Date: Thu, 15 Sep 88 01:07:00 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8809150807.AA11092@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Reply-To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #363

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 8 : Issue 363

Today's Topics:
		      energy production on Earth
		  Re: space news from July 11 AW&ST
		   Re: access to space; how to deny
			   more TV viewing
		  Re: space news from July 11 AW&ST
			      STS-26 sim
			     More on SETI
		      Re: Skintight space suits
		  Re: space exploration/exploitation
		  Re: space exploration/exploitation
		 Re: Are we ready for terraforming???
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 1 Sep 88 14:37:07 GMT
From: spdcc!eli@bloom-beacon.mit.edu  (Steve Elias)
Subject: energy production on Earth

followups default to sci.misc.

Dani Eder mentioned that the total energy production on Earth has
gone up by 7% per year for the last 50 years or so.

do folks out there think that this rate of increase will continue?
if it does, we'll be producing 30 times as much energy as today 
in 50 years.  and 900 times as much energy in 100 years.

clearly, something will have to give.  what are your thoughts
on this?  is there a point where we will have to worry about
pure thermal effects from energy production/usage?  (assuming
we manage to get greenhouse gas production under control first).

keep in mind that the greenhouse effect is theoretically a feedback
cycle -- it might be started by either massive heat production or
by greenhouse gas production.  (i'm using the term 'production' loosely.)

will the energy growth rate decrease??  will we have a significant
portion of our energy production and use in space by 100 years from
now??  stay tuned for more news -- next century, i suppose.

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

Date: 1 Sep 88 13:47:58 GMT
From: uflorida!novavax!proxftl!greg@gatech.edu  (Gregory N. Hullender)
Subject: Re: space news from July 11 AW&ST

In article <688@nancy.UUCP> krj@frith.UUCP (Ken Josenhans) writes:
>What I fear this means is the next
>shuttle accident will be the *last* US manned spaceflight, at least for 
>several decades.

Well, my first reaction to that is "why wait?  Cancel it now."  As I've
mentioned before, it makes me sick when I think how much interplanetary data
we might have had if we'd been able to launch anything since Voyager, as
contrasted to what scientific data we've got from the shuttle, which is
exactly zero.
-- 
		Greg Hullender  uflorida!novavax!proxftl!greg
		3511 NE 22nd Ave / Fort Lauderdale, FL 33308

	    My opinions are not necessarily those of my employer.

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

Date: 1 Sep 88 16:37:19 GMT
From: mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Mike Smithwick)
Subject: Re: access to space; how to deny

In article <21900036@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kenny@m.cs.uiuc.edu writes:
>
>Uh, isn't NASA 905 also a single point of failure?  Seems that the STS
>is pretty useless without the carrier aircraft to herd it around the
>country -- and the mods to a stock 747 are non-trivial.

That's why NASA has just contracted with BOEING for another SCA
(Shutle Carrier Aircraft).


-- 
			   *** mike (starship janitor) smithwick ***
"You can fool some of the people all of the time, or all of the people
 some of the time, but you can't fool Mom".
[disclaimer : nope, I don't work for NASA, I take full blame for my ideas]

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

Date: 1 Sep 88 16:59:42 GMT
From: mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Mike Smithwick)
Subject: more TV viewing

[]

Those of you with TVRO systems, circle Sept. 8 on your calenders.
In the morning, (probably around 7:00 am Eastern), there will be a
countdown demonstration test and on pad abort for the STS-26 crew. 
They've been broadcast in the past, so expect video from this one.
NASA Select TV is on Satcom F2, xpndr 13.

Also on Sept. 8 is the next Arianne launch. Expect a launch a month for
the next year. This may be seen on Spacenet 1, most likley at about
7:00 PM eastern (video should start about an hour earlier). They are
broadcast in NTSC video.

On September 24 at about 3:00 AM Pacific is an Atlas-NOAA launch from
Vandenburg which should be carried on Select.

Happy viewing.

-- 
			   *** mike (starship janitor) smithwick ***
"You can fool some of the people all of the time, or all of the people
 some of the time, but you can't fool Mom".
[disclaimer : nope, I don't work for NASA, I take full blame for my ideas]

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

Date: 1 Sep 88 16:47:49 GMT
From: mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Mike Smithwick)
Subject: Re: space news from July 11 AW&ST

In article <688@proxftl.UUCP> greg@proxftl.UUCP (Gregory N. Hullender) writes:
>
> it makes me sick when I think how much interplanetary data
>we might have had if we'd been able to launch anything since Voyager, as
>contrasted to what scientific data we've got from the shuttle, which is
>exactly zero.
>--

A curious definition of "zero" to be sure. Obviously the researchers from
3 successful Spacelab missions might disagree. John Scully Power, the 
oceanographer on board STS-41D would likewise disagree, simply by the
fact that he saw structures and currents in the ocean that no one had 
ever noticed before. If the data return is "zero" why would 3M continue
to waste money on their CFES experiments flight after flight. While 
it remains a trade secret exactly what they're working on, one rumor
has it that it may help cure 40% of all arthritis in the country once
it is put into production. Hardly a zero in my book.

Oh, say, what about that Solar Maximum Satillite?
now since that is repaired, and returning data on what might be the
greatest sun-spot peak ever, would you classify that as "zero"?
Will the Hubble Space Telescope (made for the shuttle and astronaut
servicing) return "zero" data??

>		Greg Hullender  uflorida!novavax!proxftl!greg
>		3511 NE 22nd Ave / Fort Lauderdale, FL 33308
>

Go back to your dictionary.

-- 
			   *** mike (starship janitor) smithwick ***
"You can fool some of the people all of the time, or all of the people
 some of the time, but you can't fool Mom".
[disclaimer : nope, I don't work for NASA, I take full blame for my ideas]

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

Date: 1 Sep 88 16:34:49 GMT
From: mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Mike Smithwick)
Subject: STS-26 sim

[]

The guys at JSC Public Affairs felt that it was unncessary to
broadcast the sim on NASA select. It was called a "monkey wrench" simulation,
since the guys in the back room were to throw every conceivable malfunction
at the crew and see it they could fix it. This included the left engine
going out during launch, a TDRSS deployment failure requiring an
emergency EVA to correct, along with a bunch of other goodies.

What I am wondering is if it might have been broadcast locally in the 
Houston area on cable, and if so, is there anyone on The Net, who might
have been able to videotape it? I always wanted to see one of these guys
and would love to be able to get a tape of it.

Next time I'll call up JSC and complain!! Yeah, that's the ticket. ..
(a friend of mine slept through an early morning satellite deployment once,
called them up and had it replayed just for him).


P.S. Actually,  a couple of small pieces were broadcast, the launch and
a news conferences yesterday. The launch video was some previous
Discovery mission, and was about 7 seconds behind the real sim. So the
PAO was just announcing liftoff, and the engines hadn't even ignited.


-- 
			   *** mike (starship janitor) smithwick ***
"You can fool some of the people all of the time, or all of the people
 some of the time, but you can't fool Mom".
[disclaimer : nope, I don't work for NASA, I take full blame for my ideas]

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

Date: Thu, 01 Sep 88 10:21:52 CDT
From: "John Kelsey" <C445585%UMCVMB.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu>
Subject: More on SETI

   Some possible answers to the "where are they?" paradox:

  1.) Singularity: (See Vernor Vinge's _Marooned In Realtime_!) Essentially,
   the theory here is that when a race reaches a certain point in its develop-
   ment, it becomes impossible for that race to be understood by critters like
   us.  They might have no interest whatsoever in exploring stars, or they
   might like to explore, but may be able to do it from their home planet.
   Think of the Martians in RAH's _Stranger in a Strange Land_, would they have
   been interested in contacting us at all?

  2.) What if the evolution of intelligence is a LOT rarer than we've thought?
   Suppose, for example, that the development of a central nervous system does
   not immediately pay off, but requires some further development.  It may even
   be a hinderance in evolutionary terms, since it provides a vulnerable target
   for attack.  Suppose the organism that went through the stage when central
   nervous system-equiped creatures are less likely to survive in some place of
   relative safety, or during a time when there was little to harm it?  Any
   biologists out there want to trash this therory?

  3.) What if life forms that develop are REAL different, like Niven's Outsider
   race?  They might not be even vaguely interested in us.  Or they might be
   here now, waiting for us to become intelligent enough to discover them.  Is
   a beehive intelligent?  Could one become self-aware, in some strange way?
   Would we realize it, if the beehive didn't want us to?  (Could a beehive
   "want?")

  4.)  What if the things that develop have no particular curiosity, or are
   as a race cowards (Niven's Puppeteers)?  They might know of us, but not
   wish to get involved, because "Ghod knows what those crazy ape-things might
   try!"?

  5.)  Suppose that, in order for a race of egocentric, fast-breeding creatures
   like us to get off world before our resourses die out, that race must learn
   somehow to control the unbounded expansion of its population?  And suppose
   that the society that develops is one in which the idea of having more than
   one or two children is as revolting to them as canabalism is to us?  Then,
   this race would never expand out and colonize the galaxy, but would simply
   re-engineer their star, and maybe move on when their star began to die out.

   Well, tell me what you think...

  -- John Kelsey
     C445585@UMCVMB.BITNET

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

Date: 1 Sep 88 15:27:29 GMT
From: kr0u+@andrew.cmu.edu  (Kevin William Ryan)
Subject: Re: Skintight space suits


   I understand that my last posting (which attempted to answer some questions
about the Space Activity Suit) got garbled in transmission to sci.space.  I
have reposted the text to Space Digest - if this is not sufficient to reach
those interested, please send me email and I will try to post it directly to
you.

                                                    kwr

   "Jest so ya know..."                       kr0u@andrew.cmu.edu
                                              kr0u%andrew@cmccvb.bitnet

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

Date: 1 Sep 88 19:29:00 GMT
From: kevin@csvax.caltech.edu  (Kevin Van Horn)
Subject: Re: space exploration/exploitation

In article <3e2c73f2.ae47@apollo.COM> nelson_p@apollo.COM (Peter Nelson)
writes: 
> I talked to the D.O.T. and they said that they've issued 
> 2 licenses [to launch rockets] so far, one to Conatec and one to McDonnell
> Douglas.  She also said that they have quite a long list
> of other applicants.

The fact that they have "quite a long list of applicants" but have only issued
2 licenses so far sounds to me like obstructionism.  Dragging your feet in
issuing licenses is a good way to destroy promising startups, which can't
afford to sit around cooling their heels while they wait for permission to
launch.

B.T.W., it's a sad commentary on the state of liberty in this country
that, even with absolutely no evidence that your operation will harm or
endanger anyone else, you can be fined and thrown in jail for providing a
desperately-needed service -- the launching of satellites -- without Uncle
Sam's prior permission.

Kevin S. Van Horn

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

Date: 1 Sep 88 20:30:41 GMT
From: eugene@eos.arc.nasa.gov  (Eugene Miya)
Subject: Re: space exploration/exploitation

In article <48@calmasd.GE.COM> jnp@calmasd.GE.COM (John Pantone) writes:
>Now my question:  What will NASA and the U.S. Govt. say/do when a
>prominent space scientist LEAVES THE US AND GOES TO THE SOVIET UNION
>BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THE ACTION IS? Does anyone really think that this
>is not inevitable - given the deplorable state of the US space
>non-program? 

Okay, you want an answer?  NOTHING.

First, we are civilian, but we have lots of ex-military, this is
quite a screen.  You here it when people defect either way, sure.

Second, there are ex-ESA people in NASA and ex-NASA people in ESA.
We can't really coerce anyone except for the standard Oaths taken
for all Government employment.

It's not clear what you mean by prominent space scientist.  The USA
could care less if it were a planetary scientist, but a rocket designer,
sure.  You have to make the distinction between space as an application
doing research to get into space versus during research in space.
"Space science" usually means the latter (like planetary science).
The US has never really had a strong space science program compared
to the more visible "manned" programs (order of magnitude).

Launching rockets and putting people are only part of the technology
(and politics).

Third, I think everyone here is largely aware of those other aspect of
Soviet society which the West looks down on. (Again part of the ex-military
would shun this).

Now, economic competitiveness aside, there is JSA.  The language barriers
are immense as well as the cultural barriers, but this is a society
with money burning in their pockets, and an interest in technology
and (growing interest in space).

What DO YOU want us to say?  When in danger, when in doubt, run in circles,
scream and shout.  Maybe we need a test case?  Are you looking for
a new test case like Sputnick?  [Ya, but our Germans are better than
their Germans...]  Believe me when I saw that people have thought about
this topic and its not on anyone's minds.  Just because we can't lift
people at ANY instant.  Just wait until we have an in orbit disaster.
(Or the Soviets for that matter)

Another gross generalization from

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov
  resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
  "Mailers?! HA!", "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology."
  {uunet,hplabs,ncar,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene
  "Send mail, avoid follow-ups.  If enough, I'll summarize."

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

Date: 1 Sep 88 23:09:51 GMT
From: dartvax!eleazar.dartmouth.edu!dalex@bu-cs.bu.edu  (Dave Alexander)
Subject: Re: Are we ready for terraforming???

In article <3065@lanl.gov> jlg@lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes:

> Well over 90% of the global atmospheric loading of sulpher dioxide
> is volcanic.  This makes you wonder why acid rain is such a recent
> problem (and it is).  Could it be that _other_ pollutants are mainly
> responsible? 

What about nitrates?  I learned some interesting things on a visit
this past spring to the Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest.  One is
that, since the 1970's, the amount of acidity that seems to be caused
by sulfates has diminished.  What has taken up the slack has been an
increased contribution of nitric acid from nitrates.  The reason for
this is that it people are burning less coal, but driving cars more,
at least in the northeast.

                           -- Buffalo Bill

--
Why are there people like Frank?
Why is there so much trouble in the world?

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

End of SPACE Digest V8 #363
*******************