Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson Received: from hogtown.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests) ID ; Sat, 30 Mar 91 01:27:21 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <8bx2z1C00WBwIRG04Z@andrew.cmu.edu> Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Sat, 30 Mar 91 01:27:14 -0500 (EST) Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #322 SPACE Digest Volume 13 : Issue 322 Today's Topics: I want to go to orbit... MAJOR GEOMAGNETIC STORM UPDATE #1 - 26 MARCH - STORM CONTINUES Re: Japan Moon Probes article Re: Japan Moon Probes article Re: "Follies" Administrivia: Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to space+@andrew.cmu.edu. Other mail, esp. [un]subscription requests, should be sent to space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu, or, if urgent, to tm2b+@andrew.cmu.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 25 Mar 91 17:46:21 GMT From: usc!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!quiche!msdos@apple.com (Mark SOKOLOWSKI) Subject: I want to go to orbit... Hi, What are the steps in order to build a reliable space-shuttle like spaceship in order to send myself to orbit for the summer holidays? I'm thinking about a 20-30 ton rocket with a 900 kg payload made up of a car sized hypersonic glidder, fitted with 3 rocket engines. There will be 2 boosters of about 10 tons each, and a main liquid hydrogen-oxygen tank of about 10 tons too. I have a Chalet near a lake with some forest behind (covered with lots of other chalets and people... sighhh, but I can manage to get a 50ft X 50ft field on which to start my project) where I plan to launch this private space shuttle from an underground tunnel (Ha ha... what a surprise for my neighboors: Is it an earthquake? No, ME!). I guess I'll break the canadian law forbidding to send rocket of more than 650 gramms (20 oz) in the air... but I'll land somewhere else. Thanks in advance for any advice. Mark ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Mar 91 23:20:44 MST From: oler%HG.ULeth.CA@BITNET.CC.CMU.EDU (CARY OLER) Subject: MAJOR GEOMAGNETIC STORM UPDATE #1 - 26 MARCH - STORM CONTINUES X-St-Vmsmail-To: st%"space+@andrew.cmu.edu" /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ GEOMAGNETIC STORM UPDATE /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ 06:00 UT, 26 March ------------- STORM UPDATE INFORMATION: The geomagnetic field is still very stormy. Minor to major magnetic perturbations have been measured over all latitudes. Severe storming has occurred over the high latitudes. The activity tonight isn't quite as intense as it was yesterday, although some large magnetic excursions have occurred. Auroral activity is intense again tonight over North America, although it doesn't appear to be quite as intense as it was 24 hours ago. No low-latitude auroral activity reports have been received yet, although low latitude sightings may still be possible. No significant proton enhancements have been observed from the major class X5.3/3B flare earlier this UT day. This leads us to believe that the terrestrial impacts most likely will not be as intense as the present storm. However, a risk still exists for major geomagnetic storming over middle latitudes if an interplanetary shock hits the Earth. We do believe a shock will arrive, sometime between approximately 09:00 UT and the end of the present UT day. The intensity of the ensuing geomagnetic activity is predicted to remain at minor to major storm levels until approximately 28 March, when conditions should begin to improve (again, barring any further energetic flaring). HF propagation conditions will remain poor to very poor for most (if not all) of 26 March. If an interplanetary shock arrives as expected, conditions could become degraded again with frequent blackout periods from polar latitudes to middle latitudes. Polar and high latitudes are still experiencing intense magnetic and PCA related ionospheric absorption. Conditions are not expected to improve there for at least the next 24 to 48 hours. We aren't out of the woods yet. VHF and UHF auroral backscatter communications will remain possible, particularly over the middle and high latitudes. If storming surpasses predicted levels, low-latitude auroral communications may become possible. Conditions are still favorable for auroral backscatter communications and will likely remain fairly favorable for the next 24 to 48 hours, particularly if the flare shock arrives as expected. The next update will be released around 18:00 UT on 26 March. All alerts and warnings remain in effect. No changes have been made since the last magnetic storm update report. The following alerts remain IN PROGRESS until at least 18:00 UT, 26 March: - MAJOR GEOMAGNETIC STORM ALERT - GEOMAGNETICALLY INDUCED CURRENT (GIC) ALERT - LOW LATITUDE AURORAL ACTIVITY ALERT - SATELLITE PROTON EVENT ALERT - POLAR CAP ABSORPTION EVENT ALERT - POLAR AND HIGH LATITUDE RADIO SIGNAL BLACKOUT ALERT The following warnings are IN PROGRESS: - POTENTIAL GEOMAGNETIC STORM WARNING (valid 26/27 March) - POTENTIAL MAJOR SOLAR FLARE WARNING - POTENTIAL PROTON FLARE WARNING /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ ------------------------------ Date: 25 Mar 91 00:12:11 GMT From: magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ccut!wnoc-tyo-news!astemgw!kuis!rins!will@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (will) Subject: Re: Japan Moon Probes article Article <7435@idunno.Princeton.EDU> Sat 00:04 Subject: Re: Japan Moon Probes article From: elturner@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Edwin L Turner @ Princeton University) Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro (14 lines) In article <1991Mar22.072949.18057@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov ( Ron Baalke) writes: >>The Times says the $100 million mission would make the >>Japanese the third group to land a probe on the moon, after the >>U.S. and the Soviet Union. The story says the probes will be >>ready in Spring, 1996. > In article <7435@idunno.Princeton.EDU>elturner@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Edwin L Turner @ Princeton University) writes: >And you can safely bet that they will be, too. > Absolutly, I agree. After all, any country that can destroy America can go to any moon of their choice. In case you hav'nt herd, America surrendered to Japan in Kuwait. That was the main purpose of Foreign Minister Taro Nakayama to Washington, to remind the President that the U.S. in now owned by Japan and that Washington D.C. has been moved to Tokyo Japan. William Dee Rieken Researcher, Computer Visualization Faculty of Science and Technology Ryukoku University Seta, Otsu 520-21, Japan Tel: 0775-43-7418(direct) Fax: 0775-43-7749 will@rins.ryukoku.ac.jp ------------------------------ Date: 25 Mar 91 03:30:22 GMT From: magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ccut!wnoc-tyo-news!astemgw!kuis!rins!will@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (will) Subject: Re: Japan Moon Probes article In article <1991Mar22.072949.18057@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov ( Ron Baalke) writes: >>>The Times says the $100 million mission would make the >>>Japanese the third group to land a probe on the moon, after the >>>U.S. and the Soviet Union. The story says the probes will be >>>ready in Spring, 1996. >> In article <7435@idunno.Princeton.EDU>elturner@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Edwin L Tu rner @ Princeton University) writes: >>And you can safely bet that they will be, too. >> In article <196@rins.ryukoku.ac.jp>will@rins.ryukoku.ac.jp (will) writes: >Absolutly, I agree. After all, any country that can destroy America >can go to any moon of their choice. In case you hav'nt herd, America >surrendered to Japan in Kuwait. That was the main purpose of Foreign >Minister Taro Nakayama to Washington, to remind the President that the >U.S. in now owned by Japan and that Washington D.C. has been moved to >Tokyo Japan. Well, my statements were overkill and unwarrented, based without actual facts, and most likely an insult to the intellectuals on sci.space. It is'nt my intentions to comment on Japan in the sense that I am another McCarthy on a witch hunt for the Japanese. My intentions are to bring about issues, In reference to a particular group, that are not normally addressed about the relations of Japan and the U.S. and the effects of Japanese policys on the U.S.. I am not anti-japanese or anti-anything else, and I despise prejudice people. I try to make useful and constructive remarks, but in this case I screwed up, big time. I therefore would like to apologise for my earlier remarks. I have placed the reflections below, so that you get an idea of what I tried to say. I any case, they are my comments and I may be wrong, but just maybe I may also be right. If anyone is interested in constructive talks about Japan and U.S. relations, please write me. Reflections: 1. After all, any country that can destroy America can go to any moon of their choice.: This is not really valid, America sold itself out to the Japanese and is now paying the price. 2. In case you hav'nt heard, America surrendered to Japan in Kuwait. The issue here is not 'surrender' but can American companies compete against Japan in the Kuwait Theatre. If not, then I will show once and for all, that Japan is the Victor on the Economic Wars front. 3. The Visit of the foreign minister. Living in Japan now for over 8 years. Watching very closely the relations between Japan and the U.S., I found this to be a valid assesment of his intended visit. An American reporter once said: (This is approx.) " The ruler's of America got tired of ruling, so sold everything to the Japanese". On this side of the ocean, it looks like he was right. In any respect, if the Japanese place a probe on the moon, great. If they can place a moon base there fine. I think the U.S. has had plenty of time to place a base on the moon and place a space-station in orbit. If we can'nt do, then the U.S. must stand aside and let someone who can do, do it. What's really hard to believe is that the country that put man on another planet, can't even put a space station in orbit that's useful for long term. Too much politics and very little work it seems. William Dee Rieken Researcher, Computer Visualization Faculty of Science and Technology Ryukoku University Seta, Otsu 520-21, Japan Tel: 0775-43-7418(direct) Fax: 0775-43-7749 will@rins.ryukoku.ac.jp ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Mar 91 21:35:23 EST From: John Roberts Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement. Subject: Re: "Follies" >From: dil@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Perry G Ramsey) >Subject: Re: "Follies" >Date: 22 Mar 91 16:37:17 GMT >Organization: Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences >You guys tell all these sad tales to the Indians who lived in the >Salt Lake area or Massachusetts for many years before the Europeans >dropped in and showed them how to exist. It was the opposite situation at least for the Plymouth colony, as you surely know. At least according to the high school history textbooks, the Plymouth colonists probably would have died off entirely if the Indians hadn't shown them how to get along in their new environment. Plymouth Colony is a very good example of how *not* to set up a new colony. >There's fresh water. There (was) abundant wild game. There are >a variety of edible plants, if you know which are which. There's water (not highly concentrated, but a large amount overall), soil, minerals, and energy (sunlight) available on the moon, and probably on a number of asteroids. >Even the deepest desert of southern California supported human >existence before the Europeans dammed the creeks and destroyed the >wildlife. There *were*, I believe, uninhabited areas in North America (and still are). >Even the most hostile desert on earth is infinitely >more hospitable than the moon. "Infinitely" is not a very useful term. If you don't want to use numbers, I can say that humans are "infinitely" more able to survive in a hostile environment than they were at the time of the settlement of Salt Lake City. Which "infinity" is greater? >That doesn't say that lunar colonization is impossible. It does say >that you aren't going to do it on the cheap, as the original post >claimed. An very well developed transportation infrastructure is essential >if you are going to keep the colonists supplied with the basic >necessities of life. "Cheap" is a relative term. What I said was that I think it could probably be done with *less* than four orders magnitude drop in transportation costs. In the past, Henry Spencer has mentioned a proposal someone made to start a minimal moon colony with one or a small number of Shuttle launches. (I don't remember the details - perhaps this would be a good time to describe it again.) While I'm not convinced it's a good idea to try to start up an absolute minimum colony (the risks are very high), I think it's very useful to figure out what the minimum would be, because this can give us information on the size of effort and the level of technology needed to set up a colony that has a fairly good chance of success. >You can't eat moon rocks, no matter how many >important minerals they might contain. Since we earth people basically eat earth rocks, why couldn't we eat moon rocks? Of course, there's some amount of processing needed. Surely you're not going to suggest that the American Indians all just slept naked on the ground and fed themselves exclusively by picking objects up off the ground and putting them in their mouths. For almost any environment, there's a need for processing of materials, construction of shelter, production of food (by means of solar energy), etc. >Perry G. Ramsey Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences >dil@mace.cc.purdue.edu Purdue University, W. Lafayette, IN USA >perryr@vm.cc.purdue.edu *** IMAGINE YOUR LOGO HERE ****** John Roberts roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V13 #322 *******************