Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson Received: from beak.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests) ID ; Sun, 1 Oct 89 03:25:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Sun, 1 Oct 89 03:25:04 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #95 SPACE Digest Volume 10 : Issue 95 Today's Topics: Re: NEW SUBSCRIBER Re: Galileo Jovian atmospheric probe -- is it sterilized??? Re: Pluto meets Neptune Alternative Space Goal Re: Shuttle to HEO or the Moon (was Re: Saturn V & F-1) Re: Galileo Jovian atmospheric probe -- is it sterilized??? Re: Pluto meets Neptune Re: Galileo Jovian atmospheric probe -- is it sterilized??? Re: San Diego L5 Space Activism Report 9/20/89 Re: Mars Mission ship design Re: Space goals, cheap launchers ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 24 Sep 89 19:06:40 GMT From: sun-barr!texsun!texbell!uhnix1!jane!cheehh@apple.com (Rikhit Arora) Subject: Re: NEW SUBSCRIBER In article <13771@well.UUCP>, avery@well.UUCP (Avery Ray Colter) writes: > mryan@PICA.ARMY.MIL (Michael Ryan, FSF) writes: > >>Request to be put on distribution > > If you're not already, how did you post here??? > -- One does not have to be on the distribution list to be able to post to any newsgroup (atleast that's how it's from here). I'm not on the sci.space dist. list, yet I'm making this posting!! Rikhit Arora Univ. of Houston. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ............. | Rikhit Arora And, while with silent, lifting mind I've trod | cheehh@uhupvm1.bitnet The high untrespassed sanctity of space, | cheehh@jane.uh.edu Put out my hand, and touched the the face of God.| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 23 Sep 89 21:41:33 GMT From: jtsv16!geac!yunexus!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Galileo Jovian atmospheric probe -- is it sterilized??? In article <1989Sep23.021121.28217@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu.UUCP (Paul Dietz) writes: >If your goal is to preserve a pristine environment, then, yes, current >actions are "dumb". But do not assume this goal is widely held, or >even correct (or incorrect) in any absolute sense. Do remember, also, that a pristine environment hereabouts is bare rock with an atmosphere of CO2, methane, and ammonia. The oxygen that we're so fond of breathing, and those green things that produce it, were the direct cause of the biggest environmental disruption in Earth's history, probably slaughtering far more species than we've yet managed to. "The alternative to change is another sort of change." -- "Where is D.D. Harriman now, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology when we really *need* him?" | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 23 Sep 89 21:43:58 GMT From: jtsv16!geac!yunexus!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Pluto meets Neptune In article <22418@cup.portal.com> lsheldon@cup.portal.com (Laurence Larry Sheldon) writes: >Some times Pluto is closer to the Sun, sometimes Neptune is, right? > >To a non-astronomer (me) it would appear that (given common centers, the >Sun) at some time the orbital "discs" must intersect, and would thus >provide for a collision. What am I missing? The orbits are in three dimensions, not two. They do not in fact intersect. Pluto does not cross Neptune's orbit, it passes above it. -- "Where is D.D. Harriman now, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology when we really *need* him?" | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 Sep 89 16:08:33 PDT From: mordor!lll-tis!oodis01!riacs!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov (Jim Bowery) To: ucsd!nosc!crash!space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Alternative Space Goal Before one can specify an alternative space goal for the US, one must understand its current space goal: Maintain the current cashflow structure which goes under the heading of "The Space Program." To most of us, when it is stated in this way, it becomes clear that almost ANY alternate space goal will be better. Unfortunately, since the current goal is to maintain the current cashflow structure (with, perhaps, enhanced levels) any reasonable alternatives have already been rhetorically "claimed" by "The Space Program." No matter what reasonable goal you offer, the politicians in NASA and elsewhere will portray current activities, whatever they may be, as being in service of your goal. Understand, then, that the goal I am about to specify has nothing to do with NASA or "The Space Program" and their current activities are about as destructive to this goal as is theoretically possible: Utilize industrial civilization to remove itself from the biosphere and provide a larger substrate for diverse technical, cultural and biological evolution. I'm sure there are more poetic and perhaps parsimonious ways of saying such a thing (as I think Solari has in his writing) but there it is, in a sentence, more or less. PS: Henry, NASA's charter includes operating transportation services and facilities for space. This surprised me when I learned of it but it also explains why Congress had to take specific action to clarify that NASA was not to involve itself in commercial communications satellite services. Too bad Congress didn't have the same foresight about transportation and facilities -- many of us might be living in space by now. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jim Bowery Phone: 619/295-8868 PO Box 1981 Join the Mark Hopkins Society! La Jolla, CA 92038 (A member of the Mark Hopkins family of organizations.) UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com ------------------------------ Date: 24 Sep 89 23:31:53 GMT From: uhccux!munnari.oz.au!bruce!monu1!vaxc!com259h@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Gareth Bull) Subject: Re: Shuttle to HEO or the Moon (was Re: Saturn V & F-1) In article <729@cybaswan.UUCP>, iiitsh@cybaswan.UUCP (Steve Hosgood) writes: > > Wasn't there some plan to allow the shuttle to carry a fuel tank in the > cargo bay? This was, as I remember, being talked-about before the shuttle > flew, but I've heard no mention since. > > If this could be done, wouldn't the system equal the much-vaunted Saturn V's > performance? After all the shuttle's power-to-weight ratio is better than > the S5 at launch, surely the difference is the lack of a 3rd stage? If you do that, where do you put the cargo ? Isn't that, after all the whole point of having a vehicle with Saturn-V performance, to put HEAVY payloads into orbit ? -- Bull@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au OR com259h@monu1.cc.monash.oz Alias: Gareth Bull Opinions ? Who, me ? ------------------------------ Date: 24 Sep 89 22:00:01 GMT From: uccba!uceng!dmocsny@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (daniel mocsny) Subject: Re: Galileo Jovian atmospheric probe -- is it sterilized??? In article <1989Sep23.021121.28217@cs.rochester.edu>, dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: > "Dumb" is a loaded word that I take to mean "does things I don't like." I can think of at least two working definitions for "dumb." (1) "Dumbness" is the inability to accurately predict all the consequences of an action. This is a rather restrictive definition, because the opposite of "dumbness" sounds like "omniscience." However, as our accumulated store of information and our ability to manipulate it continues to exponentiate, we will probably become less "dumb" by this definition. (2) "Dumbness" is proportional to the amount of energy we must expend to realize goal X. Take, for example, the problem of stopping a train (without regard to the final state of the train). If you are very dumb you can pile a large mass of rocks over the tracks. A less dumb approach would be to tear up a moderate length of track. A much less dumb approach would be to put your man on board (or convince someone already on board) to apply the brake. (1) and (2) obviously interrelate. To a good approximation, the more energy we expend to realize some specific goal, the more side effects we are likely to get, and the more surprising they will be. To bring this discussion back to space: does anyone know of any earth organisms that could survive in Jupiter's atmosphere as we currently picture it? If so, how much of the atmosphere would they contaminate, and how long would they require to do so? How fast would they have to reproduce to avoid being eliminated entirely by atmospheric circulation (which I assume cycles most of the Jovian atmosphere through temperatures and pressures lethal to protein-based life)? Dan Mocsny dmocsny@uceng.uc.edu ------------------------------ Date: 24 Sep 89 22:02:53 GMT From: uccba!uceng!dmocsny@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (daniel mocsny) Subject: Re: Pluto meets Neptune In article <14723@bfmny0.UU.NET>, tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) writes: > Alright, alright, enough! WE ADMIT IT. Neptune and Pluto's orbits > intersect precisely in two places, and in fact they go >BONK!< every > 3,247.8 years, bounce off each other, and resume their orbits in > retrograde. What about all the intersections between the orbits of Luna and Terra? Dan Mocsny dmocsny@uceng.uc.edu ------------------------------ Date: 23 Sep 89 21:26:25 GMT From: ibmpa!szabonj@uunet.uu.net (nick szabo) Subject: Re: Galileo Jovian atmospheric probe -- is it sterilized??? In article <14721@bfmny0.UU.NET> tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) writes: >Without wishing to sound too Luddite or holistic, Nevertheless, you succeeded in doing so. :-) >I think it's true that >if we screw up the pristine surfaces of other planets with biological >infections or massive "industrial" projects There has been a lot of loaded terminology thrown around this newsgroup lately. The planets are Pristine, and human presence (or the presence of any other kind of Earth life) is Contamination. I happen to think this is 100% backwards. Earth life (the only kind we know) is what we must work on preserving. Thousands of species ares dyings every year in our rain forests. Nuclear weapons threaten our own form of life, humans. And we're worried about trillions-to-one odds (to be liberal) of "contaminating" Jupter life with Earth life? Come on. Do we really think planets are Pristine and Earth life is Contamination? If so, we shouldn't be going into space at all. Logically, we should kill ourselves now and let the Earth go back to its original Pristine state. This philosophy is _not_ a triviality, and it is _not_ inevitable that humans or other Earth life will make into space. When people think that the planets are Pristine and Earth life is Contamination, they do what we have just witnessed the Christic Institute do, they picket and lobby and try to get court injunctions against an important part of our space exploration effort. The Christic Institute is a powerful, intellectual, and quite influential organization. Our words have emotional meanings, and if we loosely throw around phrases like "pristine planets" and "biological infection" to describe space exploration/settlement, people will naturally think that it is wrong, and that it should be stopped, and they will stop it. >designed to save a few bucks >over a few decades or centuries, future generations will curse our names. Just like right now we curse the names of Christopher Columbus, Ferdinand Magellan, Andrew Carnegie, Henry Ford, and Leland Stanford. Those jerks! :-) This forum goes all over the world, folks. Thousands read it, at universities, at NASA, and at places like Christic. Think about it. -- -------------------------------------------- Nick Szabo uunet!ibmsupt!szabonj These opinions are not related to Big Blue's ------------------------------ Date: 25 Sep 89 22:34:46 GMT From: bfmny0!tneff@uunet.uu.net (Tom Neff) Subject: Re: San Diego L5 Space Activism Report 9/20/89 In article <713@prles2.UUCP> munk@cstw30.prl.philips.nl (Harm Munk) writes: >You Americans have a strange perception of democracy: bargaining for support >like this is disgusting. Goodness knows it's never done in the Netherlands...! :-) -- "Nature loves a vacuum. Digital \O@/ Tom Neff doesn't." -- DEC sales letter /@O\ tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Sep 89 21:44:17 EDT From: John Roberts Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement. Subject: Re: Mars Mission ship design >From: ns-mx!umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu@uunet.uu.net (Jacob Hugart,134E LC,5-5506,) >Subject: Re: Mars Mission ship design >Here's some more: >o Before sending people to Mars, send some pre-fab space platforms > with supplies of food, water, and oxygen, so that if something 'bad' > happens, there will be an oasis at the mission's destination. Sounds like a good idea, if you can afford it. You could also send part or all of the return craft, and anything else the astronauts won't need until they're there. These shipments would be on slow, economical unmanned craft. Everything would be tested extensively before the astronauts embarked. For the establishment of a Mars colony, you could send a batch of robots to assemble a habitat and a power and manufacturing infrastructure out of native materials. This has been suggested for the moon, but I think Mars is more likely to have a good supply of all needed materials. (Power could be a problem.) Since *any* Mars colony is expected to be many decades away, perhaps by then technology will have advanced to the point where this is practical. >o Instead of a ring design for pseudo-gravity, how about a low-thrust > engine that could be kept firing (thrusting? :-) during the trip, so > that 'down' would be towards the engine and 'up' away from it? This > wouldn't work in orbit, so maybe those Martian Oases should be rings. > (Isn't there some maneuvering problems when turning against the > force of the spin, anyway?) I think that's beyond any likely near-term technology. In any event, an engine that could produce any noticeable (by humans) thrust continuously could get the craft to Mars so quickly that 0g would not be a health problem. >Any other brainstormers out there? There's an easy way to save a *lot* of money on a manned Mars mission: just don't provide for a return trip. The astronauts get there, work for a few weeks or months, then get to do whatever they want. You probably wouldn't even have much trouble finding volunteers. (OK, maybe you couldn't get public funding for it. Sounds like a good private sector project :-) John Roberts roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Sep 89 22:57:29 EDT From: John Roberts Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement. Subject: Re: Space goals, cheap launchers >From: rochester!yamauchi@rutgers.edu (Brian Yamauchi) >Subject: Alternative Space Goals, Anyone? (was Re: SpaceCause) >More funding for robotic space probes would definitely help both space >science and space exploration, and companies like AMROC, SSI, and >OSC/Hercules seem to be on the right track towards providing low-cost >access to orbit. >Brian Yamauchi University of Rochester >yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu Computer Science Department Remember that what these companies offer (at least in the near term) is low cost *per launch*, not *per pound*. Cost per pound is even higher than the shuttle. If you can build a small satellite weighing a few hundred pounds or less which can do anything you want while in low earth orbit, that's fine. If you buy lots of launches to assemble something big in orbit, you're paying a premium to subsidize the small launch companies. However, as I previously stated, subsidizing the small companies is not necessarily a bad idea, as long as you know that's what you're doing. Can any of these small launchers be equipped with a secondary booster, and get a payload of usable size into lunar or interplanetary trajectories? John Roberts roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V10 #95 *******************