Date: Fri, 26 Mar 93 05:10:45 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V16 #367 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Fri, 26 Mar 93 Volume 16 : Issue 367 Today's Topics: DC-X gravity How to cool Venus Life in the Galaxy MIS-Quoting More water simulations Plans, absence therof Russia's OPERATIONAL Starwars Defense System Space Science data formats Space Station Freedom Redesign SR-71 Maiden Science Flight SSTO: A Spaceship for the rest of us the call to space (was Re: Clueless Szaboisms ) waste management... 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: 24 Mar 1993 21:33:23 GMT From: Andy Cohen Subject: DC-X Newsgroups: sci.space It looks really weird because.... IT'S SQUARE MAN! Really, the thing is square....at the bottom, then tapers to circular at the top. Today's walk-by revealed that the upper section is now attached to the body. They still need to attach the top nose cone (from NASA!) and the base shield. A friend of mine is working the base shield and he gave me a detailed look at his work.... The engines are recessed (in DC-X. I don't think they will still be so in Y). That is, the exhaust nozzels end ....inside...the skin at the base. The base shield has oversized holes to allow nozzle movement(not for the nozzles, they're recessed....for the exhaust!). Specially designed with a new heat resistant aluminum, the covers attach to the nozzles after the base shield is attached. These covers coverup the oversized holes on the outside.......such a nice design.......and so hard to describe...sorry... The Flight Ops Command Center (the trailer) is all painted with neat SSRT, SDI and DC-X logos..... If the company store starts to sell patches...I'll let ya know if I can get them... The rollout is NEXT saturday..... I plan on being there. I also plan to post my recollections of the historic event here on your favorite USENET board.....unless they throw me out for being a....groupie... ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Mar 93 16:04:14 GMT From: Bob Combs Subject: gravity Newsgroups: sci.space In article cf549@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Jim Baker) writes: > >Acknowledging the fact that the earth has enough gravity >to hold an atmosphere in place, and the moon (with about 1/6 >of earth's gravity) does not, how much gravitiy does it take >to hold an atmosphere? This is realizing it depends on the >type of atmosphere, but I am looking for a general answer. > >Jim Baker Isn't the presence of an atmosphere a function of chemistry and chemical reactions, vice gravity? -- ----------------------------------------------- Traditions are the living faith of dead people. bobc@sed.stel.com Bob Combs ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1993 01:02:03 GMT From: Paul Dietz Subject: How to cool Venus Newsgroups: sci.space I said: The time to consume half the fuel is proportional to the density rho. Clearly, I meant *inversely* proportional. Paul ------------------------------ Date: 25 Mar 1993 01:01:31 GMT From: Shari L Brooks Subject: Life in the Galaxy Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary In article PHARABOD@FRCPN11.IN2P3.FR writes: >From "Nature", Vol 362, 18 March 1993 (p. 204): > With these twin conditions, the authors estimate the size of >habitable zones around various types of star (fortunately, Venus and Mars >fall outside the limits for the Sun). why is this fortunate, somebody tell me. -- If you blow fire against the wind, take care to not get the smoke in your eyes. Big & Growly Dragon-monster | bafta@cats.ucsc.edu --------> shari brooks <-------- | brooks@anarchy.arc.nasa.gov The above opinions are solely my own. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Mar 93 19:42:28 GMT From: Bob Combs Subject: MIS-Quoting Newsgroups: sci.space I just hate it when someone takes an article and divides it up into pieces and responds to small pieces of it, *sometimes* taking what is said out of context. Example: >Original Poster Writes: >Blah Blah Bla oh yea well my daddy is bigger than your dad >some point later in article >poster makes another point oh yea, well, my ignorance is only exeeded by my lack of organizational skills.etc, etc. Not only does this type of posting misrepresent the original posters thoughts, it can be damn difficult to read. If you can't organize your thoughts and respond intelligently in paragraph format, I'm sorry. At least quit breaking up the postings. Just my two cents. -- ----------------------------------------------- Traditions are the living faith of dead people. bobc@sed.stel.com Bob Combs ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1993 09:41:34 -0500 (EST) From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: More water simulations "David B. Mckissock" writes: >> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes... >> >I think water tanks and practicing on them is a great idea. >> >You mean like space stations? Congrats Dennis, you have found a >> >problem with Freedom construction: the tanks cannot provide a >> >suitable simulation for the construction of Fred. > I guess Allen's thought process is: Actually, I was simply pointing out to Dennis the consequences of his statement. > "Fred is very big. Fred is > made up of lots of big pieces. Intelsat was big. The astronauts had > problems grabbing Intelsat. Ergo, astronauts will have problems > assembling Fred. If you will read what I am saying instead of what you want me to say you will realize that isn't the case. I'm not saying that assembly of fred won't work. I am saying that our EVA experience isn't enough to say it can be done based only on water tank simulations. Note that saying we don't know if it can be done isn't the same as saying it can't be done. Also note that NASA now accepts this as an unknown and is scheduling more EVA to see if a problem exists. > NASA, in its typical stupidity, does not see the > obvious connection between big things, like Intelsat and Fred and, > compounding our stupidness, we don't realize that you can't mimic > the moments of inertia of large structures in water tanks." Relax. Again, I'm not saying it can't be done. All I am saying is that there are classes of problems which haven't been tried in EVA and that it is important to understand that and get experience in those areas. Assembly of large structures in space is such an area. Since NASA agrees with this assessment I don't see why your so upset. > Let's walk through the on-orbit installation of the HAB. > [simple scenario deleted] > My my, we have a real complicated EVA procedure there, don't we? Indeed. Kind of reminds me of the equally simple Solar Max repair. Astronaut sticks tool into satellite, robot arm grabs it and puts it into payload bay. That sure sounds simple doesn't? Funny how it didn't work that way. > When we practise the EVA's in the water tanks... We utilize > astronauts, who HAVE ON-ORBIT EVA EXPERIENCE. Thus, we are asking > somebody who "has been there" to gauge the acceptability of our > suggested EVA tasks. I understand that Intelsat didn't use the tanks. But tell me, did they have astronauts who HAVE ON-ORBIT EVA EXPERIENCE sign off on the procedure? If not, why not and if so, how do you explain that it failed to go as planned? Did they sign off on Solar Max and the others? No, I'm not an astronaut; just a lowly engineer. However when I see that none of the satellite rescues/repairs have gone as planned or how they should have (according to the simulations) I tend to question the simulations. I woldn't throw out the simulations, simply understand that there is a lot we don't understand. My solution would be to do more EVA experiments so errors in the simulations can be identified and quanified. NASA now seems to agree with this view. Why do you disagree? Do you believe that no more experiments are needed? > Allen's answer is that the tank tests are a lousy predictor > of the feasibility of successfully performing the EVA > procedure on-orbit. Please understand what I am saying before offering criticism. I have nowhere said nor do I believe that tanks are 'a lousy predictor'. What I said was that there are large gaps in our experience and we don't know where those gaps are or how good our simulations work in those gaps. NASA accepts this view as well and it now scheduling EVA to quantify the problems. Allen ------------------------------ Date: 25 Mar 1993 01:39:05 GMT From: Shari L Brooks Subject: Plans, absence therof Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space In article 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom) writes: >He has a right to say what he wants, as a citizen. He does not have a >right to say what he wants, as a gov agent. To do so is to invert the >moral situation. Citizens direct government, not vice-versa, in the US. >(At least, that's how it was designed.) Please tell me what Dennis has ever said as a govt agent. Please show us an example of Dennis representing himself as speaking for anyone other than himself; specifically, show us an example of him speaking as a govt representative presenting the govt's view. And if you can't do this, then consider 1st amendment rights. There are 2.2 million US citizens employed by civil service, and GAO only knows how many govt contractors. Will you shut them all up, and deny them their voice, merely because their paycheques are drawn from tax money? If someone happens to actually agree with govt policy on an issue and you disagree with them, does that mean they are now "govt agents" and should shut up because your taxes pay a miniscule amount of their salary? followups to talk.politics.space, this has no business continuing on a sci newsgroup BTW I am no longer working for civil service -- If you blow fire against the wind, take care to not get the smoke in your eyes. Big & Growly Dragon-monster | bafta@cats.ucsc.edu --------> shari brooks <-------- | brooks@anarchy.arc.nasa.gov The above opinions are solely my own. ------------------------------ Date: 24 Mar 93 15:48:02 -0600 From: mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu Subject: Russia's OPERATIONAL Starwars Defense System Newsgroups: sci.space RUSSIA'S OPERATIONAL STARWARS DEFENSE SYSTEM In February 1992, Russian President Boris Yeltsin proposed to the United States and the United Nations a global defense shield (with "Star Wars"-type weapons) BASED ON RUSSIAN TECHNOLOGY. Some people might wonder what the "backward" Russians could possibly have that would be of value for the S.D.I. research and development program. The little-known TRUTH is that the Russians started deploying an OPERATIONAL "Star Wars" defense system in September 1977, and it has greatly grown and improved since that time. It is a SPACE TRIAD built around CHARGED-PARTICLE BEAM and NEUTRON PARTICLE BEAM WEAPONS. In this article I will describe the Russian system as it developed from 1977 to 1983, and give several examples of how it was used during that period. But first I will try to convince readers of the credibility of my main source of information about it. My main source is articles published in a weekly legislative newspaper, WISCONSIN REPORT (WR), of Brookfield, Wisconsin, (P.O. Box 45, zip 53005), written by the late Dr. Peter David Beter, a well-respected Washington, DC attorney, Doctor of Jurisprudence, and expert and consultant in international law, finance, and intelligence, who received much of his information from associates in the CIA and other intelligence groups of other countries who disapproved of many of the things happening or being planned behind the scenes. They believed that at least limited public exposure might delay and ultimately prevent the worst of those things, such as NUCLEAR WAR and NATIONAL DICTATORSHIP, from taking place. Dr. Beter started appearing on local radio and TV talk shows, but soon found himself being BANNED from them, as a result of government THREATS to cancel broadcast licenses. So he started producing monthly one-hour cassette tapes and sending them to a growing list of subscribers. From June 21, 1975 until November 3, 1982 he recorded eighty (80) "Dr. Beter Audio Letters", plus eight "Audio Books", and three special topic tapes. On September 1, 1977 Wisconsin Report started publishing transcripts of those Audio Letters. Based on information from his sources, Dr. Beter PREDICTED the bombing of the Marines in Beirut A FULL YEAR BEFORE IT HAPPENED, WARNING that the U.S. Pentagon and the Israeli Mossad were CONSPIRING TO DELIBERATELY ARRANGE IT in order to try to get Americans angry at the Arabs and generate public support for PLANNED military action against them. He reported the impending assassination of Anwar Saddat of Egypt SIX DAYS BEFORE IT HAPPENED. And Dr. Beter predicted what he called the "retirement" of Leonid Brezhnev one week before Brezhnev officially "died", [note that the word "retirement" was used for the TERMINATION OF REPLICANTS in the 1982 movie "Blade Runner"], and his quick replacement with Andropov which occurred only three days after the "death" of Brezhnev, to the surprise of all government and media analysts. Subscription application and renewal forms for Dr. Beter's tapes would usually say, "Subscribe to the Dr. Beter Audio Letter and watch the news start making sense." RUSSIA'S SPACE TRIAD OF STAR WARS WEAPONS In September 1977 the Russians started launching MANNED killer satellites, called "COSMOS INTERCEPTORS", armed with CHARGED-PARTICLE BEAM weapons, into earth orbit, (12-15-77 WR; and Dr. Beter Audio Letter (AL) #27, Topic 1). By April 1978 there were about THREE DOZEN of them, and they had FINISHED DESTROYING all American spy and early warning satellites, (5-18-78 WR, and AL #33, Topic 2). On September 27, 1977, in what Dr. Beter called "THE BATTLE OF THE HARVEST MOON", a Cosmos Interceptor in Earth orbit used a NEUTRON-PARTICLE BEAM to wipe out a secret American laser-beam base nearing operational status in Copernicus Crater on the Moon, (11-3-77 WR; and AL #26, Topic 1). The Russians quickly deployed their own military bases on the Moon, the second leg of their space triad, starting on October 4, 1977, with seven EXTREMELY POWERFUL charged- particle beam weapons BASES on the near side of the Moon and three support bases on the far side, (2-9-78 WR; and AL #29, Topic 1). The first test of the Moon base weapons occurred on November 19, 1977, ironically at about the same time as the release of the first "Star Wars" movie with its "death star" weapon. The Russians were aiming at the eye of a cyclone near India. But they miscalculated the deflection of the beam by the Earth's magnetic field, and the beam struck the ocean too close to the shore causing a TIDAL WAVE that killed many people, (2-9-78 WR; and AL #29, Topic 1). A blast of charged-particle beams from two or more of the Russian Moon bases fired in quick succession would create the DESTRUCTIVE EFFECT OF A HYDROGEN BOMB on its target. The third leg of Russia's triad of space weapons is the "COSMOSPHERES". The first-generation Cosmospheres were weapons platforms that were ELECTRO-GRAVITIC (could hover against gravity), ATOMIC POWERED, horizontally positioned by rocket thrusters, somehow invisible to radar beyond about 40 miles (perhaps from a radar-absorbing coating), armed with CHARGED-PARTICLE BEAM weapons (at least a hundred times less powerful than those in the Moon bases), equipped with "PSYCHO-ENERGETIC RANGE FINDING" (PRF) which tunes in to the actual ATOMIC SIGNATURE of a target or object and canNOT be jammed, and some of them were also armed with microwave BRAIN-SCRAMBLING equipment. In late 1977 and early 1978, there was a strange rash of giant AIR BOOMS along the east coast of the United States and elsewhere. These air booms were NEVER satisfactorily explained, by either the government, the scientific establishment, or the news media. They could NOT be positively identified with any particular Super Sonic Transport plane (SST) or other aircraft, and indeed they were MUCH LOUDER than aircraft sonic booms. The giant airbooms were actually caused by Russian Cosmospheres firing CHARGED- PARTICLE BEAMS down into the atmosphere in a DEFOCUSED MODE (spread out) for the purpose of announcing their presence to the WAR-MONGERS in the United States Pentagon, (2-9-78 WR; and AL #29, Topic 1). The main purpose of any "Star Wars" defense system is to protect a country against nuclear attack. During the weekend of January 20, 1980, Russian Cosmospheres accomplished such a mission. A NUCLEAR FIRST STRIKE against Russia by the then BOLSHEVIK-CONTROLLED United States was being started with a total of 82 special secret aircraft that can sneak up to a country's shoreline under water, surface, change configuration, take off, and fly at treetop level to their targets. Dr. Beter describes part of the action in his Audio Letter #53, recorded on January 21, 1980: "At that point the real action got under way, in the Caspian Sea and off northern Norway. The Subcraft, with Israeli pilots, were on their way. They were traveling under water on the first legs of their attack missions.... "Late Saturday night, Washington time, a coded signal was flashed to the Subcraft to continue as planned. By that time, the northern contingent of Subcraft were in the White Sea. The southern contingent had reached the north end of the Caspian Sea. It was already daylight, Sunday morning, the 20th, for the Subcraft contingents. Their orders were to wait out the day under water, out of sight; then, after nightfall, they were to continue their steady approach to get close to their targets. The Subcraft were maintaining strict radio silence. They were also deep enough under water to be invisible from the air to either the eye or radar, yet they were also hugging the shoreline in water too shallow for Russian sonar to pick them up. And their infrared signatures were negligible as the result of extensive development. In short, by the standards of Western technology, they were undetectable. But in AUDIO LETTER No. 42 I revealed Russia's master secret weapon. It is called "Psycho-energetic Range Finding" or PRF. It is unlike sonar and similar techniques. PRF tunes in to the actual atomic signature of a target, and there is no method known by which PRF can be jammed. "By deploying their Navy to the Arabian Sea, the Russians are pretending to be fooled by the Bolshevik distraction with the aircraft carriers. In this way they encouraged the Bolsheviks to launch the Subcraft toward their targets. They waited until the Subcraft were far away from their bases and out of sight of the Bolsheviks, who are directing the American first-strike operation. But the whole time they were being tracked by Cosmospheres overhead using PRF, and shortly after 1:00 A.M. yesterday morning Eastern Standard Time the Cosmospheres began firing their Charged Particle Beam Weapons. There were 10 Subcraft in the White Sea. Each disappeared in a blinding blue white water spout of steam, smoke, and fire. In the north end of the Caspian there were 19 Subcraft--they, too, met the same fate.", (2-7- 80 WR; and AL #53, Topic 3). The 3rd-generation Russian JUMBO COSMOSPHERES were first deployed in April 1981, in parallel with the first U.S. Space Shuttle mission. They significantly interfered with that MILITARY mission, in ways which were successfully covered up by NASA using techniques similar to those shown in the movie "Capricorn I", (5-7-81, 5-14-81, and 5-21-81 WR; and AL #64, Topics 1-3). Jumbo Cosmospheres are much larger than the 1st- generation models, and use ELECTROMAGNETIC PROPULSION instead of rocket thrusters to move around. For about two years after Dr. Beter stopped recording his Audio Letters in November 1982 (because of heart trouble), his distributor, Audio Books, Inc., published some newsletters titled "NewsALERT", using information passed on to them by Dr. Beter or received directly from his sources. A special supplementary issue, dated March 26, 1984, describes how Russian Jumbo Cosmospheres captured two communication satellites right after launch from U.S. Space Shuttle Mission #10, found anti-satellite (ASAT) missiles mounted on one of them, and dumped both satellites into useless orbits. NASA had fun TRYING to explain two-in-a-row failures of a highly reliable PAM-D satellite booster. Russia's offer to share their "Star Wars" defense system with the rest of the world might also extend to SCIENTIFIC SPACE EXPLORATION. For example, the United States is planning to send two unmanned flyby and sample-return space missions to a comet. These missions would cost BILLIONS of dollars, take fifteen years from now to complete, and could FAIL in DOZENS of ways. A Russian Jumbo Cosmosphere could complete a MANNED version of such a mission in a matter of MONTHS, if they have not already done so, since these Cosmospheres can accelerate continuously. Note that the United States has announced a deal to purchase at least one SPACE REACTOR from Russia. Now you know what the Russians originally developed and used them for. ALL 80 Dr. Beter Audio Letters have been digitized by Jon Volkoff at email address "eidetics@cerf.net" and are available from him or from several FTP sites where he has sent them. I especially recommend Audio Letters #64, 74, 40, 53, 54, 55, 45, 46, 47, 48, 78, 79, and 80. For more information, and answers to your questions, please consult my CITED SOURCES. UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED. Robert E. McElwaine B.S., Physics and Astronomy, UW-EC ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Mar 93 00:34:42 GMT From: Ata Etemadi Subject: Space Science data formats Newsgroups: sci.space G'Day I am interested to know what data formats (HDF, netCDF, CDF, FITS, GIF, etc..) people are using or are planning to use. Any comments would also be greatly appreciated. I will make a summary and post it if there is enough response. Many thanks in advance for your co-operation. best regards Ata <(|)>. -- | Mail Dr Ata Etemadi, Blackett Laboratory, | | Space and Atmospheric Physics Group, | | Imperial College of Science, Technology, and Medicine, | | Prince Consort Road, London SW7 2BZ, ENGLAND | | Internet/Arpanet/Earn/Bitnet atae@spva.ph.ic.ac.uk or ata@c.mssl.ucl.ac.uk | | Span SPVA::atae or MSSLC:atae | | UUCP/Usenet atae%spva.ph.ic@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk | ------------------------------ Date: 24 Mar 1993 21:57:57 GMT From: Andy Cohen Subject: Space Station Freedom Redesign Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1oorifINNdkk@hsc.usc.edu>, khayash@hsc.usc.edu (Ken Hayashida) wrote: > > So, why don't we just make SSF in the shape and design for an interplanetary > spacecraft. I mean why do we need to make one design for LEO and another > for long-duration flight to Mars? Why can't we just make the space > station into something which could be mated to a propulsion system > for acceleration into lunar orbit? Then, it would be a two-stage > system (one stage for human habitation and science payloads and one > stage for propulsion). I know that there are more aspects to this > idea...there must be, or else some other guy would have done this... > or has this aspect been overlooked? A good question. My personal opinion is that SSF was to lunar/mars whatr .....Gemini was to Apollo.... The SSF program teachs us...well..it could have taught us...(1) how to build big and massive things in orbit, (2) how to maintain their attitude and orbit and (3) provide a set of technologies and Off-the-shelf components to draw upon for the next missions.... (NASA/JSC developed a GREAT mulit-media, animated and rendered vitual lunar base using Electric Image and Supercard on the Mac in which the lunar base used the modules and racks we wanted to use for SSF. I think it's included on the Nautilus CDs). The original ideas of the truss would allow the construction of a semi, low mass, structure from which one can build to also..... I feel that we originally were thinking along the lines you address, but we have been focusing "like a laser beam" on getting ...something up..... As usual this is all....just my opinion here.... ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Mar 93 02:07:25 GMT From: Bob Combs Subject: SR-71 Maiden Science Flight Newsgroups: sci.space In article shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes: >On Mon, 22 Mar 93 19:04:14 GMT, bobc@sed.stel.com (Bob Combs) said: >>cess.digex.com (Pat) writes:> >Bob> So are Congressmen, and other high level beauracrats. When I was >Bob> stationed at Beale Air Force Base working on the SR-71 as an >Bob> electrician, There was a list of congressmen and other >Bob> beauracrats that took a ride in the SR-71. AT $1,000,000 a >Bob> shot!!! The list had about 30 people on it. > >Then was then, now is now. Control your resentment. We've even put >off the Administrator of NASA. > Good Luck with the Administrator! I want to apologize if I sounded resentful. I never meant to take a shot at NASA or DRYDEN. I was curious how NASA has overcome some previous cost problems. You certainly outlined the program at NASA as cost effective. I did think the press release made the error of claiming to be cost effective without providing any evidence of same. And I think the public should have the opportunity for review of government programs. There is too little accountability in the government in general. Well, I better shut-up on this or people will start flaming me and telling me to take it to alt.gripe.government or something. If a per-flight cost is ever available, I would be curious. Thanks, Bob Combs -- ----------------------------------------------- Traditions are the living faith of dead people. bobc@sed.stel.com Bob Combs ------------------------------ Date: 24 Mar 1993 21:42:18 GMT From: Andy Cohen Subject: SSTO: A Spaceship for the rest of us Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1oo99v$q9a@umd5.umd.edu>, dakin@ssl.umd.edu (Dave Akin) wrote: > But I'm willing to learn, so please enlighten me. Why is it > that an operational version of DC-X won't need > refurbishment? It has multiple rocket engines with > turbopumps, it goes from launch through Mach 25 and back > through a full orbital entry, it has to do a powered pull-up > maneuver and land vertically, why is this vehicle magic > enough that it doesn't need refurbishment and/or checkout? > I understand about designing for abort or mission > continuation following a failure (like a turbopump failure) > and I think that's a great feature that will make the system > more resiliant, but I have yet to hear any cogent explanation > of what makes this vehicle so much robust than any other > launch vehicle ever developed. Your questions are valid ones..... I will check with the guys on the program, but in the meantime my take on it is that one must compare apples to apples and as Henry pointed out comparing the SSRT to that of Shuttle is a bit unfair. Perhaps a better comparison would be SSRT compared with the SR-71.... OK the thing doesnt go as fast and all that, but it does require special handling with special materials. In this case there are many more maintaince functions per hour of flight then there are for an MD-80, but it takes a lot of flights before a required overhaul.... The SR-71 engines have a white hot operating temperature.... I guess the point is that compared to a commercial aircraft we can expect that there will be a lot of preparation for each flight. However compoared to the other extreme the goal (which is more realistic then it was for shuttle) will be much less than the required refurbishment of the SRBs and the Shuttle engines... ------------------------------ Date: 25 Mar 1993 00:33:09 GMT From: Shari L Brooks Subject: the call to space (was Re: Clueless Szaboisms ) Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space In article <1onfp7$975@access.digex.com> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes: > trumpet calls and alike aside. there has to be a sustainable >resource base, tied to a working economy. If there is one thing I know >it's economics. In the 1800's there were lots of trumpet calls >to explore the arctic areas. Scott died, on these trumpet calls. I really think that power satellites will do it. Like I said in the post you are replying to, the work Peter Glaser has been doing can fit that. The construction, the materials technology, cheap launch, easier access to space, orbital tugs, basically, an entire space-based infrastructure will result if some country (I would hope the US!) were to devote a serious effort to actually turning the concept of powersats into reality. By serious effort, I mean turn it into a goal, not merely fund some research to see what they come up with. And this is the kind of goal, that -- once accomplished -- will affect everyone's lives. It will affect pollution, and how we regard energy, it will provide jobs jobs jobs...jobs in *space*! No matter how difficult it will be to qualify for them, they will be far easier to get than the elite astronaut/cosmonaut positions now, and altering that perception for the public will be a fantastic thing. Depending on how the goal is acheived we may have as a *side effect* a moon base and orbiting colonies. And, since the results from the effort can provide tangible benefits to the "common man", the public will pay more attention to the program; the public will be more willing to pour money into the program; the program will provide prestige in the public eye; in short, it will enjoy enormous public support. IMO of course. >Unless the space community and NASA in particular pours work into >basic living and cost reduction, space will become the black arctic. Like in the arctic, there is really *no* reason to do so right now. The economic incentive just isn't there. And even a nebulous incentive has to be credible to the public. Asteroid mining requires either good telepresence, good robotics, or a large human presence; none of which we have right now. Ditto for moon mining or for any serious manufacturing effort right now. But we *do* have solar panels. The public *sees* that; solar energy panels are fairly commonplace, as are pictures of satellites that are solar powered. So your average person will not think that an effort to get energy from space using them is something out of Star Wars. Once the idea is sold, and built on, then the infrastructure will be there to make the other stuff (manufacturing, mining, etc) a reality. I know that some people here will state that the govt should stay out of such an effort. But it will take a lot of investment capital (in 1978 Heppenheimer in _Colonies in Space_ estimated I think $36 billion up front) and I doubt that any private corporation would really want to sink that much money into a speculative effort. But that kind of money is (unfortunate as this may be) but a drop in the annual govt budget. And if it is used on something whose ultimate goal is to improve everyone's standard of living then I think it is a good use of public funds. -- If you blow fire against the wind, take care to not get the smoke in your eyes. Big & Growly Dragon-monster | bafta@cats.ucsc.edu --------> shari brooks <-------- | brooks@anarchy.arc.nasa.gov The above opinions are solely my own. ------------------------------ Date: 25 Mar 1993 01:23:04 GMT From: Shari L Brooks Subject: waste management... Newsgroups: sci.space In article henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >It is not practical to recycle human wastes within the mass (etc.) >constraints of the shuttle. The space-station people were looking at >water recycling, including urine recycling, although that may have >been canned as part of one of the cutbacks. out of curiosity, are wastes dumped overboard gravitationally bound to earth? Do they dissociate and get blown away by the solar wind or do they end up in the atmosphere? -- If you blow fire against the wind, take care to not get the smoke in your eyes. Big & Growly Dragon-monster | bafta@cats.ucsc.edu --------> shari brooks <-------- | brooks@anarchy.arc.nasa.gov The above opinions are solely my own. ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 367 ------------------------------