Date: Mon, 21 Sep 92 05:00:18 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V15 #226 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Mon, 21 Sep 92 Volume 15 : Issue 226 Today's Topics: Clinton's platform on the space program (2 msgs) Clinton and Space Funding (2 msgs) Ethics (4 msgs) Ethics of Terra-forming (2 msgs) Ion for Pluto Direct Nitpicking over Phobos Hopper (was Re: Soviet Rovers on Mars) Pluto Direct Propulsion Options Property rights (was Terraforming needs to begin now) QUERY: Apollo/Landing Module operations Radio and property rights satellite construction question Solar radiation and astronauts Spacelab-J Frog Embryology Experiment :-) Welcome to the Space Digest!! Please send your messages to "space@isu.isunet.edu", and (un)subscription requests of the form "Subscribe Space " to one of these addresses: listserv@uga (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle (THENET), or space-REQUEST@isu.isunet.edu (Internet). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1992 20:36:25 EDT From: SML108@psuvm.psu.edu Subject: Clinton's platform on the space program Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space CLINTON/GORE ON AMERICA'S SPACE PROGRAM The end of the Cold War offers new opportunities and new challenges for our civilian space program. In recent years the program has lacked vision and leadership. Because the Reagan and Bush administrations have failed to establish priorities and to match program needs with available resources, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has been saddled with more missions than it can successfully accomplish. Bill Clinton and Al Gore support a strong U.S. civilian space program -- for its scientific value, its economic and environmental benefits, its role in building new partnerships with other countries, and its inspiration of our nations youth. A Clinton/Gore Administration space program will seek to meet the needs of the United States and other nations while moving toward our long-term space objectives, including human exploration of the solar system. A Clinton/Gore space program will also promote the development of new technologies, create new jobs for our highly-skilled former defense workers, and increase our understanding of the planet and its delicate environmental balance. Move beyond the Cold War * Restore the historical funding equilibrium between NASA and the Defense Departments space program. The Reagan and Bush Administrations spent more on defense space initiatives than on civilian space projects. * Achieve greater cooperation in space with our traditional allies in Europe and Japan, as well as with Russia. Greater U.S.-Russian cooperation in space will benefit both countries, combining the vast knowledge and resources both countries have gathered since the launch of Sputnik in 1957. Improve the American economy through space * Direct NASA to give high priority to continued improvement of the American civil aircraft industry, which faces increasing international competition. NASA research can play an important role in developing less polluting, more fuel efficient, and quieter aircraft. * Work to improve our space industries competitiveness. Well direct NASA to develop cutting-edge rocket and satellite technologies. We will also develop a new, cost effective, and reliable launch system to maximize scientific and commercial payloads. Link NASA and the environment * Support NASA efforts -- like Mission to Planet Earth -- to improve our understanding of the global environment. * Call on NASA to develop smaller, more focused missions which address pressing environmental concerns. Strengthen NASA and education * Direct NASA to expand educational programs that improve American performance in math and science. Space education can help maintain our technological edge and improve our competitiveness. * Direct NASA to expand the outreach of its educational efforts beyond its five field centers, so that millions more people can learn about space. * Maintain the Space Shuttles integral role in our civilian space program. The Shuttle is extremely complex and will always be expensive and difficult to operate. But we must take full advantage of its unique capabilities. * Support completion of Space Station Freedom, basing its development on the twin principles of greater cooperation and burden sharing with our allies. By organizing effectively on this project, we can pave the way for future joint international ventures, both in space and on Earth. Encourage planetary exploration through the best space science * Stress efforts to learn about other planets. These improve our understanding of our own world and stimulate advances in computers, sensors, image processing and communications. * Fully utilize robotic missions to learn more about the universe. * Although we cannot yet commit major resources to human planetary exploration, this dream should be among the considerations that guide our science and engineering. Because the entire world will share the benefits of human planetary explorations, the costs for any such projects should be borne by other nations as well as the United States. The Record * Senator Al Gore chairs the Senate Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space, which has primary responsibility for NASA and plays a key role in efforts to strengthen and revitalize America's space program. * Strongly favors a balanced manned and unmanned space program. Supports completion of Space Station Freedom and enhancements to the fleet of Space Shuttles to ensure safety and reliability. * Has championed Mission to Planet Earth, an initiative designed to gather comprehensive information on the Earth's changing environment. He strongly supports efforts to channel information on the Earth's environment to teachers and school children. * Strongly supports efforts to strengthen our leadership in aviation. * Has tried to use space exploration as a bridge to international cooperation, not competition. Pushed the administration to investigate the possibilities for integrating surviving elements of the Soviet space program into the U.S. program in ways beneficial to America and its aerospace workers. * Following the Challenger disaster, Senator Gore uncovered quality assurance deficiencies at NASA, gaining a greater commitment to quality assurance and accountability at NASA. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1992 03:10:40 GMT From: Cameron Randale Bass Subject: Clinton's platform on the space program Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space In article <92264.203625SML108@psuvm.psu.edu> writes: > > > CLINTON/GORE ON AMERICA'S SPACE PROGRAM > > > >The end of the Cold War offers new opportunities >and new challenges for our civilian space program. >In recent years the program has lacked vision and >leadership. Because the Reagan and Bush >administrations have failed to establish priorities >and to match program needs with available >resources, the National Aeronautics and Space >Administration (NASA) has been saddled with more >missions than it can successfully accomplish. Translation: slice the budget without regard to anything. >* Restore the historical funding equilibrium > between NASA and the Defense Departments space > program. The Reagan and Bush Administrations > spent more on defense space initiatives than > on civilian space projects. Translation: slice the defense budget without regard to anything. >* Although we cannot yet commit major resources > to human planetary exploration, this dream > should be among the considerations that guide > our science and engineering. Because the > entire world will share the benefits of human > planetary explorations, the costs for any such > projects should be borne by other nations as > well as the United States. The 'Everly Brothers' plank. dale bass -- C. R. Bass crb7q@virginia.edu Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering University of Virginia Charlottesville, Virginia (804) 924-7926 ------------------------------ Date: 18 Sep 92 16:48:21 GMT From: "Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona" Subject: Clinton and Space Funding Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,talk.politics.space,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton In article <1992Sep14.163702.6785@eng.umd.edu>, sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney) writes: > In article <1992Sep14.000925.21854@news.columbia.edu>, egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes: > > > >Military research will probably be cut. As I pointed out, this is not > >necessarily a very bad thing, since this kind of research is no longer > >economically beneficial. And you're probably totally off base, given > >the voting records and policy statements of Clinton/Gore. > > Wrong on both counts. How do you define "economically beneficial"? The Global > Positioning System is one pretty nifty spin-off from the Evil Military, hm? > Smaller computers? Smart-optics compensation for telescopes? > > And remember that the current day cellular radio telephones are only feasible because of the military R&D in semiconductor electronics: without the current day VLSI CMOS chips, the cellular telephone (car phone) would require a semi-trailer to hold the electronics and most of the engine's output to power it. 911 telephone service, automated dialing, caller id, and a host of other micro-electronic devices would also not exist if it were not for military R&D spending. Oh yeah, we also get a whole *lot* of our fancy medical gadgets from military R&D offshoots. Entitlements and foreign aid are examples of gov't expenditures which are not "economically beneficial." Foreign aid devalues the dollar. Entitlements prevent people from contributing to the economy. Military R&D provides jobs (Damn good paying jobs) not only for those who do the work, but also for a great deal more who make the supplies for the work. -- "25 States allow anyone to buy a gun, strap it on, and walk down the street with no permit of any kind: some say it's crazy. However, 4 out of 5 US murders are committed in the other half of the country: so who is crazy?" - Andrew Ford gtephx!forda@enuucp.eas.asu.edu OR !uunet!samsung!romed!enuucp!gtephx!forda ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1992 22:56:03 GMT From: Mark 'Henry' Komarinski Subject: Clinton and Space Funding Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,talk.politics.space,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes: >In article <1992Sep14.163702.6785@eng.umd.edu>, sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney) writes: >> In article <1992Sep14.000925.21854@news.columbia.edu>, egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes: >> > >> >Military research will probably be cut. As I pointed out, this is not >> >necessarily a very bad thing, since this kind of research is no longer >> >economically beneficial. And you're probably totally off base, given >> >the voting records and policy statements of Clinton/Gore. >> >> Wrong on both counts. How do you define "economically beneficial"? The Global >> Positioning System is one pretty nifty spin-off from the Evil Military, hm? >> Smaller computers? Smart-optics compensation for telescopes? >> >> >And remember that the current day cellular radio telephones are only feasible >because of the military R&D in semiconductor electronics: without the >current day VLSI CMOS chips, the cellular telephone (car phone) would >require a semi-trailer to hold the electronics and most of the engine's >output to power it. [Benefits of military spending, etc...] >Military R&D provides jobs (Damn good paying jobs) not only for >those who do the work, but also for a great deal more who make >the supplies for the work. So what about the benefits from just plain space exploration? Imagine the spinoffs once we get a space platform working, or get a colony on the moon? Or for that matter, make it to the moon again. The benfits of this could be huge. At the same time, people are getting employed and less money is going to trying to kill someone else. -Mark -- - Mark Komarinski - komarimf@craft.camp.clarkson.edu [MIME mail welcome] The only candidate worth voting for is Bill the Cat. He might not do good, but that's never been a requirement. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1992 18:02:55 -0400 From: David O Hunt Subject: Ethics Newsgroups: sci.space If it's an either-or case, then yes, terraform Mars. But we aren't in that position. NOR WILL WE EVER BE. And if there is no life, then go ahead. But if we terrafo0rm Mars KNOWING that there is life there, then we become a race of mass-murderers that Hitler and Stalin would be proud of... Or does the word "genocide" not burn your ears with shame? David Hunt - Graduate Slave | My mind is my own. | Towards both a Mechanical Engineering | So are my ideas & opinions. | Palestinian and Carnegie Mellon University | <<>> | Jewish homeland! ====T=H=E=R=E===I=S===N=O===G=O=D=========T=H=E=R=E===I=S===N=O===G=O=D===== Email: bluelobster+@cmu.edu Working towards my "Piled Higher and Deeper" "Out there is a fortune waiting to be had; do you think I'd let it go you're mad - you got another think coming!" -- Judas Priest ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Sep 92 23:17:07 BST From: amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk Subject: Ethics > So much for "inalienable rights" or "human rights violations" I guess. If > you think I have no rights until a system of law is imposed to give them to > me I'm sure glad you aren't running for office. > It looks to me that Tom is coming across as a Utilitarian, whereas I (and maybe yourself from the above statement) would fall into more of a Natural Rights paradeigm. Utilitarianism makes interesting arguments, but it can justify some truly awful things. One can justify leibensraum with little trouble, because a simple regression of the ongoing argument makes "our race" better than "their race" because I am a member of "our race", and anything that improves conditions for "us" is therefore good. If you push on it at all, it basically breaks down into the "Might makes right" school. Oh, well, I'm butting out. There are no winners in a clash of philosophy schools... (One of these days I'm going to actually sit down and READ Hegel and Wittgenstein and Kant... :-) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1992 18:20:44 -0400 From: David O Hunt Subject: Ethics Newsgroups: sci.space All first-level quotes are From: 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom) >The argument against t-forming requires that you assume >life-in-general is >more valuable than Human life. Since you are a human, you hold a >premise >that contradicts your own existence. Anti-life. No, just anti-human-above-every-other-type-of-life. There's a difference, which I guess you haven't noticed. >>2) I say life is good, just that we have no right to destroy others. > >Then stop eating, or admit the contradiction in your statement. Again, you're ignoring something. I eat to survive. Someday, something might eat me to survive. There's a fundamental difference between survival needs and non-survival needs. We humans don't need to terraform Mars to survive. THAT is the crucial difference which you're ignoring. >>As to polio and AIDS (etc.)...they aren't a passive life form with respect to >>us. They're a disease, and we have the right to defend ourselves against them. > >That right only exists if you think you are more valuable than it. Thinking >you are more valuable also makes it logically consitent to kill simple, >harmless life, if you value life-in-general, and if it is required for Human >life. I'm trying very hard to not flame you, believe me. Again, you're missing a crucial difference. 1) The right to defend onesself from attack (be it disease or a foreign country) cannot be denied. 2) Terraforming Mars IS NOT REQUIRED FOR THE SURVIVAL OF THE HUMAN SPECIES!!! Can't you get that through your skull?? _IF_ it were I'd agree with you. It isn't necessary for us to survive. And again, should it prove that there is no life there, then let's go great guns, after we understand everything about Mars in its natural state. Survival imperatives are different from voluntary imperatives. If terraforming Mars were a survival imperative, then I'd agree that we should destroy the (hypothetical) life there. After we understand as much as we can about it. However, as I said before, but it bears repeating: TERRAFORMING MARS IS NOT A SURVIVAL IMPERATIVE! David Hunt - Graduate Slave | My mind is my own. | Towards both a Mechanical Engineering | So are my ideas & opinions. | Palestinian and Carnegie Mellon University | <<>> | Jewish homeland! ====T=H=E=R=E===I=S===N=O===G=O=D=========T=H=E=R=E===I=S===N=O===G=O=D===== Email: bluelobster+@cmu.edu Working towards my "Piled Higher and Deeper" "Out there is a fortune waiting to be had; do you think I'd let it go you're mad - you got another think coming!" -- Judas Priest ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Sep 92 02:56:40 GMT From: "Thomas H. Kunich" Subject: Ethics Newsgroups: sci.space In article 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom) writes: > >In that case, logic also tells you to stop eating, as you must kill to eat, >and you haven't killed yourself (yet?) If it wasn't in that particular message it was in this string that you cannot, repeat cannot, show any self interest in terms of survival by terraforming Mars. Unless you can there is no case that you can argue that I am ignoring my own self interest. This argument is getting stupid. You are just writing in debating style. I don't wish to argue with blank statements. >But if it came down to Human vs. Mars-life, you can only >conclude (logically; ethically) that we are as valuable or more valuable than >any potential Mars-life. Hence, terra-forming is at least as good as not >terra-forming, even if it would kill said (non-sentient) Mars-life. How do you know what is sentient and what isn't? On the one hand you claim that you aren't omnipotent, then on the other you make statements that seem to say you are. Man has never gotten a decent definition of sentience and yet you know what it is. > >1) There are heterosexual, non needle-required-drug using AIDS victims. I spent 3 years working at a facility that handled HIV on a research basis. Since it was possible to become infected I made every effort to inform my self of all of the available information. So I read most of the CDC reports and the research papers. I suggest you do the same since you obviously don't know what you're talking about. The rest of that paragraph is rife with the "information" that is contaminating the homosexual press in and around San Francisco. Most of it is either lies, distortions or misunderstandings of real facts. > ------------------------------ Date: 19 Sep 92 15:50:05 GMT From: Gary Coffman Subject: Ethics of Terra-forming Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Sep18.142828.17456@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes: > >I guess it's a subjective statement, huh. I think that humans have the >*potential*, the capability, to change the environment *much* more than that. >Yes. Perhaps the reason we haven't had full nuclear exchange, or done >more damage than we all ready have is because of moral considerations? Can >you imagine how the world would be if all industrialized nations had >the XSU's approach to environmental mangament? Sure. Basically all the world's industrial nations *did* have the same kind of environmental management as the former Soviet Union until about 1970. About the only difference between the US and the SU until then was that in the US someone could sue if guck leaked onto his property. There was no legal basis for bringing action for leaks on someone else's property until the various environmental laws were passed in the 70s. You have no idea what the water looked like or smelled like downstream of a textile mill. You have no idea, until you visit Copper Hill Tenn what a copper smelter can do to the vegetation of an area. You have no idea what a coal tailings pile weeped. Only 20 years ago these things were as common in the US as they are now in the ex-USSR. How could things have been this bad only 20 years ago? You have no idea how *big* this country is. Most people never saw these things and those that lived amongst it earned their *living* producing the messes. Environmental disasters aren't new. The Great Sahara *Forest* was turned to desert by bronze axes. Nuclear weapons couldn't have done the job more throughly. Gary ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1992 23:40:50 GMT From: David Knapp Subject: Ethics of Terra-forming Newsgroups: sci.space In article <14309@chalmers.se> d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se (Bertil Jonell) writes: >In article <1992Sep18.052520.13785@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes: >>In article <14280@chalmers.se> d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se (Bertil Jonell) writes: >>>In article <1992Sep17.035122.11105@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes: >>>>How many species do you know of that: >>>>3) Causes mass extinctions on a daily basis. >>>>5) Controls their enviroment, in all aspects, to suit their needs. >>>>6) Expands to live in every environment on the planet. >>> >>> All species that have the capability of doing so. >> >>And how many are that? > > All species 'strive' to do so. Some species cause the extinction of others >(blue-green algae, for example), some control their environemnt (if you belive >in the Gaia hypothesis, most species shape their environment), and some >species are very wide spread. I give up. -- David Knapp University of Colorado, Boulder Perpetual Student knapp@spot.colorado.edu ------------------------------ Date: 20 Sep 92 20:54:22 GMT From: Dave Tholen Subject: Ion for Pluto Direct Newsgroups: sci.space Phil G. Fraering writes: > I've been thinking lately, though. The people running the Pluto > mission are dead set on using experimental sensors and never-before > -at-that-scale solid rockets on their probe to avoid having to use > ion rockets. So could another probe be used to test this out? Just what is your source for this information??? Experimental sensors??? I've heard of nothing experimental about the instruments proposed. If they are able to make them as lightweight as they hope to, they would different from previous instruments in this way, but hardly what I would call experimental. And you make it sound like the mission designers are going out of their way to AVOID using ion drive. Nonsense! The launch vehicle hasn't even been selected yet, nor would I expect them to unless the mission actually gets funded. Atlas-Centaur, Titan IV, and Proton have all been suggested as launch vehicles at different times during the mission planning, with the preferred vehicle depending on the tradeoff between spacecraft mass and flight time. Just exactly what "never-before- at-that-scale solid rockets" are you referring to? > What about a probe to look at Chiron, or 1992-QB-1? Maybe we could finally > find out whether or not it's Planet X... Define Planet X and I'll tell you whether it is or isn't. If size is your criterion, Ceres is larger than Chiron or 1992 QB1, so the tenth planet was found almost 200 years ago... ------------------------------ Date: 15 Sep 92 17:04:55 GMT From: "Phil G. Fraering" Subject: Nitpicking over Phobos Hopper (was Re: Soviet Rovers on Mars) Newsgroups: sci.space jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins) writes: >There's an exhibit of Soviet Hardware in St. Louis. Has anyone seen it yet? >Bill, would you like to join us on a trip? Is there anyone down in this direction interested in going I could possibly split costs with? -- Phil Fraering pgf@srl0x.cacs.usl.edu where the x is a number from 1-5. Phone: 318/365-5418 SnailMail: 2408 Blue Haven Dr., New Iberia, La. 70560 "NOAH!" "Yes Lord?" - Bill Cosby "HOW LONG CAN YOU TREAD WA ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1992 02:00:20 GMT From: David Knapp Subject: Pluto Direct Propulsion Options Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary In article <1992Sep19.204909.23916@news.Hawaii.Edu> tholen@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen) writes: >David Knapp writes: > >> What is your criteria for 'isothermal'? Wouldn't we expect *some* temperature >> differentials from solar heating even though albedos may not be extremely >> low? > >The criterion was given right in the earlier message: "...which could be the >case is methane frost is everywhere." This does not preclude temperature gradients. >It all depends on the material. For >example, consider a swimming pool, half of which is in sunlight, and half of >which is in the shade of a house or tree. Walking around the concrete deck, >you may notice that the temperature of the concrete is different whether it >is in the sunlight or in the shade, but the temperature of the water will be >much more isothermal. It's all a question of energy transport, the thermal >inertias of the materials involved, and so on. In that pool, if you add a dye, you will notice convection currents driven by the temperature gradient induced by the sunlight. I still do not understand why a person would posit that the surface or atmosphere of Pluto would be isothermal. Isothermal to within, perhaps .5 K, but even a differential of .5 K is enough to drive some convective processes. What am I missing? Am I misinterpreting something? -- David Knapp University of Colorado, Boulder Perpetual Student knapp@spot.colorado.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Sep 92 21:38:05 BST From: amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk Subject: Property rights (was Terraforming needs to begin now) > >I've never even seen a documentary on the subject. I have, however, > >had contact with an Australian aborigine, > Let me get this straight. You presume to pontificate on a subject > on the basis of contact with _one_ member of a minority group with > a grievance ??? > If you have points to discuss (the above is hardly an opening to a debate) you should have contacted me off line. ------------------------------ Date: 21 Sep 92 01:58:33 GMT From: John Deane Subject: QUERY: Apollo/Landing Module operations Newsgroups: sci.space Hello Folk, I _REALLY_ enjoyed "The Space Shuttle Operator's Manual" by Joels & Kennedy (Macmillan 1983, Ballantine 1982). Ever since then I've wanted something slightly similar for Apollo and the LM. Does anyone know if such a thing was ever published? Thanks, John Deane jdeane@rp.csiro.au ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Sep 92 23:33:36 BST From: amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk Subject: Radio and property rights > How many radio astronomers do you know who can afford to sue CBS? > None under the current system. With strong property rights it would not be just a civil matter, but one of criminal theft and trespass. The cost of suits is an artifice of byzantine legal structures that attempt to allocate a resource without actually setting down ownership and a clear definition of that ownership. When the law is ambiguous, the guy with the best lawyers wins. > (Or, to take a real example of RF pollution, how many radio astronomers > do you know who can afford to sue the Department of Defense over the > rather unfortunate choice of frequency for GPS?) > Again, the problem is that DOD is part of the government. The government gives favor and the government taketh away favor. There is no defense for astronomers other than costly and research-time consuming lobby activities. > Even ignoring that, why do you assume that having a judge make such a > decision is better than having the FCC make it? The big guys *will* > ride roughshod over the little guys unless there are referees to blow > the whistle on them. > If my frequency is my property, as clearly defined as the surveyor lines that define my backyard, then it is just as easy to define that a crime has occured in either case. Big guy or little guy, I need only show a title and prove trespass. An aside: there was a guy in England a couple years ago who defended himself against a local authority that was going to bulldoze his house. He refused to leave the property, and it was such a big deal that the BBC had a camera when the dozer and a bureaucrat came down. The property owner shot the bureaucrat, on camera. Most refreshing piece of news I've seen in years :-) The Lib International should give him a medal, if they could get it to him in prison... ------------------------------ Date: 20 Sep 92 18:11:13 GMT From: "k.c.archie" Subject: satellite construction question Newsgroups: sci.space Over dinner last night, a friend wondered if satellites had air in them. If they do and are airtight, they must be built to withstand the pressure in space. If they are evacuated, they must withstand the pressure on earth. Since I assume they are built in a room at standard pressure, do they have pressure relief valves for when they get into orbit (or is that onto orbit?) or are they built to withstand the pressure? Thanks for any answers. **kent Kent Archie kca@iwtqg.att.com I used the word pressure 6 times in this post. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1992 02:14:33 GMT From: Frank Crary Subject: Solar radiation and astronauts Newsgroups: sci.space In article henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >The bottom line, as I understand it, is that if you use a storm shelter >against flares (if you don't, and there's a big flare, you die) but >don't have 10T/m^2 of cosmic-ray shielding, you're looking at about >one REM per week. The rate actually depends on the solar cycle also: For some reason cosmic rays are less intense during the solar maximum. The rate is ~50 REM/year (1/week) at solar minimum and down to ~20 REM/year at solar maximum. There are some ideas out of Martian Marietta for 1 tonne/_person_ shielding that would half this. Frank Crary CU Boulder ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1992 02:03:21 GMT From: Bob Kanefsky Subject: Spacelab-J Frog Embryology Experiment :-) Newsgroups: sci.space,shuttle Anyone know if they took still pictures, as well as video, of the frog experiment? Those frogs would make some handsome prints. --Kanef Any puns expressed herein are the bad taste of the author and not necessarily that of Sterling Software or NASA. ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 226 ------------------------------