT
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 86 03:02:14 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8609041002.AA02732@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #377

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 377

Today's Topics:
		  General Graham and "High Frontier"
		Re: `Concerning Stories Never Written'
		 Re: Columbus, NASA, shuttle, budget
	   Re: dangerous ignorance about political crazies
	  Re: Soviet Sabotage of Shuttle!(High Frontier,L5)
	   Re: dangerous ignorance about political crazies
	    Re: ISPM (was Columbus, NASA, shuttle, budget)
Re: Re: Who owns the Moon? (was: Lack of interest in space exploration...)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Sender: "Norman_Schuster.XSIS"@xerox.com
Date: 2 Sep 86 08:09:00 PDT (Tuesday)
Subject: General Graham and "High Frontier"
From: "Norm_Schuster.XSIS"@xerox.com
To: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
Cc: "Norman_Schuster.XSIS"@xerox.com

I heard General Graham interviewed on radio talkshows several times
several years ago. In particular on the Ray Briehm show.

He was always introduced as the retired head of Air Force Intelligence
(not as has been indicated by some as the former head of the DSA).

In these interviews, he described his "High Frontier" concept as a low
technology missile defense scheme consisting of putting large numbers of
inert objects into space (probably by an explosion) in the path of
ballistic missiles so that collisions would occur and the relative
speeds of the inert objects and the missiles would lead to destruction
of the missiles. It was a form of "Star Wars" without using lasers and
exotic targeting systems. How practical this is, I don't know. He
implied, if I remember correctly, that his idea was supported by Dr.
Edward Teller.

I don't know what Graham's politics are because this was never
discussed.

Norman Schuster
Xerox Artificial Intelligence Systems
Pasadena, CA

------------------------------

Date: 2 Sep 86 15:24:14 GMT
From: hplabsc!kempf@hplabs.hp.com  (Jim Kempf)
Subject: Re: `Concerning Stories Never Written'
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

In article <3215@umcp-cs.UUCP>, chris@umcp-cs.UUCP (Chris Torek) writes:
> 
>	(quoted from an essay by Robert Heinlein)
>   As for the second notion, the idea that we could lose our freedom
>   by succumbing to a wave of religious hysteria, I am sorry to say
>   that I consider it possible.  I hope that it is not probable.
>   But there is a latent deep strain of religious fanaticism in
>   this, our culture; it is rooted in our history and it has broken
>   out many times in the past.  It is with us now; there has been
>   a sharp rise in strongly evangelical sects in this country in
>   recent years, some of which hold beliefs theocratic in the extreme,
>   anti-intellectual, anti-scientific, and anti-libertarian.
> 
> 
>   Could it be otherwise here?  Could any one sect obtain a working
>   majority at the polls and take over the country?  Perhaps not---but
>   a combination of a dynamic evangelist, television, enough money,
>   and modern techniques of advertising and propaganda might make
>   Billy Sunday's efforts look like a corner store comapred to Sears
>   Roebuck.  Throw in a depression for good measure, promise a material
>   heaven here on earth, add a dash of anti-Semitism, anti-Catholicism,
>   anti-Negroism, and a good large dose of anti-``furriners'' in
>   general and anti-intellectuals here at home and the result might
>   be something quite frightening---particularly when one recalls
>   that our voting system is such that a minority distributed as
>   pluralities in enough states can constitute a working majority
>   in Washington.
> 

Pat Robertson, a television evanglist, is currently in the process
of organizing a bid for obtaining the Republican nomination for
president in '88. While I am not accusing Robertson and his followers
of being facists (like Scudder's in Heinlein's stories), they do
exhibit a certain amount of fanaticism and intolerence which seems
to be contrary to the tradition of American politics. As an example,
in the recent textbook trial in Tenn., one of the issues brought
out by the evangelicals involved was that the textbooks being used
in the elementary schools taught tolerence for religous diversity,
which was contrary to their perception that Christianity was the
only True Religion. Robertson himself has denigated these charges
by maintaining that the Founding Fathers were all strongly Christians.
He misses the point, however, since America today is far more 
diverse culturally and religously than it was in 1776.

Even more frightening is the increase in media reports of people
seeing images of Christ and other religious figures in everyday
things. A glass window in LA, an oil storage tank in Ohio, you
name it. Anybody who has ever laid on their back and looked at
cumulus clouds on a summer day knows that you can see whatever
you want in them. All it would take is for someone to stage
a couple of these "miracles" in support of a politician and
the Allatoah's Iran would look like a picnic. To the extent that
Reagan and the right wing Establishment in the Republican party
cultivate these people for their own political gains, they could
be guilty of encouraging the kind of political extremism which could
lead to someone like Scudder.

I wonder if, in 1990, we'll be looking at abrogation of the Constitution
and the founding of the Evangelical Republic of America? I certainly
hope not, but maybe this isn't the newsgroup in which to discuss it...

		Jim Kempf	hplabs!kempf

<<usual disclaimer>>

------------------------------

Date: 2 Sep 86 17:31:32 GMT
From: hplabsc!dsmith@hplabs.hp.com  (David Smith)
Subject: Re: Columbus, NASA, shuttle, budget
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

>                                  Right now I'd say the ranking 
> of operational capacity is
> 	USSR  	#1 by a large margin
> 	Japan   #2 only free world operational launch vehicle
> 	China	#3 it works, guys.
> 	ESA	#4 in the shop
> 	USA	#4 in the shop too.

China #3?  Last I heard (AW&ST a month or two ago), their Long March
rocket was 2 out of 4.  I'd put more trust in a Delta.

		David Smith

------------------------------

Date: 2 Sep 86 17:20:18 GMT
From: hplabsc!dsmith@hplabs.hp.com  (David Smith)
Subject: Re: dangerous ignorance about political crazies
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> > Larouche spent most of the 1970s heading up the Trotskyite U.S. Labor
> > Party.  How does this put him at the same end of the spectrum as Gen.
> > Graham?
> 
> Lyndon LaRouche has gone through some major changes in the years since
> you last had your facts straight.  He has come out as a raving paranoid
> right-winger, a fanatical supporter of directed-energy ABM weapons (long
> before Reagan's Star Wars speech, I might add), a revolting racist and
> anti-Semite, and a vociferous anti-drug crusader.  (The list goes on.)

The Soviets have their own directed-energy weapon research program, are
revolting racists and anti-Semites, and are anti-drug.  (The list goes on.)
Does this make them right-wing?

> For the last six or so years he has devoted his organization's energies 
> to an attempt to subvert the Democratic Party.

It might be said that Falwell and Robertson are attempting to
subvert the Republican party.  That doesn't prove they are left-wing.

		David Smith

------------------------------

Date: 2 Sep 86 20:18:51 GMT
From: karn@petrus.arpa  (Phil R. Karn)
Subject: Re: Soviet Sabotage of Shuttle!(High Frontier,L5)
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

Thanks to all who cleared up the confusion between the two High Frontiers.
If there was ever a case for a trademark infringement suit, this is it. I
consider myself reasonably up on space activities and interest groups, but
I'd avoided the O'Neill group because I thought they WERE somehow involved
with Graham and his crazies.  O'Neill should certainly be able to show
damage to his organization through Graham's misuse of the term, as I suspect
there are many others out there who were similarly confused.

Perhaps O'Neill's work with electromagnetic launchers also seemed a a bit
too close to work on SDI "kinetic energy weapons".

Phil

------------------------------

Date: 2 Sep 86 17:52:13 GMT
From: voder!kontron!cramer@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: dangerous ignorance about political crazies
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> > Date: 28 Aug 86 18:36:39 GMT
> > From: voder!kontron!cramer@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Clayton Cramer)
> > Subject: Re: high frontier
> > To: space@s1-b.arpa
> > 
> > > Graham's organization was, to a fair extent, the inspiration behind SDI...
> > > although it only vaguely resembles the approach they were pushing.  They
> > > have a very strong military slant, with an eye peeled for the Soviet Threat
> > > at all times.  I don't believe the claims about them being a Lyndon Larouche
> > > front are correct, although they're definitely at the same end of the
> > > political spectrum.
> > > -- 
> > > 				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
> > 
> > Larouche spent most of the 1970s heading up the Trotskyite U.S. Labor
> > Party.  How does this put him at the same end of the spectrum as Gen.
> > Graham?
> > 
> > Any kook politician becomes "right-wing" (whatever that means) in the
> > eyes of the media -- regardless of the facts.
> 
> Why why why don't people check their facts on this mailing list?  You're
> sending mail to thousands of people; don't you worry that you might make 
> a fool of yourself when you flame ignorantly about others' grasp of
> "the facts"?
> 
> Lyndon LaRouche has gone through some major changes in the years since
> you last had your facts straight.  He has come out as a raving paranoid
> right-winger, a fanatical supporter of directed-energy ABM weapons (long
> before Reagan's Star Wars speech, I might add), a revolting racist and
> anti-Semite, and a vociferous anti-drug crusader.  (The list goes on.)

Uh, I hate to bother you with facts, but LaRouche is a vigorous enemy of
free markets.  Hardly qualifies as "right-wing" by American definitions.
(Perhaps by European standards, where "right" means something much 
different.)  Anti-Semitism and racism aren't exactly unknown on the
Left (or anywhere else, for that matter), and let me point out that
Communist countries are more anti-drug than ANYONE in this country
except Lyndon LaRouche.

> For the last six or so years he has devoted his organization's energies 
> to an attempt to subvert the Democratic Party.  He has been remarkably 

He has been attempting to *take over* the Democratic Party.  (And is
finding it not at all difficult.)  You could argue that LaRouche taking
over the Democratic Party will subvert it -- but you can't argue that
they are trying to destroy it.

> successful in this (having, for example, gotten two of his candidates on 
> the Democratic ticket in Illinois, leading the Party to attempt to disband
> the ticket and guaranteeing a Republican victory).  His vicious infighting
> tactics have been vaguely Trotskyite in their general flavor though his
> rhetoric has definitely been from the right.  
> 

Care to distinguish Right from Left?

> In particular, everyone on this list should be aware of the LaRouchites'
> penchant for issuing unsigned and forged literature on the topics that
> concern them, particularly the reputations of Democratic Party figures and
> of principals to the SDI debate.
> 
> "The media" have been slow to pick up on LaRouche but their portrayals
> have been perfectly accurate.  I know this because I have read a fair
> amount of LaRouche literature and spent several hours over the last few
> years talking to LaRouche followers.  These people are in bad shape;
> they make the Moonies look like summer camp.  As a socialist who is sick
> of being identified with everything from Jane Fonda to the Soviet Union,
> I am very pleased that the right is having to bear the weight of *its* 
> crazies for a change.
> 
> Phil Agre

LaRouche's group is crazy -- but they fit in well with the conservative
wing of the Democratic Party.  That's why they are so successful -- it
isn't just blind luck and dishonest tactics -- a LOT of people actually
LIKE LaRouche. 

Thank God we don't live in a democracy -- the Constitution provides some
protection against these loonies.

Clayton E. Cramer

------------------------------

Date:           Wed, 3 Sep 86 05:11:39 PDT
From: Jordan Brown <lcc.jbrown@locus.ucla.edu>
To: brahms!web@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject:        Re: ISPM (was Columbus, NASA, shuttle, budget)
In-Reply-To:    Message of Tue, 2 Sep 86 03:15:30 PDT
                    from "Ted Anderson <ota@s1-b.arpa>"
                    <8609021015.AA14584@s1-b.arpa>

> The solar polar orbiter was to be flown on a future shuttle mission,
> under the program name Ulysses.  The Ulysses satellite was designed by
> the European Space Agency, but since it does the same thing as the
> solar polar satellite was supposed to, what difference does it make
> that some other organization besides NASA is doing it?

Please get your history straight before spouting it.  ISPM was originally
to be TWO spacecraft, one US and one ESA, one going over the north pole
and one over the south pole.  Sometime around 1980 NASA dropped out of
the deal (funding problems, I believe).  At the time, I worked for JPL,
and was really and truly ASHAMED of NASA and the Congress's backing out
of a significant joint research project.  Ulysses is the ESA spacecraft,
which they decided would be better than nothing.

------------------------------

Date: 2 Sep 86 12:52:21 GMT
From: decvax!mcnc!rti-sel!rcb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Random)
Subject: Re: Re: Who owns the Moon? (was: Lack of interest in space exploration...)
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

In article <470@aurora.UUCP> al@aurora.UUCP (Al Globus) writes:
>> 
>> In article <...@clover.ucdavis.edu> hildum@clover.UUCP (Eric Hildum) writes:
>> Let's say that you started mining Titanium from the Moon. You build
>> a large orbiting fabrication facility which produces zero-G alloys. Who
>> the hell is going to STOP you???
>> 
>
>This brings up an excellent point.  Ownership ultimately derives from
>force; the physical ability to protect something.  

WHo said anything about force!!!!!!!!! If you are producing zero-g alloys,
and are selling them to all buyers on earth, no one will WANT to stop you.
-- 
					Random (Randy Buckland)
					Research Triangle Institute
					...!mcnc!rti-sel!rcb

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #377
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA05915; Fri, 5 Sep 86 03:02:11 PDT
	id AA05915; Fri, 5 Sep 86 03:02:11 PDT
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 86 03:02:11 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8609051002.AA05915@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #378

*** EOOH ***
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 86 03:02:11 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #378

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 378

Today's Topics:
			      Re: X-30?
				X-30?
		 Re: Columbus, NASA, shuttle, budget
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 3 Sep 86 15:46:14 GMT
From: hplabsc!dsmith@hplabs.hp.com  (David Smith)
Subject: Re: X-30?
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> This is the first I have heard about an X-30, much less actual plans for 
> a craft that, it seems, can single-stage it to orbit.  Can anyone out 
> there provide more information? 

AW&ST, 16 Dec 1985, p.16  "U.S. Moves Toward Aerospace Plane Program"
    The Defense Dept. and NASA have initiated planning for a joint
    aerospace plane research program to design an experimental aircraft, or
    X-vehicle, capable of operating in the atmosphere at hypersonic
    velocities or accelerating directly into orbit...

President Reagan's State of the Union address, directing NASA to proceed
    with the "Orient Express".
    Following the address, it was announced that the plane would be called
    X-31.  A few days later it was announced that this was incorrect, that
    it would really be called X-30A.  Makes me mighty curious about the X-30.

AW&ST, 14 Apr 1986, p.24
    "NASA, Defense Dept. Award Contracts for Aerospace Plane"
    ... Two types of contracts are being awarded, one for propulsion and the
    other in the airframe field.  Propulsion awards, worth about $175
    million each, went to General Electric and Pratt & Whitney...
    Airframe contracts, each valued at up to $32 million, have been awarded
    to Boeing, General Dynamics, Lockheed, McDonnell Douglas and Rockwell
    International...

		David Smith

------------------------------

Date: 2 Sep 86 03:33:35 GMT
From: ubc-vision!alberta!andrew@uw-beaver.arpa  (Andrew Folkins)
Subject: X-30?
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa


In the September issue of High Technology, I came across this in an 
article by T.A. Heppenheimer on powder metallurgy :

  "Rapid solidification powders will be pressed into service for the
airframe of the X-30 - the research airplane due to fly into orbit in
the mid-1990's.  Conventional design approaches would have used nickel
alloys for temperature resistance, but rapid solidification titanium
can do the job at half the weight.  The result, according to studies
by contractors, could be a craft that carries the payload of the
Space Shuttle but weighs a fifth as much at takeoff."
 
This is the first I have heard about an X-30, much less actual plans for 
a craft that, it seems, can single-stage it to orbit.  Can anyone out 
there provide more information? 
 
-- 
Andrew Folkins        ...ihnp4!alberta!andrew    
The University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada      
 
"Gee, Mr. Wizard, are we going to discover the meaning of life?"
"We will if we're not careful, Timmy."

------------------------------

Date: 4 Sep 86 00:58:17 GMT
From: magic!stolfi@decwrl.dec.com  (Jorge Stolfi)
Subject: Re: Columbus, NASA, shuttle, budget
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

================================================================
             WARNING: LONG, RAMBLING MESSAGE
================================================================

> > = Me (Jorge Stolfi) in <1041@magic.DEC.COM>

> = Stanley Friessen in <1411@psivax.UUCP>

> >   Perhaps it would be easier for you to tell me more specifically
> >   what similarities do you see between Columbus' enterprise and
> >   the Shuttle program.  For one thing, who is the modern
> >   Columbus?

>   Perhaps Goddard?

Sure --- Goddard can be your Columbus.  Only that I don't see what he
has do with the Shuttle program. Please try again...

> >   He himself may have not brought in the expected profits, but
> >   the value of his discovery was quickly recognized, 

>   Really!?  As I remember it, it took several voyages before they
>   realized that they had not reached China/India, but rather a
>   new continent.

It didn't matter much whether it was China/India or something else; the
discovery was highly valued either way.  After his first voyage his
prestige rose considerably in the Court; he had no trouble getting nobility
titles for his two sons, and funding for his subsequent expeditions.
His later troubles with Bobadilla and the Court happened not because they
doubted the value of his discoveries, but because they realized they were
immensely more valuable than they had imagined beforehand.  

Before his first voyage, Columbus had obtained from the King and Queen
a contract that entitled him to one tenth of everything his discoveries
would produce, plus the title of Viceroy of whatever land he could get
hold of, plus sundry benefits.  The sovereigns had no reason to expect
his conquests to be more than a small trading settelemt on the coast of
a powerful nation, like those that the Portuguese already had in China
and India.  When the new land turned to be poorly defended and
much larger than Spain itself, and the glint of gold began to be seen 
(all this well before ten years had elapsed), the King and Queen
obviously had second thoughts on their generosity.  For adventurers 
like Bobadilla the temptation to rob Columbus of of his fame 
and fortune became irresistible.  

I don't see how the tribulations of the Shuttle can be equated to those of
Columbus.  The Shuttle didn't struck unexpected riches, quite the opposite.
Its opponents don't want to take the Shuttle away from NASA; they want NASA
to let them get away from Shuttle.  

> >   Now, what exactly is the `new continent' discovered by the
> >   Shuttle?  
>   
>   They are discovering just how much we *can* do in outer space,
>   and are leading the way towards regular utilization of the resources
>   available there. 

No, not with the Shuttle.  We are learning (a bit too late, and a lot
too costly) how many things we CANNOT do with it.  

> >   No, I object to the Shuttle program because of its LONG term
> >   prospects.  I don't see any way the Shuttle can ever turn in a
> >   scientific, monetary, or even technological profit: the longer
> >   it is kept alive, the bigger our losses will be.  

>   OK, then how would you go about encouraging man's presence in
>   space and the economic developement of its resources? 

With transportation systems that make economic sense, of course.

>   The huge quantities of iron, silicate and other important raw
>   materials in outer space are simply staggering!  

We arent't going to get much closer to them with the Shuttle, or
with anything like it. 

>   Then there is the industrial potential in the form of new
>   manufacturing techniques that take advantage of the conditions
>   in outer space, an area we have barely begun to touch.

I have read many such wonderful forecasts, but somehow they get very
fuzzy when you get down to the details.  I do believe that the
microgravity and high vacuum of space will allow many scientific
experiments that could not be performed elsewhere.  I do believe that
one day ther will be real space-based manufacturing, sustained by space
mining and producing goods for use in space.  However, I still do not
see any indication that space manufacturing is ever going to be
economically viable for Earth-based industries.  In none of the
applications I have seen mentioned so far (crystal growing, cell
cultures, etc.) are the advantages of microgravity so overwhelming as
to justify the cost of moving them to space.  

>   And even industries which do not particularly gain
>   operationally from being in outer space could still be placed
>   there to preserve precious surface area on the Earth for more
>   aesthetic purposes.  

I am talking about the Shuttle program and the next ten years, not the
next hundred.  We all want some day to get to the golden future you are
describing.  However, some of us believe that the Shuttle is not taking
us that way.  

(Besides, how many industries can you fit in a the area of a
Shuttle launching pad or landing strip?)

>   Also, space must be percieved as *accessible* before commercial
>   entities will risk capital on development there.  Thus the
>   Shuttle has a certain sociological significance in motivating
>   further developement.  

Are you shure we are talking about the same Shuttle?

>   We cannot afford to stagnate while we wait for the next
>   generation of spaceship to be designed.  

As I see it, the US space program has been stagnating for 
for the last ten years, and will keep stagnating for a few more,
largely because of the Shuttle program.

>   We must continue a vigorous space program, so that when we
>   have that new ship it we will know what to do with it, and so that it
>   will have fewer design problems.

It looks like the "new ship" will be quite unlike the Shuttle, so the
experience gained with the Shuttle will not help that much.
Furthermore, if experience was the goal, we should not have conducted
the Shuttle program the way we did.  

======================================================================

> = D. L. Skran, in <2075@mtgzz.UUCP>:

> >   Columbus' trip was a project with a definite goal and dedicated
> >   leadership, that produced invaluable results with an extremely
> >   modest expense.  

>   And the shuttle program wasn't?  The shuttle HAD AND CONTINUES
>   to HAVE a definite GOAL: TO MAKE SPACE ACCESSABLE.  

Then why did NASA keep pushing the Shuttle when it became clear 
(to them) that it was going to make space LESS accessible then it was
before?

> >   When the Shuttle finally was delivered, it turned out to be an
> >   expensive white elephant, 

>   This is not the fault of the shuttle but of a nation that thought it
>   could buy greatness on the cheap. We got the shuttle we paid for.

Or maybe it is the fault of a nation that thought it could buy
cheapness from the great ...  bureaucracy that NASA is now.
Most definitely, we did NOT get the Shuttle we paid for.  

> >   but the Shuttle affair must necessarily be equated to
> >   tale of the Invincible Armada...

>   These analogies are absurd, and if intended seriously, reveal
>   an incredible ignorance of the Spanish Armada.  

Well, I think they hold more water than the Columbus=Shuttle one.
Could you please elaborate?

========================================================

> = D. L. Skran in <2076@mtgzz.UUCP>

>   I give up stolfi. Let's resign. All this space stuff
>   can never be justified.

I love space.  It is only that right now I 
believe that  Shuttle == NOT Space.  

>   Kinda makes me wonder what the Soviets are doing up there in
>   MIR?  What they will have done by 1995 or whenver we get around
>   to putting up what will no doubt be a half funded and
>   inadequately supported station?  What will the Japanese have
>   done with that top-notch H-2 booster of theirs?  The Europeans
>   with Columbus and Hermes and Ariane 5?  

Yeah.  Look at those poor guys trying to get to space without a
Shuttle.  Just imagine what they would be doing if they had one...  

>   I have the feeling that they'll be carving out their futures
>   in space. We, on the other hand, will be justifying the  planned space
>   station and the proposed aerospace plane and the never really finished 
>   space shuttle in triplicate to stolfi for the next ten or twenty years.

No, we will still be trying to get a twenty-year-old Shuttle design
work well enough to allow us to launch a space station like we used
to build thirty years before, so that NASA can have a good reason for
starting a massive Spaceplane project like the one the Europeans have
been operating for ten years, only that much bigger, one that that is
REALLY going to open up the space frontier and restore public
confidence in NASA, and make space so cheap that it will be feasible to
move the entire continent into space, where microgravity will let
twenty-foot asparagus grow perfectly round and straight, if only the
bean-counters in congress and all those shortsighted stolfis out there
could be made to see the light, or be duped somehow, and so on per
secula seculorum amen.  

>   The reality is that there are a couple of million stolfis out there,
>   and and couple of million more ten times as short sighted. The reality
>   is that groups like L5 are pathetically small and haven't really caught
>   fire, that NASA is a shrinking, doddering agency, and that the game is
>   just about up.

Well, perhaps we the stolfis of the world became short-sighted from
avidly reading and re-reading everything spaceish that we could get our
hands on, always hoping for an unequivocal sign that the door to space
was finally beginning to open.  Perhaps it was all those glowing
prophecies about our imminent conquest of space, painted by NASA and
their space hagiographers with all those bright and shining colors, that
eventually burned our retinas to blindness.  Perhaps our visual neurons
degenerated after staring for years and years at the same precious few
image scraps of distant worlds, while we waited and waited for the next
generation of Vikings and Voyagers that would never get off the
dreaming board.  

Our vision would perhaps reach a bit further out, if only we had a
small telescope high up in orbit, instead of a big one gathering dust
in the cellar.  We might just be able to see ourselves colonizing the
planets, riding the comets and mining the asteroids, if we had been
able to exercise our weak eyes first with a Halley probe, a flyby of
Amphitrite, a Venus mapper, a Mars rover, or even a lunar orbiter.  

Maybe we could see more clearly the merits of the Shuttle program, if
NASA hadn't tried so hard (wasn't still trying so hard) to hide its
fatal flaws under a curtain of smoke.  Perhaps we would willingly close
an eye on their past blunders, and go along with them a little more, if
we weren't being exhorted --- commanded?  --- to shut our mind, tie our
tongue, close both eyes, and charge straight ahead.  Perhaps we would
find it easier to follow the path NASA has charted for us, if it
didn't look so much like the one we left behind --- only darker.  

If some of those ifs had been true, maybe then we, the blind, weak, and
stupid millions, would be able to see the wonderful truths that are now
comprehended only by the enlightened few. Truths that are obviously 
too wonderful to be put into words that we poor mortals can understand.  



  Jorge Stolfi

---------------------------------------------------------------------
ARPA: stolfi@src.dec.com
UUCP: ..{..decvax,ucbvax,allegra}!decwrl!stolfi
DISCLAIMER: I have been unable to pass the above opinions as those
of my employer or of anyone else. I guess am stuck with them...

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #378
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA09063; Sat, 6 Sep 86 03:02:00 PDT
	id AA09063; Sat, 6 Sep 86 03:02:00 PDT
Date: Sat, 6 Sep 86 03:02:00 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8609061002.AA09063@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #379

*** EOOH ***
Date: Sat, 6 Sep 86 03:02:00 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #379

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 379

Today's Topics:
    request to be entered into the Space Review distribution list
			 Columbus = Shuttle?
			  Re: high frontier
		       Why Support the Shuttle
		Re: `Concerning Stories Never Written'
			  Re: Columbus, etc.
			   Shuttle boosters
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 04 Sep 86 09:03:14 cet
To: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: request to be entered into the Space Review distribution list

Gentlemen:

     I would like to receive copies of your "Space Digest" via the

ARPANET.  Please enter my userid into your distribution list.

                           Thank you     Gary A. Allen, Jr.

------------------------------

Date: 4 Sep 86 01:35:02 GMT
From: magic!stolfi@decwrl.dec.com  (Jorge Stolfi)
Subject: Columbus = Shuttle?
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

=================================================================

Lawrence Crowl demanded in <20216@rochester.ARPA>:
>
>   Show me the cost of Columbus's voyages as a
>   percentage of the Spanish governmental budget, as a percentage
>   of the Spanish Gross National Product, and as a percentage of
>   median individual income.  

I quickly scanned a couple of books at the nearest library, and the
following numbers caught my eye:  

The total budget for Columbus first voyage was 1,900,000 maravedis
(mv).  The Spanish Court contributed 1,400,000 mv, and Columbus himself
pitched in 500,000 mv, which he borrowed from a private banker. [1,2] 

In 1492 a maravedi was worth 0.0096 grams of gold [1].  We could figure out
the dollar equivalent from this, but the result would be misleading, since
the purchasing power of gold itself (compared to the cost of living)
dropped a lot (fifty-fold?) in the last five centuries [2].  

A better estimate can perhaps be obtained from the following data.
Total wages for the 90 officers and seamen who accompanied Columbus were
about 250,000 mv a month.  Ship capitains were paid 2500 mv a month; seamen
got 1000 mv, and ship boys 666 mv.  These were standard goverment-regulated
wages for long-duration exploratory voyages [1].  A bushel of wheat cost 73
mv; 360 mv bought enough provisions to feed a sailor for one month [3].  

It is reported that when Queen Isabella was convinced by one of her religious
advisers that Columbus (who was out of town at the time) was worth
listening to, she sent him a summons, and a gift of 20,000 mv ``to
buy a horse and appropriate clothes'' for the trip back to the capital [1]. 

The population of Spain (Castilla+Aragon) at the time is estimated as some
9,600,000 people [4, p.13].  Laborer wages were around 450--600 mv per
month [4, p.106].  Columbus first voyage cost then 0.20 mv per capita, or
1/2200 of a worker's monthly paycheck.  The people directly working for the
`program' were less than one 1/100,000 of the total population.  

How do these numbers compare to the Shuttle?  If we take $1 billion as the
average yearly cost of the Shuttle program so far, we get $4 per capita, or
1/750 of a `laborer's' $3000 monthly paycheck. If I am not mistaken, the
Shuttle program was using up more than 20,000 full-time jobs; that is
more than one American in 13,000.

(No, I have no references for those numbers.  They are the best I could
make up at the end of a rather long day.  Please do provide your own.) 

At the other end of the spectrum, annual income (from land rent only?) of the
topmost 82 households in the Spanish nobility, excluding the royal family
itself, was about 550,000,000 mv a year, or 6,700,000 mv a year per
household on the average [4, p.101]. That is about three times Columbus'
first trip budget.

Just for curiosity, the total amount of gold and silver (owned by the
Crown and by private citizens) that arrived in Spain from the Americas
between 1503 and 1660, according to customs' records, was about
250,000,000,000 mv, or about 1,600,000,000 mv a year on the average.  

REFERENES

[1]  B. Landstr\"om, "Columbus". McMillan (1966)

[2]  C. Duff, "The truth about Columbus". ??? (1957?)

[3]  S. E. Morison, "Admiral of the Ocean Sea: A Life of Christopher Columbus",
     Little, Brown & Co. (Boston, 1947).
     
[4]  J. H. Eliott, "Imperial Spain: 1469--1716" ??? (???)

(Sorry for the ???'s, but I forgot to note down the publisher and stuff.
Is that grounds for disqualifying my evidence? :-)

============================================================================
ARPA: stolfi@src.dec.com
UUCP: ..{..decvax,ucbvax,allegra}!decwrl!stolfi
DISCLAIMER: Any inaccuracies in the numbers above are due to floating point
rounding errors. Any inaccuracies in the  words above are due to sinking 
comma squaring errors.

------------------------------

Date: 3 Sep 86 20:37:57 GMT
From: whuxcc!lcuxlm!whuxl!houxm!mtuxo!mtgzz!dls@bellcore.arpa  (d.l.skran)
Subject: Re: high frontier
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

How many times do we have to say this?

L5 and High Frontier are different groups. L5 has never
done anything to help High Frontier period!

L5 has provided a forum for the various sides on SDI to
present their views, but it is silly to equate this with
endorsement of the views of the Graham.

If you really quit L5 over this issue, I suggest that
you re-join.  L5 is neutral on this issue, whatever the views
of certain L5 members may be. 

Finally, if any of you out there don't like L5 Policy, work to
change it rather than just silently dropping out. Don't expect
people to read your mind via telepathy, and don't expect to get
your way on every issue.  Above all, don't expect that we are
going to get into space by doing nothing.


Dale

------------------------------

Date:     Thu,  4 Sep 86 13:20:39 CDT
From: Carl Rosene <animal@rice.edu>
Subject:  Why Support the Shuttle
To: space@s1-b.arpa

I am amazed to read such apparently anti-space sentiment on a space
interest mailing list. 

In trying to understand the sentiments I see two strains of thought:

1) Shuttle is too expensive, not sexy enough, and the same for the
   space station.

2) Shuttle Program stole funds from unmanned program.


In contrast to the above schools of opinion,
I support the US space effort in general and the Shuttle Program in
particular. I would like to resond to the two shools of thought
separably:

1) The space shuttle is NOT more expensive than expendables. On the other
hand it isn't as cheap as originally anticipated. It costs about
two-thirds as much as expendables per mass unit to launch satellites.
   But, that counts the expendables as UNMANNED. No increase in experience
in manned space. No piggy backed scientific experiments. No Space Drugs.
No Materials Science Payloads. No Space Lab.
   Admit it guys, the Space Science community got a piggy back ride on
satellite launches with the shuttle. Considering just that, isn't the
shuttle worth it?
   You want sexy? You want HOTOL(HOrizontal Take-Off and Landing)? Well,
if you think the shuttle was hard, just take a look at HOTOL.  While I
know there are those with a deep abiding faith in this, I don't share it.
I think the next launch system should be less ambitious, namely, a vertical
launch, single stage to orbit(SSTO).
In any case ANY such programs will benefit greatly from both flight and
management experience with the shuttle.
   Space Station isn't good enough either? What do you want? Complete
automation? Naw, we have enough trouble with the computer programs we
write now. A Scientific-Industrial station performing experimental science
will perform mostly one-time tasks. Just the sort of thing it doesn't make
sense to automate. 
   And, if you are in favor of private space ventures, the Space Station
is where private space wants to be.
   Jorge and his buddies aren't just arguing illogically they are arguing
from incorrect facts. Maybe now they'll accept the validity of the other
side.
 
Now that I have convinced some of you that your space money hasn't and isn't
completely wasted...

2) Unmanned probes weren't and aren't funded not because of the Shuttle
Program, but because the Public doesn't care about unmanned science. I
would like to second the motion that (unmanned)Space Science be funded
separately from NASA. Should have come out of NSF all along. It would
quickly and effectively disabuse Van Allen and his ilk that the only
reason he doesn't have a blank check is because of the bad boys in NASA.
   If you are a publicly funded scientist, you should have to justify your
research to the public. If the public doesn't benefit, they shouldn't have
to pay. If the public feels it benefits more from the manned space show than
they do from the unmanned probes, then the money should be spent on manned
space. If the public likes pictures of Saturn better, so be it. Send
another probe.
   But, let's face it. The string of numbers so important and meaningful
to a Space Physicist is going to leave the man in the street cold. It
leaves me cold. On the other hand, a moon landing (or, dare I say it, Mars
landing) is something just about anybody can relate to. 
   Yes, I believe in funding of basic research. No, I don't like Proxmire
any more than anyone else. But, I am willing to climb down out of my
scientific ivory tower long enough to realize that he who pays the piper
calls the tune.
   

To both camps, there are both technical and policy questions involved in
the space program. A little better information can help dispell some of the
technical arguments, but differences in goals will always leave the policy
questions unresolved. 
 
But, it DOES help discussion to separate the arguments over technical
issues from those concerning policy. How we go to space is primarily
determined by technical issues. Whether we go to space, what we do there,
and why we do it are policy issues constrained by technical limits.

I suspect a lot of arguing results partially from confusing the technical
issues with policy. Despite the efforts of this administration, both short
and long term space policy seem to be at best unsettled and worst 
contradictory. In the resulting confusion, I suppose it shouldn't be
surprising that the technical side of things is so hard to pin down.


Carl Rosene

------------------------------

Date: 4 Sep 86 15:24:58 GMT
From: clyde!watmath!watnot!watdcsu!magore@caip.rutgers.edu  (M.A.Gore - ICR)
Subject: Re: `Concerning Stories Never Written'
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa



	How did this topic get started in net.space ??? 
	Followup articles should goto net.politics or net.religion.* ...

	Before I start (-: (-: (-:
		(I am going to exaggerate to make a point)

	Yes we wouldn't want any minority that had political views 
not in line with ours to have representation! My God we might
have someone elses views shoved down our throats and our childrens!
We must make sure that all groups that have these views be banned and
there ideas NOT be taught in schools. Else *GASP* our children might
start thinking like them! They must be anti-intellectuals because they
don't think like us. They must be fanatics to hold views not like
ours. We must suppress them or they might suppress us! Only fanatics
would suppress us!!!
	 (I can hardly keep a straight face :-)
	
	Back to being serious. I am sure that Democrats don't want
social ideas that give rise to Republicans and the reverse is true.
I'm sure it happens in Canada (pick your country here). Politics
has it's share of fanatics as do Religions but I would say that there
isn't any group that doesn't hold political views. I wonder how many
Republican/Democrat/Conservative/Liberal etc Christians there are? I bet
there are many that resent being called anti-intellectual censors etc. 
Would anyone willfully lump all politicians into the some fanatic group?
These articles are signs that people do it to Christians/Religion....
Much of the BAD history Christians have faced has occurred when people
with political motives (not Christian) have hidden behind the name of
God to further a cause. Then again *if* they or any religion did not 
have political representation anyone could take political pot shots at
them and they *couldn't have a voice to tell there side*. Sorry but 
one-sided freedom isn't... 
	
	If the people of any country are in such poor shape that a majority
CAN BE DECEIVED. Then why worry about name calling. We would
be DOOMED... Let concentrate on education and reason (even the Bible
places priceless values on wisdom). We need scientific literacy, ignorance
knows no political/religious barriers. The percentage of non-scientific
Christians (or pick your religion) is roughly the same as for the average
public/political/etc...  There is no need to single out one group as there
are extremes on both sides of the fence...

	Let's get back to space!

Mike Gore	Institute for Computer Research

------------------------------

Date:  5 Sep 1986 12:51-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Re: Columbus, etc.
In-Reply-To: Space's mail message of Fri, 5 Sep 86 03:12:45 PDT

I also disagree with Mr. Stolfi.

		Dale Amon

------------------------------

From: mike@acc.arpa
Date: 5 Sep 86 11:02:00 PST
Subject: Shuttle boosters
To: "space-incoming" <space-incoming@s1-b.arpa>
Reply-To: <mike@acc.arpa>


NASA already has a new booster design (has had, for a couple of years).
A new booster was needed for Vandenberg launches due to the increased
power demand for insertion into polar orbits. 

The major difference is that the casings are a different (lighter) material.
The term "resin wound" casing is used to describe them. I don't know for
certain, but various bits and pieces of information would seem to indicate
that the infamous o-rings are of a similar nature to the original boosters.

Through all of the media falderall over the booster re-design, I haven't
heard anyone mention this "Vandenberg" booster design, or that there was any
attempt by NASA to evaluate using it for east coast launches.

Can anybody shed any light on this?

------

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #379
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA11322; Sun, 7 Sep 86 03:01:57 PDT
	id AA11322; Sun, 7 Sep 86 03:01:57 PDT
Date: Sun, 7 Sep 86 03:01:57 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8609071001.AA11322@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #380

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 380

Today's Topics:
			       Spacelab
			     Delta Launch
			   SDI delta launch
	  6th Space Development Conference preliminary info
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 5 Sep 86 15:35:02 edt
From: firth@sei.cmu.edu
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Spacelab

I saw this news in 2 column inches of the
local paper and have seen no other report:

NASA has ratted yet again on a joint project
with the ESA; namely, it has reneged on its
agreement to launch the Spacelab components.

Is this true?  Or am I having a very, very
bad hallucination?  Doies anyone else on the
bboard think that this action will damage the
USA's international relations most severly?

------------------------------

Date: 5 Sep 86 18:18:46 EDT
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: Delta Launch
To: BBoard.Maintainer@a.cs.cmu.edu

NEWS FLASHES:

1) Flawless Delta (#180) rocket launch occured this morning. Military payload.
   US is "back on track" according to a NASA official.

2) Dr. David Webb has joined the board of directors of General Space
   Corporation. They will be holding their board meeting in Pittsburgh next
   week.

------------------------------

Date: 5 Sep 86 05:53:08 GMT
From: ka9q!karn@petrus.arpa  (Phil Karn)
Subject: SDI delta launch
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

The AP wire is reporting that the SDIO is planning a "secret" Delta launch
tomorrow. Reports have it that there will be two spacecraft, one of which
will attempt to track and "crash into" the other.  Several thoughts come to
mind:

Why doesn't this violate the existing Congressional ban on tests of
anti-satellite weapons on actual objects in space?  Or does it?

What is the USA coming to? Our national launch capability is nearly
non-existent, dozens of commercial satellite owners with worthwhile services
to provide are totally out in the cold, our weather satellite situation can
be charitably described as "precarious", space science has developed an
advanced case of rigor mortis, and what does the government do with those
few precious working launchers that remain?  Squander them on a totally
pointless and utterly idiotic Stars Wars "experiment" that is worse than
useless!

I've never found myself hoping for anybody's launch to fail before. Not even
a military mission.

Until now, that is.

Phil

------------------------------

Date:  6 Sep 1986 02:51-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
To: "/usr/amon/Email.space" <Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu>
Subject: 6th Space Development Conference preliminary info

The following is the first information on the 6th Space Development
Conference to be made public. Items are relatively stable, although
some changes will certainly occur between now and March. There is MUCH,
MUCH more that is too preliminary to be made public, but we expect some
very interesting and well known people on the program.

If you would like to get a conference registration form, drop me a line
(amon@h.cs.cmu.edu) for an electronic copy (several pages long) or
write to the conference address and you will be sent a single page
laser printed version. Over the telephone registration with payment by
credit card (via Forbes Travel Service) will also be possible.  There
will be special airline and car rental rates available only via Forbes
Travel. We request that room reservations also be made via FTS.

For those of you who are L5 members, please consider registering early,
like right now. Conferences tend to need money up front but
registrations tend to flow in at a very late date, so save your
conference team some sweat equity and register early!!!!

I will also add respondants to my space mail list for future updates.

If you are interested in being involved with the program, I will refer
you to a track manager for furthur inquiries.

						Dale Amon,
						Conference Chairman

=============================================================================
			6Th SPACE DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE
			   "RETURN TO THE VISION"
			    "What will it Take?"

			     Pittsburgh Hilton
			     March 27-29, 1987


		Hosts:		Pittsburgh L5
				L5 CMU
				Pittsburgh SSI Local Support Team
		Sponsor:	L5 Society
		Cosponsors:	National Space Society (NSS)
				Students for the Exploration and
					Development of Space (SEDS)
				Spacepac
				American Space Foundation (ASF)
				Amateur Satellite Corp (AMSAT)
				Spaceweek
				Space Studies Institute (SSI)
				United States Space Foundation (USSF) *

		Thanks to:	Astrotech International
				Karen Honer

		Contractors:	David L. Veres Company (Advertising & PR)
				Kerry Fraas (Legal Council)
				Harris/Dressel Inc (Accounting)
				Forbes Travel Service (pre-registration)

	Conference Chair:	Dale Amon and E. Doug Ward


* confirmation letter not yet on file

		PO Box 8391, Pittsburgh, PA 15218-0391
			  412-351-4973
	   ima!vaxine!spark!129!13!diana_sasso@mit-ems.arpa
=============================================================================

		Tentative Schedule as of Tue Aug 12 1986

Exhibit set up:		Friday morning after 9:00
Exhibit area hours:	13:00-19:00 Friday
			9:00-17:00 Saturday
			10:00-15:00 Sunday

Film/video room hours:	13:00-19:00 Friday
			13:00-24:00 Saturday
			13:00-15:00 Sunday

Art Show set up:	Friday morning after 9:00
Art Show hours:		13:00-19:00 Friday
			9:00-17:00 Saturday
			10:00-15:00 Sunday

Press Room hours:	09:00 - 23:00 Fri
			09:00 - 23:00 Sat
			10:00 - 18:00 Sun

Office/Gofer Hole hrs:	07:00 - 19:00 Fri
			09:00 - 17:00 Sat
			10:00 - 15:00 Sun

Conference Program
	Fri
	 9:00-17:00	Special tours slot #1

	 9:00-10:00	IPSM:		Early Morning Session
	 9:00-10:00	Commerce:	Early Morning Session
	 9:00-10:00	Navigation:	Early Morning Session
	 9:00-10:15	Educators,
			5-12, K-4:	Opening Ceremony
	 9:00-10:45	Arts:		Workshop on Performance Art&Space
	 9:00-12:00	Libertarian:	Presentation of papers
	 9:00-12:00	L5:		L5 Video Production Workshop

	10:15-12:00	IPSM:		Late Morning Session
	10:15-12:00	Commerce:	Late Morning Session
	10:15-12:00	Navigation:	Late Morning Session
	10:30-11:45	Educators:	Young Astronauts
	10:30-11:45	5-12:		Space Camp? UNCONFIRMED
	10:30-11:45	K-4:		Unisphere? UNCONFIRMED

	11:00-11:45	Arts:		Workshop on Painting and Space

	12:00-13:15	Educators:	Luncheon

	13:00-14:30	Arts:		Workshop on Writing and Space
	13:00-15:00	IPSM:		Early Afternoon Session
	13:00-15:00	Commerce:	Early Afternoon Session
	13:00-14:00	Libertarian:	Panel: Independent Colonies

	13:30-14:45	Educators: 	Aeronautics
	13:30-14:00	5-12: 		Amy Grubb, David Razorsek
	13:30-14:00	K-4: 		Young Astronauts

	14:00-17:00	Space Defense
	14:00-15:00	Libertarian:	Panel: Financing
	14:00-15:30	Navigation:	Early Afternoon Session
	14:00-14:45	5-12: 		Young Astronauts
	14:00-14:45	K-4:		Space Camp? UNCONFIRMED

	14:30-16:00	Arts:		Workshop on Photography and Space

	15:00-16:15	Educators:	Space Camp? UNCONFIRMED
	15:00-16:15	5-12,K-4: 	Movie, "Space Camp" or similar
	15:00-17:00	IPSM:		Late Afternoon Session
	15:00-17:00	Commerce:	Late Afternoon Session
	15:00-16:00	Libertarian:	Panel: Contracts

	15:45-17:00	Navigation:	Late Afternoon Session

	17:30-19:00	VIP dinner? UNCONFIRMED
	18:30-19:30	Reception
	19:30-20:30	Opening address
	21:00-22:30	Performance Art Showcase

	22:30-?		Filk Sing
	22:30-?		Special tours slot #2

	Sat
	 7:00- 9:00	Breakfast Board Meeting
	 9:00-10:00	Keynote: Vision
	10:00-12:00	Possibilities/Practicalities
	12:00-13:30	Lunch speaker
	13:30-15:00	Megaprojects
	15:00-17:00	breakout to seperate sessions on
			different megaprojects
	15:00-17:00	Commerce: What Others Are Doing
	15:00-17:00	Special tours slot #3
	18:00-18:30	Reception
	18:30-19:00	Banquet
	19:00-21:00	Banquet program
	21:00-22:00	Global Village
	21:00-?		bull sessions, parties
	21:00-?		Special tours slot #4
	22:00-?		Filk Sing

	Sun
	?    -?		Memorial Service
	10:00-12:00	breakout to seperate sessions: SIGS
	10:00-12:00	Spacepac workshop (Spacepac)
	10:00-12:00	Chapters workshop (L5)
			Computer, Communications and networking
			 (AMSAT,CMU radio, network and CBB sysops)
	10:00-12:00	Commerce: What Can I Do?
	10:00-12:00	Special tours slot #5
	12:00-13:30	Luncheon
	13:30-15:00	Strategy
	15:00-16:00	Closing: Return to the Vision
	16:00-19:00	L5 Fund Raiser
	20:00-?		Dead Dog Party


COMMERCIAL SPACE TRACK
  TRACK DESCRIPTION:	Reports from the Commercial space companies.
			 1) Those that already have business
			 2) Those that are close
			 3) Those with longer time frames to profitability

INNOVATIVE PROPULSION SYSTEMS MINISYMPOSIUM (IPSM TRACK)
  TRACK DESCRIPTION:	Peer reviewed original papers on the
			topic of Innovative Propulsion Systems.
			Small improvements of existing
			rocket engines will not be considered for this
			session. Track will be run by Dr. David Webb, member
			of the National Commission on Space

SPACE DEFENSE SEMINAR (DEFENSE TRACK)
  TRACK DESCRIPTION:	Discussion of the possibilities of Space
			Defense systems. We expect General Daniel Graham
			as the lead speaker, although he has not confirmed
			in writing at this time.

FUNDING AND GOVERNING SPACE SETTLEMENTS: FREE MARKET ALTERNATIVES
(LIBERTARIAN TRACK)
  TRACK DESCRIPTION:	Discussion of the use of conditional contracts for
			funding the construction of O'Neill Colonies.
			Probably workshop to design such a contract. Also
			discussions on contracts as a means of 'governing'
			without a government. 

BASIC SPACEFLIGHT SEMINAR (NAVIGATION TRACK)
  TRACK DESCRIPTION:	Will train people to do rondezvous and docking
			maneuvers. On Completion should be able to take a
			NASA ops document and understand it. Team teaching 
			by Greg Maryniak and Captain Ed Daley. Ed has
			trained NASA employees on topic. Session will
			include:
				Orbital Mechanics
				Proximity Operations
				Aspects of Space Propulsion.


EDUCATORS AND STUDENTS SEMINARS (EDUCATORS TRACK, K-4 TRACK, 5-12 TRACK)
  TRACK DESCRIPTION:	Discuss ways of using space science and space
			program to excite students in math and science.
			Expect several of the teacher in space finalists and
			semifinalists. Large Lunar Sample will be
 			present. Group of students will come in from
			Philadelphia school in bus done up as space shuttle
			and will rondezvous with Pittsburgh students. 
			Hoping to be accredited to give Continuing Education
			Credits to attending teachers.

ARTISTS TRACK
  TRACK DESCRIPTION:	Program to assist working artists in using space
			themes in their works. Consists of Art Show,
			a series of workshops, a special meeting place and a
			Friday night showcase for electronic music and
			dance with with a space them. Filk sings will also
			be held.
			Workshop attendance will be by invitation or by
			jury. A film and video room will show interesting
			shorts as well as more standard fare.
			Video workshop will additionally require that
			people are long time activists.
			Artists will be able to sell prints,
			and such, maybe auction. 

MAIN TRACK
  TRACK DESCRIPTION:	An examination of where we should be going in
			space over the next fifty years and how we will
			reach our stated goals, regardless of the dangers
			and setbacks that await us. Primary focus
			will be on the long range.


GLOBAL VILLAGE
  SESSION DESCRIPTION:	Computer Bulliten Board discussion among several
			notables at remote areas of the world. Hoping for
			Arthur C. Clarke, and others of similar reknown.
			Clarke has taken part in the event in the past.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #380
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA14244; Mon, 8 Sep 86 03:02:17 PDT
	id AA14244; Mon, 8 Sep 86 03:02:17 PDT
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 86 03:02:17 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8609081002.AA14244@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #381

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 381

Today's Topics:
		     Pan AM tickets - to the moon
		      Re: space program problems
		      Re: Re: Who owns the Moon?
			 X-Wing Rotor System
			 External Tank Study
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 4 Sep 86 15:48:01 GMT
From: cunyvm.bitnet!livcu%psuvm.bitnet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Pan AM tickets - to the moon
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

In 1969/1970 Pam AM offered as a gimmick to "2001:ASO", tickets on
the first "shuttle" to the moon. I believe these tickets were
offered at the time for the then astronomical sum of $2000 (US).
     
What I would like to know is this: First did anyone in netland
actually buy a ticket? and second has Pan Am been trying to buy
these tickets back for the past ten or so years? I have heard that
they were trying to buy all the tickets back when someone realized
how much the trip would cost and how much they could make.
     
Any info is welcome
I'm just wondering about this!
     
Louis Mackey
     
LIVCU@CUNYVM.Bitnet
     
    City
     University of
      New
       York

------------------------------

Date: 3 Sep 86 23:00:59 GMT
From: clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@caip.rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: space program problems
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

>	It had been customary to test the first stage of a new rocket
>	separately and then fly it in combination with one or more upper
>	stages.  But, according to James Webb, cutbacks in NASA's budget
>	requests, starting in the 1964 fiscal year, had forced the agency
>	to abandon step-by-step flight testing of the Saturn 5.

Wernher von Braun's discussion of the matter in "Apollo Expeditions to
the Moon" sheds a rather different light on this.  He was firmly opposed
to "all-up" testing at first, but eventually the practical arguments
were convincing.  Okay, so you want to fly the first stage.  To do this
realistically, it needs to have the same sort of load as it would in an
all-up launch, since stresses and such are not a trivial aspect of such
a test.  So we need ballast in its "payload".  But if we use, say, water
as ballast, the mass distribution and vibration modes will not match
those of the all-up launch.  Okay, so for a realistic test the "payload"
has to be realistic too.  Then why not plan to fire up the second-stage
engines and test them too, assuming the first stage works?  Von Braun is
on record as saying that Kennedy's end-of-decade deadline could never have
been met with the traditional testing approach.  Now, von Braun was talking
for public consumption, and may not have wanted to bring up the funding
issue... but the argument still makes sense.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 4 Sep 86 17:34:15 GMT
From: clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@caip.rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Re: Who owns the Moon?
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> >This brings up an excellent point.  Ownership ultimately derives from
> >force; the physical ability to protect something.  
> 
> WHo said anything about force!!!!!!!!! If you are producing zero-g alloys,
> and are selling them to all buyers on earth, no one will WANT to stop you.

Randy, this is awfully naive.  All sorts of people might want to stop you.
Alloy producers on Earth, who don't appreciate the competition from a new
and superior product.  Hostile nations, notably the USSR, who don't want
to depend on you for supplies and don't want to face new military hardware
built with your alloys.  Anti-capitalist nations like the USSR, who don't
want to see private enterprise in space.  Greedy third-world nations, who
don't want to see you making money without giving them some too.  (Read the
Moon Treaty if you think I'm kidding about these last two.)  NASA bureaucrats
who don't control your operation and would like to.  DoD and State Dept.
bureaucrats who would like you to be more selective about your customers --
"all buyers" includes, e.g., Libya.  Antitechnology crazies who think that
anything fancier than scissors is evil, and see you as a prominent example.
Envirofanatics who see you as spreading the vileness of industry into the
unspoiled, virgin reaches of space.  Overzealous limits-to-growthers who
think we have to learn to live permanently in the cradle before we can
consider leaving it.  Religious fanatics opposed to space development (there
are bound to be at least a few of them once the prospect looks real) for
reasons comprehensible only to them.  Military types who want to reserve
the limited supplies of your nifty new alloys for military uses for a
little while, say a decade or two.

Some of these people won't be a serious problem, and some will fight it
out in court rather than getting violent... but some might not.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 5 Sep 86 03:53:36 GMT
From: nbires!isis!scicom!markf@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Mark Felton)
Subject: X-Wing Rotor System
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

NASA News -> August 19, 1986
NASA/DOD HYBRID RESEARCH AIRCRAFT ROLLED OUT

	The X-Wing Rotor Systems Research Aircraft, developed by the Defense
Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), NASA and Sikorsky Aircraft, was 
rolled out in formal ceremonies Aug. 19th at Stratford, Conn., marking a major
advance in aeronautical engineering.
	X-wing technology promises to provide an efficient combination of the 
vertical lift and stable hover characteristics of conventional helicopters with
the high cruise speed of fixed wing aircraft.
	Future X-wing aircraft could take off and land vertically using a heli-
copter-like rotor. Once in the air and moving forward at speeds from 180 to
200 knots, the four bladed rotor/wing would be stopped in mid-flight to func-
tion as a fixed, X-shaped (as viewed from above) wing aircraft. Two blades 
would be swept forward at 45 degree angles, and two would be swept to the rear
at the same angles. The purpose of the X-Wing Rotor Systems Research Aircraft
Program is to demonstrate in flight these rotor/wing starting and stopping
conversions.
	Engineers and developers do not forsee the X-wing aircraft replacing
either conventional fixed-wing or rotary-wing aircraft. Instead, it is envis-
ioned that X-wing aircraft will provide enhanced capabilities to perform mis-
sions which call for the low-speed efficiency and maneuverability of helicop-
ters, combined with the high cruise speed of fixed-wing aircraft. Potential
missions include air-to-air and air-to-ground tactical operations, airborne
early warning, electronic intelligence, antisubmarine warfare and search
rescue.
	The DARPA/NASA X-wing system is mounted on a modified NASA/Army
Rotor System Research Aircraft (RSRA) built by Sikorsky in 1978 to be a
"flying wind tunnel" for testing advanced rotor concepts.
	The RSRA has a 45-foot, variable-incidence conventional wing which
can support the full weight of the aircraft in flight, thus allowing tests
to begin with low X-wing lift. As flight testing progresses, more load will
be placed on the X-wing. Data from the two wings can be monitored seperately
to give flight test engineers precise performance information.
	The X-Wing RSRA will be shipped to NASA Dryden Flight Research Fac-
ility, Edwards, Calif., in September to begin its 15-month flight test pro-
gram later this fall. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA News Release 86-113
Debra J. Rahn Headquarters
Reprinted with permission for electronic distribution
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 5 Sep 86 03:16:21 GMT
From: nbires!isis!scicom!markf@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Mark Felton)
Subject: External Tank Study
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

NASA News -> August 18, 1986
NASA AWARDS CONTRACT TO STUDY EXTERNAL TANK CONVERSION

	NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala., has awarded a 7
month, $93,000 contract to Martin Marietta Corp., New Orleans, to study the
feasibility of converting a Space Shuttle external tank to an orbiting tele-
scope.
	According to Max Nein, advanced systems division at Marshall, the pro-
posal to transform the external tank into a Gamma Ray Imaging Telescope (GRIT),
to study gamma ray sources in the Universe, appears possible. Studies have de-
termined that the spent tanks, 154-feet long and 27.6 feet in diameter, could
be carried into orbit rather than discarded just before the Shuttle achieves
orbit. Components of the telescope would be carried in the Shuttle's cargo bay
along with other payloads. Because the telescope would require periodic main-
tenance, it probably would orbit near the planned Space Station, 230 to 345
miles above Earth. The proposal was initiated by Dr. David Koch, Astrophysic-
al Observatory, Smithsonian Institution, Cambridge, Mass.
	"Once in space, residual propellents would be expelled from the tank
and astronauts could assemble telescope components within the liquid hydrogen
tank. They could enter the tank via an existing 36-inch aft manhole port or
through tank modification. The tank then would be pressurized to provide the
needed environment for the gamma ray detection techniques," Nein said.
	In operation, gamma rays would be converted by a lead plate into
positrons and electrons which travel the length of the telescope emitting
light. The light would be imaged onto a detector by a large mirror spanning
the diameter of the tank. Since gamma rays reflect the highest energy process-
es, gamma ray astronomy is essential to understanding the evolution of stars
and the Universe and to the physical processes occurring in pulsar, quasars 
and black holes. 
	Nein said NASA plans to conduct a separate gamma ray survey using
the orbiting Gamma Ray Observatory (GRO). The Gamma Ray Imaging Telescope
would follow up the work of the GRO by enabling NASA to conduct even more
detailed gamma ray studies.
	"We hope the feasibility study now in progress will help us learn
more about meeting the scientific and engineering challenges related to 
turning the external tank into a valuable resource for the space-based
study of gamma ray astronomy, "Nein concluded.
	Martin Marietta manufactures the Shuttle external tank under con-
tract to MSFC, at NASA's Michoud Assembly Facility, New Orleans, where the
study is being performed.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA News Release 86-111
Leon N. Perry Headquarters, Washington, D.C.
Terry Eddleman Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala.
Reprinted with permission for electronic distribution
NASA News Releases originate from NASA Headquarters in Washington, D.C.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #381
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA18734; Tue, 9 Sep 86 03:02:12 PDT
	id AA18734; Tue, 9 Sep 86 03:02:12 PDT
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 86 03:02:12 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8609091002.AA18734@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #382

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 382

Today's Topics:
	  6th Space Development Conference preliminary info
		      Re: Re: Who owns the Moon?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  6 Sep 1986 03:44-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
To: "/usr/amon/Email.space" <Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu>
Subject: 6th Space Development Conference preliminary info

NOTE: Due to Emacs dying during mailing, a few may get two copies of
      this..

The following is the first information on the 6th Space Development
Conference to be made public. Items are relatively stable, although
some changes will certainly occur between now and March. There is MUCH,
MUCH more that is too preliminary to be made public, but we expect some
very interesting and well known people on the program.

If you would like to get a conference registration form, drop me a line
(amon@h.cs.cmu.edu) for an electronic copy (several pages long) or
write to the conference address and you will be sent a single page
laser printed version. Over the telephone registration with payment by
credit card (via Forbes Travel Service) will also be possible.  There
will be special airline and car rental rates available only via Forbes
Travel. We request that room reservations also be made via FTS.

For those of you who are L5 members, please consider registering early,
like right now. Conferences tend to need money up front but
registrations tend to flow in at a very late date, so save your
conference team some sweat equity and register early!!!!

I will also add respondants to my space mail list for future updates.

If you are interested in being involved with the program, I will refer
you to a track manager for furthur inquiries.

						Dale Amon,
						Conference Chairman

=============================================================================
			6Th SPACE DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE
			   "RETURN TO THE VISION"
			    "What will it Take?"

			     Pittsburgh Hilton
			     March 27-29, 1987


		Hosts:		Pittsburgh L5
				L5 CMU
				Pittsburgh SSI Local Support Team
		Sponsor:	L5 Society
		Cosponsors:	National Space Society (NSS)
				Students for the Exploration and
					Development of Space (SEDS)
				Spacepac
				American Space Foundation (ASF)
				Amateur Satellite Corp (AMSAT)
				Spaceweek
				Space Studies Institute (SSI)
				United States Space Foundation (USSF) *

		Thanks to:	Astrotech International
				Karen Honer

		Contractors:	David L. Veres Company (Advertising & PR)
				Kerry Fraas (Legal Council)
				Harris/Dressel Inc (Accounting)
				Forbes Travel Service (pre-registration)

	Conference Chair:	Dale Amon and E. Doug Ward


* confirmation letter not yet on file

		PO Box 8391, Pittsburgh, PA 15218-0391
			  412-351-4973
	   ima!vaxine!spark!129!13!diana_sasso@mit-ems.arpa
=============================================================================

		Tentative Schedule as of Tue Aug 12 1986

Exhibit set up:		Friday morning after 9:00
Exhibit area hours:	13:00-19:00 Friday
			9:00-17:00 Saturday
			10:00-15:00 Sunday

Film/video room hours:	13:00-19:00 Friday
			13:00-24:00 Saturday
			13:00-15:00 Sunday

Art Show set up:	Friday morning after 9:00
Art Show hours:		13:00-19:00 Friday
			9:00-17:00 Saturday
			10:00-15:00 Sunday

Press Room hours:	09:00 - 23:00 Fri
			09:00 - 23:00 Sat
			10:00 - 18:00 Sun

Office/Gofer Hole hrs:	07:00 - 19:00 Fri
			09:00 - 17:00 Sat
			10:00 - 15:00 Sun

Conference Program
	Fri
	 9:00-17:00	Special tours slot #1

	 9:00-10:00	IPSM:		Early Morning Session
	 9:00-10:00	Commerce:	Early Morning Session
	 9:00-10:00	Navigation:	Early Morning Session
	 9:00-10:15	Educators,
			5-12, K-4:	Opening Ceremony
	 9:00-10:45	Arts:		Workshop on Performance Art&Space
	 9:00-12:00	Libertarian:	Presentation of papers
	 9:00-12:00	L5:		L5 Video Production Workshop

	10:15-12:00	IPSM:		Late Morning Session
	10:15-12:00	Commerce:	Late Morning Session
	10:15-12:00	Navigation:	Late Morning Session
	10:30-11:45	Educators:	Young Astronauts
	10:30-11:45	5-12:		Space Camp? UNCONFIRMED
	10:30-11:45	K-4:		Unisphere? UNCONFIRMED

	11:00-11:45	Arts:		Workshop on Painting and Space

	12:00-13:15	Educators:	Luncheon

	13:00-14:30	Arts:		Workshop on Writing and Space
	13:00-15:00	IPSM:		Early Afternoon Session
	13:00-15:00	Commerce:	Early Afternoon Session
	13:00-14:00	Libertarian:	Panel: Independent Colonies

	13:30-14:45	Educators: 	Aeronautics
	13:30-14:00	5-12: 		Amy Grubb, David Razorsek
	13:30-14:00	K-4: 		Young Astronauts

	14:00-17:00	Space Defense
	14:00-15:00	Libertarian:	Panel: Financing
	14:00-15:30	Navigation:	Early Afternoon Session
	14:00-14:45	5-12: 		Young Astronauts
	14:00-14:45	K-4:		Space Camp? UNCONFIRMED

	14:30-16:00	Arts:		Workshop on Photography and Space

	15:00-16:15	Educators:	Space Camp? UNCONFIRMED
	15:00-16:15	5-12,K-4: 	Movie, "Space Camp" or similar
	15:00-17:00	IPSM:		Late Afternoon Session
	15:00-17:00	Commerce:	Late Afternoon Session
	15:00-16:00	Libertarian:	Panel: Contracts

	15:45-17:00	Navigation:	Late Afternoon Session

	17:30-19:00	VIP dinner? UNCONFIRMED
	18:30-19:30	Reception
	19:30-20:30	Opening address
	21:00-22:30	Performance Art Showcase

	22:30-?		Filk Sing
	22:30-?		Special tours slot #2

	Sat
	 7:00- 9:00	Breakfast Board Meeting
	 9:00-10:00	Keynote: Vision
	10:00-12:00	Possibilities/Practicalities
	12:00-13:30	Lunch speaker
	13:30-15:00	Megaprojects
	15:00-17:00	breakout to seperate sessions on
			different megaprojects
	15:00-17:00	Commerce: What Others Are Doing
	15:00-17:00	Special tours slot #3
	18:00-18:30	Reception
	18:30-19:00	Banquet
	19:00-21:00	Banquet program
	21:00-22:00	Global Village
	21:00-?		bull sessions, parties
	21:00-?		Special tours slot #4
	22:00-?		Filk Sing

	Sun
	?    -?		Memorial Service
	10:00-12:00	breakout to seperate sessions: SIGS
	10:00-12:00	Spacepac workshop (Spacepac)
	10:00-12:00	Chapters workshop (L5)
			Computer, Communications and networking
			 (AMSAT,CMU radio, network and CBB sysops)
	10:00-12:00	Commerce: What Can I Do?
	10:00-12:00	Special tours slot #5
	12:00-13:30	Luncheon
	13:30-15:00	Strategy
	15:00-16:00	Closing: Return to the Vision
	16:00-19:00	L5 Fund Raiser
	20:00-?		Dead Dog Party


COMMERCIAL SPACE TRACK
  TRACK DESCRIPTION:	Reports from the Commercial space companies.
			 1) Those that already have business
			 2) Those that are close
			 3) Those with longer time frames to profitability

INNOVATIVE PROPULSION SYSTEMS MINISYMPOSIUM (IPSM TRACK)
  TRACK DESCRIPTION:	Peer reviewed original papers on the
			topic of Innovative Propulsion Systems.
			Small improvements of existing
			rocket engines will not be considered for this
			session. Track will be run by Dr. David Webb, member
			of the National Commission on Space

SPACE DEFENSE SEMINAR (DEFENSE TRACK)
  TRACK DESCRIPTION:	Discussion of the possibilities of Space
			Defense systems. We expect General Daniel Graham
			as the lead speaker, although he has not confirmed
			in writing at this time.

FUNDING AND GOVERNING SPACE SETTLEMENTS: FREE MARKET ALTERNATIVES
(LIBERTARIAN TRACK)
  TRACK DESCRIPTION:	Discussion of the use of conditional contracts for
			funding the construction of O'Neill Colonies.
			Probably workshop to design such a contract. Also
			discussions on contracts as a means of 'governing'
			without a government. 

BASIC SPACEFLIGHT SEMINAR (NAVIGATION TRACK)
  TRACK DESCRIPTION:	Will train people to do rondezvous and docking
			maneuvers. On Completion should be able to take a
			NASA ops document and understand it. Team teaching 
			by Greg Maryniak and Captain Ed Daley. Ed has
			trained NASA employees on topic. Session will
			include:
				Orbital Mechanics
				Proximity Operations
				Aspects of Space Propulsion.


EDUCATORS AND STUDENTS SEMINARS (EDUCATORS TRACK, K-4 TRACK, 5-12 TRACK)
  TRACK DESCRIPTION:	Discuss ways of using space science and space
			program to excite students in math and science.
			Expect several of the teacher in space finalists and
			semifinalists. Large Lunar Sample will be
 			present. Group of students will come in from
			Philadelphia school in bus done up as space shuttle
			and will rondezvous with Pittsburgh students. 
			Hoping to be accredited to give Continuing Education
			Credits to attending teachers.

ARTISTS TRACK
  TRACK DESCRIPTION:	Program to assist working artists in using space
			themes in their works. Consists of Art Show,
			a series of workshops, a special meeting place and a
			Friday night showcase for electronic music and
			dance with with a space them. Filk sings will also
			be held.
			Workshop attendance will be by invitation or by
			jury. A film and video room will show interesting
			shorts as well as more standard fare.
			Video workshop will additionally require that
			people are long time activists.
			Artists will be able to sell prints,
			and such, maybe auction. 

MAIN TRACK
  TRACK DESCRIPTION:	An examination of where we should be going in
			space over the next fifty years and how we will
			reach our stated goals, regardless of the dangers
			and setbacks that await us. Primary focus
			will be on the long range.


GLOBAL VILLAGE
  SESSION DESCRIPTION:	Computer Bulliten Board discussion among several
			notables at remote areas of the world. Hoping for
			Arthur C. Clarke, and others of similar reknown.
			Clarke has taken part in the event in the past.

------------------------------

Date: 5 Sep 86 18:48:08 GMT
From: clyde!watmath!looking!brad@caip.rutgers.edu  (Brad Templeton)
Subject: Re: Re: Who owns the Moon?
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

In article <7083@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
>> WHo said anything about force!!!!!!!!! If you are producing zero-g alloys,
>> and are selling them to all buyers on earth, no one will WANT to stop you.
>
>Randy, this is awfully naive.  All sorts of people might want to stop you.
>... list of various forces opposed ...
>
>Some of these people won't be a serious problem, and some will fight it
>out in court rather than getting violent... but some might not.


Henry left out the biggest opponent.  Your own government and the governments
of your customers.

At first, they won't try to stop you.  Oh no, but they will tax you as much
as they think they can.  That's if you stave off import barriers.

After a while they will regulate you.  Not just your launch and delivery
facilities, but your orbiting stuff as well.  Paperwork, government inspectors,
closed shop unions, and did I mention paperwork?

-- 
Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #382
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA21263; Wed, 10 Sep 86 03:02:14 PDT
	id AA21263; Wed, 10 Sep 86 03:02:14 PDT
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 86 03:02:14 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8609101002.AA21263@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #383

*** EOOH ***
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 86 03:02:14 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #383

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 383

Today's Topics:
			 re: Shuttle boosters
		      Re: An answer to Jorge...
	       Re: Soviet Sabotage of Shuttle! (transc
	       Re: dangerous ignorance about political
		    Background on "High Frontier"
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat 6 Sep 86 10:08:56-PDT
From: Emilio Calius <CALIUS@star.stanford.edu>
Subject: re: Shuttle boosters
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Cc: calius@star.stanford.edu


	The new SRB cylindrical segment casings were filament-wound out of
a graphite/epoxy composite. Several test segments were made and hydro-burst
and at least 1 complete SRB was assembled, loaded with propellant, and fired
on a horizontal test stand in Utah.

	These casing segments were specifically designed to require mininum
changes in the joint design. The joints were still heavy steel and had the
same seal mechanism. The only real change I'm aware of was to change one
dimension to account for the increased wall thickness of the composite case
versus the previous all-steel one.

	The development program was formally cancelled not too long ago (late
July, early August?). I believe that to requalify the composite SRB's would
require an amount of extra work that NASA was not prepared to expend when
they're concentrating on fixing the old "conventional" SRB's and the Orbiter.
Note that the mechanical behaviour of the composite cases is somewhat different
from that of the steel cases.
	In any case, a major driver for the program was the need to increase
the payload on high-inclination launches out of Vandenberg, specially for the
DoD. Now the Air Force is going to put those payloads on Titans. Cape launches
would have used them too eventually, but in that case the payload increase
(as a percentage of the total payload) wasn't as critical, so Vandenberg had
priority.

	Of course, in my opinion they should have thrown out the segmented
steel case and gone to a one-piece composite case design. That would have
resulted in a few extra tons of payload and a technological advantage in launch-
vehicle structures that would take quite some time for others to catch up with.

Emilio P. Calius
Aero & Astro
Stanford Univ.

-------

------------------------------

Date: 5 Sep 86 20:05:55 GMT
From: sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen@oberon.usc.edu  (Stanley Friesen)
Subject: Re: An answer to Jorge...
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

In article <1042@magic.DEC.COM> stolfi@magic.UUCP (Jorge Stolfi) writes:
>For one thing. There are lots of great unmanned missions we could have done,
>but didn't. I don't have to list them, do I?

	And there is no real reason why we couldn't have had the
unmanned missions *and* the shuttle except for Congress' unwillingness
to properly fund space research.

>Even if we assume that manned flights are worth the cost, we could probably
>have done much better without the Shuttle.  Remember Spacelab and Apollo?
>We would probably have a space station by now.  

	And how much better could we have done if we had been able to
sustain several programs rather than just one? NASA was forced by
Congress to choose just a handfull of programs out of many. They had
to make these choices early, before they could really know what the
results were going to be. Can we really blame them for choosing what
looked like the most promising ones at the time? They did what they
could with the funds they were given.

>Finally, even if we assume that reusables are the way of the future, 
>we should have tried it first in a smaller scale (say, like
>the French Hermes proposal). 

	I believe that this *was* the original proposal, but politics
forced them to go for a bigger vehicle so that large payloads could be
launched. They were told to make a large vehicle or nothing, so they
went with that rather than see the space program shut down.

>How much more? Would that have made the Shuttle into the money-saver
>it was purported to be? How?

	Enough so that NASA could do what it originally planned to do,
and send up all the missions it originally had on the drawing boards.
And then they needed to let NASA do its job without having to worry
about prying money out of Congress or trying to fit too many programs
into too small a budget. And remember, even at that funding level NASA
would *still* be getting a very small piece of the Federal budget
pie.

>Nothing of that applied or applies to the Space Shuttle.  We had proved our
>worth with the Apollo mission; we proved that space flight was possible,
>and we knew what it felt like.  There was no point, and there still isn't,
>in doing it again and again, for the same motives.  Can we fault congress
>and the people for not wanting still more of the same thing?  Can we blame
>them for wanting SOME other reason to continue spending billions in space
>flight?  

	I think what we are trying to do now is to see what can be
done in outer space that can be developed into useful things. We are
now trying to prove that we can *use* outer space, not just visit it.

>>   If that attitude had prevailed, we would have dozens of
>>   industries in orbit now, and the costs of many basic items
>>   would have dropped considerably.  
 
>Yeah, perhaps we could buy plastic callibration microspheres for
>electron microscopes at $5/ton.  Perhaps even less, considering that
>there would be less electron microscopes and microscopists to buy them. :-) 
>Seriously, I don't see any reason to believe your statement.
>We could as well have ended up with a dozen shuttles on the ground.
>Moreover, the few commercial uses of space we have so far ---
>telecommunications, navigation, remote sensing, etc.  --- are more
>expensive now because of the Shuttle.  I fail to see how spending ten
>times more on the Shuttle would have made them cheaper.  

	Huh?? What about new pharmaceutical processes that appear to
be possible but we haven't had the resources to check out thoroughly,
or the possibility of microchip production in outer space using new
processes and approaches? *These* are the sorts of things the shuttle
and the space station are good for testing out. And I believe that as
we continue to try out new ideas we will find more and more things
that can be done better in outer space, or which are even impossible
here on Earth. But we will never find these things out if we don't
*experiment* with new ideas. I have heard that ball bearings could be
made more easily under weightless conditions, but we have never
actually checked it out. The point is that we don't have any idea of
what space is good for because we haven't tried yet, except for in the
limited areas you mentioned.
	And then there are all the raw resources in outer space. The
largest is of course space itself. There is simply more room to put
things out there than there is down here! And alot of the complex
structures we need here to protect things from the environment will be
unnecessary. Think, no need for large warehouses, just put your
inventory in a series of big nets! And the amount of iron and nickel
and even silicon in outer space is simply *staggering*, and being able
to use it would cut the expense of building many things, such as
automibiles, and, even more significantly, space stations and space
ships, which could be built in orbit out of materials already there.

---

				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)

UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen
ARPA: ??

------------------------------

Date: 4 Sep 86 20:51:00 GMT
From: pyrnj!mirror!gabriel!inmet!janw@caip.rutgers.edu
Subject: Re: Soviet Sabotage of Shuttle! (transc
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa


>[msb@dciem.UUCP ]
>> > My oh my. The General really has gone off the deep end.
>> Yes, now he's done it. Suspect the Soviets of playing foul!
>> [Quote the LA Times!] Ask for an investigation! Obviously demented. :-)

>Some people seem to be forgetting that the Challenger explosion
>*was* the subject of a rather detailed investigation, and the
>possibility of sabotage *was* covered -- and ruled out -- in
>the commission's report.

In the msb@dciem posting the bracketed words were replaced by an
ellipsis. Perhaps for brevity - though the economy seems meager.
Or perhaps because they indicate that new data has been uncovered
since the investigation.

Graham obviously thinks that this data calls for a new investigation.
He thinks that the possibility of sabotage was not explored sufficiently.
Is he wrong ? Perhaps. How to prove him wrong? Why, call him
loony. And without looking at his facts...

		Jan Wasilewsky

------------------------------

Date: 4 Sep 86 20:54:00 GMT
From: pyrnj!mirror!gabriel!inmet!janw@caip.rutgers.edu
Subject: Re: dangerous ignorance about political
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa


>[AGRE%OZ.AI.MIT.E@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU ]
>/* ---------- "dangerous ignorance about political" ---------- */
>> From: voder!kontron!cramer@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Clayton Cramer)
>> Subject: Re: high frontier
>> Larouche spent most of the 1970s heading up the Trotskyite U.S. Labor
>> Party.  How does this put him at the same end of the spectrum as Gen.
>> Graham?
>> 
>> Any kook politician becomes "right-wing" (whatever that means) in the
>> eyes of the media -- regardless of the facts.

>Why why why don't people check their facts on this mailing list?  You're
>sending mail to thousands of people; don't you worry that you might make 
>a fool of yourself when you flame ignorantly about others' grasp of
>"the facts"?

The flame about ignorance is uncalled for.  Clayton's  facts  are
correct; you do not even deny them.

>Lyndon LaRouche has gone through some major changes in the years since
>you last had your facts straight.  He has come out as a raving paranoid
>right-winger, a fanatical supporter of directed-energy ABM weapons (long
>before Reagan's Star Wars speech, I might add), a revolting racist and
>anti-Semite, and a vociferous anti-drug crusader.  (The list goes on.)

LaRouche is a dangerous fanatic and demagogue. As for "right-wing",
you might call SDI support that. Other positions you name are either
not right-wing, or not LaRouche's, or neither.

Anti-semitism: these days there's far more of it on the Left
than on the Right.
LaRouche seems to have distanced himself from previous (monstrous)
anti-Semitic remarks. They apparently preceded his supposed shift
to the right...

Anti-drug - neither left nor right.

Racism - I doubt he's displayed any racism. He is very much
pro-3d world, and racism is his stock accusation against others.

Support for the Third World is actually a *left-wing* position
of his.

To add something on your side: LaRouche's AIDS demagoguery could
be called right-wing.

But his opposition to the Contra aid is definitely left-wing.

His stance on nuclear fusion is, I guess, neither Left nor Right.

So is  his anglophopia.

>As a socialist who is sick of being  identified  with  everything
>from  Jane  Fonda to the Soviet Union, ...

Well, if you happen to oppose Contra aid, you are in bed with
LaRouche as well as JF and SU ...

>I am very pleased that the
>right is having to bear the weight of *its* crazies for a change.

Wishful thinking, I'm afraid.  No Reaganite has been hurt by  as-
sociation with LaRouche - because there's no association.

One does not have to bear the weight of the crazies as long
as one clearly dissociates oneself from them. 
The Right has been generally better at it than the Left. 
E.g., conservative candidates always reject the KKK support if
it's offered; Jesse Jackson did not renounce Farakhan, and remained
a Party pillar. But LaRouche is equally a leper for both sides...

		Jan Wasilewsky

------------------------------

Date:         Sat, 06 Sep 86 23:00:31 EDT
From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
To: space digest <space-incoming@s1-b.arpa>
Subject:      Background on "High Frontier"

Re "High Frontier", some of you may be interested in what Ben Bova
says about it in "Star Peace" (a reissue of an earlier book of his
titled "Assured Survival":

     ""Lieutenant General Daniel O. Graham, US. Army (RET) was an
infantry officer for most of his career.  He was chief of intelligence
for General Westmoreland through much of the Vietnam conflict, became
a deputy director of the CIA, and then was named director of the
Defanse Intelligence Agency.  In 1981 Graham, under the aegis of the
Heratige foundation, published a study titled _High Frontier_, which
laid out a plan ofr an orbital ABM system that electrified the
space enthusiasts....
"By early 1981, Graham became convinced that the one area where the
United States could make a "technological end run" on the Soviets was
in space.  In the Spring issue of _Strategic Review_ he published an
article "Toward a New US Strategy: Bold Strokes Rather then Increments,"
which presented the basic idea of a space-based ABM defense.  He called
the concept High Frontier, which caused a good deal of confusion and
some resentment among space activists, because Princeton professor
Gerard K. O'Neill's idea of building colonies in space, the huge
permanent habitats that are the goal of the L5 Society, was originally
publihed in a book titled _The High Frontier_.
    "Confusion and resentment aside, by the autumn of 1981 High Frontier
had become a project of the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think
tank, and Graham was able to bring together a distinguished group of
scientists, military officers, and political advisors to flesh out his
basic concept.  High Frontier became a nonprofit corporation based
in Washington, with the backing of influential Conservatives such
as Phyllis Schlafly, several Congressmen and Senators, and prominent
industrialists such as Justin Dart, Joseph Coors, Jack Hume, and
Karl Bendetson, who are close enough to President Reagan to be
considered part of his "kitchen cabinet." "

      BTW, this should not be considered an endoursement by me
of Bova's book, which, while immensely readable and (in parts,
especially where he fictionalizes possible future crises)
often enjoyable, is rather out of the mainstream of the current
debate on SDI, tends to simplify in some places (for example, he
mentions several times the 20 June 1985 test of shining a laser
on Discovery, calling it "a success", but neglects to mention that
the first try at this was a failure due to programming error),
and doesn't discuss technical questions (which is what I'm primarily
interested in) at all.
                   --Geoffrey A. Landis, Brown University
                     Reply to: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #383
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA25620; Thu, 11 Sep 86 03:02:26 PDT
	id AA25620; Thu, 11 Sep 86 03:02:26 PDT
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 86 03:02:26 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8609111002.AA25620@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #384

*** EOOH ***
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 86 03:02:26 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #384

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 384

Today's Topics:
			     space BBSes
		How about some good news for a change
			   Jerry Pournelle
			     Re: Spacelab
			 Re: SDI delta launch
		Re: `Concerning Stories Never Written'
	       Re: dangerous ignorance about political
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 6 Sep 86 16:38:35 GMT
From: nbires!isis!scicom!rwb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Robert Brumley)
Subject: space BBSes
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

I have been compiling a list of space-oriented computer Bulletin Board
Systems.I would greatly appreciate any information on any such BBSes which I
could add to my list.  Also, if anyone desires a copy of the list, just leave
me mail and I would be happy to send a copy.  Thank you.

Robert Brumley
isis,hao!scicom!rwb

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 10 Sep 86 18:39:06 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: space
Subject: How about some good news for a change

Since the Challenger catastrophe and the following body-blows to the
Space Program I've been quite depressed about prospects for space
development.  In an attempt to alleviate these blues went looking for
some upbeat reading material.  Very often SF adequately fills the bill
but this time I found something even better and since I've seen no
mention of it in this forum I thought I'd share my find.

What I ran across was the report of the May 86 Citizens' Advisory
Council on National Space Policy meeting entitled "America: A
Spacefaring Nation Again".  I understand it is available from the L5
Society, 1060 E.  Elm, Tucson AZ 85719, 602-622-6351, for $10 (plus $1
for first class).  I want to urge everyone whose been a little put out
about the space program this year to read this document.  I would
guess that if you need a QUICK FIX you could even order one by phone.

This report is short and sweet.  It basically starts by admitting that
the US space program is dead.  That's like the first sentence of every
subcommittee report.  But then it moves on to making some concrete and
reasonable suggestions about what can and should be done.  I should
say immediately that Phil Karn and others may find the bent of the
report a bit rabid in the anti-soviet and pro-SDI directions.  Still
there is more than enough said, totally apart from these issues, to
make it worthwhile.  I suppose I should also say that the conclusions
of the committee are not necessarily those of the L5 Society.  This
most especially applies to the issue of SDI, on which L5 has no
position.  My understanding is that the L5 Society and the Vaughn
Foundation (about which I know nothing) help underwrite the meetings,
and that L5 undertakes to publish and distribute the report.

With this boiler plate out of the way to some of the good stuff!

The amazing thing about the report is that its suggestions don't
require any massive outlays of government dollars or daunting
stretches of time to get results.  Its approach more more one of
slightly deflecting a juggernaut or opening a small channel in an
earthen dam.  In this respect it shows what I think is a penetrating
look at the problem and a excellent grasp of the real situation.

The largest single problem is probably that the US has no
comprehensive, coherent policy with regard to space.  This is
something space activists have realized for a long time and perhaps
this is an opportunity to fix this lack.  The report makes the point
that defining policy should be separated from issues of money and to
some extent available technology.  A large part of NASA's problem is
that without long term guidance in the form of national policy its
major concern has become keeping its bureaucratic hide intact.  The
military services suffer, in a similar way, from the same problem.

In part because of the previous problem, NASA has drifted into an area
it is not suited for.  It should not be running an operational space
transportation system, it should be doing reseach and technology
development.

In order to provide access to space on a regular, efficient basis we
need to encourage private industry to get involved.  They show every
indication of wanting to do so.  The report claims that SSIA spent as
much money getting a license to launch their Conestoga as building it.
Can this be true?  The report suggests that FAA style oversight of the
space transportation industry would be sufficent to insure reasonable
safety for the general populace.

In addition one of the other major limitations to a vigorous industry
are the uncertainties of the market.  The government is in an
excellent position to very inexpensively remedy this problem.  It
offers to support the price of delivering payload to LEO at $500/lb at
the rate of 1,000,000 lbs/year for 10 years.  This provides a
guarenteed market that any venture capitalist can appreciate.  Nothing
is likely to be available for at least a few years, and a reliable
transport to orbit is likely to be priced way above $500/lb at least
until the current backlog is taken care of.  So it is likely that this
program would only cost the government at most 1 or 2 billion (over
several years at that) and very probably nothing while still being
wildly successful.

With any luck such a program would provide a variety of independent,
inexpensive methods of getting stuff into orbit.  A circumstance very
notably absent at the moment.

With regard to the current situation, the report strongly urges we
immediately begin flying the shuttles again.  The cost of continued
delay is staggering and includes an actual decrease in safety due to
loss of the skilled personel now being layed off for lack of work.
Launch only in warm weather, put up a cheap tent to keep out the rain,
use volunteer, minimal sized crews but resume launches.

Hopefully, this has been enough to whet your appetite.  Read this
report!  Have a nice day.
	Ted Anderson

------------------------------

Date: Sun,  7 Sep 86 01:32:01 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@mc.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: Jerry Pournelle
To: uiucdcsp!jenks@a.cs.uiuc.edu
Cc: KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@mc.lcs.mit.edu, Space@s1-b.arpa

    From: uiucdcsp!jenks@a.cs.uiuc.edu

    Has anybody directed this to Jerry Pournelle over on BIX?  He'd prolly be
    interested, and might have a thing or two to say.

  He also has an account on the ARPAnet, as JEP@SU-AI.ARPA.  I think he
also has accounts on CompuServe and The Source.  I don't think he reads
or responds to his electronic mail very frequently on any of these
systems.
  Besides, I am sure he has already seen what Graham has to say.
								...Keith

------------------------------

Date: 7 Sep 86 01:10:51 GMT
From: clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@caip.rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Spacelab
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> I saw this news in 2 column inches of the
> local paper and have seen no other report:
> 
> NASA has ratted yet again on a joint project
> with the ESA; namely, it has reneged on its
> agreement to launch the Spacelab components.
> 
> Is this true?  Or am I having a very, very
> bad hallucination?

I hadn't heard anything specific like that, but it's entirely possible
that NASA has used the shortage of shuttle launch capacity to put off a
Spacelab flight well beyond what the Europeans would like.

> Doies anyone else on the
> bboard think that this action will damage the
> USA's international relations most severly?

It's not likely to make things much worse than they already are, actually.
The Europeans don't have much faith in US promises these days.  Much of
the European effort on projects like Ariane, Hermes, and Columbus is
arguably a duplication of US work.  It is officially justified on the
grounds that Europe cannot rely on the US and must be independent in
space.  The major motive behind the development of Ariane, as I recall,
was a lamentable incident where the US absolutely refused to launch a
European commercial payload.  The Europeans *already* feel they got
screwed on Spacelab, which is one of the reasons why negotiations for
the European role in the space station have been difficult:  NASA didn't
want to make the station dependent on those peculiar foreigners, while
ESA wanted enough dependency so that those unreliable Americans couldn't
welsh on the deal.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 7 Sep 86 01:00:51 GMT
From: clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@caip.rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: SDI delta launch
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> The AP wire is reporting that the SDIO is planning a "secret" Delta launch
> tomorrow. Reports have it that there will be two spacecraft, one of which
> will attempt to track and "crash into" the other...

I would take those reports with a large grain of salt, unless they crop up
in some relatively authoritative place like AW&ST.  AP, in particular, does
not know its armpit from its elbow when it comes to either (a) space, or
(b) military technology.

> Why doesn't this violate the existing Congressional ban on tests of
> anti-satellite weapons on actual objects in space?  Or does it?

I'm not quite sure how the ban is worded, but if the reports are indeed
correct, it would appear to be a violation.

> What is the USA coming to? Our national launch capability is nearly
> non-existent, dozens of commercial satellite owners with worthwhile services
> to provide are totally out in the cold, our weather satellite situation can
> be charitably described as "precarious", space science has developed an
> advanced case of rigor mortis, and what does the government do with those
> few precious working launchers that remain?  Squander them on a totally
> pointless and utterly idiotic Stars Wars "experiment" that is worse than
> useless!

Easy, Phil.  I agree that it's a case of misplaced priorities, but...

One should not forget that the Delta in particular is a derivative of a
military missile developed with military money; it's not as if they are
corrupting a purely civilian system.

You should remember that there are legitimate differences of opinion over
the worthiness of SDI.  Even those who think we can't deploy a reasonable
missile defense generally agree that it's a good idea to continue research.

Also, the government is not a monolithic entity:  it is a collection of
bureaucratic fiefdoms that cooperate (more or less, most of the time) only
because they follow certain rules.  One of those rules is that one does not
appropriate someone else's resources just because one thinks one has a
better use for them.  As I understand it, SDI *owned* that Delta, i.e. they
had paid for it out of their budget.

By the way, I think that's your prejudices speaking when you put quotes around
"experiment" and claim that it's "pointless", "utterly idiotic", and "worse
than useless"; you don't know that.  I agree that it's probably not useful
enough to justify taking up one of those scarce launchers, but be careful:
that way lies trouble.  I mean, isn't it obvious that things like weather
satellites and comsats, things that help *people*, are far more deserving
than one more silly spaceprobe to Pluto or wherever?  I'm sure you could
find quite a number of military types who would testify that their research
was much more urgent and deserving than civilian spaceprobes.  I don't
*agree* with either of these views, in case that isn't obvious, but I do
know that these are dangerous waters where some pretty stupid views have
a lot of support.  Better to concentrate on building up our launch capacity
again, rather than fighting over the scraps that remain now:  we don't have
the clout to win a serious fight, and if we try to pry already-committed
launchers loose from other people, they might try the same against us.

> I've never found myself hoping for anybody's launch to fail before. Not even
> a military mission. ... Until now, that is.

Phil, please calm down.  The last thing we need is another launch failure,
no matter *whose* payload is on it.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 4 Sep 86 16:27:51 GMT
From: gatech!akgua!akguf!akgud!rjb@seismo.css.gov  (rjb)
Subject: Re: `Concerning Stories Never Written'
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa


While I encourage anyone who is "afraid" of Pat Robertson
and us Christians in general to vigorously support whatever
candidate suits you, I am at a loss as to what to do.

Should we Christians just abdicate our responsibilities as
citizens (i.e. rendering to Caesar what is his) and say
"Well our opinions are likely to be colored by our silly
religious beliefs, so we better not vote, support candidates,
take positions, etc.." ?  Yes that's what A'hm a gonna do...
I jest sit here on this hill till Jesus comes back...:-)

Bob Brown {...ihnp4!akgua!rjb}

------------------------------

Date: 8 Sep 86 02:08:17 GMT
From: oliveb!epimass!jbuck@ames-titan.arpa  (Joe Buck)
Subject: Re: dangerous ignorance about political
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

Followups to net.politics.

In article <10600075@inmet> janw@inmet.UUCP writes:
> [Somebody else says}
>>As a socialist who is sick of being  identified  with  everything
>>from  Jane  Fonda to the Soviet Union, ...
>
>Well, if you happen to oppose Contra aid, you are in bed with
>LaRouche as well as JF and SU ...

And the majority of the American people, according to every poll ever
conducted on the issue.  There's way too much red-baiting on the net
these days.  Let's address whether a position is right or wrong, not
which monsters favor/oppose it.

- Joe Buck 	{hplabs,fortune}!oliveb!epimass!jbuck, nsc!csi!epimass!jbuck
  Entropic Processing, Inc., Cupertino, California

(pesnta has been dead for two weeks, please don't reply through pesnta)

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #384
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA29859; Fri, 12 Sep 86 03:02:33 PDT
	id AA29859; Fri, 12 Sep 86 03:02:33 PDT
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 86 03:02:33 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8609121002.AA29859@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #385

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 385

Today's Topics:
			Re: Who owns the moon?
		  Cosmic strings, who owns the moon
     (Rebut anti-diversion to skylab, highways vs. trucks, etc.)
humans and canned programs are the only two options -- try telepresence
			   SDI delta launch
		    Re: Soviet Sabotage of Shuttle
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon,  8 Sep 86 04:23:12 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@mc.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Who owns the moon?
To: decvax!mcnc!rti-sel!rcb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Cc: KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@mc.lcs.mit.edu, Space@s1-b.arpa,
        Poli-Sci@red.rutgers.edu

    From: decvax!mcnc!rti-sel!rcb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Random)

    >This brings up an excellent point.  Ownership ultimately derives from
    >force; the physical ability to protect something.

    WHo said anything about force!!!!!!!!! If you are producing zero-g
    alloys, and are selling them to all buyers on earth, no one will WANT
    to stop you.

  You are assuming that everyone is as reasonable as you are.  They
aren't.  The communists and the "non-aligned" nations have this
peculiar idea that natural resources on Earth and in space are "the
common heritage of mankind".  They will regard any attempt at
developing and selling those resources by the US or by any private
company as being theft, unless they are given shares of the profits
in proportion to their population.  The USSR is quite likely to wait
until the factories are set up and running smoothly, and then try to
"liberate" the factories for their own use.
  Space factories aren't practical until it is possible to defend them.
								...Keith

------------------------------

Date: 1986 September 08 09:38:41 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@su-ai.arpa>
To: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Cosmic strings, who owns the moon

Several items (catching up on reading the digest) ...

(1) Re the possible cosmic string-loop observed, presumably it is
rotating longitudinally, otherwise it would have collapsed into a
macroscopic point (diameter so small it's dominated by quantum
effects), observable as a black hole, or if rotating along another
axis would have flattened to look like a rotating line segment?

(2) Re Moon "for all mankind", perhaps we could now say the Moon as a
whole is for all mankind, with each nation claiming some fair portion,
and then we could proceed to pick which part we now claim and to
develop that part? Spain and Portugal made a greedy mistake, dividing
the new world between themselves instead of allowing the rest of
Europe their share. The result was they couldn't hold onto it in the
end, and England & France took a worthwhile chunk away. We took the
other extreme with the Moon, but we could still convert the Moon to
private ownership if we are careful in our wording and if we don't
claim more than our fair share any time soon. Rebuttal/opinion?

Hmmm, later message:
-> From: tektronix!orca!kendalla@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Kendall Auel)
-> It said "We came in peace for all mankind". It did NOT say "We claim this
-> territory in the name of all mankind".

If you interpret the two as very different in meaning, don't sign the
"Moon Treaty" which really does protect the Moon from private
ownership, and dispute all rhetoric to the effect that we gave up on
private use of the Moon when we made the original "all mankind"
pronouncement, then it looks even easier to go ahead with my plan for
claiming some fair share and leaving the rest to latecomers whenever
they come.

But see this other message...
-> From: voder!kontron!cramer@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Clayton Cramer)
-> The U.S. signed a treaty in the mid-1960s, along with the Soviet Union
-> and most of the rest of the U.N. giving up all territorial rights in
-> outer space.

I think this means we're stuck with the antartica situation, we can
mine but we can't mark out territory that we "own". The question is
whether we can stake mining territories, carefully distinguishing them
from political territories, or whether we can't even do that, but must
very quickly get the goodies before somebody else arrives to undermine
our mine.  Perhaps we could clarify it somehow, or else amend the
treaty to permit mining claims and habitat?

------------------------------

Date: 1986 September 08 10:13:15 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@su-ai.arpa>
To: lcc.todd@locus.ucla.edu
Cc: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
Subject: (Rebut anti-diversion to skylab, highways vs. trucks, etc.)

-> Date:           Fri, 22 Aug 86 11:01:28 PDT
-> From: Todd Johnson <lcc.todd@locus.ucla.edu>
-> Subject:        Re: Americans & Scramjets
-> I know for a fact that ... Nixon cut the funding
-> for the final lunar missions, diverting the remaining hardware into the
-> Skylab program instead of Apollos 18,19 and 20. He could afford to do so
-> because the American public was "bored" with the lunar effort. 

He may have been right in that decision. The extra Apollos were
essentially backups in case a few earlier ones failed. One did fail
(Apollo 13, explosion, needed lunar module to direct it around the
moon and back to direct entry into Earth's atmosphere), but the rest
succeeded so only one backup was needed, the rest were either used for
extra missions beyond those originally planned or mothballed.

We had gotten the basic information about the contents of the Moon's
surface that could be obtained from Apollo. What we needed next was
(1) space station for longterm habitat in space, and (2) polar lunar
missions which couldn't be accomplished by Apollo due to orbital
configuration. Skylab was the first step toward a space station (too
bad we haven't yet continued past there much, just a second Skylab on
STS, but only the USSR has a space station now). Too bad lunar polar
orbiter never got funded at all yet. If we had continued full steam,
we might now have a space station, info about ice in polar regions of
Moon, and tele-operated experimental mining stations on the Moon for
titanium and water. In the near future we might upgrade the mining
stations to actually removing the mined material from the Moon for use
in space.

-> We now know that there is a lot more work required on the Moon to come to
-> any assessment about how best to use its resources. (see NASA SP 428:
-> Space Resources and Space Habitats (? - I'm not sure about the title, 
-> I know that the SP number is right and it has Space Resources in the
-> title somewhere)). 

Apollo wasn't a terribly efficient way to get detailed info about
moon. It was a quick way to get some initial information, but very
expensive. If the very last Apollo was actually used for an extra
scientific mission, and if something went wrong and the astronauts got
stranded to die on the Moon, it would be a public relations disaster
worse than the explosion of the Challenger. We couldn't afford to take
the chance. By comparison, if something goes horribly wrong in LEO
with STS, we send up another STS, or ask USSR to come to our aid. In
my humble opinion, once the major Apollo missions were completed, and
a few extra missions also, diverting the Saturn-5's for Skylab duty
may have been worthwhile, and mothballing the last one or two Apollos
may have been prudent. (In retrospect, knowing how things turned out,
STS delay allowing Skylab to crash to Perth <pun>, it might have been
better to go to the Moon instead; but at the time and without
clairvoyance, Nixon may have been correct.)

-> I think that we should still view space in the same manner as the
-> Louisiana Purchase was viewed during the time of the Lewis and Clark
-> expedition: unknown but potentially rich territory that still has to
-> be explored and has been only partly exploited. The cost of such
-> exploration (as in the cost of the acquisition of both the Louisiana
-> Purchase and Alaska) will be questioned at the time but will
-> ultimately reap for this nation rewards at least equal to the effects
-> of the Louisiana Purchase.

I agree. Let's go out and get a couple asteroids and then see what
riches we can recover from them! Also ...

-> With this view, it is understandable that the government should expend the
-> major burden of money in its exploration (this view obviously implies that
-> certain UN treaties/promises concerning the equal sharing of the resources
-> of space are junk) and exploitation (we're talking about mining for titanium
-> on the Moon, using the sun's great energy to refine the metal and construct
-> merchandise) while the citizens (and obviously, corporations) reap the 
-> benefits. 

hear hear!

-> The government maintains the highways of this nation, I do not see why 
-> our government should not also maintain the space ways for its people.

This metaphor is difficult. In space there are no highways except
navigation channels. Would spacecraft be analagous to highways or to
trucks? The nation maintains the highways but not the trucks. In the
air, the nation maintains the navigation beacons and makes rules and
runs the control towers and hires flight controllers (correct me if
I'm wrong), but doesn't maintain the airplanes or hangars and doesn't
hire the pilots.

------------------------------

Date: 1986 September 08 09:44:51 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@su-ai.arpa>
To: animal@rice.edu
Cc: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
Subject: humans and canned programs are the only two options -- try telepresence

-> Date:     Thu,  4 Sep 86 13:20:39 CDT
-> From: Carl Rosene <animal@rice.edu>
->    Space Station isn't good enough either? What do you want? Complete
-> automation? Naw, we have enough trouble with the computer programs we
-> write now. A Scientific-Industrial station performing experimental science
-> will perform mostly one-time tasks. Just the sort of thing it doesn't make
-> sense to automate. 

Your argument is against a straw man. Some of us are proposing neither
humans in space nor total automation, but rather telepresence (humans
on Earth operating things by remote control) for industrial tasks and
whatever in space and on the Moon. Of course some experiments really
require "hands-on", and some industrial processes can be ported to
space or Moon already automated, but what about the others that fall
in the middle where remote-control would work. Telepresence avoids the
pitfalls to trying to anticipate every possible sequence of actions
and recovery operations in a computer program, while avoiding the
problem of keeping people supplied with food and air in space for long
periods. During idle times between experiments, a remote-control
device can be shut off, wrapped in insulation, with only a little
thermal warmer to keep it above freezing. By contrast, a human would
have to be brought back to Earth and re-launched because it's too
expensive to keep the human alive for weeks when there's nothing
useful to do up there. (I'm speaking of an industrial mission, where
the company is not willing to spend millions of dollars on activities
unrelated to the product being developed, not a national mission where
the government can always find something else to do to fill up time.)

With telepresence we must pre-plan all the kinds of actions to be
performed, but not the sequences and recovery actions. With a
reasonable set of limbs and tools, and good visual & tactile feedback
to the human on Earth, a teleoperator should do as well as an on-site human.

(Note, I am much in favor of establishing habitat in space, but not as
an alternative to computer programming of equipment.)

-> If the public feels it benefits more from the manned space show than
-> they do from the unmanned probes, then the money should be spent on manned
-> space. If the public likes pictures of Saturn better, so be it. Send
-> another probe.

The Voyager-1 pictures of Dione were beautiful. I eagerly awaited
Voyager-2 which would get closer to Dione and take even better
pictures. But alas, Voyager-2's scan platform locked up and it
couldn't see Dione at all. If we had robot probes every couple years,
by now we'd have some more pictures of beautiful Dione, but we don't,
and I'm still waiting ...  I'm speaking as a member of the public who
likes pretty pictures of pretty planets/moons, not as a scientist
interested in planetary geology. (My scientist/geologist side is eager
to learn more of Ganymede and Miranda!!!!) Here's a random idea: Put
up Galileo-class spacecraft around Jupiter and Saturn, send lots and
lots of pictures to Earth, broadcast them on networks at night when
networks are otherwise off the air, at bottom of each picture show a
900-number for ordering a print of the picture you see at the moment
on the screen. With millions of people spending a few dollars each
month to decorate their homes with far-out beauty, we could perhaps
pay for the mission, and get the science for free??

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 8 Sep 86 12:15:20 pdt
From: ucdavis!clover!hildum@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Eric Hildum)
To: ucdavis!space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: SDI delta launch

>Why doesn't this violate the existing Congressional ban on tests of
>anti-satellite weapons on actual objects in space?  Or does it?
>
	That is a good question - apparently, it does not, but the
test has irritated enough Congressmen that a new tighter restriction
may be in the works.

>What is the USA coming to? Our national launch capability is nearly
>non-existent, dozens of commercial satellite owners with worthwhile services
>to provide are totally out in the cold, our weather satellite situation can
>be charitably described as "precarious", space science has developed an
>advanced case of rigor mortis, and what does the government do with those
>few precious working launchers that remain?  Squander them on a totally
>pointless and utterly idiotic Stars Wars "experiment" that is worse than
>useless!
>
	Well, if there is a problem, perhaps it is better that it
occurs on a military launch - after all, the insurance companies are
already causing problems for private companies. (Besides from your
point of view isn't it better to have a test launch with a "worthless"
satellite system than one which could be difficult to replace?)

>I've never found myself hoping for anybody's launch to fail before. Not even
>a military mission.
>
>Until now, that is.
>
	But are you willing to tolerate the delay that would
follow....

>Phil

				Eric

------------------------------

Date: 29 Aug 86 22:20:08 GMT
From: amdcad!amdimage!prls!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!johnmill@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Soviet Sabotage of Shuttle
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa


In article <143@csustan.UUCP> smdev@csustan.UUCP (Scott Hazen Mueller) writes:
>Xref: philabs net.space:7021 net.columbia:3020

>In a recent issue of _Analog_ (either last month's or the month previous to
>that, I believe) G. Harry Stine commented in his "Alternate View" column that
>he had predicted a few years ago that there would be some sort of shuttle
>disaster eventually.  Of course, this may be no more that the "standard gypsy"
>prediction regarding the probable location of tall, dark men

No, give credit where credit is due.  He devoted an entire article to the
near-inevitability of a tragedy, and some of the probable reactions to it.

>                                    \scott

>Scott Hazen Mueller                         lll-crg.arpa!csustan!smdev
>City of Turlock                             work:  (209) 668-5590 -or- 5628
>901 South Walnut Avenue                     home:  (209) 527-1203
>Turlock, CA 95380                           <Insert pithy saying here...>

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #385
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA03316; Sat, 13 Sep 86 03:02:11 PDT
	id AA03316; Sat, 13 Sep 86 03:02:11 PDT
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 86 03:02:11 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8609131002.AA03316@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #386

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 386

Today's Topics:
		   Re: Pan AM tickets - to the moon
		Satire: Fletcher's movement questioned
			  Single Piece SRB's
			 Re: SDI delta launch
		 Re: Re: Who owns the Moon? (was: La
			  Re: Columbus, etc.
		       re: re: Shuttle boosters
			nearest stars program
			Re: Re: high frontier
			     Re: Spacelab
			   More LEO debris
		    Re: Soviet Sabotage of Shuttle
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 8 Sep 86 16:41:27 GMT
From: sdcc6!mplvax!rec@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu  (Richard Currier)
Subject: Re: Pan AM tickets - to the moon
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

In article <70LIVCU@CUNYVM> LIVCU@CUNYVM.BITNET writes:
>In 1969/1970 Pam AM offered as a gimmick to "2001:ASO", tickets on
>the first "shuttle" to the moon. I believe these tickets were
>offered at the time for the then astronomical sum of $2000 (US).
>     
When I joined the Science Fiction Book Club in the mid 50's I recieved
a certificate from them guarantying me a ticket on the first commercial
flight to the moon whatever the cost.

Back then it was a safe offer. They had what certainly looked like a solid
legal agreement drawn up and printed on a very nice looking certificate.

I still have it stored in my parents cellar along with my priceless copies
of Galaxy, F&SF etc. from the 50's.

I wonder every once in a while if it really was a legal offer and how many
other mad collectors saved their copies???

	richard currier		marine physical lab	u.c. san diego
	{ihnp4|decvax|akgua|dcdwest|ucbvax}	!sdcsvax!mplvax!rec

------------------------------

Date: 7 Sep 86 10:35 EDT
From: (Richard Kenner) <KENNER@nyu-cmcl1.arpa>
To: <SPACE@s1-a.arpa>
Subject: Satire: Fletcher's movement questioned

From "Countdown", September, 1986:

	On September 13, 1987, the Administrator of the newly
reorganized National Aeronautics and Bureaucratic Administration
(NABA) testifies before Congress.  He faces a group of Texas
politicians chosen to engineer the NABA program:
	Rep. Andrews(D-Tex): Dr Fletcher, I have information here that
reveals favoratism to the Marshall Space Flight Center in Alabama.  At
approximately 4:00 p.m. on September 7, 1987, during a visit to the
Marshall center, did you not go to a rest room located at the center?
	Dr. Fletcher: I cannot recall that specific occurence.
	Rep. Andrews: I have a sworn statement from a custodial
employee that you did.  You went to the rest room without consulting
Congress, did you not?
	Dr. Fletcher: I admit a probably made such a move.
	Rep. Andrews: Why didn't you go to Houston and use one of our
Texas rest room facilities?  We have a depressed economy in Houston.
If you had done you business in Houston, it would have pumped
additional money into out water/sewage departments, and helped keep
employed our sanitation and custodial service people.
	Dr. Fletcher: Ah, I did not have sufficient time to plan to
logistics of the move.
	Rep. Andrews: Well, to me, it appears as if you are showing
favoritism to Marshall.
	Dr. Fletcher: I concede that the move was made without proper
consultation with Congress.  I would take it back if I could.
	Rep. Andrews: Just make sure you check with us first before
making any such future movements.  We're experts on such things.
	Dr. Fletcher: I agree fully with that.

----

In this same issue they note that "The Space Station, when eventually
built, may become the first engineering structure designed by
Congress."

-------

------------------------------

Date:         Wed, 10 Sep 86 13:03:20 EDT
From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
To: space digest <space-incoming@s1-b.arpa>
Subject:      Single Piece SRB's

Re Emilio P. Calius, Aero and Astro, Stanford:
>... in my opinion they should have thrown out the segmented
>steel case and gone to a one-piece composite case design.
>That would have resulted in a few extra tons of payload and
>a technological advantage in launch-vehicle structures that
>would take quite some time for others to catch up with.

It was my understanding that a single piece SRB structure was
considered and rejected because (1) difficulties in casting and curing
such huge chunks of propellant (2) near impossibility of shipping such
a large structure to Kennedy from the point of manufacture.
     In any case, it is sad to hear that the technologically superior
composite casings have been sidelined so close to being launch ready.
Maybe when (/if) the current go-with-what's-been-proven mood blows
over, they'll get taken out of the closet again.

                   --Geoffrey A. Landis, Brown University
                     Reply to: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA
PS:  You're in Aero at Stanford?  If you know Bob Parks, tell him
Geoffrey says hi.
                         --GL

------------------------------

Date: 8 Sep 86 05:50:00 GMT
From: irwin@a.cs.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: SDI delta launch
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa


A photo of the launch appeared in our local paper. It would seem that
he did not get his wish (it did not fail).

------------------------------

Date: 8 Sep 86 05:46:00 GMT
From: irwin@a.cs.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: Re: Who owns the Moon? (was: La
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa


Henry also left out the crazies who would lobby to "save the tides". If
you mine the moon, you alter its mass, which would alter the gravitational
pull on earth, which would alter the tides of the oceans :-)

I say "crazies" because you would have to remove a considerable amount
of the moon to have much effect, which is unlikely, but try to tell
them that!

------------------------------

Date: 8 Sep 86 06:02:00 GMT
From: irwin@a.cs.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: Columbus, etc.
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa


I also disagree with Mr. Stolfi. He wants a perfect Starship, in a decade,
on a NASA budget, no less.

They have been building the automobile for over 80 years, and some would
agree that they still do not know how to do it correctly. (It took over
40 years to accept the hydraulic brake system) My father had a 1938 Hudson
that had both hydraulic and mechanical brakes. The mechanical unit was a
back-up, in case the hydraulics failed.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 10 Sep 86 11:41:53 pdt
From: ucdavis!clover!hildum@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Eric Hildum)
To: ucdavis!space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: re: re: Shuttle boosters

>Date: Sat 6 Sep 86 10:08:56-PDT
>From: Emilio Calius <CALIUS@star.stanford.edu>
>Subject: re: Shuttle boosters
>To: space@s1-b.arpa
>Cc: calius@star.stanford.edu
>  . . .
>	Of course, in my opinion they should have thrown out the segmented
>steel case and gone to a one-piece composite case design. That would have
>resulted in a few extra tons of payload and a technological advantage in launch
>vehicle structures that would take quite some time for others to catch up with.
>
>Emilio P. Calius
>Aero & Astro
>Stanford Univ.

	If they had gone to a one-piece composite design, how would
they have loaded the fuel segments?  I was under the impression that
the reason a segmented design was used was because of limits to the
size of a fuel casting that could be made.

			Eric Hildum

------------------------------

Date: 10 Sep 1986 16:25-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: nearest stars program

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?

------------------------------

Date: 8 Sep 86 23:10:39 GMT
From: al@ames-aurora.arpa  (Al Globus)
Subject: Re: Re: high frontier
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> L5 and High Frontier are different groups. L5 has never
> done anything to help High Frontier period!

I paraphrase Jerry Pournelle (sp?): "L5 and High Frontier couldn't do
much more to get into bed together" (L5 conference in San Francisco)

> Finally, if any of you out there don't like L5 Policy, work to
> change it rather than just silently dropping out.

It was not the policy I objected to.  It seemed to me
that most of the upper echelon of L5 was a hundred times
more exited about Star Wars than space colonization.
It got so you never heard the words "space settlement" anymore,
but you heard about weapons constantly.
I want to build habitats, not destroy things.
I got tired of the Red bashing too (even though it is
justified in non-space fields).  Also, I did not drop out silently.
I posted this net and sent a letter to L5 national.

> Above all, don't expect that we are
> going to get into space by doing nothing.

I've been working on the Space Station project for two years.  I find
direct action much more satisfying and effective.

------------------------------

Date: 8 Sep 86 23:19:59 GMT
From: al@ames-aurora.arpa  (Al Globus)
Subject: Re: Spacelab
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> NASA has ratted yet again on a joint project
> with the ESA; namely, it has reneged on its
> agreement to launch the Spacelab components.
> 
> Is this true?  

More or less.  Several space lab flights have been pushed back so
far that it doesn't make sense to work on them for at least a few years.

> Doies anyone else on the
> bboard think that this action will damage the
> USA's international relations most severly?

It may be difficult to damage our space-partnership credibility since is
so incredibly bad already.  We did a good job on IRAS, but we've been
jerks about space station, turkeys on ISPM, and not too swift on
SpaceLab.  Makes me wonder why they put up with us.

------------------------------

Date: 8 Sep 86 23:33:54 GMT
From: al@ames-aurora.arpa  (Al Globus)
Subject: More LEO debris
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

The recent SDI test ended with a planned collision between the two
satellites launched.  This adds the the debris generated by the
last US ASAT test, the US ICBM test, and numerous Russian ASAT
tests.

I know that the space station program expects the station to be hit
a least once in the first 20 years.  I know that both shuttle and salyut
have been hit.  I've heard that about half of LEO space debris
is man made and that much of this is from ASAT testing.  Has anyone figured
out how much ASAT testing we can accept before LEO becomes completely
unusable?

The Russians claim they want to ban all ASAT tests.  Maybe we should
take them up on it before it gets too dangerous up there.


LEO = low Earth orbit

------------------------------

Date: 11 Sep 86 00:38:23 GMT
From: rupp@nosc-cod.arpa  (William L. Rupp)
Subject: Re: Soviet Sabotage of Shuttle
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa


I remember an article, probably by Stine, which in essence predicted
that a shuttle would sooner or later crash.  The author's comments were
valid, I think, but there is one point I would like to mention.  Stine
was talking about an accident.  What happened to the Challenger was not
an accident in the same sense.  Challenger's destruction was the result
of many people's failure to exercise minimal judgement and
responsibility.  Or so it seems to me.  

The shuttle program has not had, in other words, it first real
'accident.'  But sooner or later that will come, the loss of a shuttle
due to circumstances beyond anyone's control.  I hope that loss does not
occur for many years, because it may take that long to rebuild our space
program's confidence and reliability.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #386
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA05916; Sun, 14 Sep 86 03:02:04 PDT
	id AA05916; Sun, 14 Sep 86 03:02:04 PDT
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 86 03:02:04 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8609141002.AA05916@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #387

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 387

Today's Topics:
			  Re: Columbus, etc.
		 November '86 Analog article on Mars
	       short commercial for the Challenger Fund
	       Re: Soviet Sabotage of Shuttle! (transc
   Re: (Rebut anti-diversion to skylab, highways vs. trucks, etc.)
			    Orient Express
			 Star Watch Hot Line
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 8 Sep 86 16:37:00 GMT
From: kenny@b.cs.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: Columbus, etc.
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa


/* Written  1:02 am  Sep  8, 1986 by irwin@uiucdcs.CS.UIUC.EDU in uiucdcsb:net.space */
/* ---------- "Re: Re: Columbus, etc." ---------- */
I also disagree with Mr. Stolfi. He wants a perfect Starship, in a decade,
on a NASA budget, no less.

They have been building the automobile for over 80 years, and some would
agree that they still do not know how to do it correctly. (It took over
40 years to accept the hydraulic brake system) My father had a 1938 Hudson
that had both hydraulic and mechanical brakes. The mechanical unit was a
back-up, in case the hydraulics failed.
/* End of text from uiucdcsb:net.space */

Of course, hydraulic brakes *do* fail regularly (thus far I've been behind
the wheel three times when it's happened).  Fortunately, automobiles are
still built with mechanical backups; they're called ``emergency brakes''.

			--------------------

It seems to me that this discussion, and several other flame-counter-flame
arguments proceeding in parallel with it, boil down to a matter of
differences in perception of cost/benefit tradeoffs.  Let's get some facts
behind the opposing positions, please, and maybe we'll all learn something.
Let me put my two cents in, and attempt to at least get the flames
organized; after all, one flamethrower toasts people much more efficiently
than a dozen campfires.

First, we all seem agreed that the Shuttle program is seriously flawed,
technically, managerially, and politically.  There are a number of reasons
for this, related to operating on a shoestring budget.  There are also a
number of placed that blame can be assigned for cutting the costs (and,
hence the safety margins) too far.  These are germane to the discussion only
insofar as they will help us to avoid similar errors in the future.  I know
flaming is fun, but...

The rest of the discussion is hinged on suggestions for ``what do we do
about it?''.  These in turn break down into ``what to do with the Shuttle'',
``what other programs to start'', and ``how to organize the program''.  The
three questions are almost orthogonal.

I. What to do with the Shuttle.
	a. Abandon it altogether.
		This position is favored by such lights as James van Allen,
		who argues that its operation will always be too expensive
		and will always cripple space science by diverting funding.
		It also appears to be Mr. Stolfi's position.  
	b. Continue flying the existing three, but do not construct more.
		This ``middle-of-the-road'' position argues that as long as
		we have the birds in place, we might as well fly them.  It
		is predicated upon being able to make continued operation
		adequately safe (what are acceptable risks?) and adequately
		cheap (what marginal cost-per-flight is acceptable?).
	c. Construct one or more additional orbiters.
		In addition to the operating cost and safety considerations,
		we also have the consideration as to the time required to get
		an alternative transportation system on line.  An additional
		orbiter or two is possibly the quickest route (other conside-
		ations aside) to get additional launch capability on line.

II. What else to do.
	This has many subcategories.
		o New expendables (staffed or unstaffed).
		o A new reusable, staffed, launcher.
			o HOTOL/Hermes type design
			o X-30
			o NASA TAV/Scramjet proposals
			o Boeing ``Big Onion''
			o ???
		o Cut back to existing Atlas/Centaur, Titan/Centaur, Delta,
			and Scout.
		o Eliminate program altogether (almost certainly unacceptable
			to the readership in this forum, but regularly
			proposed outside it).
		o ???

III. How to organize the program.
	A. Public versus private operation.
	B. NASA versus other agencies.
		1. NSF funding for space science.
		2. State Department funding for exploration (hey, think, most
			of the explorations were largely justified for their
			propaganda value; why not make State pay their share?)
		3. What extent to allow DoD into the picture? (This debate has
			been going on over rocketry at least back to the
			Eisenhower administration).
		Many other proposals under this head...
	C. Organization within NASA.
		Under this head, also, let's clear up the difference between
		a program's being ``administered at'' a particular center and
		having the work on the program actually happen there.  For
		example, most NASA operations at EAFB/Dryden are administered
		at Ames.

I will volunteer to accept mail from the readership on these three issues
(preferably with facts and sources), and repost digests and summaries.
Perhaps having that medium for this topic for a while will keep the number
of ad-hominem arguments down.  The present discussion is generating more
heat than light.

Kevin Kenny
ARPA:	kenny@B.CS.UIUC.EDU	(kenny@UIUC.ARPA for the old-fashioned)
CSNET:	kenny@UIUC.CSNET
UUCP:	{ihnp4,pur-ee,convex}!uiucdcs!kenny

------------------------------

Sender: "David_G._Opstad.osbunorth"@xerox.com
Date: 11 Sep 86 08:55:02 PDT (Thursday)
Subject: November '86 Analog article on Mars
From: Opstad.osbunorth@xerox.com
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Cc: Opstad.osbunorth@xerox.com
In-Reply-To: ota%s1-b:ARPA's message of 11 Sep 86 03:04:00 PDT
 (Thursday)
Reply-To: Opstad.osbunorth@Xerox.COM.osbunorth.ARPA


  Have you folks seen the article by Richard Hoagland in this issue? He
discusses some recent findings concerning the odd features on Mars in
the Cydonia region (41 N, 10 W). Comes right out and states that (in his
view) one possible explanation for them is that they are artificial.
Apparently, more and more researchers are beginning to share his view.
If the objects do indeed turn out to be artifacts (a BIG if!), then it
seems to me that a return to Mars in the near future is imperative,
either by a probe or by an expedition with archaeologists. Who knows
what we'd find, if these things are indeed the products of another
civilization?
  
  There's also an interesting editorial by Stanley Schmidt on this
subject in this same issue, dealing with the attitudes of the current
SETI community towards these objects.
  
  Dave Opstad

------------------------------

Date: 8 Sep 86 22:17:26 GMT
From: adelie!axiom!linus!utzoo!henry@ll-xn.arpa  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: short commercial for the Challenger Fund
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

The US Space Foundation accepts donations to the Challenger Fund, which
goes *not* towards the Challenger astronauts' children (whose growth and
education are probably amply financed by now) but towards construction of
a replacement orbiter.  Realistically, private donations aren't going to
make a large contribution to the horrendous cost of a new orbiter, and
there are legal difficulties with NASA accepting private donations for
a specific purpose, but every dollar donated is one more that can be
waved under legislators' noses as evidence that their constituents want
that orbiter.  The address is:

	Challenger Fund
	PO Box 51-L
	Colorado Springs, CO 80901  USA

I sent $20; what have *you* done towards a replacement orbiter lately?
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 8 Sep 86 19:25:39 GMT
From: adelie!axiom!linus!utzoo!henry@ll-xn.arpa  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Soviet Sabotage of Shuttle! (transc
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> Graham obviously thinks that this data calls for a new investigation.
> He thinks that the possibility of sabotage was not explored sufficiently.

No, it's not obvious at all; what's obvious is that he wants *us* to think
that the data calls for a new investigation and that the possibility of
sabotage was not explored sufficiently.  Therefore we should send him money.
This does not necessarily have anything to do with his own personal, private
informed (or uninformed) opinion on the matter.

> Is he wrong ? Perhaps. How to prove him wrong? Why, call him
> loony. And without looking at his facts...

If he wants his facts looked at, he should display them.  Anyone can *say*
he has facts justifying a further investigation.  There is *no* way to prove
him wrong unless and until he presents them for our inspection.  No matter
*how* thoroughly a disaster is investigated, it's *always* possible to claim
that it wasn't thorough enough.  The burden of proof is on Graham to show
that there really is sufficient cause to re-open the question.

"Where there's smoke, there's smoke.  No further conclusion is justified."
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 9 Sep 86 15:50:25 GMT
From: cfa!wyatt@talcott.harvard.edu  (Bill Wyatt)
Subject: Re: (Rebut anti-diversion to skylab, highways vs. trucks, etc.)
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> He may have been right in that decision. The extra Apollos were
> essentially backups in case a few earlier ones failed. 
> [...]
> We had gotten the basic information about the contents of the Moon's
> surface that could be obtained from Apollo. 

I mildly disagree. My cousin was involved with the geological
(selenological?) training of the astronauts, and the surface was 
barely scratched ( :-). Also, Apollo missions were already carefully planned
(scientifically, that is) through #22 at the time of cancellation. Those
mothballed Apollos were not just backups.

> [...] What we needed was
> (1) space station for longterm habitat in space, and (2) polar lunar
> missions which couldn't be accomplished by Apollo due to orbital
> configuration. [...]
> Apollo wasn't a terribly efficient way to get detailed info about
> moon. It was a quick way to get some initial information, but very
> expensive.

Unfortunately, neither NASA nor the nation as a whole knows what we
need even today. In terms of lunar exploration, at least in the context
of the late 1960's, neither of the above examples is useful.
I agree with the last two sentences, but polar lunar missions would have been
even more expensive, unless you mean simple orbiters, whose scientific
return would have been much more limited. 

> -> The government maintains the highways of this nation, I do not see why 
> -> our government should not also maintain the space ways for its people.
> 
> This metaphor is difficult. In space there are no highways except
> navigation channels. Would spacecraft be analagous to highways or to
> trucks? The nation maintains the highways but not the trucks. In the
> air, the nation maintains the navigation beacons and makes rules and
> runs the control towers and hires flight controllers (correct me if
> I'm wrong), but doesn't maintain the airplanes or hangars and doesn't
> hire the pilots.

The best analogy is to the sea. Various countries maintain navigational
beacons, but don't maintain the ways except in the sense that warships
are out on patrol, and I'd rather not extend *that* practice to space!

-- 

Bill    UUCP:  {seismo|ihnp4}!harvard!talcott!cfa!wyatt
Wyatt   ARPA:  wyatt%cfa.UUCP@harvard.HARVARD.EDU

------------------------------

Date: 9 Sep 86 13:10:36 GMT
From: gatech!akgua!mcnc!rti-sel!rcb@seismo.css.gov  (Random)
Subject: Orient Express
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

In article <113@akgud.UUCP> rjb@akgud.UUCP (rjb) writes:
>
>While I encourage anyone who is "afraid" of Pat Robertson
>and us Christians in general to vigorously support whatever
>candidate suits you, I am at a loss as to what to do.
>
>Should we Christians just abdicate our responsibilities as
>citizens (i.e. rendering to Caesar what is his) and say
>"Well our opinions are likely to be colored by our silly
>religious beliefs, so we better not vote, support candidates,
>take positions, etc.." ?  Yes that's what A'hm a gonna do...
>I jest sit here on this hill till Jesus comes back...:-)
>
As a non-Christian, I don't care what you do as long as the political
positions you support are not trying to make me follow "Christian"
moral beliefs. I could say more, but since this is net.space I don't
think that this discussion really belongs here.

Now, does anyone have any hard, detailed, facts on the new
x-30 or "orient express". I saw a few things go by that mentioned it,
but I have no idea what it is supposed to do.

-- 
					Random (Randy Buckland)
					Research Triangle Institute
					...!mcnc!rti-sel!rcb

------------------------------

To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Star Watch Hot Line
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 86 15:21:59 -0500
From: Sheri L. Smith <ltsmith@mitre.arpa>

Thought the following might be of some interest:

---OPNAV Bulletin 5 Sept 86

       Star Watch Hot Line

The US Naval Observatory in Washington, DC recently added a telephone
information service which can accommodate 14,000 star-gazers simultaneously.

The service, called "Star Watch" is designed to inform people about
what is hqppening in outer space.  It offers information on planet
positions, meteor showers, eclipses and other astronomical events that might 
interest the casual observer.  The program is designed to be easily
understood and avoids scientific jargon.

"Star Watch" is offered on the first Sunday of the month and runs for
seven consecutive days thereafter. To contact "Star Watch" dial
1-900-410-STAR. The charge is 50 cents  for the first minute and 
35 cents for each additional minute. The program is
approximately four minutes long.

The service is available to callers in the US, Canada, Puerto Rico,
and the Virgin Islands. All other countries can call the program at
the regular international long distance rates.


_____________________________-

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #387
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA08228; Mon, 15 Sep 86 03:02:31 PDT
	id AA08228; Mon, 15 Sep 86 03:02:31 PDT
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 86 03:02:31 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8609151002.AA08228@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #388

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 388

Today's Topics:
	      Re: Satire: Fletcher's movement questioned
			Bringing it back home
	     Re: short commercial for the Challenger Fund
		Re: `Concerning Stories Never Written'
			  Re: Columbus, etc.
		Re: `Concerning Stories Never Written'
			 Re: SDI delta launch
	      Re: Satire: Fletcher's movement questioned
		      Re: Bringing it back home
			 JEP on Mars mission
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 10 Sep 86 01:37:20 GMT
From: karn@petrus.arpa  (Phil R. Karn)
Subject: Re: Satire: Fletcher's movement questioned
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> In this same issue they note that "The Space Station, when eventually built,
> may become the first engineering structure designed by Congress."

Perhaps the reason the space station is being designed by a group of
politicians is because the only reason anyone can see for building the
station is political.

Phil

------------------------------

Date: 8 Sep 86 14:08:29 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!utcsri!hogg@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (John Hogg)
Subject: Bringing it back home
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

In article <1421@psivax.UUCP> friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) writes:
>
>	And then there are all the raw resources in outer space...
> ... And the amount of iron and nickel
>and even silicon in outer space is simply *staggering*, and being able
>to use it would cut the expense of building many things, such as
>automibiles, and, even more significantly, space stations and space
>ships, which could be built in orbit out of materials already there.

Getting away from the ongoing religious debate on manned presence in space
just for a minute, does anybody know how to bring back space resources
*efficiently*?

In his collection of essays, "A Step Farther Out", Pournelle gives various
calculations showing that ores or refined minerals can be brought to
LEO at bargain prices.  He then neglects to compute the cost of
dropping them to ground level.  Granted, there's a lot that can be
built in space.  However, if you talk about building automobiles, you'd
better deliver mine locally, or at least give me a lift to the
dealership.

I know that Heinlein talked many years back about "dropping rocks".  Have
there subsequently been any proposals about ways of dropping rocks
gracefully?  I have visions of having to mine the same ore twice: once in
the asteroid belt, and once (in a more refined form) after the man-made
meteor has augered in - DEEPLY.
-- 

John Hogg
hogg@utcsri.uucp
hogg@csri.toronto.cdn

------------------------------

Date: 10 Sep 86 14:58:54 GMT
From: adelie!axiom!linus!alliant!spain@ll-xn.arpa  (Dave Spain)
Subject: Re: short commercial for the Challenger Fund
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

In article <7100@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
>The US Space Foundation accepts donations to the Challenger Fund, which
>goes *not* towards the Challenger astronauts' children (whose growth and
>education are probably amply financed by now) but towards construction of
>a replacement orbiter.

Since it appears that Mr. Reagan has given the OK to funding a new
orbiter starting next year are there alternatives being planned for
the use of this money?

------------------------------

Date: 11 Sep 86 02:08:38 GMT
From: oliveb!intelca!intsc!tomk@ames-titan.arpa  (Tom Kohrs x1770 )
Subject: Re: `Concerning Stories Never Written'
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> In article <3215@umcp-cs.UUCP>, chris@umcp-cs.UUCP (Chris Torek) writes:

>                     Robertson himself has denigated these charges
> by maintaining that the Founding Fathers were all strongly Christians.
                                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Just in case anyone get the chance to argue the point with Robertson,
Thomas Jefferson was an atheist.

------
"Ever notice how your mental image of someone you've 
known only by phone turns out to be wrong?  
And on a computer net you don't even have a voice..."

	hplabs!----
		   \
	oliveb!----------intelca!intsc!tomk  	Tom Kohrs
		   /				Intel - Santa Clara
	quantel!---

------------------------------

Date: 11 Sep 86 13:01:14 GMT
From: andromeda!argus!ken@caip.rutgers.edu  (Kenneth Ng)
Subject: Re: Columbus, etc.
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

In article <12700073@uiucdcs>, irwin@uiucdcs.CS.UIUC.EDU writes:
> 
> I also disagree with Mr. Stolfi. He wants a perfect Starship, in a decade,
> on a NASA budget, no less.
> 
> They have been building the automobile for over 80 years, and some would
> agree that they still do not know how to do it correctly. (It took over
> 40 years to accept the hydraulic brake system) My father had a 1938 Hudson
> that had both hydraulic and mechanical brakes. The mechanical unit was a
> back-up, in case the hydraulics failed.

Aren't the emergency brakes on present day cars mechanically activated?
But seriously, I see what you mean.  Anti lock braking systems have been
used on airplanes for years (I've been told), but are only today being
accepted in cars.  And my father says he will never buy a car so equipped,
for lack of trust.

-- 
Kenneth Ng: Post office: NJIT - CCCC, Newark New Jersey  07102
uucp(for a while) ihnp4!allegra!bellcore!argus!ken
     ***   WARNING:  NOT ken@bellcore.uucp ***
           !psuvax1!cmcl2!ciap!andromeda!argus!ken
bitnet(prefered) ken@orion.bitnet

--- Please resend any mail between 10 Aug and 16 Aug:
--- the mailer broke and we had billions and billions of
--- bits scattered on the floor.

------------------------------

Date: 11 Sep 86 17:10:32 GMT
From: oliveb!epimass!jbuck@ames-titan.arpa  (Joe Buck)
Subject: Re: `Concerning Stories Never Written'
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa


>> In article <3215@umcp-cs.UUCP>, chris@umcp-cs.UUCP (Chris Torek) writes:
>
>>                     Robertson himself has denigated these charges
>> by maintaining that the Founding Fathers were all strongly Christians.
>                                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
In article <131@intsc.UUCP> tomk@intsc.UUCP (Tom Kohrs x1770 ) writes:
>Just in case anyone get the chance to argue the point with Robertson,
>Thomas Jefferson was an atheist.

Well, he was a Deist, along with many other influential thinkers of
the period.  Basically, this means he thought someone started up the
clockwork, and now it runs on its own, and nothing can be learned
about the Prime Mover except what can be observed about the world.
Sort of like modern agnosticism in some ways, but not atheism.


-- 
- Joe Buck 	{hplabs,fortune}!oliveb!epimass!jbuck, nsc!csi!epimass!jbuck
  Entropic Processing, Inc., Cupertino, California

(pesnta has been dead for two weeks, please don't reply through pesnta)

------------------------------

Date: 11 Sep 86 04:06:42 GMT
From: karn@petrus.arpa  (Phil R. Karn)
Subject: Re: SDI delta launch
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> ... One of those rules is that one does not
> appropriate someone else's resources just because one thinks one has a
> better use for them.  As I understand it, SDI *owned* that Delta, i.e. they
> had paid for it out of their budget.

Then we clearly have a serious problem with our high level priorities, i.e.,
the relative amounts of funding for the SDIO as opposed to other federal
agencies (NSF, NASA, etc).

> By the way, I think that's your prejudices speaking when you put quotes around
> "experiment" and claim that it's "pointless", "utterly idiotic", and "worse
> than useless"; you don't know that....

You may be correct. However, as with the Homing Overlay shot several years
ago, the only conceivable purpose of this "experiment" was the political
promotion of SDI to a technically naive electorate. As evidence for this
assertion, I offer the following: Before the launch, the SDI people stated
that while the launch preparations and mission were secret at that time, the
results would be made public IF AND ONLY IF THE TEST SUCCEEDED.  What
possible purpose could this policy have other than minimization of the
political damage to SDI should the mission fail? Clearly if there was a more
traditional reason to keep the mission secret (as with spysat launches) then
it would still be secret.

> Phil, please calm down.  The last thing we need is another launch failure,
> no matter *whose* payload is on it.

I am very pro-space. I am personally involved in space-related activities.
Many, if not most, space applications are directly beneficial to society; (I
won't bother to elaborate, everyone on this list has heard it all before).
I almost get physically sick when I witness a launch failure.  However,
unlike many members of one of the national space organizations, my faith
in space isn't blind religious zeal.  I do not automatically favor any and
every project just because it's space related, or because I see "coat-tail"
opportunities for my own pet ideas.

It is precisely because I am so pro-space that I get very angry when I see
people perverting space technology in a program that a) cannot deliver on
its promises, b) exploits the universal fear of nuclear war for political
and pecuniary purposes and c) could well cause the very nuclear war that it
was supposed to prevent.  Assuming that the worst doesn't happen, there will
be an inevitable, enormous and indiscriminate backlash against science and
technology in general and space technology in particular when the general
public eventually realizes how much money they've wasted on this fraud.
Similar, though smaller events have already occurred many times in response
to other large-scale abuses of technology; we're in a minor one right now
with the Space Shuttle. Computers and nuclear power are two other areas that
come to mind.  

If you think it's rough to get money for NASA or NSF now, just wait until
the post-Star Wars backlash. It won't matter that a majority of the Nobel
Laureates and NAS members back in the 1980's said that SDI was a bad idea.
Nor will it matter how worthwhile the new projects are that people will be
trying to fund; the public will lump all scientists and engineers and
projects together, because most of them can't tell them apart.

In other words, I oppose SDI for the same reasons that Better Business
Bureaus (which are supported by local businessmen) oppose shady businesses:
enlightened professional self-interest.  I want to participate in developing
space technology in ways that benefit people, and I see SDI standing in the
way of this goal.

If it takes a few launch failures to help SDI die, so be it.  Even the
Challenger disaster, as terrible as it was, will have been "worth it" in
some sense if it kills SDI as a direct result.  This may seem a shocking
thing to say, but consider: Less than one year's SDI funding is probably
enough to build another orbiter; more than 7 people would probably die in
the nuclear war that could very likely result if we ever try to deploy Star
Wars.

Phil

------------------------------

Date: 10 Sep 86 16:46:22 GMT
From: adelie!axiom!linus!utzoo!henry@ll-xn.arpa  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Satire: Fletcher's movement questioned
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> > ... "The Space Station, when eventually built,
> > may become the first engineering structure designed by Congress."
> 
> Perhaps the reason the space station is being designed by a group of
> politicians is because the only reason anyone can see for building the
> station is political.

C'mon, Phil, be fair.  One may question whether the non-political reasons
for the station are sufficient to justify the expense, but they do exist.

The primary motive for Apollo was political too, but I doubt that the first
flight of the Saturn V would have been flawless if it had been designed by
Congress instead of Wernher von Braun.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 11 Sep 86 17:04:45 GMT
From: louie@umd5.umd.edu  (Louis Mamakos)
Subject: Re: Bringing it back home
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

In article <3328@utcsri.UUCP> hogg@utcsri.UUCP (John Hogg) writes:
>I know that Heinlein talked many years back about "dropping rocks".  Have
>there subsequently been any proposals about ways of dropping rocks
>gracefully?  I have visions of having to mine the same ore twice: once in
>the asteroid belt, and once (in a more refined form) after the man-made
>meteor has augered in - DEEPLY.
>-- 

On the other hand, read "Footfall" by Niven and Pournelle for another 
perspective of "dropping rocks".  Who need nukes, when you have large
rocks.-- 
Louis A. Mamakos WA3YMH   University of Maryland, Computer Science Center
 Internet: louie@trantor.umd.edu
 UUCP: {seismo!umcp-cs, ihnp4!rlgvax}!cvl!umd5!louie

------------------------------

Date: 11 Sep 86 21:59:29 GMT
From: adelie!axiom!linus!utzoo!henry@ll-xn.arpa  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: 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

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #388
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA02750; Tue, 16 Sep 86 03:02:24 PDT
	id AA02750; Tue, 16 Sep 86 03:02:24 PDT
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 86 03:02:24 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8609161002.AA02750@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #389

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 389

Today's Topics:
	     Re: short commercial for the Challenger Fund
	      Re: (Rebut anti-diversion to skylab, ...)
		       re: re: Shuttle boosters
		 space news from Aug 18 Aviation Week
			RE: comments on Apollo
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 11 Sep 86 17:06:33 GMT
From: adelie!axiom!linus!utzoo!henry@ll-xn.arpa  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: short commercial for the Challenger Fund
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> >The US Space Foundation accepts donations to the Challenger Fund...
> >... towards construction of a replacement orbiter.
> 
> Since it appears that Mr. Reagan has given the OK to funding a new
> orbiter starting next year are there alternatives being planned for
> the use of this money?

Do not count your orbiters before they are hatched.  Reagan has said "we
should build a replacement orbiter".  This is an important first step,
but we are not out of the woods yet.  Not by a long shot.  In particular,
it is not Reagan who gives final approval for funding of something, it
is Congress.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 11 Sep 86 19:16:41 GMT
From: adelie!axiom!linus!utzoo!henry@ll-xn.arpa  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: (Rebut anti-diversion to skylab, ...)
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> ... The extra Apollos were
> essentially backups in case a few earlier ones failed...

This depends on whether you view the program's objectives as political --
land a man on the moon by 31 Dec 1969 -- or scientific and technological.
If the former, clearly the later Apollos were redundant.  If the latter,
NOT SO!  Apollo began as a much larger program, starting with short
visits and then expanding to include longer stays, multi-launch expeditions,
and eventually permanent bases.  This was back in the early 60s, when it
was seen as an open-ended program to explore the moon properly.  Then the
budget cuts started.  In particular, the decision to terminate Saturn V
production after the first 15 killed all the follow-on plans.  Congress's
decision to deny funding for the launch of Apollos 18-20 was just the tail
end of the disaster, which coincidentally freed up a Saturn V for Skylab.
(And two more, at $200M each, to rust as tourist exhibits.)
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 11 Sep 86 17:16:36 GMT
From: adelie!axiom!linus!utzoo!henry@ll-xn.arpa  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: re: re: Shuttle boosters
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> >	Of course, in my opinion they should have thrown out the segmented
> >steel case and gone to a one-piece composite case design...
> 
> 	If they had gone to a one-piece composite design, how would
> they have loaded the fuel segments?  I was under the impression that
> the reason a segmented design was used was because of limits to the
> size of a fuel casting that could be made.

Not really.  Bigger castings are harder, but they are possible.  In the
60's, Aerojet built by far the biggest solid rocket motors ever -- much
bigger than the shuttle boosters -- in one piece.  They never flew, but
they were test-fired and they worked.  Aerojet is in fact pushing a new
shuttle booster design using existing casings but doing one-piece casting,
so that all the joints can use the relatively trouble-free "factory joint"
design rather than the dubious "field joint" version.

I believe Morton Thiokol's SRB bid was the only one (out of three or four)
that used a segmented design.  That approach does have advantages; doing
it in one piece is not an obvious clear-cut win in all respects.

As for "in my opinion"...  in *my* opinion, they clearly should have thrown
out the solid-booster concept and used the "flyback F-1" reusable liquid
booster design.  It was rejected because it cost a little too much.  I
wouldn't be surprised if making a one-piece composite SRB casing would have
cost just as much -- bear in mind that development had to start about 15
years ago, when large composite structures were much more of an unknown
than today.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 11 Sep 86 21:53:50 GMT
From: adelie!axiom!linus!utzoo!henry@ll-xn.arpa  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space news from Aug 18 Aviation Week
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

(Net.space readers:  I've been posting these summaries to net.columbia for
some time, but net.columbia is visibly fading from use, and the wider
audience is probably interested too.  This is not up-to-the-minute info
because of various delays, but a recent net.columbia query indicates that
many people like it nevertheless.)

(Net.columbia readers:  This is the only issue I will be cross-posting,
so you'll have to switch to reading net.space for future ones.  Let me
know if you deeply object to this.)

JPL is investigating a new "solar cruiser" trajectory for Galileo.  It
includes two Earth encounters and two Venus encounters, saving fuel to
compensate for losses resulting from the use of a low-energy upper stage
rather than the cancelled Shuttle/Centaur.  Drawbacks are longer flight
time -- Jupiter arrival in Oct 1993 from a Nov 1989 launch -- and thermal
problems on the Venus encounters.

New shuttle main-engine tests delayed until the test engines can be fitted
with improved fuel pumps tested earlier, to make the engines reflect the
flight configuration more closely.  Tests expected to resume late Sept.

Four congressmen warn Treasury Secretary that they are displeased with the
way in which commercial payloads are becoming pawns in maneuvering aimed
at creating a commercial expendable-launcher industry.

Reagan authorizes replacement orbiter, affirming need for a 4-orbiter fleet.
Tentative plan is to locate it at Vandenberg, meaning that the Vandenberg
shuttle pad would be re-activated circa 1992.  Unfortunately, just where
the funding is to come from is more than a little bit vague.

Commercial satellites to be discouraged from using the shuttle.  Satellites
with existing contracts or international agreements and designs specifically
requiring the shuttle are allowed to compete for shuttle manifest slots.
Use of shuttle as backup to expendables is also legitimate.  As of 51L, there
were about 90 commercial satellites booked on the shuttle.  44 held actual
contracts; many of these are already being moved to expendables, notably
Ariane.  About 40 more had put down earnest money and were considered likely
future payloads, but had no firm commitments; these are considered the main
initial market for new expendables.  (The remaining few not accounted for
were theoretically on the list but in practice were no longer real.)

New NASA payload manifest is undergoing final approval.  The first few
flights are expected to be a TDRS, two military payloads, another TDRS,
and the Hubble telescope.

Lockheed will lay off nearly 1000 space-shuttle processing workers this
fall, and other contractors will make similar staff reductions.  Major
reason is the postponement of resumed shuttle flights to 1988.

Pratt&Whitney wins major contract to develop an alternate design for the
shuttle main-engine powerhead (pumps and related).  Objective is a more
durable engine.

Modified solid-booster field joint design will add a third O-ring and a
"capture latch" feature to prevent joint rotation.  The capture latch
is essentially a smaller tang inside the existing one; the two catch the
inner side of the clevis between them, preventing the tang-clevis gap
from opening up under pressure.  The third O-ring is between the capture
latch and the inner side of the clevis.  The O-rings will be made from a
more resilient material, and will be seated during installation rather
than relying on gas pressure.  The joint will be heated to keep the O-rings
from stiffening.  The notorious putty will be replaced by an adhesive,
probably an RTV rubber.  The existing booster-segment blanks have enough
extra metal on them for the capture latch, so only the final machining
will need to be changed to implement the new scheme.  All existing segments
will remain usable, because the clevis side of the joint is unchanged and
the factory joints (which are sealed before the propellant is cast) can
continue to use the old tang design until the new one is phased in.  Some
segments will have to have their propellant cleaned out (probably by burning,
which is safest and avoids waste-disposal problems) so that they can be
relocated from one end of a factory-joined pair to the other.  The nozzle
joints and nozzle-to-case joints are also being fixed in modest ways.
A tapered guide will be used during booster stacking to make sure that
there is no metal-to-metal contact during stacking.

There will also be an examination of from-the-ground-up joint designs,
unconstrained by compatibility with existing hardware, later this fall.

The NRC team overseeing the booster redesign is pushing for more full-scale
tests of the shuttle boosters.  NASA is aiming mostly at certifying the new
boosters, while the NRC team would like to see some more effort on defining
the exact failure mechanism on 51L.  The NRC crew is also recommending more
attention to quality control and review of the materials used in the boosters.

USAF has selected four vendors for first-phase work in the Medium Launch
Vehicle program, six months of design studies.  McDonnell Douglas is pushing
a lengthened and souped-up Delta with an off-the-shelf solid-fuel third stage.
General Dynamics is offering a slightly modified Atlas-Centaur.  Martin
Marietta is proposing a Titan 34D variant.  Hughes (with Boeing) is
proposing its Jarvis booster.

NASA's Solar System Exploration Committee has formally requested NASA
administrator Fletcher to make the Titan 4 (under development by the Air
Force) available to the planetary program.  The letter also called for a
more vigorous planetary program; the Committee is concerned that the
recommendations of its reports are not being implemented properly.  They
are proposing Magellan and Mars Orbiter launches in 89 and 90 resp.,
using Shuttle/IUS; Galileo launched ASAP, either Dec 89 or Jan 91;
Comet Rendezvous and Asteroid Flyby (CRAF) should start in FY88 to
launch in 92 (this will get it to Tempel 2, and will also keep the
planetary-spacecraft teams together between Galileo and the proposed
NASA/ESA Saturn mission).  Titan 4 is necessary for CRAF and would be
useful, if available soon enough, for Galileo.  SSEC is worried that
if the shuttle remains the only planetary-mission launch vehicle, then
the planetary program's tight launch windows and international agreements
will continue to be at the mercy of shuttle groundings and unavailability
due to complexity and weather.  SSEC also feels that the Soviets are
increasingly assuming planetary-exploration leadership due to US launcher
problems and its reputation as an unreliable partner in joint ventures.

Rep. Bill Nelson proposes bill authorizing NASA to buy expendables for
at least 15 government payloads in FY87.  Intent is to encourage US
expendable manufacturers, ease shuttle backlog, and help get science
payloads flying again.  Also slammed White House dithering over space
policy.  House space science subcommittee approved recovery plan which
includes:  replacement orbiter; shuttle recovery by first quarter 1988;
authority for NASA to buy expendables for government payloads awaiting
launch (Nelson's at-least-15 bill is separate); provision allowing shuttle
as backup for expendables, launcher for shuttle-unique payloads, and
fulfillment of existing commercial contracts; price-fixing to ensure that
shuttle launches always cost more than comparable services on commercial
expendables.  Fletcher says NASA wouldn't object to this plan.  A key
problem is that no appropriations have been identified to *pay* for all
this, yet.

Senate restores $500M+ in DoD-to-NASA shuttle payments to DoD budget; they
had been deleted earlier.  This will help NASA FY87 noticeably.

Senate committee approves $7795M FY87 authorization for NASA, allowing for
start of new orbiter if actual appropriations permit.

Fletcher supports expendables for science satellites but would prefer not
to have number and size dictated by legislation.  He says numbers will be
small in near future.  One or two Deltas.  Probably one Titan 4 for Galileo,
but at $250M each, NASA won't be buying many Titans.

Debate about desirability of subsidies for US expendable industry.  Fletcher
supports subsidies unless ESA raises Ariane prices.  Head of Hughes's space
group points out that all US expendables have been subsidized through
government-financed development.  (He's biased because he wants government
money for development of the Jarvis booster.  Claims it will result in a
"world-class launch vehicle", unlike the current expendables.)

Japan's FY87 budget will request funding for Japanese participation in
the Space Station, development of an unmanned commercial space platform
(to be launched by Japanese H-2 and serviced by Shuttle), and technology
development for a Japanese aerospace plane.

First launch of Japan's new H-1 booster, including Japan's first high-energy
upper stage.  Orbited a geodetic reflector satellite and a small amateur
radio satellite.  First stage is a Delta development.  Second stage, the
hydrogen/oxygen all-Japanese one, demonstrated in-flight restart needed
for missions to Clarke orbit.  The oxyhydrogen engine will be used in
the second stage of the much larger H-2 booster, and a larger derivative
will be used for the H-2 first stage.  Launch was originally set for 1 Aug,
delayed by a typhoon and then by a minor guidance-system problem.  Japan
has scheduled seven more H-1 flights until the H-2 is ready in 1992.
McDonnell Douglas is interested in buying rights to use the high-energy 
upper stage on the Delta.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date:         Fri, 12 Sep 86 10:56:37 EDT
From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
To: space digest <space-incoming@s1-b.arpa>
Subject:      RE: comments on Apollo

Re: earlier comments on Apollo:
>> I know for a fact that ... Nixon cut the funding for the final
>>lunar missions, diverting the remaining hardware into the
>> Skylab program instead of Apollos 18,19 and 20. He could afford to
>> do so because the American public was "bored" with the lunar effort.

REM> The extra Apollos were essentially backups in case a few
REM> earlier ones failed...  only one backup was needed, the rest were
REM> either used for extra missions beyond those originally planned or
REM> mothballed.

Close.  The final lunar missions were cut because the war in Vietnam
was carving huge chunks of money out of the economy.  Apollos 18
and 19 were cancelled.  The hardware was built and ready to go,
but the funding to fly it was denied.  Apollos 20 and 21 were in
the planning stages; I believe the hardware was built (these may be
the missions which Maas calls "back-up"s) they were, of course,
cancelled as well.  Skylab was originally slated to fly using
the second stage tank of a Saturn 1b as the lab, but AFTER the
final Apollos were cancelled, and NASA realized that there were
spare Saturn V's around being wasted, they decided to fly it
"dry" on a Saturn V instead of "wet" from a 1b.
     The remaining Saturn V's were not "mothballed".  They were
put out on display.  If you go to the space centers at Houston
and Huntsville, you can SEE the actual, working Saturn V boosters
that were built for Apollos 19 and 20.  They are lying out in the
rain, slowly turning into rust.

REM> Apollo wasn't a terribly efficient way to get detailed
REM>info about the moon.

     It may not have been "efficient", but it certainly was detailed.
We know a hell of a lot about the moon as a planet from the detailed
experimentations done on Apollo.  In a sense, though, it IS a pity
that Apollo was done so quickly: it would have been very nice to
have been able to use 1980's instrumentation to do some of the
experimentation, rather than 1960's.  If I have a major regret about
the Apollo program, it is that it was done so quickly--seven missions
(six discounting Apollo 13) in three years.  If they spaced them
out to more like one every year or two, and gave scientists more
time to digest results of the last mission before flying the next...
oh, well, I guess that would have been too expensive, since much
of the cost is tied up in mission control etc, and it probably
just would have meant that when it got cancelled we would have
only flown two or three Apollos instead of seven.

REM> Some of us are proposing neither humans in space nor total
REM> automation, but rather telepresence (humans on Earth operating
REM> things by remote control)   ...with good visual & tactile
REM> feedback to the human on Earth, a teleoperator should do as
REM> well as an on-site human.

How do you get around the speed-of-light delays?  Feedback is
probably worse than useless for operation on the moon.

                   --Geoffrey A. Landis, Brown University
                     Reply to: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #389
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA06105; Wed, 17 Sep 86 03:02:23 PDT
	id AA06105; Wed, 17 Sep 86 03:02:23 PDT
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 86 03:02:23 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8609171002.AA06105@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #390

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 390

Today's Topics:
			   Lunar titanium?
			   Re: Space BBS's
			    Clarification
		   Mixing religion and politics...
		     Space Shuttle appropriations
		       Re: SPACE Digest V6 #386
			European space gossip
			    Re: Al Globus
			  TAV is too secret
		      The Space Station and SDI
	       Leo Debris, more planetary science pain
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Fri, 12 Sep 86 08:20 EDT
From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%slb-test.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject:  Lunar titanium?
X-Vms-To: IN%"space@s1-b.arpa",DIETZ       

Why all this fuss about mining lunar titanium?  There's plenty of
titanium of earth, and if you're mining material for use in space
aluminum or composities are probably a lot easier to work with.

------------------------------

Date: 12 Sep 1986 14:43-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Re: Space BBS's
In-Reply-To: Space's mail message of Thu, 11 Sep 86 03:13:03 PDT

Call up the PGHL5 public CBBS at 412-366-6099. There should be a list
of space BBS's there. There are about 6-8 L5 chapter boards going.
There are also several FIDO's that are space oriented. Kurt Reisler
down in DC (who may have responded already) runs two, our local
chapter runs one (MYCROFTXXX). There is also one down in FL, and I
think another out in LA. There are a few others that are astronomy
related, or related to other org's, but it seems like the majority are
L5 related.

------------------------------

Date: 12 Sep 1986 15:57-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Clarification

Please do not get the impression that I am attacking Christianity in
general. I have a deep respect for those who guide their lives with a
strong and personal faith. They are some of the better people to be
around. My ire is reserved only for those who would use force to make
others live by the tenents of their faith.

------------------------------

Date: 12 Sep 1986 15:06-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
To: space@s1-b.arpa, gatech!akgua!akguf!akgud!rjb@seismo.css.gov
Subject: Mixing religion and politics...

Answer to Mr. Brown: (This doesn't belong here, but I don't have time
to read the other areas and I won't respond to any furthur posts on
this issue)

The problem with religious oriented candidates is that they represent a
particular view of morality that is shared by their members, but not
necessarilly everyone else. Even if they are in the majority and vote
to enforce their morality, it is tyranny.

Government interferes with all to many facets of individual lives as it
is. I would say we should have had another item in the Bill of Rights,
a declaration that government may not interfere with any act performed
by consenting adults, and possibly another one stating that an
individual has the sole ownership of their body and may do anything
they wish to it or with it, and that the government has no interest and
no right to intervene.

And I mean if a (woman|man) wants to sell her body to a consenting
(male|female) it is only their business.

If a writer writes pornography and sells it to a willing buyer, it is
an economic act that is outside the purview of the government.

If an individual wishes to have a drink of beer or blow a joint after
work it is only their business.

If an individual chooses to end their life in a shooting gallery or as
a wino in a gutter, it ain't nobodies business but their own.

One man's heresy is another man's sacrement. Why can't we just live and
let live? It's the problem with Christianity that caused me to totally
reject it very early in life.

My religion is the love for ALL humanity, regardless of race, sex,
religion. There are no infidels, there are only people with different
and sometimes interesting beliefs. Sometimes they may seem disgusting
because of the particular tribal prejudices we (and they) grew up with.
And we do have tribal predjudices. Why else would words relating to
sexuality like fuck, etc be considered anything but words? Only
because, despite our protestions about being modern and civilized, we
still have vestiges of our ancient tribal taboo's.

Why do people have such strong reactions to Pat Robertson and Jerry
Fallwell? Because they share the 'Christian' tradition of wanting to
ram their way down the throats of those of us who don't want it. And to
do so is RIGHT because they are RIGHT because they have REVEALED truth.
Just like the arabs who swept across Africa and into Spain, just like
the others who trod the unbeliever under the hooves of their armies.

Jerry Fallwell and his ilk represent evil to me, evil as black and as
horrid as your worst imaginings. When I look at them I see afterimages
of pogroms, Klan sheets, blacks being burned alive in Waco Texas, Jews
being tortured by Torquemada, Crusades burning raping and pillaging
their way through Byzantium, beautiful young girls in Salem screaming
in agony as their hair goes up as torches, Galileo being placed under
house arrest to stop his heresy that the sun was not the center, Europe
in flames for decades as armies murdered and tortured civilians and
each other as they attempted to define whether there was one church or
not...

They proclaim themselves just, but they represent an evil that we must
turn our backs on if we are to live long and prosper among the stars.

------------------------------

Date: 12 Sep 1986 23:07-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
To: "/usr/amon/Email.space" <Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu>
Subject: Space Shuttle appropriations

There is a move in Congress to transfer $3B from DOD to NASA to fund
the new orbiter. People should call or write members of the Senate
Appropriations Committee to express their support.

Also, a Jack Anderson column the other day stated that the politicians
should get their act together on the space program. Now is a good time
to write letters to the editor to show your agreement that it's time
to get moving forward. If your paper carries Anderson, read his column
and cite it.

------------------------------

Date: 13 Sep 86 07:33:50 EDT (Saturday)
From: Reno.WBST@xerox.com
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V6 #386
In-Reply-To: <8609131002.AA03328@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Cc: Reno.WBST@xerox.com

 Not to clutter this DL but I would point out to irwin@a.cs.uiuc.edu
that most modern cars continue to have a backup mechanical braking
system.(parking brake)

Reno

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 13 Sep 86 15:19:56 cet
To: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: European space gossip

Here are some randoms bits of space gossip (believe at your own risk).

There is talk that ESA will move its Ariane launch facility from French
Guiana to Austraila because French Guiana is becoming politically
unstable.

Of the three currently proposed European winged orbiters (Hermes,
HOTOL, and Saenger), it looks like Saenger is out-of-luck because MBB
proposed is too late.

I've seen some preliminary plans on the Hermes and in my opinion it is
quite primitive.  The Europeans are being deliberately conservative
with this first move into manned space and I think their own
conservatism will be their undoing.  The only good thing about the
Hermes is that it appears they will **not** use the Lockheed silica
tile thermal protection system or any clone thereof.  Their baseline
is ceramic shingles with metallic shingles as a possible backup.

If the Europeans really wanted to blow the Americans away, they would
go with a crash program into developing the HOTOL.  The key technology
in HOTOL is a device which extracts liquid oxygen from air that is
then burnt in an SSME clone with liquid hydrogen.  The concept is
being developed by Rolls Royce and British Aerospace and is very cute.
The Japanese are also thinking along these lines.  At the ILA
(Hannover Airshow) I saw a similar propulsion system displayed by the
Japanese.

Scramjets have a much higher specific impulse and are the only way to
go with the NASP.  However the sort of propulsion system planned for
the HOTOL is a good way to bridge the gap between the current space
shuttle and the second generation designs.  European success in this
area would be just the sort of "kick in the rear" that the Americans
obviously need to get their own space program back on track.

                   Gary Allen

------------------------------

Date: 13 Sep 1986 16:54-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Re: Al Globus
In-Reply-To: Space's mail message of Sat, 13 Sep 86 03:12:17 PDT

It is a mistake to take quotes of Jerry Pournelle from the SF84
Conference. The statement you quoted was most definitely not official.
In case you didn't realize it, which you might not have since you were
probably not involved in the back room war that was going on, the SF
conference was where the SDI debate came to a head and damn near
ripped the board apart. The result was that the board took the
position to take no position. A few of the leaders on one side (such
as Jerry) grumbled and made a few inflammatory statements, such as you
quoted. A few people left the society on one side or the other. A few
people still aren't talking to each other. But the issue pretty much
blew over because we took the stand to take no stand.

No stand is our official position, and if you wish to verify it, please
call the national office.

If you do not wish to associate with an organization that will allow
pro SDI people to say their piece, then you have a valid reason to
leave us. General Graham has a place to talk any time he wants to.  He
brings in lots of people and that means new names for the mailing
lists. If Carl Sagan wanted to do a pro-L5 event, we'd give him a
podium too.

If you don't like the existing chapters, you could start another
chapter in the Bay area and take an anti-SDI tilt. Some chapters tilt
pro, some neither. It all depends on the local leadership.

------------------------------

Date: 13 Sep 1986 17:13-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: TAV is too secret

I've been noticing that the TAV project has been placed under a very
thick veil of secrecy.

Individuals I have spoken to have noted that people working on
airframes, for example, can not even compare notes with other airframe
people in their own company.

Most people working on exotic fuels are essentially muzzled.

The result is that the DOD may have it's fighter in a few years, but
technology transfer to the private sector is being prevented. This may
mean a minimum of FIFTEEN YEARS from a military craft to a real one.

I would extend a quote of Scott Crossfield to say: "If it ain't
manned, and if I can't fly in it, it ain't worth a damn."

I would recommend that everyone write their congressmen and demand
that this program be made completely open, and that the major emphasis
be placed on demonstrating AND TRANSFERRING the technology necessary
to building a craft capable of being owned and operated by a private
airline, or even by wealthy individuals.

I really don't mind if the air force gets a new fighter out of it. If
they do, more power to them. I mainly care whether I get into space
before I die. If the DOD doesn't want to share, then screw'em.

This is your ticket to space too. If you want it, let congress hear
the howl of anger from one end of the country to the other!!!!!! And
if your really want to get their interest, tell them you expect you'll
have to buy your tickets from the British to fly on HOTOL because
there will be no US competitor...

If there is anyone out there who can speak in an official capacity, I'd
love to hear your excuses.

------------------------------

Date: Sat 13 Sep 86 18:14:36-EDT
From: Richard A. Cowan <COWAN@xx.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: The Space Station and SDI
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Cc: cowan@xx.lcs.mit.edu

The Boston Globe of Thursday, January 30, 1986 contains an article by
economics reporter David Warsh on page 7 which links the Space Station
with SDI.  It seems from the article that the space Space Station has
an implicit military purpose just like the Space Shuttle, whose cargo
bay was designed to accomodate KH-12 spy satellites for the National
Security Agency.

"Most proponents of SDI argue that a manned space station is a key to
the successful deployment of a space-based missile defense."  Warsh
then says that opponents to SDI often claim that the space station
will have significant economic benefits.  But this second claim was
questioned in several other articles following up the disaster.

I don't think that engineers working on the space station can have
much success in stopping the militarization of their work -- the
companies they work for are too closely allied with the Pentagon.  The
only way they can have an effect is to take the message to the general
public that space exploration is being subordinated to space
militarization, that taxpayers should refuse to pay for space effort
that damages their security, and should question the entire US space
effort until priorities get turned around.

-rich

------------------------------

Date:     Sat, 13 Sep 86 10:04 EDT
From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%slb-test.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject:  Leo Debris, more planetary science pain
X-Vms-To: IN%"space@s1-b.arpa",DIETZ       


That SDI test was conducted at 120 miles altitude, so any debris should
reenter the atmosphere quickly.

On a completely different subject:  I've read that fixes to the shuttle
after the 51-L incident will mean that the shuttle will be unable to
launch CRAF (the comet redenvous/asteroid flyby) or Cassini (Saturn
orbiter) missions.  Yes sir, that shuttle has been a great boon to
space science.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #390
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA09685; Thu, 18 Sep 86 03:02:26 PDT
	id AA09685; Thu, 18 Sep 86 03:02:26 PDT
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 86 03:02:26 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8609181002.AA09685@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #391

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 391

Today's Topics:
			  Single piece SRB's
		    Re: Soviet Sabotage of Shuttle
		   Re: Pan AM tickets - to the moon
			 Re: More LEO debris
	  Addendum to "space news from Aug 18 Aviation Week"
	      Final Warning: net.columbia to be deleted
	    Re: Bringing it back - Craters the Natural Way
			 Re: More LEO debris
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Sat, 13 Sep 86 11:10 EDT
From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%slb-test.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
To: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu, space@s1-b.arpa
Subject:  Single piece SRB's
X-Vms-To: IN%"ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu",IN%"space@s1-b.arpa",DIETZ       


Aerojet says they can cast single-piece SRB's.  Shipping single piece
SRB's is only a problem if you're shipping from someplace like Utah.
Aerojet wanted to cast the boosters near Kennedy and bring them in by barge.
Perhaps this was politically unacceptable to NASA -- Garn is from Utah,
after all.

------------------------------

Date: 12 Sep 86 01:01:01 GMT
From: bzs@bu-cs.bu.edu  (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: Soviet Sabotage of Shuttle
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa


From: rupp@cod.UUCP (William L. Rupp)
>What happened to the Challenger was not
>an accident in the same sense.  Challenger's destruction was the result
>of many people's failure to exercise minimal judgement and
>responsibility.  Or so it seems to me.  

One of my father's favorite curses when out driving and encountering a
jerk careening through traffic (we're talking NYC here) is "Look at
that guy, and if he hits someone they'll probably call it an
'accident'!".

I think we tend to use the term loosely. Not (as some might have it)
to mean something unavoidable but rather something that had we
foreseen it, we would have tried hard to avoid it. I agree, it's
people allowing themselves their foibles, often where they probably
shouldn't be so easy on themselves, but I think you're just arguing
semantics (unfortunately, because I agree with you in spirit.)

The "accident" therefore may simply have been the unfortunate
consequence of many people, particularly in leadership positions,
unable to realize the serious danger they were courting. I am sure
that if you could have given them a peek into the future they would
have changed their ways immediately, so accident might mean "w/o
intent". Malicious neglect is of course the dark side of that phrase,
and then again there's the 20-20 hindsight theory...

	-Barry Shein, Boston University

------------------------------

Date: 11 Sep 86 14:26:59 GMT
From: trwrb!gilmore@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Larry A. Gilmore)
Subject: Re: Pan AM tickets - to the moon
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

I did! I still have a very legal looking document entitling me to
first refusal of a ticket on the first commercial Lunar Excursion!
I'm gonna keep it, too!

------------------------------

Date: 10 Sep 86 15:19:45 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!utcsri!hogg@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (John Hogg)
Subject: Re: More LEO debris
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

In article <478@aurora.UUCP> al@aurora.UUCP (Al Globus) writes:
>The recent SDI test ended with a planned collision between the two
>satellites launched.  This adds the the debris generated by the
>last US ASAT test, the US ICBM test, and numerous Russian ASAT
>tests...  I've heard that about half of LEO space debris
>is man made and that much of this is from ASAT testing.  Has anyone figured
>out how much ASAT testing we can accept before LEO becomes completely
>unusable?

In the newspaper report I read, the military spokesman claimed that
"90% of the debris would have decayed within 72 hours."  (This quote
is not exact, nor do I guarantee the figures.)

While one should accept any such claims with healthy suspicion, and
ASAT testing (which the Pentagon assures us this wasn't) is highly
undesirable for a number of excellent reasons, the debris problem may
be a non-issue.  If the tests are conducted at as low an altitude as
this claim would appear to imply, junk-free LEO is a renewable
resource.

Does anybody have *solid* numbers to back this up?  The closest I can
come is that the first cosmonauts were provisioned for a small number
of days (~10) past their intended re-entry date in case the
retro-rockets failed.  By that time, the orbit would have decayed
naturally anyway.  A capsule is not solid, but it is much larger than
a typical piece of junk, so frontal area to mass ratios may be
comparable.

John Hogg
hogg@utcsri.uucp
hogg@csri.toronto.cdn

------------------------------

Date: 13 Sep 86 03:50:43 GMT
From: mangoe@mimsy.umd.edu  (Charley Wingate)
Subject: Addendum to "space news from Aug 18 Aviation Week"
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

Henry Spencer writes:

>JPL is investigating a new "solar cruiser" trajectory for Galileo.  It
>includes two Earth encounters and two Venus encounters, saving fuel to
>compensate for losses resulting from the use of a low-energy upper stage
>rather than the cancelled Shuttle/Centaur.  Drawbacks are longer flight
>time -- Jupiter arrival in Oct 1993 from a Nov 1989 launch -- and thermal
>problems on the Venus encounters.

According to my father (who worked on Ulysses) Ulysses is completely
dead unless someone comes up with a new launch vehicle FAST.  Or
unless the orbital dynamics folks come up with something.

C. Wingate  (APL/JHU Brat)

------------------------------

Date: 12 Sep 86 18:28:44 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!dciem!msb@seismo.css.gov  (Mark Brader)
Subject: Final Warning: net.columbia to be deleted
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

About 2 weeks ago I posted a proposal to rmgroup net.columbia.
First, here is an edited repetition of that article, in case anyone
missed it.  (It's only 28 lines, bear with me if you've seen it.)

# The most recent newsgroups list that I have says:
# > net.columbia		The space shuttle and the STS program.
# > net.space		Space, space programs, space related research, etc.
# 
# Although not stated here, it is also understood that net.columbia is
# supposed to be for "timely bulletins" that might not be available
# through the general news media.  [This distinction is made in the
# "Answers to Frequently Asked Questions" article.]
# 
# With the Challenger disaster, all this has changed.  What news events
# there are about the shuttle program are of much wider interest, and
# much of the traffic in net.space is about, or partly about, the shuttle
# program.  The great wave of messages in the first week after the disaster
# came in both groups about equally.
# 
# Of the two groups, only net.space is gatewayed to and from Arpanet.
# Therefore only net.space has any NASA sites on it.  [Wrong.]  For this
# reason alone there is bound to be considerable shuttle program traffic in
# net.space.
# 
# I claim that net.columbia has lost its identity and should be rmgrouped.
# 
# When the shuttle program is resumed on an active basis, it can always be
# created again if there is a demand again; by that time any number of
# things may have happened.  But for now, let's give net.columbia a decent
# burial, and incidentally let the Arpa people see all the traffic on the
# topic of the shuttle program by concentrating the messages in net.space
# (soon to be sci.space).

I was surprised by how small the vote was in view of the heavy traffic
regarding earlier attempts to change the group.  (I choose to take this
as evidence that few people feel so strongly about it now!)  Anyway,
I received 16 Yes votes to the rmgroup:

	csustan!smdev		(Scott Hazen Mueller)
	cfa!willner
	watmath!sahayman	(Steve Hayman)
	bogstad@BRL.ARPA
	amdahl!gam		(Gordon A. Moffett)
	usc-oberon!demke	(Christopher Demke)
	mks!tj			(T. J. Thompson)
	unicus!rae		(Reid Ellis)
	mtgzz!dls		(Dale Skran)
	druhi!tml		(Tim Larison)
	masscomp!carlton	(Carl Hommel)
	dadla!dant		(Dan Tilque)
	utzoo!henry		(Henry Spencer)
	van-bc!sl		(Stuart Lynne)
	amdahl!jon		(Jonathan Leech)
	wmartin@ALMSA-1.ARPA	(Will Martin)

And 4 No votes:

	alice!jj
	Peter Yee		(nike!yee)
	tekecs!andrew		(Andrew Klossner)
	Greg Woods		(hao!woods)

I was wrong about NASA sites being only on the Arpanet.  This was pointed
out by some of the No voters and by two more people who didn't state an
explicit vote:

	umcp-cs!mangoe		(Charley Wingate)
	uvula!earle		(Greg Earle)

However, I was right that net.space does, and net.columbia does not,
reach Arpa sites that are not on Usenet.  So while my mislocation of
NASA's machines weakens this point, I think it is still valid to say
that the audiences for the two groups are less equal than they should be.

Finally, there was an article from

	haddock!karl		(Karl Heuer)

who suggested that net.columbia should be made a subgroup of net.space
(which would be happening anyway under the grand reorganization) and
then, "assuming that people will post to the right group", rmgrouped
if there still appears to be no need for it.  I answer this by saying that
people are posting shuttle articles indiscriminately to both groups now,
and the only way to get Arpans to post to the shuttle group would be to
start a new mailing list on the Arpanet.

One or two of the No voters complained about the large volume of net.space.
Unfortunately, a large part of this large volume consists of shuttle-related
traffic, so I don't think this is a valid objection.  (One of these people
added that he didn't read net.space.)

I claim that I have received sufficient support to go ahead and remove
the group.  This posting is by way of a final warning.  Net.columbia will
be removed about September 28, unless I am convinced otherwise.

I should also note Andrew Klossner's comment:
* [It's pretty pointless to work on adding/deleting newsgroups right now;
* the new group scheme has been established and is being implemented.]

I'm not a backbone admin and I don't know what schedule the grand reorgan-
ization will actually be following.  If the sci groups start being created
by the time of the rmgroup, then the implementation of my proposal would
be to NOT create sci.space.shuttle, and to let net.columbia die along
with the other "net -> sci" groups; and if sci.space.shuttle already exists
by then, to rmgroup it.

Once again, post responses to net.news.group only, or mail them to me.
If you are just adding your vote, of course use mail... unless you did try
sending me mail and didn't make the list above (compiled September 12).

		{ decvax | ihnp4* | watmath | ... } !utzoo!dciem!msb
Mark Brader		also via	  uw-beaver!utcsri!dciem!msb
			also via hplabs!seismo!mnetor!lsuc!dciem!msb
*Avoid -- overloaded.

------------------------------

Date: 13 Sep 86 05:24:47 GMT
From: mangoe@mimsy.umd.edu  (Charley Wingate)
Subject: Re: Bringing it back - Craters the Natural Way
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

Louis Mamakos writes:
>John Hogg writes:
>>I know that Heinlein talked many years back about "dropping rocks".  Have
>>there subsequently been any proposals about ways of dropping rocks
>>gracefully?  I have visions of having to mine the same ore twice: once in
>>the asteroid belt, and once (in a more refined form) after the man-made
>>meteor has augered in - DEEPLY.

>On the other hand, read "Footfall" by Niven and Pournelle for another 
>perspective of "dropping rocks".  Who need nukes, when you have large
>rocks.

Sorry, priority goes to Heinlein.  One of the more impressive passages
in _Moon Is a Harsh Mistress_ is when the computer asks where the next
rock intended for Cheyenne Mountain should go-- because mountain isn't
there anymore.

C. Wingate

------------------------------

Date: 12 Sep 86 07:03:25 GMT
From: ka9q!karn@petrus.arpa  (Phil Karn)
Subject: Re: More LEO debris
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> In the newspaper report I read, the military spokesman claimed that "90% of
> the debris would have decayed within 72 hours."  (This quote is not exact,
> nor do I guarantee the figures.)

This was one of my concerns too (aside from the many others I've
already stated).  However, they are probably correct about the decay
rates; I seem to remember an orbital altitude of 200+ miles was
quoted. Based on what I know about the decay rates of satellites in
somewhat higher orbits, plus the fact that small objects (like
fragments) have far higher area-to-mass ratios than large objects
(like intact spacecraft), the claim is fairly credible.  However, they
didn't say how long the remaining 10% (big chunks, presumably) would
be up there...maybe long enough to collide with the next SDI payload
before it can carry out its mission :-)

As much as I detest ASAT testing, much existing orbital debris is from
routine launch operations.  From time to time an unvented spent upper
stage explodes into fragments. The NASA Satellite Situation Report
lists lots of launches each having dozens of separately catalogued
objects.

I recall hearing that an impact crater on an orbiter windshield was
once attributed to a small flake of white paint (!) from a Delta upper
stage. How they determined this would be interesting to know.

Phil

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #391
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA17096; Fri, 19 Sep 86 03:02:49 PDT
	id AA17096; Fri, 19 Sep 86 03:02:49 PDT
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 86 03:02:49 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8609191002.AA17096@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #392

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 392

Today's Topics:
	   SDI & L5; how to foster public support for space
			 Re: More LEO debris
		 Midwest Space Conference coming soon
			     "accidents"
			  Re: JEP statements
			   Re: Phil and SDI
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 12 Sep 86 00:52:37 GMT
From: ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtgzz!dls@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (d.l.skran)
Subject: SDI & L5; how to foster public support for space
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

>> From: al@aurora.UUCP (Al Globus)
>> Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Mt. View, Ca.
>> 
>> > 
>> > L5 and High Frontier are different groups. L5 has never
>> > done anything to help High Frontier period!
>> 
>> I paraphrase Jerry Pournelle (sp?): "L5 and High Frontier couldn't do
>> much more to get into bed together" (L5 conference in San Francisco)
>> 
Whatever Mr. Pournelle has said, it is only his opinion, not the 
revealed truth. If L5 has ever done anything to help SDI or
High Frontier, I am unaware of it, and am at a loss as to what
Mr. Pournelle had in mind when he said this. 
>> > 
>> > Finally, if any of you out there don't like L5 Policy, work to
>> > change it rather than just silently dropping out.
>> 
>> It was not the policy I objected to.  It seemed to me
>> that most of the upper echelon of L5 was a hundred times
>> more exited about Star Wars than space colonization.

This is an out of date perception. At the current time the upper
echelon of L5 is committed to promoting the civilian development of
space.

>> justified in non-space fields).  Also, I did not drop out silently.
>> I posted this net and sent a letter to L5 national.

Unfortunately, your reasons for dropping out of L5 boil down to not
liking what particular leaders were saying or doing.  Try to keep in
mind that L5 is an organization, and that leaders come and go. If the
organization was a good idea before Pournelle, it'll still be a good
idea after Pournelle.  I'm glad to hear that you sent a letter to
national complaining about it, but you would have far more impact as a
working member than as a disgruntled drop-out. Also, getting involved
means a lot more than just writing a letter of complaint. I have found
the current L5 leadership willing to listen and responsive to change
if the person speaking is willing to do more than complain.

>> > Above all, don't expect that we are
>> > going to get into space by doing nothing.
>> 
>> I've been working on the Space Station project for two years.  I find
>> direct action much more satisfying and effective.

I congratulate you, wish you the best of luck.  However, don't expect
the Space Station project budget to survive without the kind of public
support L5 was organized to foster.

I would be interested in how you propose to foster that support, since
you apparently don't think L5 is the correct means.

Dale Skran

------------------------------

Date: 12 Sep 86 16:11:32 GMT
From: ka9q!karn@petrus.arpa  (Phil Karn)
Subject: Re: More LEO debris
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> stated).  However, they are probably correct about the decay rates; I seem
> to remember an orbital altitude of 200+ miles was quoted. Based on what I

I just got a complete copy of the AP wire story that describes the test, and
my 200+ mile number should have been 200+ KILOMETERS. The actual altitude
quoted was 138 miles, which is 221 kilometers. The space shuttle typically
flies at 296 km.

Phil

------------------------------

Date: 14 Sep 1986 20:11-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
To: "/usr/amon/Email.space" <Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu>
Subject: Midwest Space Conference coming soon

===========================================================================
		1986 Midwest Space Development Conference
			October 17-19,1986
		Holiday Inn, Strongsville, OH (Cleveland area)
===========================================================================

Accomodations: $43.80/night, double occupancy, 216-238-8800 for reservation

Registration:  				$35
Meals:	Friday Night Spacefest:		$10
	Saturday Afternoon luncheon:	$9
	Saturday Night Banquet:		$18
	Sunday Afternoon luncheon:	$9

Tours:	Friday night 7-9 Baldwin-Wallace Astronomical Observatory Tour
	(limit 47) $3.25 bus fare
	Saturday afternoon 1:30-5:30 NASA-Lewis Tecahers Resource Tour
	(limit 47) $3.25 bus fare

Conference registration:
	Midwest Space Development Conference
	2720 West 40th St
	Lorain, OH 44053

	216-282-6329 for phone in registration or info

If you are in the Pittsburgh area, there maybe PghL5 members you can
car pool with, so please let me know.

Program includes Dr. Dave Webb form the National Commmission on Space
and scientists from Wright State Univeristy, Case Western Reserve,
NASA Lewis and others. Topics include, Search for Extraterrestrial
Intelligence, Calcium Bone Loss in Space, Space Station, Uranus and
Jupiter Flyby Probes, Space Education, Using Space in the Classroom
and much more.

===========================================================================
And don't forget, coming soon is the 6th Space Development Conference
at the Pittsburgh Hilton, March 27-29, 1987.
===========================================================================

------------------------------

Date:           Mon, 15 Sep 86 09:38:47 PDT
From: Jordan Brown <lcc.jbrown@locus.ucla.edu>
To: rupp@nosc-cod.arpa
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject:        "accidents"

> The shuttle program has not had, in other words, it [sic] first
> real 'accident.'  But sooner or later that will come, the loss
> of a shuttle due to circumstances beyond anyone's control. 

Nothing is "beyond anyone's control".  If you read aviation accident
reports, you find that there is always SOME human failing.  Inadequate
maintenance, flew into bad weather, inadequate navigation, etc.  The
closest you get to a true accident is "was flying along happily in the
clouds (IFR) and ran into a thunderstorm nobody saw".  Inadequate
thunderstorm detection technology.

There are no accidents.

------------------------------

Date: 15 Sep 1986 15:43-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Re: JEP statements
In-Reply-To: Space's mail message of Mon, 15 Sep 86 03:13:00 PDT

I've heard JEP state the same notion before. I certainly would agree
that if we go straight to Mars as a means of putting together a
USSR/USA collaboration with big POLITICAL payback, then it would
indeed be a project worth undermining.

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. This is the approach suggested by
the National Commission On Space and is the only proposal that:

	A) Makes sense
	B) Will not be attacked by groups dedicated to permanent
	   settlements in space.

I personally think asteroid mining should take a slightly higher
priority, but if we build the infra structure to keep us expanding
outward into space, then what the hell; I wouldn't mind having a
downside flat overlooking Valles Marineris...

What I wonder is how Planetary Society will keep Dr Van Allen on their
board given their new found faith in manned flight (which was aided by
finding from their membership poll that the members were
overwhelmingly for manned flight as well as probes). But then, they'd
probably be better off without him. I certainly wouldn't support them
while they have likes of Van Allen on their letterhead.

------------------------------

Date: 15 Sep 1986 15:57-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Re: Phil and SDI

I realize that Phil has a personal dislike for SDI, and likewise there
are many who share his opinion.

There are also quite a large number of people who think it is the only
morally and ethically concievable way of defending ourselves. And who
likewise feel that the difficulties in SDI have nothing to do with
science per se, but with engineering.

I would suggest that a physicist or most other scientists are not
qualified to judge anything but most the basic physical laws
underpinning interception of objects.

Scientists have to understand why something works. Engineers don't
care, so long as it does. The Roman's, for example did quite well with
pure engineering. They had no science worth speaking of when they built
their aquaducts, used concrete caissons to build un-natural harbors
(such as Caesaria).

Thus a scientist will often say something can't work (like airplanes
and bumblebees) simply because they don't have the equations down yet.
Well we may not have the equations for anti-missile defense down yet,
but my engineering sense tells me it can be done, and that it is worth
doing.

I can't accept a world in which defense means threatening to immolate
millions of Russian men, women and children who have little say in the
aggressive policies of 'their' government. There has got to be a better
way to protect our right to be left alone, and it is worth trying to
make it real.

I really don't want to get into a long discussion of this again,
because I'm frankly pretty bored by the debate. I've made my decision
based on researching and studying the topic over several years, and it
is unlikely anyone here will come up with something I haven't heard and
discounted three years ago.

I would like to mention several hopeful signs towards feasibility of
SDI.

	1) The phase conjugate laser techniques appear to have the
	   potential to track a target, correct for beam diffraction
	   and to focus the full energy of the main laser on the target
	   without requiring computing. The weapon need not even be
	   physically pointed since the phase conjugate effect can
	   generate an off-axis beam.
	2) Similarly, the phase conjugate effect allows the
	   construction of a 'phaser'. This allows any number of
	   individual high power lasers to combine their beams IN
	   PHASE, such that all of the beams are in precise focus ON
	   THE TARGET.
	3) The computing problem has been discussed by the Eastport
	   panel and found to be tractable if modern techniques of
	   modularity are applied rather than the monolithic and
	   certain to fail approach castigated by Parnas. The Eastport
	   panel had doubts that the DOD and it's contractors could
	   adjust to these techniques, but I would say that a great
	   deal of the Software Engineering ideas that have gone into
	   ADA are moves in the correct direction.

I feel that I can speak as an expert in the software engineering area
since I applied many if not most of the techniques being discussed in
developing a commercial turnkey automation system that I was lead
designer and manager of in the seventies. The system went from QA to
field installation with no fail/hard faults.  And by field I'm talking
about systems of several hundred hierachically interconnected
microprocessors with thousands of sensors and control points, some of
which were critical life safety functions, spread over large buildings
and complexes of buildings. If I could turn out a near fault free
system of many megabytes (the final version control freeze tape
contained about 100MB including regression test files) of source of
operating systems, loaders, link handlers, compilers, interpreters,
regression and verification programs in 3 years using
wet-behind-the-ears college grads for my staff on a less than $2M total
development budget, then I have little doubt that it can be done. My
experience was that the techniques bring the complexity explosion under
control to the point that scaleup problems do not occur. It also leads to
reliable software with fail/soft characteristics.

The thing which these people need to learn though, is that none of it
works unless there is ONE SINGLE chief architect with complete design
dictatorship, even to the point of forcing changes in initial
specifications.

Blind adherence to initial specs is often the cause of unreliable and
off schedule software; a single line item can be more trouble then the
rest of the spec put together.

So my suggestion is that if we seriously want a working SDI, then we
should have a skunk works responsible for the whole thing. Get the best
hacker/manager in the country, give him or her any equipment or
resources they require and the right to handpick their staff, then
leave them alone for five years. No visiting generals, no congressional
junkets, no congressional testimony, no upper management meetings. If
you can't trust them to do the job as best they can, then you should
have picked someone who you think could do the job.

Unfortuneatly, most such people are mavericks that the military will
feel very uncomfortable and distrustful about, so they probably will
spend lots of money to get far less system. As the Westport committee
pointed out, it is feasible to build SDI, but only if there are drastic
changes in the way the DOD does things.


REFERENCES:
1,2:	Applications of Optical Phase Conjugation, David M Pepper
	SciAm 1/86 p74-83

	Optical Phase Conjugation, Vladimir V Shkunov and
	Boris Ya. Zel'dovich, SciAm 12/85 p54-59

3:	Resolving the Star Wars Software Dilemma, Arthur L Robinson
	Science 5/9/86 p710-713

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #392
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA07523; Sat, 20 Sep 86 03:02:20 PDT
	id AA07523; Sat, 20 Sep 86 03:02:20 PDT
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 86 03:02:20 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8609201002.AA07523@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #393

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 393

Today's Topics:
		       Dawn of the Diamond Age
    Flame against SDI & How to deorbit commercial freight from LEO
		     re comments on teleoperators
		      Re: An answer to Jorge...
		    Hear no evil, see no evil, ...
			  Re: JEP statements
		       DoD and funding research
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted-Date: Mon 15 Sep 1986 21:46:31 EST
Date: Mon 15 Sep 1986 21:46:31 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Dawn of the Diamond Age
To: space@s1-b.arpa

The NY Times (9/14/86) reports a breakthrough in diamond synthesis.
It is now possible to grow films of diamond on any heat resistant
material by plasma chemical vapor deposition.  A hydrogen-rich plasma
containing some carbon (from methane, for example) is excited over
the object to be coated.  The hydrogen prevents the formation of
carbon-carbond double bonds that would normally lead to the formation
of graphite.

According to the article, Soviet scientists have grown diamond layers
a millimeter thick.  A Japanese company is already selling a tweeter
with a diamond membrane diaphragm.  The process appears to be cheap
and simple.

This promises to be a big technological breakthrough.  Diamond
semiconductors are possible.  Diamond is extremely strong and is
a superb conductor of heat, so it will likely be a good material
out of which to build rocket engines (chemical compatibility may
require metal liners, though).  Diamond windows might make laser
or solar powered thermal rockets less impractical.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 15 Sep 86 15:28:06 cet
To: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: Flame against SDI & How to deorbit commercial freight from LEO

    I would like to express my total agreement with Phil R. Karn's
assessment of SDI in his 11 September posting.  SDI is a ticking bomb
placed under the American space program.  As soon as people realize
that million dollar countermeasures can neutralize billion dollar Star
Wars systems, then the whole thing will collapse like a house of
cards.  Anything even weakly associated with SDI will get meat-axed in
the general political mayhem that will follow.  What has got me
totally spooked is that the NASP (formerly TAV) is being billed as an
SDI project.  If you lose the NASP and are left only with the current
shuttle and ELVs, then you can kiss space industrialization goodbye
for this lifetime.  My advice to any aerospace manager or worker is to
treat SDI as pure poison and keep his or her funding as undetached
from Star Wars as possible.

  On another subject:  I think the way to deorbit finished products from
space is to construct large spheres of low density silica foam with a
small inner cavity.  Fill the cavity with silicon oil and suspend the
freight in the middle.  Then deorbit the whole affair with an OTV.  The
OTV would then do a second burn to stay in orbit.  Target the stuff
into some place like the middle of the Sahara desert, the middle of
Austraila, or the Saline valley in California.  Construct the sphere so
its terminal velocity is within acceptable margins for the silicon oil
to absorb the shock of landing.  The best sort of products using this
method would be semifinished metal goods made from exotic metals, and
various bulk goods.  If you could get your production rate high enough
spreading out your fixed costs and there were no environmental problems
then one could quite literally make automobile engines and frames in
space.  There is plenty of iron and carbon out there to make the steel.

                   Gary Allen

------------------------------

Date:         Mon, 15 Sep 86 09:07:12 EDT
From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
To: space digest <space-incoming@s1-b.arpa>
Subject:      re comments on teleoperators

  Re the time delay of teleoperators on the moon :
REM> [a computer could] "... simulate what an action will do, and show
REM> what things REM> should look like "right now" in the transmit
REM> frame, i.e. simulate the scene 1.25 seconds before it happens on
REM> moon instead of 1.25 seconds after it happens."

But this requires that you also simulate everything that
the human WILL do in the next 1.25 seconds.  If the computer is
so expert at knowing what the human is going to do next, why
not leave the human out of the loop entirely, and have the machine
do the work?

REM>  With people on Earth and work in LEO (Low
REM> Earth Orbit), delay is very short, and stationing people on Earth
REM> instead of in LEO is a tremendous saving of money.

True, but you do have relay problems.  Presumably you relay your
commands through a comsat like TDRS.  This will add some additional
time lag to your actions, but maybe not enough to make a difference.

REM> "operation on the moon" from where? ...
REM> From LLO I don't believe it's any problem at all.

If you're going to go to all the problem of putting people in Low
Lunar orbit, why the heck not land them on the moon?  The energy
is small, the accomodiations are a lot better, there's no relay
problem, there is plenty of available oxygen (from lunar rock) and
other useful things like soil (to grow plants), and there is protection
from cosmic rays and solar flares.
                   --Geoffrey A. Landis, Brown University
                     Reply to: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA

Postscript: Re getting asteroidal metals down to earth; there was an
article in, I think, _Acta Astronautica_ about six months ago which
discussed encasing chunks of steel in big foam conical shells and
dropping them through the atmosphere to soft land, possibly in the
oceans.  You might look it up.
                                           --GL

------------------------------

Posted-Date: Tue 16 Sep 1986 16:41:37 EST
Date: Tue 16 Sep 1986 16:41:37 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Re: An answer to Jorge...
To: Stanley Friesen <sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen%oberon.usc.edu@csnet-relay.arpa>
In-Reply-To: sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen's message of 5 Sep 86 20:05:55 GMT
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa

Stanley Friesen wrote (in response to Jorge Stolfi):

>>Finally, even if we assume that reusables are the way of the future, 
>>we should have tried it first in a smaller scale...

>	I believe that this *was* the original proposal, but politics
>forced them to go for a bigger vehicle so that large payloads could be
>launched. They were told to make a large vehicle or nothing, so they
>went with that rather than see the space program shut down.

This is not right.  OMB wanted NASA to develop a smaller manned vehicle.
Their reasoning was that since no manned vehicle made economic sense,
its main purpose was a demonstration of national presence in space, and
a small vehicle would do that as well as a large one.  NASA didn't want
a small vehicle, of course, since they wanted to build a space station,
and a small vehicle couldn't transport station components (of course,
the shuttle can't transport very large components like a large HLV, so
the space station is turning out to require prohibitive amounts of EVA
to assemble.  But I digress...).  Only intervention by Nixon gave NASA
the large shuttle (see the Science article "The Space Shuttle Program:
A Policy Failure?").  There was never deep DOD support for the shuttle,
and DOD told NASA that the cross-range capability was "artificial" and
that NASA could do away with it if necessary.

>>Moreover, the few commercial uses of space we have so far ---
>>telecommunications, navigation, remote sensing, etc.  --- are more
>>expensive now because of the Shuttle.  I fail to see how spending ten
>>times more on the Shuttle would have made them cheaper.  

>	Huh?? What about new pharmaceutical processes that appear to
>be possible but we haven't had the resources to check out thoroughly,
>or the possibility of microchip production in outer space using new
>processes and approaches? *These* are the sorts of things the shuttle
>and the space station are good for testing out.

Space pharmaceuticals are grossly oversold.  It is instructive that
McDonnell Douglas's partner, Ortho, pulled out of the CFE experiments
and went to ground-based production using genetic engineering techniques.
It looks like CFE purification of naturally made proteins will never be
able to compete with proteins made on earth by genetically modified
bacteria or yeast.  That MD is staying with CFE may be more a function
of placating NASA and providing a justification for the space station
(which MD will get contracts for, no doubt).

Microchip production (or, rather, crystal growth for ground-based chip
making -- making the chips in space would be absurdly expensive: how
much does a fab line weigh?) is also overblown.  It will be very expensive,
and there are lots of ways to grow crystals in gravity.  On earth we can
now make GaAs wafers 3 inches across, and GaAs layers have been grown
on silicon substrates.  Neither the shuttle nor the space station will be
particularly good for microgravity manufacturing or experimentation,
since people will bang the vehicles around.  Free flyers are better.

Gerard O'Neill put it best: the markets for materials made
in low earth orbit are so small, and the costs so large, that
manufacturing there can hardly be more than a publicity stunt.

> I have heard that ball bearings could be
> made more easily under weightless conditions, but we have never
> actually checked it out.

Oh no, not ball bearings again.  We can make excellent ball bearings on
earth at very low cost.  A drop of metal cooled in zero gee won't
form a perfect sphere -- it forms a polycrystalline mass with surface
irregularities that still need grinding.  Please don't exhume this
thoroughly discredited proposal.

>And the amount of iron and nickel
>and even silicon in outer space is simply *staggering*, and being able
>to use it would cut the expense of building many things, such as
>automibiles, and, even more significantly, space stations and space
>ships, which could be built in orbit out of materials already there.

The amount of iron, nickel and silicon on earth is simply *staggering*.
CRC handbook: the first kilometer of the earth's crust contains 2E16 tons
of silicon, 5E15 tons of iron, and 8E12 tons of nickel.  This will
last us a while.

There is just no way space-mined iron will be competitive with
earth-mined iron anytime soon for terrestrial applications.  Transportation
costs alone, even with mass drivers and air breathing launchers, are
orders of magnitude higher than the cost of iron found on earth.  Ditto
for nickel and silicon.  With current technology even extraterrestrial
platinum mining is uneconomical.

Building space structures out of extraterrestrial materials will be
economical at some point, but only after it becomes feasible to lift large
quantities of manufacturing and mining machinery into space.  This will
require launchers much cheaper than the shuttle.

Paul Dietz

"My government went to the moon, and all they got me were these dumb
rocks."

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 17 Sep 86 12:11:22 pdt
From: ucdavis!clover!hildum@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Eric Hildum)
To: ucdavis!space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Hear no evil, see no evil, ...

>Date: 13 Sep 1986 17:13-EDT 
>From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
>To: Space@s1-b.arpa
>Subject: TAV is too secret
>
>...
>
>If there is anyone out there who can speak in an official capacity, I'd
>love to hear your excuses.
>
	It seems to me that you have already made up your mind about
what you want to hear.

				Eric Hildum

------------------------------

Date: 15 Sep 86 23:04:29 GMT
From: ernie.Berkeley.EDU!mazlack@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Lawrence J. Mazlack)
Subject: Re: JEP statements
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

>compromise position that we will FIRST build the infrastructure and
>lunar base, and THEN go for Mars. This is the approach suggested by the
>National Commission On Space and is the only proposal that:
>
>	A) Makes sense

Well, I'm not sure about this.

The numbers that I saw a little while ago indicated that it would be 
considerabley cheaper (for a Mars mission) to simply boost the major
parts into orbit, assemble by docking or some such, and then go on
to Mars from there. Cheaper than either (a) a moon base or a 
(b) a space station.  Cheaper in terms of both time and $$.

...Larry  pmsiljm@ucccvm1.bitnet

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 15 Sep 86 11:04:46 pdt
From: ucdavis!clover!hildum@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Eric Hildum)
To: ucdavis!space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: DoD and funding research


Gentlemen:

I realize that it has become the politically popular point of view to
condemn the involvement of the military in any aspect of life, however
this is a naive point of view.  If you consider the role of the
Department of Defense in research, you will discover that most of the
research done in this country is funded by the DoD.  Not just research
into better ways of killing people, but research into all areas - for
example, the Lawrence Livermore National Lab has had a strong
biomedical research program...

In fact, the electronics revolution, which is considered one of this
countries strengths in the private sector, was primarily funded by the
DoD in the early 1960's - not by private industry.  Basically, several
billions of dollars were made availiable for research into the
applications of integrated electronics - I cannot remember the exact
specifications on the research funding requirements, but the above
about covers it.  Needless to say, with such broad funding, a lot of
research not related to defense activities took place.  The only reason
the military is being more specific and limiting the research to
defense related activities now is a law our dear friend Senator
Proxmire sponsored - which does not allow broadly targeted research
programs.

Please do not condemn the military as a knee-jerk reaction to their
role in national defense.

				Eric Hildum


		Preferred:	hildum%clover%ucdavis.uucp@ucbvax.arpa
				hildum%clover%ucdavis.uucp@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
				ucdavis!clover!hildum@ucbvax.arpa
				ucdavis!clover!hildum@ucbvax.berkeley.edu

		Otherwise:	hildum@ucd.csnet
				hildum%ucd@csnet-relay.arpa
				hildum%ucd@relay.cs.net

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #393
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA15961; Sun, 21 Sep 86 03:02:15 PDT
	id AA15961; Sun, 21 Sep 86 03:02:15 PDT
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 86 03:02:15 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8609211002.AA15961@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #394

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 394

Today's Topics:
			      EASCON '86
		      Re: Space without science
		    Re: Soviet Sabotage of Shuttle
		      Sounding Rocket Destroyed
		       Re: Re: More LEO debris
			Re: TAV is too secret
			Shuttle Launch Viewing
		    Re: The Space Station and SDI
		       Re: SPACE Digest V6 #386
		 Re: Mixing religion and politics...
			  Getting out there
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 12 Sep 86 17:25:34 GMT
From: ihnp4!houxm!ho95e!slr@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Shelley.L.Rosenbaum.4M415.46131.x3615)
Subject: EASCON '86
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

For those of you who think that the space program is dead (at
least the free world's), you should have been at the recent
Electronics & Aerospace Systems Conference in Washington this
week.  Lots of talk about manned *and* unmanned missions, plus
technical talks of how imaging took place on the Voyager Uranus
encounter, etc.  There was always at least one session a day
devoted just to the space station.  And there's a lot going on
in planetary science.

BTW, people have been posting various "solutions" of how
Ulysses and Galileo will be able to run their missions without
the help of the Titan/Centaur.  The official story from the
project managers at ESA and NASA is that they will use various
gravity assist-type orbits.  For example, there is the
"delta-vega" approach (Delta-Vee/Earth Gravity Assist), where
the spacecraft would be launched in a *large* orbit around
the earth (~2 years), given a slight negative delta-vee at
the halfway point in the orbit, then use an Earth gravity
assist slingshot effect to go to Jupiter.  There are also
plans to use to EGAs plus one VGA (Venus Gravity Assist).

If anyone wants more details on the conference, send me email.

-- 

Shelley Rosenbaum
AT&T Bell Labs
(201) 949-3615
{ihnp4, allegra, cbosgd}!ho95c!slr

"Don't you know I mean our own Pastor Rrrrod Flash?  He's been
up there for a week.  But he's coming down!"

------------------------------

Date: 12 Sep 86 18:53:00 GMT
From: uiucdcsp!jenks@a.cs.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: Space without science
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa


Good point!

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.

------------------------------

Date: 15 Sep 86 16:44:53 GMT
From: rupp@nosc-cod.arpa  (William L. Rupp)
Subject: Re: Soviet Sabotage of Shuttle
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

Okay, I see your point.  Let me put it another way.  The 'type'
of accident which did occur did the most damage to our space program
possible.  Not only is the fleet grounded, but public confidence in
NASA as an organization has been severely damaged.  A crash due to
an unforeseeable malfunction or set of circumstances might not have
grounded the fleet for long, and certainly would not have shaken public
confidence as the Challenger disaster and investigation have done.

That 'type' of accident will happen one day.  As I said before, I hope
that day is far enough down the road that the Challenger scandal will 
have faded from memory.

------------------------------

Date: 14 Sep 86 14:48:58 GMT
From: nbires!isis!scicom!markf@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Mark Felton)
Subject: Sounding Rocket Destroyed
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

NASA NEWS -> AUGUST 27, 1986
NASA Sounding Rocket Destroyed By Range Safety Officer

	A NASA Aries sounding rocket, carrying a scientific payload, was
destroyed by range safety at the White Sands Missile Range (WSMR) N.M.,
Saturday, Aug. 23. NASA officials said there appeared to be a problem in 
the launch vehicle's guidance system. The order to "destruct" came 50 sec-
onds after liftoff, at 12:40 a.m., EDT at an altitude of 77,000 feet. Por-
tions of the destroyed vehicle and associated systems have been recovered
and the search is being continued.
	A 2,300 pound X-ray telescope designed to study distant stellar ob-
jects emitting soft X-rays was to have reached an altitude of 182 statute
miles and take data for approximately six minutes. No useful data were re-
turned.
	All vehicle and payload hardware were confined safely within the 
missile range boundaries. An investigation into the failure in underway.
	The Aries is a NASA/Department of Defense developed launch vehicle
which uses a military surplus booster. It was built by Space Vector Corp.,
Northridge, Calif.
	Of its 27 flights, the first of which took place at St. Nicholas 
Island, Calif., in 1973, 11 have been for NASA and the others for the Air
Force and the Department of Defense.
	There have been three failures in the series, the last taking
place on flight five in April 1976 from Kiruna, Sweden.
	The payload was developed jointly by Dr. Gordon Garmire of Penn-
sylvania State University and , Drs. R. Novick and William Hain-Min Ku, of
Columbia University.
	This mission was a part of the overall NASA sounding rocket prog-
ram, which is managed by the Wallops Flight Facility of the Goddard Space
Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. The sounding rocket program consists of 40 to
45 missions a year that are launched from various worldwide locations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA News Release 86-119
Leon Perry Headquarters Washington, D.C.
Joyce Milliner Wallops Flight Facility, Va.
Jim Elliott Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md.
Reprinted with permission for electronic distribution
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 15 Sep 86 19:14:16 GMT
From: al@ames-aurora.arpa  (Al Globus)
Subject: Re: Re: More LEO debris
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> 
>    Maybe we should put MORE junk in LEO, thus making the moon and the Lagrange
> points more accessible (!).
> 

This is without question the stupidest idea I've ever heard of.  Getting
into space is extremely difficult.  Making it more difficult is not
going to improve things.

------------------------------

Date: 15 Sep 86 19:58:11 GMT
From: al@ames-aurora.arpa  (Al Globus)
Subject: Re: TAV is too secret
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> 
> I've been noticing that the TAV project has been placed under a very
> thick veil of secrecy.
> 

This is a good way to get a project to fail.  Restricting the flow of
information in a difficult project is not a good idea.  The secrecy
does increase DOD's organizational clout.  Control of information is
a typical power play.  Apparently it was partially responsable for the
shuttle disaster.  In any case, DOD already has too much power.  I agree
with dale, let's not let TAV become a black project.  Better yet, let's
get it away from DOD and into NASA or some third organization.

------------------------------

Date: 12 Sep 86 21:50:26 GMT
From: utastro!butch@sally.utexas.edu  (Allan Butcher)
Subject: Shuttle Launch Viewing
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa


  I would like to hear reader's opinions of where the best place is to view
a launch from the Kennedy Space Center.   I have visited the Center several
times and am familiar with the area, but I have never seen a launch.   

  (Assuming one could get in) the VIP and press reviewing stands probably 
offer a good view (they are next to the Vehicle Assembly Bldg) but, they
face directly down range - I do not think that one would see the arc of the
trajectory and the staging, etc.   Perhaps a site north or south of the 
official viewing areas would provide a better, although farther away from
the pad, viewing angle.   Any ideas ???   If one were to watch from a public
area, how about access - and getting out - are there monstrous traffic jams ???

thanks,  Allan Butcher
         Univ of Texas McDonald Observatory
         Western Territories, TEXAS             

     No bucks...no Buck Rogers...Support your local observatory.

------------------------------

Date: 15 Sep 86 20:13:28 GMT
From: al@ames-aurora.arpa  (Al Globus)
Subject: Re: The Space Station and SDI
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> 
> reporter David Warsh which links the Space Station
> with SDI.  It seems from the article that the space Space Station has
> an implicit military purpose just like the Space Shuttle,

I have worked on the space station program almost from the beginning of
the current effort.  In the first year or so there was a great deal of
discussion within the project about military uses of the station.  DOD,
however, apparently tried to kill the project and Reagan called for
an international station.  Even befor then, the military requirements
had been fading away.  Now, you seldom hear DOD requirements mentioned,
at least in the meetings I go to and the documents I read.  In fact, I
can't remember a DOD reference in the last 6-9 months.

This is not to say DOD won't use the station, but they are not having
a decisive influence on the requirements the way they did in the shuttle
project.

> 
> I don't think that engineers working on the space station can have
> much success in stopping the militarization of their work -- the
> companies they work for are too closely allied with the Pentagon.  The
> only way they can have an effect is to take the message to the general
> public that space exploration is being subordinated to space
> militarization, that taxpayers should refuse to pay for space effort
> that damages their security, 

Hear, hear.  DOD has made significant inroads into NASA in the last 6 years
or so.  A couple of major projects in this building are DOD funded and there
are several individuals in offices here that wear uniforms to work.

> and should question the entire US space
> effort until priorities get turned around.
> 

Sure, but you'd be better off funding NASA well.  DOD influence over
NASA is primarily driven by the fact that they have the bucks and NASA
doesn't.  I think the stategy should be to take money from DOD and give
it to NASA.  This won't threaten the big aerospace comparies since they'll
get the money in any case.

------------------------------

Date: 14 Sep 86 07:50:00 GMT
From: irwin@a.cs.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V6 #386
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa


This seems to be an improper notes system to discuss autos, but it
got started because I compared the design and construction of autos
to that of the shuttle, implying that you can NOT develop a new technology
over night. It takes time, often decades.

I would like to put something to "rest", that everybody on the net keeps
trying to point out to me (it should be posted in net.auto but since
it got started in this string, maybe I can end it here).

Note: The mechanical back-up brakes that I referred to on the Hudson
was NOT, I REPEAT, NOT the emergency or parking break. I KNOW that cars
have that available, usually connected to the rear wheels.

The back-up that I was referring to was a 4 wheel cable brake back-up,
on the same foot pedal that operates the hydraulic brakes, that would
actuate the brakes on ALL FOUR WHEELS, if the foot pedal went too close
to the floor because the hydraulics gave up. If the pedal went past about
1/2 of its travel, then the mechanical cable system took over. You did
not have to switch feet, hit the emergency brake, IT WAS ALL ON THE SAME
PEDAL, and therefore acts as a back-up, and is NOT AN ALTERNATE as is the
emergency/parking brake system.

I hope this clears up the confusion. The point being made was that from
the time that the automobile was invented, until in the late '30s, the
mechanical brakes was all that was available. People were used to them
and TRUSTED them. When the hydraulics came out, people DID NOT TRUST
THEM and so the dual system resulted (NOTE, NOT PARKING BRAKES!!!), but
a DUAL TWO TECHNOLOGY SYSTEM! Both the cable and the fluid operated the
same brake shoes on all four.

------------------------------

Date: 14 Sep 86 07:53:24 GMT
From: ka9q!karn@petrus.arpa  (Phil Karn)
Subject: Re: Mixing religion and politics...
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

We obviously share our strong distaste for the evangelists getting involved
in politics; I couldn't agree with you more.

What surprises me a bit is that so many of the people in this group feel
this way.  Listening to some of the things said here, I'm beginning to
wonder if "space" (particularly when people in space are involved) isn't a
religion in its own right.

Phil

------------------------------

Date: 15 Sep 86 19:48:27 GMT
From: trwrb!gilmore@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Larry A. Gilmore)
Subject: Getting out there
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

.
Wasn't it Bob Heinlein, a good many years ago, who proposed a linear motor
catapult running up one side of an appropriate peak in the Andes? By the
time a cargo got to the top, it was past a significant portion of the
atmosphere. My memory is rather vague, but it seems to me that the
author had worked out a lot of the math involved. I recall that it seemed
worth some serious study.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #394
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA24189; Mon, 22 Sep 86 03:02:40 PDT
	id AA24189; Mon, 22 Sep 86 03:02:40 PDT
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 86 03:02:40 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8609221002.AA24189@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #395

*** EOOH ***
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 86 03:02:40 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #395

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 395

Today's Topics:
			 Re: SDI delta launch
		      Re: Shuttle Launch Viewing
		      Re: Space without science
			Re: TAV is too secret
	       Re: Soviet Sabotage of Shuttle! (transc
		       re: re: Shuttle boosters
			  Re: Re: Al Globus
		      Re: Bringing it back home
Re: humans and canned programs are the only two options -- try telepresence
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 15 Sep 86 23:33:46 GMT
From: adelie!axiom!linus!utzoo!henry@ll-xn.arpa  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: SDI delta launch
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> > ... As I understand it, SDI *owned* that Delta, i.e. they
> > had paid for it out of their budget.
> 
> Then we clearly have a serious problem with our high level priorities, i.e.,
> the relative amounts of funding for the SDIO as opposed to other federal
> agencies (NSF, NASA, etc).

Well, one can make a pretty good case that a government's highest priority,
bar none, is keeping its populace alive and free.  That is, defence.  With
the current state of the technology, though, it's not at all clear that SDI,
run the way it is now, deserves such a high priority.  On the whole I agree
that things are not as they should be.  Taking money away from SDI will not
automatically bestow it on NSF, NASA, etc., though.

> > By the way, I think that's your prejudices speaking when you put quotes around
> > "experiment" and claim that it's "pointless", "utterly idiotic", and "worse
> > than useless"; you don't know that....
> 
> You may be correct. However, as with the Homing Overlay shot several years
> ago, the only conceivable purpose of this "experiment" was the political
> promotion of SDI to a technically naive electorate...

I should have added "on the other hand, I don't know that it *isn't* all
those things...".  However, I would persist in my assertion that, unless
you have much better sources of information than I do, you don't have the
necessary data to dismiss it as a political promo only.

> As evidence for this
> assertion, I offer the following: Before the launch, the SDI people stated
> that while the launch preparations and mission were secret at that time, the
> results would be made public IF AND ONLY IF THE TEST SUCCEEDED.  What
> possible purpose could this policy have other than minimization of the
> political damage to SDI should the mission fail?

This is not inconsistent with the hypothesis that the test served a valid
experimental purpose.  The publicity-only-on-success policy is precisely
what one would expect for a high-visibility test by a controversial,
embattled agency run by US government bureaucrats.  Regardless of the
nature of the test, an expensive failure would not be discussed much.

> Clearly if there was a more
> traditional reason to keep the mission secret (as with spysat launches) then
> it would still be secret.

I haven't been following this particular case in detail, so I don't know
how much was published about it, but I'd be surprised if it was much more
than the bare fact of success.  This, again, is precisely what one would
expect:  nobody is trying to get spysat funding shut down on the grounds
that operational spysats are impossible, so the spysat people have no
incentive to publicize their successes.  SDI is different.  One would expect
some crowing about success even if the details were very highly secret.

> > Phil, please calm down.  The last thing we need is another launch failure,
> > no matter *whose* payload is on it.
> 
> [strong opposition to SDI]
> 
> If it takes a few launch failures to help SDI die, so be it...

Phil, be realistic.  A long string of launch failures might help in some
small way to kill SDI, because it would contribute to a perception that
the project is making no progress.  Anything less won't make any difference
to a project that probably enjoys #1 priority on launches (well, maybe #2
after spysats).  What it would hurt would be EVERYTHING ELSE.  I repeat,
the last thing we need now is a launch failure, regardless of payload,
because it will be the science and space-exploration payloads that will
suffer the most.  The #1 priority has to be getting the launch systems
back to operational status, because the stuff that we approve of will
fly only after the military is taken care of.  Failure of a military
launch will only (a) postpone operational readiness of the launchers
and (b) suck still more money into replacing the lost military payload.
Neither is desirable.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 17 Sep 86 00:39:17 GMT
From: amdahl!jon@hplabs.hp.com  (Jonathan Leech)
Subject: Re: Shuttle Launch Viewing
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

In article <1250@utastro.UUCP>, butch@utastro.UUCP (Allan Butcher) writes:
> 
>   I would like to hear reader's opinions of where the best place is to view
> a launch from the Kennedy Space Center.   I have visited the Center several
> times and am familiar with the area, but I have never seen a launch.   

    I saw the first night launch (summer 1983) from a highway overpass
(I believe it was A1A) almost directly south of the launch pad. I
would estimate the distance at about 10 miles. It's possible to get much
closer, of course. It was ***beautiful***. Just like the sun rising in the
north. Despite cloud cover (which almost scubbed the launch), we were
able to follow visually up until what appeared to be SRB separation.

    There is probably some advantage in being reasonably far back so you
don't twist your neck off looking up.

    -- Jon Leech (...seismo!amdahl!jon)
    UTS Products / Amdahl Corporation
    __@/

------------------------------

Date: 16 Sep 86 15:52:28 GMT
From: tektronix!tekgen!tekred!joels@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Joel Swank)
Subject: Re: Space without science
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

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?

Joel Swank
Tektronix, Redmond, Oregon

------------------------------

Date: 15 Sep 86 16:57:26 GMT
From: adelie!axiom!linus!utzoo!henry@ll-xn.arpa  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: TAV is too secret
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> I've been noticing that the TAV project has been placed under a very
> thick veil of secrecy.

This is a general pattern with recent major military aerospace programs
in the US.  The next generation of USAF and USN aircraft are similarly
under wraps, as is the stealth bomber and the said-to-be-already-operational
stealth fighter.

Some of this is paranoia over Soviet information gathering.  But a lot of
it is because the services have discovered that tight secrecy interferes
quite effectively with Congressional and public review of spending and
project management.  Given recent trends in Congressional micromanagement
and organized public protest over cost-effectiveness, classifying everything
simplifies their life a lot.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 15 Sep 86 17:28:30 GMT
From: adelie!axiom!linus!utzoo!henry@ll-xn.arpa  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Soviet Sabotage of Shuttle! (transc
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> If you wish, I'll amend "G. obviously thinks" to "G.
> is willing to stake his reputation on the opinion"...

How about amending it to "G. claims"?  This does better at conveying the
fact that he's not an unbiased observer.  Graham is undoubtedly a competent
man.  The problem is that (as in other matters) we can't be sure whether
he's displaying his competence or his political views here.

> ... And the burden of proof for those who pronounce Graham crazy,
> or dismiss the *possibility* of sabotage, is on *them*.

How about those who think sabotage vanishingly unlikely because a detailed
investigation found no sign of it, and found quite conclusive evidence for
more mundane explanations?

> >"Where there's smoke, there's smoke.  No further conclusion is justified."
> 
> Fire alarm devices work on a different assumption.

Have you never had a smoke detector set off by a slightly smoky bit of
cooking?  They report the presence of smoke because this is a suspicious
sign, albeit often an incorrect one.  If you wish, I'll make my comment
more explicit:

	Where there's smoke, there's smoke.  No further conclusion is
	justified by this evidence alone.  It does suggest that a look
	for stronger evidence is in order, unless the smoke's origin is
	already understood.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 12 Sep 86 17:59:54 GMT
From: tektronix!tekgen!tekred!joels@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Joel Swank)
Subject: re: re: Shuttle boosters
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> 
> 	If they had gone to a one-piece composite design, how would
> they have loaded the fuel segments?  I was under the impression that
> the reason a segmented design was used was because of limits to the
> size of a fuel casting that could be made.
> 
> 			Eric Hildum

I read about a proposal from a company in Florida to correct the erosion
problem by using the segmented cases, but casting the fuel for the entire
booster in one piece. The main problem with this approach was said to be
transporting the boosters as one piece. They proposed barging them to
Kennedy to overcome this problem. The size of the casting was not mentioned
as a problem. I like this idea, because it takes the contract away
from Thiocol, which should be done anyway because of their blatant
incompetence. There must have been other problems with this idea, because
NASA never seriously considered it. I have heard no more about this idea.

Joel Swank
Tektronix, Redmond, Oregon

------------------------------

Date: 15 Sep 86 19:53:46 GMT
From: al@ames-aurora.arpa  (Al Globus)
Subject: Re: Re: Al Globus
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> 
> 
> If you do not wish to associate with an organization that will allow
> pro SDI people to say their piece, then you have a valid reason to
> leave us. 

Since I read AWST, I hear a great deal about SDI.  I just got tired
of the b******t.  I was a weariness thing.  That and the low quality
of the L5 News for a couple of years there.

> 
> If you don't like the existing chapters ...

Actually, I like the Santa Cruz chapter and occasionally work with them (I've
given a couple of talks for their events).  I like the Bay Area chapter as
well.

------------------------------

Date: 15 Sep 86 18:26:10 GMT
From: al@ames-aurora.arpa  (Al Globus)
Subject: Re: Bringing it back home
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> Summary: How do you catch a rock?
> 
> In article <1421@psivax.UUCP> friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) writes:

> 
> Getting away from the ongoing religious debate on manned presence in space
> just for a minute, does anybody know how to bring back space resources
> *efficiently*?

One way is to form the materials into a lifting body, deorbit with a tether
(which can also reboost your processing facility), and then fly the thing
down like an orbiter.  Crash land in a desert.  A large mass of materials
on a track inside the lifting body can be used to alter the center of
gravity and thus control the vehicle.  Obviously, a lot of detail needs
to be worked out.

------------------------------

Date: 15 Sep 86 18:16:16 GMT
From: al@ames-aurora.arpa  (Al Globus)
Subject: Re: humans and canned programs are the only two options -- try telepresence
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> 
> With telepresence with a
> reasonable set of limbs and tools, and good visual & tactile feedback
> to the human on Earth, a teleoperator should do as well as an on-site human.

SHOULD is far and away the most important word here.  In fact, I can 
confidently say that telepresence will do some things very well but
the actual limbs and tools will not come close to replicating the human
hand and eye.  You also forget the delay time in teleprescence and the
communications problems.  The delay time for round trip via a 
geosynchronous satellite is about a half second for the speed of light
plus processing delays.  Say a second.  For some tasks this is not a
problem.  For handling animals (life science work) it is.

> Here's a random idea: Put
> up Galileo-class spacecraft around Jupiter and Saturn, send lots and
> lots of pictures to Earth, 

Galileo has a basic problem that I don't think should be repeated.  It's
too heavy.  This (along with monumentally screwed up politics) has led to
severe problems in getting a launch vehicle.  Here's a fairly accurate
version of the sequence of planned launch vehicles Galileo has gone
through:

	Atlas Centaur
	Shuttle/Centaur
	Shuttle/IUS
	Shuttle/Centaur
	none at all (the present)

Each vehicle retargeting has caused delays and modifications to space
craft hardware.  If Galileo was half the weight we might actually get the
mission off the ground.  As it is, I have my doubts.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #395
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA03061; Tue, 23 Sep 86 03:02:25 PDT
	id AA03061; Tue, 23 Sep 86 03:02:25 PDT
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 86 03:02:25 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8609231002.AA03061@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #396

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 396

Today's Topics:
			   Re: Phil and SDI
			 Re: Re: Phil and SDI
			 Re: Re: Phil and SDI
			    Administrivia
			  Re: Columbus, etc.
			 Re: More LEO debris
		      Re: Bringing it back home
	     Re: Leo Debris, more planetary science pain
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 17 Sep 86 00:17:38 GMT
From: karn@petrus.arpa  (Phil R. Karn)
Subject: Re: Phil and SDI
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

Sigh.

It's such a common phenomenon -- someone falls in love with a nifty
laboratory physical phenomenon and immediately jumps to the conclusion that
with a small matter of engineering (and/or a small matter of programming) it
can solve one of civilization's most intractable problems.  This happened to
Teller years ago with the X-ray laser, and now Dale seems to have done this
with the phase conjugation laser. From what I've read on the subject, phase
conjugation lasers work only with cooperative targets; perhaps we just need
to get the Soviets to design their missiles to allow our lasers to operate.

SDI is fatally flawed on BOTH its scientific and engineering aspects, not to
mention its non-technical aspects (i.e., political, economic and strategic
implications).  Unfortunately, the top priority of the Star Warriors these
days seems to be busying themselves with gadgets like underground X-ray
laser tests and the recent Delta test.  Building gadgets serves two
purposes: they keep people's minds off the truly knotty larger issues (who
can contemplate a forest when they're busy examining termites?). It also
throws up a smokescreen for a gullible Congress and public to make it look
like "progress" is being made when in fact the fundamental problems are
completely ignored.  You can fool people with handwaving and flashy gadgets,
but not nature.

Perhaps the best indictment of Star Wars is the UCS book, "The Fallacy of
Star Wars".  This book is careful to examine the technical aspects of SDI
from the fundamental laws of physics and geometry, along with an overall
"system engineering" viewpoint, not from the current state of any one
engineering art. As such, its conclusions are much more profound than, say,
whether a laser of a given size could ever be built.  It seems to me that to
argue the case for SDI, you must answer EVERY point made in that book. To
date, however, the pro-SDI people have done little (besides spending money,
of course) but make personal attacks on its authors.

The anti-Star-Wars people have a number of nasty handicaps working against
them.  Unlike virtually all previous large scientific and engineering
projects sponsored by the government, Reagan's Star Wars speech was made
before there was ever a proper review and advice process by the scientific
and engineering community.  SDI unexpectedly burst onto the scene
practically overnight, without the burden of proof ever having been placed
on the pro-SDI people where it belonged.  Before a public debate could
develop, SDI gained an overwhelming scent of $MONEY$.  This particular odor
seems to have strange effects on the cerebral cortex, particularly the
speech centers.  Persons about to object to something often abruptly stop
talking when this smell wafts by.

Those most capable of arguing against the technical aspects of SDI are of
course physicists, engineers, scientists, computer people, etc.
Unfortunately, the olefactory cells of these very same people seem
remarkably sensitive to the particular chemical constituents of the SDI
odor.  Face it, a technical person arguing against Star Wars is basically
talking himself out of an immensely lucrative job.  On the other hand, the
SDI folks have a multibillion dollar federal bankroll behind them.
Considering that the political promotion of the project is the SDIO's #1
priority, this is a tough act to follow.  

Still, the anti-SDI people have made remarkable progress, at least among
people willing to listen.  A poll taken among physicists and reported in
Science magazine showed that the more a person had studied Star Wars, the
more likely they were to oppose it.  I think this says something.

Phil

------------------------------

Date: 17 Sep 86 19:01:14 GMT
From: al@ames-aurora.arpa  (Al Globus)
Subject: Re: Re: Phil and SDI
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> 
> Well we may not have the equations for anti-missile defense down yet,
> but my engineering sense tells me it can be done, and that it is worth
> doing.
> 

My engineering sense tells me that a system of SDI's size and complexity
is very unlikely to work without full up, integrated testing.  Such
testing is impossible without a Russian attack.

The other serious problem is the requirements.  If the Russians use 
tactics or equipment that we do not understand when SDI is designed
and built SDI may not work.  Note that Russian military doctrine
calls for the most modern equipment to be hidden from the enemy.  Thus,
the German's were suprised by the large new Russian tanks when they
were deployed a few weeks into the war.  In addition, there is always the
possibility that Russia will produce a tactical genius that finds
the chink in SDI's armour.

When I say 'work', I mean protect the American people.  I do not
consider defense of the MX worth $26 billion in R&D alone.

We (meaning everyone on the planet) have to give up war.  Our
survival depends on it.  

The smart money is on extinction.

------------------------------

Date: 18 Sep 86 09:33:35 GMT
From: ka9q!karn@petrus.arpa  (Phil Karn)
Subject: Re: Re: Phil and SDI
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> > Well we may not have the equations for anti-missile defense down yet,
> > but my engineering sense tells me it can be done, and that it is worth
> > doing.

Ever hear of "Murphy's Law"?  This is something also derived from
"engineering sense".

> My engineering sense tells me that a system of SDI's size and complexity
> is very unlikely to work without full up, integrated testing.  Such
> testing is impossible without a Russian attack.

Absolutely.  This ought to be completely obvious to any experienced engineer.

> ... In addition, there is always the
> possibility that Russia will produce a tactical genius that finds
> the chink in SDI's armour.

A recent AP wire story on the SDI "red team" (the group that studies
possible Soviet countermeasures) mentions that their work is among the
most highly classified aspects of the program.  This is very
interesting given that plenty of obvious, simple and cheap
countermeasures have already been well documented in the open
literature. Russia doesn't have to spend a dime finding "chinks" in
SDI's armour since there are gaping holes for everyone to see.

What's really scary about SDI is that it's the natural culmination of
a mentality that says we can fight a nuclear war and win it. This
didn't start with Reagan and SDI, of course; it started when we went
from having a strategic arsenal capable of retaliating against a
Soviet first strike (but incapable of pre-emptively destroying the
Soviet arsenal) to one designed to attack Soviet warheads while they
are still on the ground.  One "innovation" after another was
originally intended either as a "bargaining chip" or as a "permanent"
edge over the Soviets.  Now we're just digging ourselves in deeper and
faster.

Phil

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 22 Sep 86 17:53:58 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@Angband>
To: space@Angband
Subject: Administrivia

This message mostly applies to readers of the ARPANet Space Digest.

Although I'm not going to start regularly editing the contents of the
digest, I would like to establish some ground rules.  This will let
people know what they are and reduce chances for future
misunderstandings.  I'll be glad to discuss these points with anyone
via private mail.

1) I'm going to started deleting SDI commentary immediately.  Actually
probably effective last Friday, September 19th.  Most of the messages
lately have been almost purely political anyway, and have nothing to
do with space.  The messages in this digest are hopefully the last
(ha! ha!).

2) I will try, but probably not too hard, to notify people when I punt
their stuff from the digest.  I keep a record of all such stuff,
though, so if you wonder why you didn't see a submission send me a
note.

3) I'm going to feel free to delete overly cute signatures and
disclaimers.  If you have a real disclaimer to make, make it explicit
and put it at the beginning of your message.

4) I'll take very kindly to suggestions appearing in the digest
(especially short ones) to terminate discussion on a particular topic.
Probably without further comment.

At the moment there is a 1500 line backlog (about 5 days).  This means
that I have about 5 days to get to editing out garbage.  As the
backlog gets smaller I will have less time to edit and so less editing
will happen.

	Ad astra per aspera,
	Ted Anderson

------------------------------

Date: 15 Sep 86 02:21:00 GMT
From: kenny@b.cs.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: Columbus, etc.
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

Earlier I proposed to moderate a discussion on this topic to reduce the
amount of flamage.  It had the desired effect of reducing the amount of
flames; however, only one person actually took the trouble to send data
to me.  I suspect that the best thing for me to do at this point is to
withdraw my offer to moderate and throw the question to the wolves again.
Herewith are the two messages I received on the topic.

@L&~

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 14 Sep 86 13:09:29 est
From: Herman Rubin <pur-ee!stat-l.Purdue.EDU!cik>
To: uiucdcs!kenny@ecn.Purdue.EDU

As an addendum to what I sent you last week, let us not have lengthy arguments
about what is the best procedure to do something.  If possible, we should try
any reasonably good procedure.  If the early development of (almost anything)
was in the hands of the government, we would have almost nothing.

Herman Rubin
Department of Statistics, Purdue University
pur-ee!stat-l!hrubin
hrubin@l.cc.purdue.edu

------------------------------

Date: 15 Sep 86 16:45:40 GMT
From: adelie!axiom!linus!utzoo!henry@ll-xn.arpa  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: More LEO debris
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> As much as I detest ASAT testing, much existing orbital debris is from
> routine launch operations.  From time to time an unvented spent upper stage
> explodes into fragments...

In particular, there apparently was a systematic problem with Delta upper
stages for quite a while.  Almost all of them exploded due to pressure
buildup in unvented tanks.  This eventually caused enough concern that a
minor design change was made to cure the problem.  As I recall, they
account for a significant fraction of the total orbital debris count.

> I recall hearing that an impact crater on an orbiter windshield was once
> attributed to a small flake of white paint (!) from a Delta upper stage. How
> they determined this would be interesting to know.

Not certain, but I think microanalysis of material from the crater yielded
a chemical composition suggesting that general type of paint.  Given the
Delta upper-stage explosion history, guessing that it came from a Delta
was a pretty good bet.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 14 Sep 86 03:28:00 GMT
From: ima!haddock!karl@zarathustra.think.com
Subject: Re: Bringing it back home
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa


utcsri!hogg () writes:
>does anybody know how to bring back space resources *efficiently*?

Well, I'd just as soon leave it in LEO or beyond, and go live out there
myself.  But that doesn't answer your question.

>[Pournelle] neglects to compute the cost of dropping them to ground level.

If it's done properly, it should have a negative cost.  Why throw away all
that potential energy?

The bolo satellite idea sounds promising.  This is a pair of space stations
connected by a long tether and spinning around their center of mass, which is
in LEO.  A vehicle can leave Earth with less than orbital velocity to land on
the lower station, and take off again from the top of the arc; at the same
time (to conserve energy) an incoming vehicle of equal mass can land on the
upper station and leave when that end sweeps nearest Earth.  A second bolo
in GEO would also be useful.

I kind of like the space elevator idea too, but it seems to be awaiting an
order of magnitude improvement in tensile strength.

Karl W. Z. Heuer (ima!haddock!karl; karl@haddock.isc.com), The Walking Lint
Reference: "Space Transportation", G. Woodcock (fact article in Jul82 Analog)

------------------------------

Date: 15 Sep 86 17:10:26 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

> ... Yes sir, that shuttle has been a great boon to space science.

Ask anyone who's had a man-tended space-science experiment flown on the
shuttle, if you want a slightly different view.  They're the ones who
are really being hurt by the shuttle problems, since they can't fly their
experiments on expendables.  Space science and planetary science are not
one and the same, James van Allen notwithstanding.

Clearly the best solution for planetary science in the long run -- the
short run looks fairly grim, given that projects already underway relied on
a now-cancelled upper stage -- is the "orbital propellant farm" concept,
which would permit fuelling a high-energy upper stage in orbit.  This
might well require (gasp! choke! the horror!) humans in space to handle
the mechanics of fuelling, but I guess the planetary-science community
could put up with this blasphemy for the sake of the high-energy launch.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #396
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA06420; Wed, 24 Sep 86 03:02:28 PDT
	id AA06420; Wed, 24 Sep 86 03:02:28 PDT
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 86 03:02:28 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8609241002.AA06420@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #397

*** EOOH ***
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 86 03:02:28 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #397

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 397

Today's Topics:
			Re: Re: JEP statements
		      Re: Bringing it back home
	     Re: Leo Debris, more planetary science pain
			Re: TAV is too secret
		       Re: re: Shuttle boosters
	   $2.9B for shuttle reconstruction from DOD budget
		      Re: Space without science
		      Re: Space without science
		      Re: Space without science
			analysis of collision
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 17 Sep 86 18:49:57 GMT
From: al@ames-aurora.arpa  (Al Globus)
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.

------------------------------

Date: 17 Sep 86 21:07:18 GMT
From: cybvax0!frog!john@mit-eddie.arpa  (John Woods, Software)
Subject: Re: Bringing it back home
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> In article <3328@utcsri.UUCP> hogg@utcsri.UUCP (John Hogg) writes:
> >I know that Heinlein talked many years back about "dropping rocks".  Have
> >there subsequently been any proposals about ways of dropping rocks
> >gracefully?  I have visions of having to mine the same ore twice: once in
> >the asteroid belt, and once (in a more refined form) after the man-made
> >meteor has augered in - DEEPLY.
> >-- 
> On the other hand, read "Footfall" by Niven and Pournelle for another 
> perspective of "dropping rocks".  Who need nukes, when you have large
> rocks.-- 

Well, actually, Heinlein used that one too (see The Moon Is A Harsh
Mistress).

But the topic is gentle landings: Heinlein's suggestion (in said book)
was to use retro rockets on the payload to slow it down during descent
and drop the payloads into the Indian Ocean -- however, he was talking
about relatively light payloads (grain in big cans) that would float
when they landed.  How one would gracefully slow raw rock is a very
good question...

John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (617) 626-1101
...!decvax!frog!john, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw%mit-ccc@MIT-XX.ARPA

------------------------------

Date: 18 Sep 86 07:32:34 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

> Ask anyone who's had a man-tended space-science experiment flown on the
> shuttle, if you want a slightly different view [....]

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... :-)

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. Just ask the
astrophysicists who curse the constant maneuvering of the shuttle, the
venting of wastes that contaminate optics, and so forth.  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.

> 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, and
there's no reason why it (or an upgraded version) couldn't be used
again.

Phil

------------------------------

Date: 17 Sep 86 10:57:52 GMT
From: ihnp4!riccb!jmc@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Jeff McQuinn )
Subject: Re: TAV is too secret
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> I've been noticing that the TAV project has been placed under a very
> thick veil of secrecy.
> ...
> The result is that the DOD may have it's fighter in a few years, but
> technology transfer to the private sector is being prevented. This
> may mean a minimum of FIFTEEN YEARS from a military craft to a real
> one.

First let me say that a TAV will make a hell of a military plane.  Even
more so if it has stealth technology incorporated into it.  As to your
comments on public access to the designs, lets not forget that even if
it can be designed and built, no one will be able to afford to fly on
it for quite a while.  A combination of new airframe design with exotic
fuels and flight paths which take it into space means that commercial
airlines are going to take a LONG hard look at it until it's got a
proven track record.  Where better then in the military.  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.  
				Jeff McQuinn just VAXing around

------------------------------

Date: 18 Sep 86 03:01:10 GMT
From: ihnp4!aicchi!dbb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Burch)
Subject: Re: re: Shuttle boosters
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

The most important limitation in a solid cast booster is that the ONLY
practical means of transport to the Cape for a large booster is barge.
This means that the plant that makes the booster ought to be on the
East Coast, Gulf, or Mississippi Basin.  You MIGHT send them by C5A,
but if you look at the cost, you might decide that it's not worth
it...

-David B. (Ben) Burch
 Analysts International Corp.
 Chicago Branch (ihnp4!aicchi!dbb)

------------------------------

Date: 17 Sep 86 20:06:18 GMT
From: ihnp4!lzaz!psc@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Paul S. R. Chisholm)
Subject: $2.9B for shuttle reconstruction from DOD budget
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

< The electronic funds transfer is in the electronic mail. . . . >

Yesterday, Tuesday, the 16th of September, the Senate Appropriations
Committee reported HR 5438 to the full Senate.  (In other words, they
approved it.)  This defense appropriations bill includes 2.9 billion
dollars (from the DOD, not NASA budget) to build a fourth space
shuttle.  Voting in the Senate may take place soon; a call to your
Senator wouldn't hurt.

Many thanks to Dale Skran, president of the North Jersey chapter of
the L5 Society, for letting me know (yesterday morning) that the
committee would vote on this (yesterday afternoon); to everyone who
called the office of Senator Frank Lautenberg (R-NJ), asking him to
vote on the bill; to Lautenberg's staff, who took all our phone calls
yesterday, and who let me know today how it went; and last but not
least, to the Senator himself, and other members of the committee who
passed the bill through committee.

       -Paul S. R. Chisholm, UUCP {ihnp4,cbosgd,pegasus,mtgzz}!lznv!psc
       AT&T Mail !psrchisholm, Internet mtgzz!lznv!psc@topaz.rutgers.edu

------------------------------

Date: 14 Sep 86 19:28:12 GMT
From: ka9q!karn@petrus.arpa  (Phil Karn)
Subject: Re: Space without science
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> 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.

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? etc etc.

Although math and I didn't always get along in school, I certainly realized
early that it's a vital subject.  Engineering would be completely
hit-or-miss (mostly the latter) without mathematical analysis tools.

Phil

------------------------------

Date: 17 Sep 86 16:41:00 GMT
From: kenny@b.cs.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: Space without science
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> [Re: technology w/o mathematics]
> Utter nonsense!!

I'm not entirely convinced that the speculation is *utter* nonsense.
Nonsense, yes, but a thread of possibility.

Consider:  Birds fly without benefit of aerodynamic calculations.
Chimney swifts manage aerobatics without being terribly smart
creatures.

The mediaeval architects built the cathedrals without benefit of any
mathematics more sophisticated than multiplication (in Roman numerals,
yet).  They did it by coming up with rules of thumb, by trial and
error.  Lots of cathedrals fell down or burned.  Lots of cathedrals had
their designs revised during construction because it became clear that
some member wasn't able to take the stresses.  But the cathedrals got
built.

The Polynesians of the seventeenth century had a pre-literate,
pre-mathematical society.  Yet their celestial navigation was more
accurate than that of the Europeans of the same period.  They had
invented a crude artificial horizon (sight at a reflection of the sun
or a star off the surface of a vessel of water; line up the sighting
with marks on a stick through the water's surface).  The European
missionaries asked them what the sticks were, and got the reply that
they let the navigators fix their positions.  The sticks were dismissed
as primitive superstition and magic; many were burned by the
missionaries.  The principle was rediscovered in the twentieth-century
bubble sextant.

Couldn't one postulate that if motile organisms in free space are
possible, they'd evolve an instinct for solving orbital mechanics
problems, just as swifts have evolved an instinct for flying?
(Alternatively, postulate that their Creator would endow them with such
an instinct;  I'm not trying to tread on the fundamentalists' toes in
this particular message.)

Couldn't one just as well postulate that a mediaeval-style society
might build a technology sophisticated enough for brute-force space
travel, particularly if they're willing to suffer the appalling risks
that they did suffer when building the cathedrals?  (The cathedral at
Rouen collapsed sometime in the thirteenth century [I can look up the
exact date if pressed], killing thousands of parishioners who were
gathered there for services.)

Couldn't one postulate that non-mathematical spacefarers might have an
empirical understanding of the physical principles required, just as
the Polynesians had an empirical understanding of celestial navigation
without doing spherical trigonometry?

Unquestionably, mathematics deserves her appellation of ``handmaiden of
the sciences.''  A surprising amount of work can nevertheless be done
without her services.

Kevin Kenny		ARPA:	kenny@B.CS.UIUC.EDU
University of Illinois	CSNET:	kenny@UIUC.CSNET
  at Urbana-Champaign	UUCP:	{ihnp4, pur-ee, convex}!uiucdcs!kenny

------------------------------

Date: 18 Sep 86 03:50:00 GMT
From: jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: Space without science
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa


/* Written  2:28 pm  Sep 14, 1986 by karn@ka9q.bellcore.com in uiucdcsp:net.space */
> 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.

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? etc etc.

Although math and I didn't always get along in school, I certainly realized
early that it's a vital subject.  Engineering would be completely
hit-or-miss (mostly the latter) without mathematical analysis tools.

Phil
/* End of text from uiucdcsp:net.space */

My point was that if a primitive (bronze age) culture somehow managed to come
up with a powerful enough booster, they wouldn't need mathematics to build an
ugly, ungainly, leaky tub to get into orbit with.  (There was a story in Analog
a while back that inspired this.)  If the booster were powereful enough, they
wouldn't have to worry about how much the planets moved, or where; they'd just
correct course to point there.

	Yes, I agree that engineering would be hit-or-miss(ile), but with
enough motivation (and $), it could be done.  Poorly, but done.  And, sad
to say, even with mathematics, *we* sometimes miss.  The math simply allows
us more subtlety than would otherwise be available.

	This probably belongs in net.sf-lovers, but I started it here.

	-- Ken Jenks

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 19 Sep 86 12:27:44 pdt
From: ucdavis!clover!hildum@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Eric Hildum)
To: ucdavis!space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: analysis of collision

>I recall hearing that an impact crater on an orbiter windshield was
>once attributed to a small flake of white paint (!) from a Delta upper
>stage. How they determined this would be interesting to know.
>
>Phil

	I suspect that a collision like that would leave a fair amount
of the offending paint flake embedded in the windscreen - at which
point it becomes fairly easy to determine the source (after all - they
do it for hit and run car accidents and the like)...  The thing I
would like to know is just how large a fragment was it to leave an
impact crater!?

				Eric

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #397
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA10926; Thu, 25 Sep 86 03:02:29 PDT
	id AA10926; Thu, 25 Sep 86 03:02:29 PDT
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 86 03:02:29 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8609251002.AA10926@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #398

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 398

Today's Topics:
		     number of falling satellites
			 Soviet space program
			    CASIO in space
		   Re: number of falling satellites
			    Re: LEO Debris
			   AAS 33rd Meeting
	       Re: November '86 Analog article on Mars
			  Re: Mars missions
			  Re: TAV to secret
			    Bootstrap OTV
		       Re: re: Shuttle boosters
	      Chariots for Apollo #1 - solids vs liquids
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 18 Sep 86 22:03:52 GMT
From: ihnp4!houxm!mtuxo!mtgzz!rosen@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (t.rosenfeld)
Subject: number of falling satellites
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

[This is a repost, I think the first one didn't make it past my machine]

	I am having a disagreement with a friend about the number of 
man-made satellites that have crashed to the earth. I thought they were fairly
common (on the order of 1 per year) and my friend thinks they are much rarer.
I would appreciate if any one out there has some info on the matter. A
short list of satellites, altitude, date of crash, reason would be
appreciate. 
	
Thomas Rosenfeld {harpo,ihnp4,burl,akgua}!mtgzz!rosen

------------------------------

Date: 18 Sep 86 13:19:23 GMT
From: decvax!wanginst!infinet!barnes@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Jim Barnes)
Subject: Soviet space program
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

For those of you who may not read National Geographic, there
is an article on the Soviet space program in the October issue.
Not very in depth, but a good overview of where the Soviets
may be headed.

Jim Barnes	harvard!wanginst!infinet!barnes

------------------------------

Date: 18 Sep 86 00:10:02 GMT
From: giz%psuvm.bitnet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: CASIO in space
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

Does anyone have further news of the breakthrough in orbital boosters
by that world famous calculator/keyboard/starship design firm?  I read
somewhere that a reduced-instrument-set-starship was developed by a
team of Casio designers who miniaturized a fusion reactor and a human
habitat. Apparently, it fits in 128 cubic meters of space! What a
deal!  Soon, we'll have a starship in every garage.  And to think I
lived to see it... :-)

------------------------------

Date: 19 Sep 86 03:47:22 GMT
From: ka9q!karn@petrus.arpa  (Phil Karn)
Subject: Re: number of falling satellites
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

Re-entries of manmade space objects are quite frequent. My NASA
Situation Report for 31 Aug 1982 (I'm ashamed to admit that I haven't
gotten around to writing for the latest copy) shows that in the
previous year, 102 separate catalogued objects launched in previous
years decayed (re-entered).  36 additional objects, all Soviet,
decayed before they had been up for a full year.

Most of the short-lived objects are either spent boosters, which are
deliberately given short orbital lifetimes whenever possible, or spy
satellites.  Spysats, especially the Soviet variety, are in extremely
low orbits to get the best possible resolution; perigees almost as low
as 160 km (that's 100 miles!) are not uncommon.  The short lifetimes
of these birds (days, weeks at most) is one reason the Soviets have
such a high launch rate; our spysats are in somewhat higher, longer
lived orbits. Big Birds stay up for several months, while KH-11s are
in somewhat higher orbits (typ 300-500 km) and stay up longer (2-3
years).  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.

(My info is based on combining info from the "Puzzle Palace" by James
Bamford with the Situation Report and other public-domain logs of
launch/decay activity).

Phil

[Correction added later: -Ed

Oops, I misread the report. Ignore the bit about the 36 additional
objects, that was on a page labeled "Initial Elements of Objects Which
Were Launched/Catalogued and Decayed Within the Reporting Period".
This was in fact a subset of the other section ("Objects Decayed
Within The Reporting Period") which did not show the initial orbital
elements.

Still, you're left with an average decay rate of one object every 3-4
days.

Phil]

------------------------------

Posted-Date: Thu 18 Sep 1986 11:27:37 EST
Date: Thu 18 Sep 1986 11:27:37 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Re: LEO Debris
To: space@s1-b.arpa

Let's estimate how fast debris will reenter...

The collision took place at 120 miles altitude.  The density of the
air at that altitude is about 2E-10 kg/m**3.  Moving at about 8
km/sec, an orbiting object will intercept air at a rate of 1.6E-6 kg
m**-2 sec**-1.  I'll assume an object leaves orbit after it has
intercepted 5% of its mass in air.  An aluminum object one centimeter
thick has a mass/cross section ratio of 27 kilograms/m**2.  This
object will reenter after about ten days.  Debris will not be in
circular orbits, and the decay rate will increase with time, so this
is an overestimate.

------------------------------

Date:     Fri, 19 Sep 86 11:38 EDT
From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%slb-test.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject:  AAS 33rd Meeting
X-Vms-To: IN%"space@angband.arpa",DIETZ       

Is a contributor to this digest going to attend the 33rd American
Astronautical Society meeting in Boulder, Co. next month?  The advance
program looks real interesting; a summary of the meeting would be of
general interest.

------------------------------

Date: 16 Sep 86 23:53:00 GMT
From: decvax!ima!haddock!karl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: November '86 Analog article on Mars
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa


XEROX.COM!Opstad.osbunorth (Dave Opstad) writes:
>[Richard Hoagland] discusses some recent findings concerning the odd
>features on Mars in the Cydonia region (41 N, 10 W). Comes right out and
>states that (in his view) one possible explanation for them is that they
>are artificial.

After reading the editorial and the article, and suspending my
prejudices (concerning whether or not there is/was intelligent life on
Mars, and if it was humanoid if so), I decided to assign the
hypothesis a probability of about 8%.

It's pretty easy to find false patterns (which can then be used to
prove that the decimal digits of pi have some mystic significance, or
that the Bible was translated by Shakespeare, or that ancient
astronauts built the pyramids).  If Hoagland would *predict* a pattern
and then discover that it holds, I'd be more impressed.

But I do judge the probability high enough to justify a return trip.

Karl W. Z. Heuer (ima!haddock!karl; karl@haddock.isc.com), The Walking Lint

------------------------------

Date: 20 Sep 1986 19:18-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Re: Mars missions

To Lawrence J. Mazlack:
	And after you've put your ship together and gone to Mars, you
come back to Earth, have one ticker tape parade in New York City, a
national holiday in Moscow, presentation of medals to the new heroes,
and then twenty years before we do another damn thing in space.

If it doesn't build permanent MANNED infrastructure, I'll fight it.

------------------------------

Date: 20 Sep 1986 19:21-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Re: TAV to secret

Mr. Hildum:
	I have no qualms about the military developing technology, or
funding research. I have few qualms about MOST weapons developments. I
don't really care when a craft such as stealth is developed under a
cloak of secrecy.

	I do mind very much when the necessary diffusion of technology
for a major new industry is stopped because of paranoia.

	If it is necessary to have a military craft that flies into
space, then we really should have two different programs, shouldn't we?

	One should be run by NASA and should have as it's major goal
the maximization of technology diffusion to the participants such that
they will be ready to start their own independant commercial products
as soon as possible. (I'd strongly suggest something like TAV concept
suggested in L5 News a few months ago. It's a lousy MILITARY craft, but
it's a superior COMMERCIAL aircraft.)

The other can be as dark as hades for all I care.

Render under to the right stuff what is the right stuff's and render
unto the citizen their birthright as pioneers and members of a free
country.

------------------------------

Date:     Fri, 19 Sep 86 19:44 EDT
From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%slb-test.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject:  Bootstrap OTV
X-Vms-To: IN%"space@angband.arpa",DIETZ       

It's been noted that conducting tethers in low earth orbit can be
used to generate electricity by coupling to the earth's magnetic field
(the ends are commutated by ions and/or electrons that reach the upper
atmosphere).  It's been suggested that this effect be used to power
a space station (the space station would have to be reboosted periodically
to offset orbital decay) or, in reverse, as a motor.

A hybrid idea, using electricity generated by a tether to drive an
electric rocket engine (like an ion engine or mass driver) at first
appears ridiculous.  Naively, this looks like a perpetual motion
machine -- a spacecraft, starting from a circular orbit, lifting
itself out of a gravity well using just its own energy of motion.

Actually, it can work.  Eject reaction mass backwards so that orbital
velocity is exactly cancelled.  The ejected reaction mass then has no
kinetic energy.  Assuming the generator and engine are 100% efficient,
the spacecraft retains its original kinetic energy as it loses mass,
and must accelerate.  The drag on the tether is 1/2 of the engine's
thrust.

In practice, this kind of engine would be used near perigee to boost
the spacecraft into a progressively more eccentric orbit.  The vehicle
would start off about 50% fuel, independent of the radius of the
initial circular orbit.  This idea would be very effective in deep
gravity wells, such as near Jupiter, and would make an effective
braking system for circularizing eccentric orbits.

------------------------------

Date: 21 Sep 86 06:04:33 GMT
From: hplabsc!dsmith@hplabs.hp.com  (David Smith)
Subject: Re: re: Shuttle boosters
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> The most important limitation in a solid cast booster is that the ONLY
> practical means of transport to the Cape for a large booster is barge.
> This means that the plant that makes the booster ought to be on the
> East Coast, Gulf, or Mississippi Basin.  You MIGHT send them by C5A, but
> if you look at the cost, you might decide that it's not worth it...

One loaded SRB weighs more than twice the max gross of a C5.  It's
definitely not worth it to try.

			David Smith

------------------------------

Date: 19 Sep 86 19:54:38 GMT
From: ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dave Newkirk)
Subject: Chariots for Apollo #1 - solids vs liquids
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

	A launch vehicle to support the moon landing was a big
question mark when the President issued his challenge in May 1961.
The Space Task Group wanted to get its opinions on the record - not
really sure how big a vehicle would be needed but rather hoping NASA
would develop the Nova [a booster roughly twice the size of the Saturn
V - dcn].  Marshall wanted to build a big liquid-fueled rocket but was
a little chary about tackling a vehicle the size of the Nova.  One
aspect that caused the Huntsville center to hold back was the high
cost projected for the F-1 engines.  When he learned of Huntsville's
misgivings, Max Faget suggested that solid-fueled rockets could be
used on the first stage.

	Faget thought the first stage should consist of four
solid-fueled engines, 6.6 meters in diameter; these could certainly
accomplish what- ever mission was required of either the Saturn or
Nova, whichever was chosen, at a reasonable cost.  It made good sense,
he said, to use cheap solid fuels for expendable rockets and more
expensive liquid fuels for reusable engines.  "We called the
individual solid rocket `the Tiger' because we figured it be a noisy
animal and would roar like a tiger," Faget remembered, But he and his
group could not sell their idea.  Liquids were preferred by both
Headquarters and Marshall, who insisted that the solids were too heavy
to move from the casting pit to the launch pad.  They also argued, he
said, that solids had poor burning characteristics and were unstable.
So the launch vehicle question dragged on, although pressure to make
some sort of decision did not lessen.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 V6 #398
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA14350; Fri, 26 Sep 86 03:02:28 PDT
	id AA14350; Fri, 26 Sep 86 03:02:28 PDT
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 86 03:02:28 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8609261002.AA14350@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #399

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 399

Today's Topics:
			Shuttle Launch Viewing
		       Recent Articles on Space
		     Decay of objects from orbit
		      Re: Space without science
   bringing large amounts of space resources back to Earth cheaply
	 Is LaRouche left or right? Conservative or liberal?
	  The oxygen condenserin the HOTOL propulsion system
			  Re: TAV to secret
		   Interesting real estate for sale
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 21 Sep 86 15:59 EDT
From: William M. York <York@sapsucker.scrc.symbolics.com>
Subject: Shuttle Launch Viewing
To: utastro!butch@sally.utexas.edu, Space@s1-b.arpa
In-Reply-To: The message of 12 Sep 86 17:50 EDT from Allan Butcher <utastro!butch@sally.utexas.edu>

    Date: 12 Sep 86 21:50:26 GMT
    From: utastro!butch@sally.utexas.edu  (Allan Butcher)

      I would like to hear reader's opinions of where the best place is to view
    a launch from the Kennedy Space Center.   I have visited the Center several
    times and am familiar with the area, but I have never seen a launch.   

      (Assuming one could get in) the VIP and press reviewing stands probably 
    offer a good view (they are next to the Vehicle Assembly Bldg) but, they
    face directly down range - I do not think that one would see the arc of the
    trajectory and the staging, etc.   Perhaps a site north or south of the 
    official viewing areas would provide a better, although farther away from
    the pad, viewing angle.   Any ideas ???   If one were to watch from a public
    area, how about access - and getting out - are there monstrous traffic jams ???

I have seen two shuttle launches, one from Titusville and one from
inside the Cape complex itself.  To get inside, you need a vehicle
pass.  I got mine by calling my Senator's office (Kennedy) and
explaining what I wanted.  There was some initial confusion, but
eventually someone called me back and told me where to show up on the
day before the launch to get my pass.  The pass allows to you drive in
to the cape and park you car, and then to walk to a viewing area that
is strung along an east-west road and causeway that is about 4 or 5
miles due south of the launch pad at its closest point.  It is quite a
good location, with a clear view of the trajectory.  The crowds are
large but not overwhelming.  Arrive very early to claim a good spot.
Watch out for alligators.  Good luck.

------------------------------

Date:         Sun, 21 Sep 86 16:08:30 EDT
From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
To: space digest <space-incoming@s1-b.arpa>
Subject:      Recent Articles on Space

     While at the World SF convention in Atlanta, I picked up a flier
from the Space Studies Institute.  I'd always kinda wondered what ever
happened to the program of building experimental mass drivers (I"d
seen the first public demonstration of the first experimental mass
driver at MIT back in 1977).  The flier from SSI summarized the
program to date.  Three test models have been built, the latest one 40
cm in diameter with a full-power acceleration of 1800 gravities (zero
to 300 MPH in 0.007 seconds!)
       A table from the Flier:

Machine     Acceleration   Length for lunar escape
Mass-Driver I   33 g         8950 meters
Mass Driver II  580 g        587 meters
Mass Driver III 1800 g       160 meters

Space Studies Institute (which I'd never heard of before) is a
non-profit institute founded by Gerard O'Neill, that is working on
solving some of the hardware research issues for space colonization.
Membership is $15.00.  Their address is Space Studies Institute,
285 Rosedale Rd., Princeton, NJ 08540 ("if your company has a
matching gift program, please send along a form and we will submit
it").  Sounds like a good organization to me; perhaps some of you
who don't want to join (/rejoin) L5 for political reasons might
want to consider joining SSI.  They also have a space bibliography
available for $2.00 shipping and handling.

     A couple of other recent references.  For the person who was
interested in how to land asteroidal metals after refining, the
article "Recovering Asteroidal Metals for Terrestrial Utilization",
by D.R. Saprks, in _Acta Astronautica_ 13:3, March 1986 (p. 101)
is a good review of the whole subject.  He discusses processing
in high earth orbit into 10 ton silicate glazed metal reentry cones.
There is a limit on the mass of the cones; cones above about 100 tons
vaporize when they hit.  He says that an investment of 23-57 billion
dollars would yield a return from the processing of Icarus of 100
billion to 1.1 Trillion dollars.
     Another interesting recent article in _Acta Astronautica_ is
"Tether Applications in Space Transportation", by Joseph A. Carrol,
13:4, 1986, page 165.  He summarizes uses of tethers in space, for
momentum transfer and electrodynamic thrust.

                   --Geoffrey A. Landis, Brown University
                     Reply to: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 Sep 86 16:28:06 cet
To: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: Decay of objects from orbit

Someone asked about the problem of predicting the orbit decay of
objects from a destroyed satellite.  The answer is quite simple: It
can't be done with any accuracy.  Predicting orbit decay even for a
sphere of precisely known mass is very difficult.  The procedure is
dependant on having a very precise atmospheric model.  The one that I
use in my work is the MSIS-1977 model, but some people still swear by
the CIRCA 1972 model.  Both models would only approximately describe
the atmosphere IF you knew exactly the three important solar
parameters (f10.7, mean f10.7 and the daily magnetic number Ap).  The
f10.7 parameter describes solar flux and believe it or not the sun
does NOT burn uniformly.  If you plot f10.7 as a function of time you
get something that looks like a white noise plot.  There are long term
trends in the f10.7 parameter, (the 11 year cycle is the most famous
example).  However these trends are only empiricly understood.  There
have been attempts at modelling the solar parameters, but these models
have all the scientific legitimacy of computer weather prediction
(that is none at all). There is a hope in understanding terrestrial
weather because we can build up a data base.  However solar weather is
something that will probably never be understood because there is no
way of knowing what is going on under the photosphere.  The bottom
line is that if your satellite has an altitude of greater than 120 km
and you know what the f10.7 and Ap are, then you can predict its
orbital decay with resonable accuracy.  However if you're trying to
predict the decay of a piece of tumbling irregular junk with a
periapsis of 68 miles, you'd be better off using an Ouija board rather
than a formal computer model (Ouija boards are cheaper too).

                             Gary Allen

------------------------------

Date: 21 Sep 86 05:16:24 GMT
From: amdcad!cae780!weitek!sci!daver@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dave Rickel)
Subject: Re: Space without science
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

I remember a short story called "The Road Less Traveled".  Premise was
that antigravity was easy, that our civilization just hasn't stumbled
on it.  Most civilizations happen across it at the 12-15th century
technology equivalent.

Anyway, if space travel isn't anywhere as difficult as we're making
it, math/science isn't really necessary.  If, oh, hydrogen fusion (or
whatever you end up using for your drive) is as horrendously
complicated as we seem to be making it, then math/science is essential
(for building the ship, anyway.  Not necessarily for piloting it).

david rickel
cae780!weitek!sci!daver

------------------------------

Date: 1986 September 21 19:47:04 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@su-ai.arpa>
To: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!utcsri!hogg@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: "ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET"@wiscvm.wisc.edu
To: "ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET"@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Cc: SPACE@s1-b.arpa, louie@umd5.umd.edu
Subject: bringing large amounts of space resources back to Earth cheaply

JH> Date: 8 Sep 86 14:08:29 GMT
JH> From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!utcsri!hogg@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
JH> Subject: Bringing it back home

JH> Getting away from the ongoing religious debate on manned presence in space
JH> just for a minute, does anybody know how to bring back space resources
JH> *efficiently*?

JH> In his collection of essays, "A Step Farther Out", Pournelle gives various
JH> calculations showing that ores or refined minerals can be brought to
JH> LEO at bargain prices.  He then neglects to compute the cost of
JH> dropping them to ground level.

That's unfortunate. He should have included various ways to get things
to ground at very small cost:
(1) Put ablative shield around them and simply drop them. The shield
partly burns away, but the payload is undamaged.
(2) Create vacuum foam, bubbles of near vacuum in some space-formed
material, which is so light it floats in the atmosphere a few miles up
even after including the payload. Drop the foam&payload (in case of
raw materials such as titanium, simply make foam out of the payload
itself), it drifts down slowly due to air friction until it reaches
float level. Somebody then attaches a tether to it and pulls it the
rest of the way, or some of the foam is punctured to reduce buoyancy.

JH> I know that Heinlein talked many years back about "dropping rocks".  Have
JH> there subsequently been any proposals about ways of dropping rocks
JH> gracefully?  I have visions of having to mine the same ore twice: once in
JH> the asteroid belt, and once (in a more refined form) after the man-made
JH> meteor has augered in - DEEPLY.

With foam, it drifts down slowly and embeds in ground only slightly if
at all. It may even be possible to use lasers to cut the giant foam
block in pieces and have each small piece lowered directly into the
mouth of the smelter or into train cars.

E> Date: Mon, 15 Sep 86 15:28:06 cet
E> From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
E> Subject: How to deorbit commercial freight from LEO

E>   On another subject:  I think the way to deorbit finished products from
E> space is to construct large spheres of low density silica foam with a
E> small inner cavity. ...

This idea is more specific than mine. I guess we need both general
ideas that are almost sure to work in some form or another, and more
specific ideas of what form might work.

B> Date:         Mon, 15 Sep 86 09:07:12 EDT
B> From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu

B> Re getting asteroidal metals down to earth; there was an article in, I
B> think, _Acta Astronautica_ about six months ago which discussed
B> encasing chunks of steel in big foam conical shells and dropping them
B> through the atmosphere to soft land, possibly in the oceans.

I'm glad to hear this idea getting wider discussion. Thanks for the note.

------------------------------

Date: 18 Sep 86 22:12:49 GMT
From: tektronix!reed!omssw2!ogcvax!sequent!brian@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Brian Godfrey)
Subject: Is LaRouche left or right? Conservative or liberal?
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa


   You guys really beat all! Now you're even arguing over who's *not* on
your side. And in net.space. Can we get back to space stuff here? Like
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. Am I right so far? And L5 is the one right smack in
between, right? So how is it that there are five (or more) of them?

--Brian

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 22 Sep 86 11:35:23 MEZ
To: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: The oxygen condenserin the HOTOL propulsion system

I received the following question from Paul Dietz:
=======================================================================
  You said HOTOL works by condensing liquid oxygen from air and burning
it in an SSME clone.  I'm really confused about how this could work.
Wouldn't atmospheric water ice up the system, and how do you separate
oxygen and nitrogen?  Moreover, wouldn't one get more thrust (and, due
to the lower exhaust temperature, more complete combustion) if the
nitrogen was not excluded?
=======================================================================
     It should be emphasized that the details of the HOTOL are still
classified.  Rolls Royce won't release the info until their prototype
is working, they've a bullet proof patent, and there is an established
market.  The liquid oxygen condenser is the key technology that will
make or break the HOTOL.  The best sources of info on the HOTOL are the
British Interplanetary Society publications.  My sources are these B.I.S
publications plus inside gossip that I've heard at the DFVLR in
Goettingen.  I **suspect** that the condenser is based on a conventional
supersonic inlet, followed by a diverging section, leading to a liquid
hydrogen heat exchanger followed by a converging section to dump the
nitrogen gas to atmosphere.  The boiling point for nitrogen is -195.8
deg. Celsius.  The boiling point for oxygen is -182.962 deg. Celsius.
The trick is to have the condensor at about -190.0 deg. Celsius so you
get liquid oxygen but the nitrogen just passes through as gas.  Ice
is an obvious problem.  However the upper atmosphere is very dry.  Plus
if you can get the air below zero in the diverging section, then the
crystals would form in midair rather than on the heat exchanger.  The
heat exchanger could be placed in a region where the flow is separated
so the crystals wouldn't impact the exchanger and the oxygen could
puddle.  Hydrogen has an enormous heat capacity, and has the best
specific impulse of all rocket fuels.  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 to
small to make the propulsions system viable against a pure oxygen
system.  I emphasize that this design is based on my interpolations
of rumors that I've heard and read.  ***Believe at your own risk***
                        Gary Allen

------------------------------

Date: 21 Sep 86 22:01:27 GMT
From: qantel!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020@lll-lcc.arpa  (Thomas J Keller)
Subject: Re: TAV to secret
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

   Would someone *PLEASE* define TAV?

tom keller
{ihnp4, dual}!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020

[Trans-Atmospheric-Vehicle	-Ed]

------------------------------

Date:     Mon, 22 Sep 86 9:54:59 CDT
From: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI <wmartin@almsa-1.arpa>
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject:  Interesting real estate for sale

I thought that SPACE readers might be interested in seeing this ad, which
appears on the front page of the Sept. 20 issue of "Shotgun News", a trade
paper consisting entirely of ads related to the firearms field:

HISTORIC SPACE TEST SITE:
Formerly North American Aviation, Apollo and Gemini rocket engine test
site. Secluded area high on a hill with paved access. 4,000 sq. ft.
bunker home with 4 bedrooms. Many phone lines and 3 phase power. 500 ft.
of underground concrete tunnels. 2 altitude test chambers and exhaust
system negotiable. 455 acres. $376,000, terms. A survivalists dream! 
E & R Realty, 639 N. Rock Blvd., Sparks, NV 89431. 702-331-2233
*** End of ad ***

The above is transcribed exactly as it appears in the paper; I know
nothing else about this except the ad contents above. I'm unsure if
the way it is punctuated means that the inclusion of the altitude test
chambers is negotiable, or if that refers to the price. Anyway, those
of you who are now contemplating purchasing a Bay Area house for a price
equivalent to the above might find this a more interesting investment...

Will Martin

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #399
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA03052; Sat, 27 Sep 86 03:02:13 PDT
	id AA03052; Sat, 27 Sep 86 03:02:13 PDT
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 86 03:02:13 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8609271002.AA03052@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #400

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 400

Today's Topics:
	       Re: Soviet Sabotage of Shuttle! (transc
	       Re: Soviet Sabotage of Shuttle! (transc
		      Re: Space without math...
		     Re: DoD and funding research
	   Re: Re: Leo Debris, more planetary science pain
			Re: What are L-points?
		   Re: number of falling satellites
		      Re: Shuttle Launch Viewing
		     SOVIET LAUNCH VEHICLE QUERY
		     Space travel without Science
			      L5 society
		      Re: Shuttle Launch Viewing
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 13 Sep 86 19:13:00 GMT
From: decvax!cca!mirror!gabriel!inmet!janw@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Soviet Sabotage of Shuttle! (transc
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa


[janw@inmet.UUCP ] An apology to msb:
>>[msb@dciem.UUCP ]
>>> > My oh my. The General really has gone off the deep end.
>>> Yes, now he's done it. Suspect the Soviets of playing foul!
>>> [Quote the LA Times!] Ask for an investigation! Obviously demented. :-)

>>Some people seem to be forgetting that the Challenger explosion
>>*was* the subject of a rather detailed investigation, and the
>>possibility of sabotage *was* covered -- and ruled out -- in
>>the commission's report.

>In the msb@dciem posting the bracketed words were replaced by an
>ellipsis. Perhaps for brevity - though the economy seems meager.
>Or perhaps because they indicate that new data has been uncovered
>since the investigation.

I've been convinced that it *was* for brevity, and apologize
for suggesting another reason. --Jan W.

------------------------------

Date: 13 Sep 86 19:10:00 GMT
From: decvax!cca!mirror!gabriel!inmet!janw@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Soviet Sabotage of Shuttle! (transc
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa


[henry@utzoo.UUCP ]
>>Graham obviously thinks that this data calls for a new investiga-
>>tion.   He  thinks  that  the possibility of sabotage was not ex-
>>plored sufficiently.

>No, it's not obvious at all; what's obvious is that he wants *us*
>to think that the data calls for a new investigation and that the
>possibility of sabotage was not explored sufficiently.  Therefore
>we  should  send  him money.  This does not necessarily have any-
>thing to do with his own personal,  private  informed  (or  unin-
>formed) opinion on the matter.

Well, that's a fine distinction, but one that's seldom worth
making. A person's publicly stated opinions are fit  for  discus-
sion; his secret thoughts, if any, generally aren't.  E.g., may I
say "the netter who thinks Graham insane" or must  I  always  say
"the  netter  who *claims* he thinks Graham insane"?  I don't see
that it adds anything to the debate.

If you wish, I'll amend "G. obviously thinks" to "G.
is willing to stake his reputation on the opinion"...

>> Is he wrong ? Perhaps. How to prove him wrong? Why, call him
>> loony. And without looking at his facts...

> If he wants his facts looked at, he should display them.  

But he DID display some; some were posted on this net.

Those who get interested enough can write and ask for more.
This is normal procedure.

>The burden of proof is on Graham to show  that  there  really  is
>sufficient cause to re-open the question.

True. But people may differ in their  estimates  of  whether  his
proof is sufficient. It is not a case for proof beyond reasonable
doubt. And the burden of proof for those who pronounce Graham crazy,
or dismiss the *possibility* of sabotage, is on *them*.

>"Where there's smoke, there's smoke.  No further conclusion is justified."

Fire alarm devices work on a different assumption.

		Jan Wasilewsky

------------------------------

Date: 22 Sep 1986 13:08-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Re: Space without math...

Try one of the  stories in the latest of the "There Will Be War..."
series. I won't bare the plot, but you'll know it when you get to it. I
real cute twist. They may have some math, but...

------------------------------

Date: Mon 22 Sep 86 17:00:18-EDT
From: Richard A. Cowan <COWAN@xx.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: DoD and funding research
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Cc: ucdavis!clover!hildum@ucbvax.berkeley.edu, arms-d@xx.lcs.mit.edu

; The only reason the military is being more specific and limiting the
; research to defense related activities now is a law our dear friend Senator
; Proxmire sponsored - which does not allow broadly targeted research
; programs.

This is not really true.  The Mansfield Amendment (was it also sponsored
by Proxmire?) was approved in 1969, apparently by a strange coalition of
right-wingers (who wanted the research to be more targeted) and
left-wingers (who wanted to force DOD to publish the military relevance, so
that military research would not be carried out under a false pretense.)
See Science, November 22, 1974, "Department of Defense R&D in the University."

Since then, it was watered down by an administrative decision by Secretary
of Defense Laird in 1970 so that "basic" science could be included within
the scope.  [see Science, Feb.  1972, p.866.]  According to an article on
the Carter administration efforts to strengthen DOD-university ties,


 "The Mansfield Amendment now appears to be entirely ignored."
	- [New York Times, May 13, 1980, page C1]

As for the situation today, I don't think it's the same as the 1950's.
DOD is funding more targeted areas because, over the years, greater
interest has been sustained in certain specific areas.  Why has
interest in these areas been sustained?  Because the results have been
USED by the patrons of the research, the DOD (not just technically --
also politically).  Also, there's little chance that the US will
develop great commercial products indirectly through military research
when there are now a dozen technologically competitive countries who
are working on commercial applications directly and will get there
first.  [This view is shared by Bernard O'Keefe and Ray Stata,
chairmen of two companies that work on military contracts, EG&G and
Analog Devices, Inc.]

-rich

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 22 Sep 86 15:32:15 pdt
From: king@kestrel.arpa (Dick King)
To: space@s1-b.arpa


Does anyone know why SRB's segments are NOT simply threaded and
screwed together like iron pipe?

-dick

------------------------------

Date: 22 Sep 86 19:05:42 GMT
From: al@ames-aurora.arpa  (Al Globus)
Subject: Re: Re: Leo Debris, more planetary science pain
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> I wouldn't mind
> so much if it (manned experiments) didn't interfere with the less glamorous, 
> but clearly more
> important space applications which are better off without humans getting in
> the way. Just ask the astrophysicist ...

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.

------------------------------

Date: 22 Sep 86 20:24:06 GMT
From: csustan!smdev@lll-lcc.arpa  (Scott Hazen Mueller)
Subject: Re: What are L-points?
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

Everyone who reads net.space is probably going to answer this, so I'll
keep my comments short.  L = Lagrange, an astronomer.  L4 and L5 are
points on the two equilateral triangles: Earth-Moon-(L4|L5).  I
believe that L1-L3 are in line with the Earth and Moon ("behind"
Earth, between Earth and Moon, "behind" Moon).  The L4 and L5 points
are preferred because they are the most stable of the Lagrange points
- an object at (relative) rest at one of these points will tend to
return to the point if given a small push.  At one of the other three
points, an object pushed "off" of the point will tend to continue to
move away if given a small push.
                            \scott
PS - Lagrange points are simply special solutions to the three-body
problem in Newtonian physics.

Scott Hazen Mueller                         lll-crg.arpa!csustan!smdev

[Similar info from:
From: adelie!necntc!frog!john@ll-xn.arpa  (John Woods, Software)
 -Ed]

------------------------------

Date: 19 Sep 86 17:07:00 GMT
From: jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: number of falling satellites
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

It's been my impression from reading aerospace journals over the last
few years (and Science News for even longer) that very few reentering
satellites actually make it all the way to the ground.  Most of them
burn up on the way in.  Only the really BIG ones can survive reentry
with enough mass to worry anyone (remember Skylab).  Sorry I don't
have any numbers for you, just "very few" and "most".

	-- Ken Jenks

------------------------------

Date: 23 Sep 86 00:30:06 GMT
From: voder!lewey!evp@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Ed Post)
Subject: Re: Shuttle Launch Viewing
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> 
>   I would like to hear reader's opinions of where the best place is to view
> a launch from the Kennedy Space Center....
> ... how about access - and getting out - are there monstrous traffic jams?

I found the view from 4 1/2 miles south on the ocean quite acceptable.
I was with the National Space Institute (now called National Space
Society) tour for STS-7 (Sally's Ride, according to the popular
press).  At that time, there were still about half a million people
showing up for every launch.  Traffic was horrendous, except those of
us in buses got VIP treatment and avoided most of it.  Even so, in
the race between KSC and our motel 10 miles to the west, the shuttle
beat us by about 5 minutes going the long way around.

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.

Ed Post   {voder,hplabs,pyramid}!lewey!evp
American Information Technology

------------------------------

Date: 22 Sep 86 18:16:53 GMT
From: wdl1!gerolima@sun.com
Subject: SOVIET LAUNCH VEHICLE QUERY
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

About a year ago, I read a New York Timz article about some guy who
had written a book on Soviet launch vehicles.

Apparently, he did this without the aid of any NASA-style publicity
photos, but rather with much detective work (his triumph is supposed
to be his rendition of the Soviet version of the Saturn V, which has
never been seen by westerners)...

Sounds like a cool book. Now, the big question:

	{What,where,how much} is it?

	RSVP,
	Mark Gerolimatos
ARPA:	gerolima@ford-wdl1.{arpa,com}

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 23 Sep 86 11:23:22 pdt
From: ucdavis!clover!hildum@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Eric Hildum)
Subject: Space travel without Science
To: ucdavis!space@s1-b.arpa

	Analog some years back published a rather entertaining story
on a society that had a successful space program without electricity.
The ignition and control systems were entirely clockwork mechanical
contrivances.

				Eric Hildum

------------------------------

To: space@mc.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: L5 society
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 86 14:53:22 -0500
From: tbmoore@athena.mit.edu

In recent flaming people have said some pretty disparaging things
about the L5 society. In the board's opinion, is it still worth
joining? I would like some advice on this; I am thinking of joining
and am wondering if my membership dues could be better spent
elsewhere.
		-Tim Moore (tbmoore@athena.mit.edu)

------------------------------

Date: 23 Sep 86 15:40:40 GMT
From: columbia!lexington.columbia.edu!polish@seismo.css.gov  (Nathaniel Polish)
Subject: Re: Shuttle Launch Viewing
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

The  press/VIP/VAB/Shuttle-Launch-Control  site is  really  where  the
action is.  However, as the original poster  suggested the roll of the
spacecraft puts the  orbiter behind the ET  early in  the  flight.  In
addition,  the spacecraft pitches  into the  column of  smoke for  the
press site perspective.  Still the first 30  seconds are truly amazing
from the press site.  Other sites give side views of the orbiter after
the roll but the craft is obscured by  the  launch cloud for the first
30 seconds or so and the distance is, of course, much greater.

Nat Polish@cs.columbia.edu or ...seismo!columbia!lexington!polish

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #400
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA05943; Sun, 28 Sep 86 03:02:09 PDT
	id AA05943; Sun, 28 Sep 86 03:02:09 PDT
Date: Sun, 28 Sep 86 03:02:09 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8609281002.AA05943@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #401

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 401

Today's Topics:
	       Re: Soviet Sabotage of Shuttle! (transc
		    Mathematics and Space Travel?
		      Re: Shuttle Launch Viewing
     More on the rumor about Ariane being launched from Austraila
		Spacefaring without Higher Mathematics
	       Re: Is LaRouche left or right? Conserva
		     How is the space-list doing?
			 SPACE Digest V6 #397
		   A couple of satellite questions
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 23 Sep 86 03:06:00 GMT
From: pyrnj!mirror!gabriel!inmet!janw@caip.rutgers.edu
Subject: Re: Soviet Sabotage of Shuttle! (transc
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa


[henry@utzoo.UUCP ]
>>Graham is undoubtedly a competent man. The problem is that (as in
>>other  matters) we can't be sure whether he's displaying his com-
>>petence or his political views here.

It can be both. Supposing he presents one side of the case  only,
this is still a useful function, and he still has some reputation
at stake (especially  if,  as  Phil  Karn  claimed,  he  has  the
president's ear).

>> ... And the burden of proof for those who pronounce Graham crazy,
>> or dismiss the *possibility* of sabotage, is on *them*.

>How about those who think sabotage vanishingly unlikely because a
>detailed  investigation found no sign of it, and found quite con-
>clusive evidence for more mundane explanations?

A perfectly valid position logically - and on the technical facts
of  the  case,  I  defer to you. However, wouldn't a skillful sa-
boteur try to produce just such evidence? And how *can* a  purely
technical  expertise  exclude  sabotage  -  cannot  some  of  the
same blunders adding up to a disaster be committed *intentionally* ?

>	Where there's smoke, there's smoke.  No further conclusion is
>	justified by this evidence alone.  It does suggest that a look
>	for stronger evidence is in order, unless the smoke's origin is
>	already understood.

Right. However, in dealing with nature, we may ignore the possibility
of false clues intentionally planted. We can accept the simplest
explanation, and apply Occham's razor. "The Lord God is devious
but not malicious" (Einstein). With people, it is different.

If I had to bet, I would bet on your opinion, not Graham's.
It would certainly take a lot more than the "telegram" to justify
re-opening  the  investigation. Still, *someone* ought to spend a
little time looking into it.

		Jan Wasilewsky

------------------------------

Date: 23 Sep 86 14:03:56 GMT
From: ihnp4!inuxc!inuxe!fred@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Fred Mendenhall)
Subject: Mathematics and Space Travel?
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

In article <15800016@uiucdcsp>, jenks@uiucdcsp.CS.UIUC.EDU writes:
>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?

>Joel Swank

Hmm, this is a crazy subject that for some reason tickles my
imagination.

Joel is right in that we, i.e HUMANS, couldn't come close to space
travel without science/mathematics. However, that doesn't mean that's
the only way it has to be. Birds fly quiet well and to the best of my
knowledge they are not capable of solving the equations of laminar or
turbulent fluid flow around their wings. (Maybe they are smarter than
we give them credit for and are just acting as... errrr bird brains?)
 
Closer to home, I attempt to play tennis on occasion, and know for a
fact that I don't solve the differential equations for a top spin lob
during the game.

I think the point is that because of our particular evolutionary
heritage, the Human creature requires "advanced science/technology/
mathematics" to allow them to function in an environment, outer space,
for which evolution has not equipped them. Now if by some leap of
imagination you can conceive of the possibility of a life form
thriving in the conditions off planet, it might be natural for
evolution to hard wire them for space travel, i.e. orbital mechanics,
instead of for throwing stones in "High Gee" like we are.

As for what they would be like, I find that difficult to fathom.
Trying to understand something that would be that alien is like trying
to think about not thinking. Something in my brain calls me an idiot
and refuses to play.

					Fred

------------------------------

Date: 23 Sep 86 18:53:03 GMT
From: amdcad!cae780!leadsv!pat@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Shuttle Launch Viewing
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

We watched STS-III on the mainland.  We went into a vacent lot right
on the Indian River, just as you enter Titusville.  We were a little
south of the causeway to the Wildlife Sanctuary.  When we arrived, the
fog and mist rising off the river completely obscured Mare Island, the
VAB, et al.  But it burned off, and we were directly opposite the VAB,
and able to get a good view of 39A and 39B.  We had brought our field
glasses, and a telescope, so we could see the superstructure quite
well.  Unfortunately, our angle was such that the superstructure was
between us and most of the Columbia.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 24 Sep 86 11:22:19 cet
To: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: More on the rumor about Ariane being launched from Austraila

In an early posting I commented on some gossip that I heard about the
possibility of Ariane being launched from Austraila.  Here is some
**hard** information.  The following is a quote from the ministerial
statement by the Premier and Treasurer of Queensland, Austraila (Sir
Joh Bjelke-Petersen) made on 11 September 1986:

=====================================================================

...I have considered a proposal for a study to investigate the
possibility of establishing a major international spaceport in
Northern Queensland.  The objectives of the feasibilitiy study will be
to examine the present space launch situations in the world, and the
requirements for such a station in the Cape York area....  .....I
understand that discussions are already being held between the
People's Republic of China and Indonesia on joint equatorial launch
facilities somewhere in Indonesia and between Japan and the USA, about
facilities in Hawaii.  However, the French are looking for a possible
landing place in this part of the world for their new mini-shuttle,
the Hermes.  Also, I note that the European Space Authority has no
back-up for their main launch site at Kourou (French Guiana), in the
politically unstable South American continent.  Launch facilities
located somewhere on Cape York Peninsula, may cater for all these
needs on a collaborative basis and would become the beginning of a
major international space-port for the 21st century....

=================================================================

   This study proposal appears to generating a far amount of
commentary in the Austrailan news media.  However I don't know what
impact if any it has had outside of Austraila.
           Gary Allen

------------------------------

Date:         Wed, 24 Sep 86 10:42:31 EDT
From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
To: space digest <space-incoming@s1-b.arpa>
Subject:      Spacefaring without Higher Mathematics

     I think that if computers had been invented in the 1600's,
calculus may never have been discovered.  Most problems easily
solvable by calculus can be easily solved by finite difference
equations.  If, for example, there existed a world where single
crystals of silicon (or, better, germanium,(both p and n doped) were
as easy to find as single crystals of silica (quartz) are here (or
even single crystals of carbon, for that matter), transistors may have
been discovered by trial-and-error type science without too
unbelievable variations from the actual scientific process.
     Using computer simulations instead of exact solutions would not,
I think, preclude spaceflight.  In fact, that is pretty much what is
done now anyway, since there are no (*) solutions to the three body
problem.

    *Actually, LeGrange found five stationary solutions, but these
are of little use for plotting an orbit from, say, Earth to Mars.
            --Geoffrey A. Landis, Brown University
              Reply to: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA

------------------------------

Date: 24 Sep 86 03:04:00 GMT
From: ima!haddock!karl@zarathustra.think.com
Subject: Re: Is LaRouche left or right? Conserva
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa


frog!john (John Woods) writes:
>L4 and L5 [are] in the orbit of the Moon, 60 degrees ahead and behind.  The
>other L points (one of which is between the Earth and Moon, at a fraction
>where the Earth's gravity is the same at the Moon's; the other two, I don't
>know) are unstable.

I believe the three unstable points all lie on the line joining Earth
and Moon; the one you mentioned which is between them, and one beyond
Earth, and one beyond the Moon -- the positions can be calculated by
equating the sum of the gravitational forces with the centrifugal
force.  (Not, as you imply, by equating the two gravitational forces.)

Can someone show how to derive the positions of L4 and L5?  Last time
I tried, I made too many simplifying assumptions and got an infinite
number of points.  I'd prefer to see the math, but a reference will do
if it's too hairy to post.

Karl W. Z. Heuer (ima!haddock!karl or karl@haddock.isc.com), The Walking Lint

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 24 Sep 86 11:23:02 pdt
From: eugene@ames-nas.arpa (Eugene Miya)
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa
Subject: How is the space-list doing?

An open letter to the entire space-list:
	I am about to lose my current office mate (who wants to go off
to Life-Sciences and get an assignment on a Flight Project).  She has
been a pretty good "expert-system" filter (probably about a 1:1000?
ratio) occasionally showing me a posting now and again.  I was wondering
if the volume and the content of the space digest has improved?  Several
people sent notes (electronic AND physical) regarding returning.  We
have a better news interface now, but I have less time for trivia.  I
would not be returning in an official capacity (which I read the news
before as).  I don't know how net.columbia on the USENET side is fairing
these days, again, I suggest killing it and making net.space.shuttle
when we begin launches again.

I am planning to make a summer positions posting as I have done yearly
(for this December), and I am doing a bit of investigation for the RISKs
board on Viking which I'll cross post to space.  I also get the odd
request which I can handle, but bulk reading of `junk news' is out of
the question.  I am not trying to snide, but I'll wait for an accessment
from other long-term readers whether the board has improved.  Send
comments only if you have been reading this group Before January 1986.
[Do you guys have a moderator yet?]

--eugene miya
  Computational Research Branch (Performance Measurement Group)
  NASA Ames Research Center
  eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1986  19:02 EDT
From: MINSKY%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Cc: Space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #397
In-Reply-To: Msg of 24 Sep 1986  06:22-EDT from Ted Anderson <ota at s1-b.arpa>

Re: dropping rocks.  Has it been considered to melt the rocks (using a
solar reflector) during the trip to Earth.  I should think that there
might be suitable "in-gassing" - particular in carbonaceous asteroids
- to connert them into foamy structures.  Then these could be formed
into relatively thin boats that would be decellerated nicely by the
atmosphere.

------------------------------

Date: 24 Sep 86 18:21:49 GMT
From: columbia!garfield.columbia.edu!eppstein@seismo.css.gov  (David Eppstein)
Subject: 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.

(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?

David Eppstein, eppstein@cs.columbia.edu, seismo!columbia!cs!eppstein

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #401
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA08749; Mon, 29 Sep 86 03:02:21 PDT
	id AA08749; Mon, 29 Sep 86 03:02:21 PDT
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 86 03:02:21 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8609291002.AA08749@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #402

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 402

Today's Topics:
		      space news in Aug 25 AW&ST
			    What is a TAV?
			    Re: L5 society
			  replacing the SRBs
		  Scramjets in Scientific American.
		   Re: number of falling satellites
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 24 Sep 86 21:07:03 GMT
From: adelie!axiom!linus!utzoo!henry@ll-xn.arpa  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space news in Aug 25 AW&ST
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

(Due to some protests, I'm going to continue cross-posting to
net.columbia for at least a little while.  Various people are interested
in the news but not in the endless rambling debates in net.space.  I
have some ideas about long-term solutions for this that I'll pursue when
I have more time.)

Editorial slams Reagan for half-hearted support of space.  The funding
plan for the replacement orbiter is decidedly vague, and there are
serious worries that the funding will eventually be taken out of the
existing NASA budgets.  AW&ST also claims the replacement could be
available two years earlier if seriously funded.  The policy aimed at
discouraging commercial shuttle use is so obscure and so heavily
qualified that customers, competitors, and suppliers of support services
are all uncertain of just what they should expect.  Nothing has been
said about rebuilding NASA's scientific and planetary programs.  In
short, there is still no national space policy or official long-term
goals, and the infrastructure to support such things continues to erode.

Congress expresses doubts that the USAF can simultaneously fund
development of both the aerospace plane and a heavy-lift launcher for
SDI.

NASA may be left with authorization to build an orbiter but no money to
do it, given Gramm-Rudman problems.  Both NASA and the Senate are
resisting the idea of cannibalizing other programs for the new orbiter.

Another problem is that circa $600M is needed to replace hardware that
was aboard Challenger, notably the TDRS+IUS, the IUS cradle, and the
Canadarm.

Shuttle barred from competing for new commercial satellite-launch
contracts, although launches will continue for a while to meet existing
commitments.  Commercial expendables in the US still face several
problems.  There are no agreements with the government about rights to
use boosters developed with government money.  Ditto for use of
government launch facilities.  The market probably isn't big enough to
support three different expendables (Titan, Atlas, Delta).  Possible
price cuts by subsidized foreign launch services, notably Ariane,
interested in retaining market share.  Confusion over the numerous
loopholes and exceptions in the shuttle policy.

There appears to be a strong possibility that the new shuttle policy
will discourage development of space businesses that need
shuttle-specific access to space: they will receive low priority, and it
is not clear how much capacity will be available and what it will cost.
Shuttle-upper-stage suppliers, notably McDonnell-Douglas with its PAM
and Orbital Sciences Corp. with its TOS, will also be hurt.

Transpace is offering commercial Delta at about $40M, including a PAM
upper stage.  There are no firm prices or dates yet because NASA owns a
lot of long-lead Delta parts and it's not clear that commercial Delta
services will have access to them.

Martin Marietta is offering a commercial Titan that is very similar to
the one it's offering for the USAF medium-expendable program.  No
pricing policy yet, prices probably subject to final review by MM
management on a case-by-case basis.  MM has the only operational US
booster assembly line and a production base assured by USAF business, so
they are in a strong position.  They want to use Pad 40 at the Cape for
commercial use, and are talking to the USAF about this.  MM is buying
4-m diameter payload shrouds from Contraves in Zurich; these are
essentially identical to the Ariane shrouds, so the same payload
envelope applies.

General Dynamics claims a lot of interest in commercial Atlas.  No
details.

Ariane is discounted as a competitor, partly because its US prices are
going to go up somewhat (partly because of recent changes in exchange
rates) but mostly just because it is fully booked for years to come.

There is some uncertainty about the actual market for commercial
launchers.  Pessimistic assumptions show a market that might be able to
fly entirely on Ariane after the current backlog clears.  One near-term
distorting factor is the likelihood of double-booking of launch services
as a hedge against uncertainty.  Another complication is that the
subsidized Shuttle prices are perceived as having forced expendable
prices down, a consideration that no longer applies with the Shuttle
forbidden to compete commercially.

Ford Aerospace is pushing for the US government to intervene in the
launch- insurance market, on the grounds that recent failures have
caused massive premium increases which are not justified by overall
historical loss rates.

The general picture is massive uncertainty, which is forcing comsat
companies to review their plans.  If one buys a satellite today, one has
to put up a lot of money several years in advance with no idea when the
thing will be launched.  Among other nasty complications, the FCC's "due
diligence" requirement demands that operators allocated frequencies and
orbital slots use them or lose them, and it's not clear that the FCC is
going to be flexible about launch problems.

				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date:     Thu, 25 Sep 86 7:50:01 EDT
From: the Shadow <jeffh@brl.arpa>
To: space@mc.lcs.mit.edu
Subject:  What is a TAV?

I realize that I may be displaying gross ignorance by posing this
question, but I am relatively new to this forum, and this discussion has
got me really curious.  Can someone give me a reasonable description of
this vehicle and the technologies involved, along with a few references
for further educating myself?  (It would be nice to know what TAV stands
for, too.)

			Thanks,
				Jeff Hanes

------------------------------

Date: 25 Sep 86 01:40:26 GMT
From: ihnp4!houxm!mtuxo!mtgzz!dls@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (d.l.skran)
Subject: Re: L5 society
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

As an active L5 member (President of the North Jersey Chapter) I urge
you to join.

As far as I am concerned, there is no other educational/activist group
worth joining in the space area.  I am a member of the National Space
Society only for the magazine - not because I think the NSS does
anything worthy of mention to promote space development. In any case,
NSS and L5 are about to merge, so the choice should go away completely.

For some reason I don't understand, L5 attracts a number of "fair
weather" members who apparently quit at the first disagreement they have
with anyone else in the society. Folks, we are going into space together
- or not at all. Until we realize that any effective organization will
have some squabbles now and then, and that we have to work around these
problems, we aren't going to have any effective pro-space organizations.

I personally endorse the activities of the Space Studies Institute and
the World Space Foundation, and contribute to both groups. These two
groups raise private money for space research. SSI works on mass
drivers, lunar materials processing, etc. while WSF works on near-Earth
crossing asteroids and solar sails. Great stuff!

At one point I urged people to join the Planetary Society, which I hoped
would grow into a sort of National Geographic Society for space, perhaps
even raising money for its own expeditions.  Unfortunately, the PS now
appears to be devoting most of its efforts to promoting a Marsdoggle
program. An entire issue of their magazine was recently devoted to this.
I now regard the activities of the PS as a major force working against
the development of space resources for human benefit in the sense that
the Marsdoggle will likely suck up all manned spaceflight money for 30
years at the expense of lunar mining, asteroid expeditions. etc.  The
only good news is that the PS now endorses the space station as
necessary for a Mars expedition.  Note that the PS, like the NSS, is NOT
a membership organization with chapters and elections. It's a club run
by Sagan and his cronies.

Finally, you should consider Spacepac. In fact, I'd even put this over
L5 if you could only give to one group. I used to contribute to Campaign
for Space, but after examining the Federal Election Commission reports
filed by both groups, I concluded that Spacepac was the more effective.
To some extent, CFS has an anti-war, liberal bias while Spacepac has
contributed to more Republicans than Democrats. However, Spacepac allows
you to restrict your contribution to one party or the other. Spacepac
has done a tremendous job of coordinating space station support over the
last two years, making the CFS efforts along these lines appear
incidental.

Dale Skran

------------------------------

Date: 23 Sep 86 15:33:58 GMT
From: telesoft!roger@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu  (Roger Arnold @prodigal)
Subject: 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?  I am not interested in replies to the effect that
"they're bureaucratic bozo's who don't know what they're doing".  Right
or wrong, there is bound to be a rationale for the decision not to
pursue that option.  I would like to know what that rationale actually
is.

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.

The second major factor is economy.  "Reuse" of the current SRB's is a
pretty marginal proposition.  The real costs in a solid booster are in
manufacturing the solid fuel cores, loading them into the casing
sections, and transporting and assembling the sections.  The saving from
reuse of the casing sections is hardly enough to offset the cost of
recovery operations.  By comparison, the cost to refuel a reusable
liquid booster is negligible.  Liquid oxygen and liquid methane are dirt
cheap, compared to solid rocket fuel.

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.

The main arguments against liquid fueled boosters that I am aware of are
safety, and development costs.  Solids are perceived as more reliable
than liquids, with some justification, at least in the early stages of
development.  But the safety argument cuts two ways; liquid fueled
boosters can be shut down and separated at any time if something goes
wrong during boost phase.  That's just not possible with solids.

You obviously wouldn't want to commit liquid fueled boosters to a manned
shuttle flight until they had achieved a track record for reliability.
But they could and should be designed to work with a new generation of
expendable launch vehicles, as well as the shuttle.

That leaves the issue of development cost.  That's a complicated
subject, and I don't think I should try to delve into it in this
posting.  But -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.

I know I'm asking for a lot, but any solid information will be
appreciated.  There has to be -some- sense to our space program.

Roger Arnold
TeleSoft
..sdcsvax!telesoft!roger

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 25 Sep 86 07:51:43 PDT
From: Jef Poskanzer <jef@lbl-rtsg.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Scramjets in Scientific American.

In "Materials for Aerospace" by Morris A. Steinberg, October 1986 issue
of Scientific American, there is a paragraph or two about the TAV.  The
following quote appears:

    In all likelihood the craft will incorporate a dual propulsion
    system: ramjets for flight in the atmosphere and scramjets for
    space flight.  A ramjet does away with the heavy air compressor
    needed in a turbojet; at supersonic speeds the air entering the
    engine compresses itself by ramming into a barrier.  The compressed
    air is thereupon  mixed with a hydrocarbon fuel for combustion.
    A scramjet (the word comes from supersonic combustion ramjet)
    works much the same way but burns hydrogen.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but is this bullbleep or what? My
understanding is that a scramjet is still an air-breather.  Its
significant difference from a ramjet is that it doesn't have to slow the
air down to subsonic speeds for combustion, and therefore can be used at
hypersonic speeds instead of merely supersonic ones.

According to the biography section, Dr. Steinberg is a fairly
accomplished materials scientist, and recently retired from a
vice-presidency at Lockheed.  I suppose materials scientists are not
required to know anything about propulsion systems, but you'd think that
Scientific American's referees would.

Jef

------------------------------

Date:         Thu, 25 Sep 86 18:15 SET
From: Alessandro Berni <EINAUDI%ICNUCEVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu>
Subject:      Re: number of falling satellites
To: Space Digest <SPACE@s1-b.arpa>

The data listed below are derived from the Satellite Situation Report of
June 30, 1986 (Volume 26, Number 2) and are meant only as an appendix to
the previous articles.

                    Decayed objects
                    ---------------
                Payload        Debris
                -----------+---------
                           +
   US            562       +    2022
                           +
   USSR         1261       +    6754

To these you have to add objects lauched by other countries etc.
This makes the total rise to:
                           +
                1876       +    8908
                           +
These numbers may sound high, but don't worry. There's still a lot of
space junk orbiting the Earth!!!

Alessandro Berni
Genoa, Italy

einaudi@cnuce-vm.arpa
         or
einaudi@icnucevm.bitnet

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #402
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA23420; Tue, 30 Sep 86 03:02:26 PDT
	id AA23420; Tue, 30 Sep 86 03:02:26 PDT
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 86 03:02:26 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8609301002.AA23420@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #403

*** EOOH ***
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 86 03:02:26 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V6 #403

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 6 : Issue 403

Today's Topics:
	      net.columbia reprieved, voting still open
	 Request For Information On GOOD Space-Related Video
		      Re: Shuttle Launch Viewing
		    The State of the Space Program
			Re: replacing the SRBs
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 27 Sep 86 01:14:46 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!dciem!msb@seismo.css.gov  (Mark Brader)
Subject: net.columbia reprieved, voting still open
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

About 4 weeks ago I posted a proposal to rmgroup net.columbia and
divert its traffic to net.space.  I gave the following reasons plus
one other which was invalid.

	* News about the shuttle is of much wider interest now.
	* There are lots of shuttle articles in net.space anyway.
	* Net.space is gatewayed to and from Arpanet and net.columbia
	  isn't, so there will always be shuttle articles from Arpanet
	  in net.space, while those in net.columbia won't go to Arpanet.

I received a surprisingly small vote which was heavily in FAVOR of the
rmgroup.  Choosing to interpret this as evidence that most people didn't
care one way or the other and those that did care agreed with me, I then
posted a Final Warning of Rmgroup message.

This produced a further flurry of mail, which was equally heavily OPPOSED
to the rmgroup.  I now have a total of 19 Yes votes and 19 outright No
votes.  There are also a number of qualified votes, most of which
are closer to No than to Yes.

It seems to me that the thing to do is solicit still more votes.
SO, IF YOUR NAME IS NOT LISTED BELOW, PLEASE SEND ME MAIL.  And if you
are listed, but want to change your position, also please send mail.

A number of the No votes said things like "I want to read about the
shuttle, but I don't want to wade through all the volume of net.space".
Well, but part of that volume IS articles about the shuttle program.
I will agree that that part has been diminishing somewhat lately, but
then, net.columbia has also been pretty quiet lately.  The shuttle-
related articles are still coming and, because of the Arpanet link,
will continue to come.  If you don't subscribe to net.space, you aren't
getting all the shuttle articles NOW.

Some No voters cited previous surveys.  My point was that I felt that
conditions had changed since those surveys were taken.  I was and am
willing to be outvoted, but I still see net.columbia as needless now.
It can always be recreated later when the Shuttle program resumes!
Anything might happen by that time.

There were one or two proposals that net.columbia should be gatewayed
to the Arpanet as well.  I think this would be a great idea if the
group continues to exist, but it requires someone on the Arpanet to
administer a mailing list there.  If there ARE any takers out there,
I suggest they announce themselves on the Arpa space mailing list
(so we'll see it on Usenet in net.space).

Someone pointed out that, in the reorganization, net.columbia is to
become sci.space.shuttle, and said that it would therefore automatically
go to Arpanet along with sci.space.  To the best of my knowledge this is
wrong.  (Erik?)  Even if true, it would at best lead to a confusing
situation where followups to sci.space.shuttle articles ended up on
Usenet in sci.space.

A couple of people asked that I wait until the Grand Reorganization is
over.  But the reorganization only affects the naming of groups, and
thus only affects how the change would be implemented.

Finally, some people questioned my authority to post a Final Warning
of Rmgroup article, when I am not a backbone admin, or because I had
received only 20-odd votes in 2 weeks.  This has mostly been settled
by mail.  The first point simply shows a misunderstanding of the way
the net works.  Changes to newsgroups are proposed and voted on by the
people who actually use the group ... they are the only ones familiar
enough with it.  (If NO backbone admins read a group, does that mean
it can never be deleted?)

The role of Gene Spafford and his ilk is to make sure that proper
procedures are followed.  Of course they can also act as individuals
if they wish.  But in taking the mail resulting from proposing a
rmgroup, I am doing Gene a favor.  You will note, incidentally, that
Gene is on the list of Yes voters.

As to the number of votes needed... if people see a proposal that they
don't feel strongly about, they can be expected not to vote, and not to
care whatever happens.  If people do feel strongly about something, then
they can be expected to say so.  Gene agreed that if the Final Warning
did not produce a substantial change in the voting, then I *did* have
sufficient authority to rmgroup.  But there was a change.

When the matter seemed doubtful, people voted Yes.  When it looked as if
the Yes side was winning, people voted No.  Now it looks like a tie, which
goes to No by default ... unless I get a bunch more Yes votes.  If you
care about this matter, please vote!

And now, a summary of the votes to date:

Voting YES:
	csustan!smdev		(Scott Hazen Mueller)
	cfa!willner
	watmath!sahayman	(Steve Hayman)
	bogstad@BRL.ARPA
	amdahl!gam		(Gordon A. Moffett)
	usc-oberon!demke	(Christopher Demke)
	mks!tj			(T. J. Thompson)
	unicus!rae		(Reid Ellis)
	mtgzz!dls		(Dale Skran)
	druhi!tml		(Tim Larison)
	masscomp!carlton	(Carl Hommel)
	dadla!dant		(Dan Tilque)
	utzoo!henry		(Henry Spencer)
	van-bc!sl		(Stuart Lynne)
	amdahl!jon		(Jonathan Leech)
	wmartin@ALMSA-1.ARPA	(Will Martin)
	gilbbs!mc68020		(Tom Keller)
	gatech!spaf		(Gene Spafford)
	lznv!psc		(Paul S. R. Chisholm)

Voting NO outright:
	alice!jj	[Who really WAS on the previous posted list!]
	nike!yee		(Peter Yee)
	tekecs!andrew		(Andrew Klossner)
	hao!woods		(Greg Woods)
	unicus!sat 		(Scott A. Thurlow)
	styx!mcb		(Michael C. Berch)
	randvax!jim		(Jim Gillogly)
	topaz!friedman		(-Gadi)
	felix!bytebug		(Roger L. Long)
	wudma!oldroyd		(L. A. Oldroyd)
	tomk@leia.GWD.TEK.COM	(Tom Kloos)
	ll1!cej			(Llewellyn Jones)
	wldrdg!tony
	newton!clt		(Carrick Talmadge)
	ethos!gary		(Gary J. Smith)
	fluke!johnr		(John Redfield)
	beowulf.UCSD.EDU!rose	(Dan Rose)
	saber!msc		(Mark Callow)
	epimass!jbuck		(Joe Buck)

Other:
	umcp-cs!mangoe		(Charley Wingate)
	uvula!earle		(Greg Earle)
	    These pointed out that one of my reasons was wrong.

	haddock!karl		(Karl Heuer)
	    Karl said to try making it a subgroup of net.space first, and see
	    what happens; then rmgroup if no traffic.

	unicus!cks		(Chris Siebenmann)
	    Undecided with leanings to no.

	sdcrdcf!pmontgom	(Peter Montgomery)
	    Wants "military and political uses" of space separated from
	    "shuttle and scientific uses".  (This is, of course, different
	    from the existing split.)

	mtgzy!ecl		(EveLyn C. Leeper)
	    Says to wait until the dust settles from the reorganization.

		{ decvax | ihnp4* | watmath | ... } !utzoo!dciem!msb
Mark Brader		also via	  uw-beaver!utcsri!dciem!msb
			also via hplabs!seismo!mnetor!lsuc!dciem!msb
*Avoid -- overloaded.

------------------------------

Date: 25 Sep 86 09:20 PDT
From: William Daul / McDonnell-Douglas / APD-ASD  <WBD.MDC@office-1.arpa>
Subject: Request For Information On GOOD Space-Related Video
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Cc: videotech@sri-kl.arpa

I just purchased a video tape from the NASA-AMES gift shop called
SATELLITE RESUCE IN SPACE Shuttle Flights 41C & 51A.  I really like
it...it is VERY general, but what elese can I expect?  Can anyone else
recommend other good tapes relating to the space program?  Thanks,
--Bi//

------------------------------

Date: 24 Sep 86 17:27:33 GMT
From: tektronix!tekgen!tekcbi!jeffg@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Jeff Glover)
Subject: Re: Shuttle Launch Viewing
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

My favorite is about 14 miles south of the pad, on the Banana river.
The road (I forget the name or number) is the one used to get to the
Southern entrance to the air force base (Cape Canaveral), as well as to
Jetty park.  Any good map should show both these locations.  Go east as
if you were going to go through the last tollbooth before Jetty park,
turn around before paying the toll and park along the roadway like
everybody else.  I've not been there for about 2.5 years, so the local
gov't may have cracked down on the parking by now.

The pad (39A) is visible (through a telescope or binocs) and is
fantastic when lit up at night.  I have some good telephoto pictures
from this location.

After viewing about 10 launches from the same spot, I guess it's time
I share the location :-)

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 25 Sep 86 17:23:35 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: space
Subject: The State of the Space Program

The following is a very concise description of my view of the state of
the countries space program.  I concentrated on conciseness since I
intended to get it into a single page letter to my various elected
representitives.

Something must be done about our Space Program.  I believe the time has
come to "fish or cut bait".  We must either devise a program that has
goals to reach for and sufficient resources to work with or we should
stop wasting vital national resources on a farce.

The current situation is very bleak.  The Report of the Presidential
Commission on the Space Shuttle Accident reveals that NASA has become a
hollow shell of the organization it once was.  It appears that it will
be very expensive in both time and money to fix even the institutional
problems, let alone to buy a replacement orbiter.  All of our other
launchers except the Atlas have had catastrophic failures this year.
The Atlas that successfully launched a weather satellite last week was a
25 year old missile.  In addition, confusion reigns: turf battles
between the military and NASA disrupt their work, amazing regulatory
difficulties face fledgling rocket and satellite companies, and joint
agreements with international partners have been broken too many times
to count.

Meanwhile, we pay great costs for delay.  A skilled technician is
furloughed, or changes jobs while waiting for the next launch.  A
scientist at JPL, who has a decade of his career invested in a space
probe, may not see it working for at least another decade.  A company
with a satellite to launch is forced to find a launcher from another
source: the French, Japanese, or Chinese.  Military intelligence and the
SDIO squabble over the dwindling stockpiles of rockets whose production
lines have been shut down for years.

A responsible approach would be to cancel the whole thing.  Let the
scientists and technicians get on with productive careers.  Reopen the
Titan production line for the military and COMSAT people.  Spend NASA's
budget on more pressing concerns.  This is not a good choice because it
fails to capitalize on the great opportunity presented by space
development.  But it would be far, far better than staying the present
course.

What we need, much more than money, is good old fashion leadership.  A
clear statement of goals, both short and long term, a division of labor
between the many government players, and some help to get private
industry going.  NASA should be returned to the research and development
business.  The military needs a redundant supply of rocket launchers.
Space science needs shorter lead times between experiment and results.
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.

We have come to a time for decision.  We must set our sights high and
extend our reach or cut our losses and get on to other things.  We must
act now!

------------------------------

Date: 25 Sep 86 19:29:14 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

In article <348@telesoft.UUCP>, roger@telesoft.UUCP (Roger Arnold @prodigal) writes:
> 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? ...
> <Cites lots of reasons to go with liquid>

It seems I heard long ago that refurbishing of liquid propelled
systems after a salt water was more of a problem than for solids.  But
the French were looking at recovering the Ariane first stage
(according to an AW&ST article a year or two ago).  They didn't expect
any show stoppers.

As far as development cost is concerned, the F-1 would appear to be a
good candidate, since it's already developed.  Its thrust is less than
an SRB (1.5 vs. 2.1 million pounds), but then an F-1 booster would
weigh a lot less too, for reasons you cited.

		David Smith

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V6 #403
*******************


