Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 05:02:42 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V15 #198 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Mon, 14 Sep 92 Volume 15 : Issue 198 Today's Topics: Clinton and Space Funding (4 msgs) Ethics of Terraforming (2 msgs) Is NASA really planning to Terraform Mars? (3 msgs) Nasa's Apollo rerun vs. Zubrin... New lunar spacecraft new name for NASA? (2 msgs) Pluto Direct Propulsion Options Pluto Fast Flyby mission goals... (2 msgs) Two-Line Orbital Element Set: Space Shuttle Value of Terraforming Mars 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, 13 Sep 1992 19:56:09 GMT From: alex Subject: Clinton and Space Funding Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,talk.politics.space,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton In article <1992Sep13.150440.5023@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Frederick.A.Ringwald@dartmouth.edu (Frederick A. Ringwald) writes: >In article <1992Sep12.194702.23291@usl.edu> >pssres12@ucs.usl.edu (Vignes Gerard M) writes: > >> but we also know that Clinton and Gore are >> hostile to technology and research spending >> and especially to projects involving >> space exploration and astronomy. > >Would you or someone else please explain this, particularly this last >item? Yes, please explain. Gores voting record in the senate suggests that he is one of the most outspoken supporters of technological investment. Both Clinton and Gore have suggested increased suppport for national computer networks ("internet", maybe you've heard of it), and a major part of Clintons economic policy is government funding of technical R&D. Thats not what I usually think of when I think "hostile". -- Alex Crain::UMBC Academic Computing Services "I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God" - George Herbert Walker Bush, Feb 1989 ------------------------------ Date: 13 Sep 92 22:22:23 GMT From: Vignes Gerard M Subject: Clinton and Space Funding Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,talk.politics.space,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton In article <1992Sep13.195609.29356@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex) writes: > Yes, please explain. Gores voting record in the senate suggests >that he is one of the most outspoken supporters of technological investment. >Both Clinton and Gore have suggested increased suppport for national >computer networks ("internet", maybe you've heard of it), and a major >part of Clintons economic policy is government funding of technical R&D. >Thats not what I usually think of when I think "hostile". Because they're going to have to get lots and lots of money from somewhere, ---without raising taxes or slashing social spending--- and they're going to have to do it in a Big Hurry, since there will be a lot of pressure on them to get quick results in order to prepare for the next election. (4 years is a short time by political/economic measures) Cutting deeply into research funding and space exploration is an easy way to do this without losing too much support. Perhaps you remember the slogans of the 60's: We shouldn't be sending people to the moon, while there are still people starving here on Earth. Clinton and Gore, for all their brand-new-packaging are essentially a throwback to '60s liberalism. Clinton is a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat ---a liberal and a populist---and he's not about to favor technology and investment over traditional social goals. Clinton's main strategy is to get elected, and he will promise anything to anyone to accomplish that. After that, he will have to face reality and make hard decisions on what he can accomplish in his first (and maybe only) term. If you're a poor, uneducated person, you WILL probably benefit. But if you're a skilled white-collar worker, or an entrepreneur, or an investor, then Bill Clinton is going to soak you. The world econony is in a slump, major changes are taking place, and we are just going to have to ride it out. Throwing up trade walls only guarantees that when the recovery comes we will not be able to take part in it fully. And that's all folks :-) Gerard -- pssres12@ucs.usl.edu Gerard Vignes, USL PO Box 42709, Lafayette LA 70504 USA ------------------------------ Date: 13 Sep 92 23:00:19 GMT From: D Gary Grady Subject: Clinton and Space Funding Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,talk.politics.space,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton In article <1992Sep13.222223.24418@usl.edu> pssres12@ucs.usl.edu (Vignes Gerard M) writes: > Clinton is a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat > ---a liberal and a populist---and he's not about > to favor technology and investment > over traditional social goals. All it takes is a little familiarity with Clinton's strongly pro-business, pro-investment record as governor to see that this is utter nonsense. You've been paying too much attention to George Bush's speechwriters and not enough to observable reality. It doesn't surprise me that the Republican Party propagates this sort of disinformation, but it does surprise me that otherwise intelligent people take it seriously without checking it out. -- D Gary Grady (919) 286-4296 dgary@ecsvax.uncecs.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 23:07:30 GMT From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: Clinton and Space Funding Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,talk.politics.space,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton In article <1992Sep13.195609.29356@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex) writes: > Yes, please explain. Gores voting record in the senate suggests >that he is one of the most outspoken supporters of technological investment. That may be, but space is not one of the places he wants to invest money. I have tried to lobby Gore and his staffers on this. Gore heads a subcommittee who has the responsibility of passing an Authorization bill for NASA every year. He SHOULD have his bill passed by May at the latest. This way, the bill can guide the Appropriations Committee later on. That's his job. In 88, he didn't bother to pas an authorization at all. In 90 he wated until December to pass one (long after the appropriation). The 91 bill was also so late to make it ineffectual. This year it is looking like he won't bother to pass one. Sure he will tell you he supports space but his record indicates that he simply doesn't care. for myself, I didn't vote for bush in 88 but I will in 92. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they | | aws@iti.org | put a man on the Moon?" | +----------------------223 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 15:21:25 -0400 From: David O Hunt Subject: Ethics of Terraforming Newsgroups: sci.space Tom @ msu.edu >Perhaps Mars has life already. So what? Anything we do will increase the >amount of life on Mars, and probably won't even interfere with whatever is >there, assuming we aren't toxic to each other, as it is doubtlessly better >suited to living on Mars than anything we could bring, engineer, or evolve. >Suppose we do hurt the indigenous life. Again, so what? We can predict that >it's natural course would be to eventually grow more complex, through the >mechanism of evolution. But we would bring already-complex stuff along, >speeding the process, to the enourmous benefit of life itself. At the cost of possibly destroying a life form of which we know nothing, thus costing science a golden possibility of examining, firsthand, an extra-terrestrial life form. >Unfortunately, electric cars depend on energy even more than fossil-fuel cars, >as they are less efficient (from the orignal source) than oil-powered cars now. >To really get pollution-advantages from electric cars requires a new energy >source, not a new way of using more coal and oil. EXCUSE ME? Please support this. Every TECHNICAL article I've read on the subject says the opposte - that seperating the power generation into a more effecient (because car engines aren't) means of generating electricity, then using an effecient electric motor would save energy. 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! ============================================================================ Email: dh4j@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!" -- Nazareth ------------------------------ Date: 13 Sep 92 20:18:17 GMT From: Josh 'K' Hopkins Subject: Ethics of Terraforming Newsgroups: sci.space >>Perhaps Mars has life already. So what? Anything we do will increase the >>amount of life on Mars, and probably won't even interfere with whatever is >>there, assuming we aren't toxic to each other, as it is doubtlessly better >>suited to living on Mars than anything we could bring, engineer, or evolve. >>Suppose we do hurt the indigenous life. Again, so what? We can predict that >>it's natural course would be to eventually grow more complex, through the >>mechanism of evolution. But we would bring already-complex stuff along, >>speeding the process, to the enourmous benefit of life itself. Perhaps the rain forest has life already. So what? Anthing we do will increase the amount of life in the rain forest, and probably won't even interfere with whatever is there, assuming we aren't toxic to each other, as it is doubtlessly better suited to living in the rain forest that anything we could bring, engineer, or evolve. Suppose we do hurt the indigenous life. Again, so what? we can predict that its natural course would be to eventually grow more usefull to us through the mechanism of science and breeding. But we would bring already-useful stuff along, speeding the process ... etc, etc. The two biggest reasons to look for life on Mars are to see if it exists, and to see what life can be like when it develops under completly different circumstances. Doubling the number of fungi in the Earth-Mars system is not worth the cost of cripling the opportunity to answer the above questions. Once we know (or can be "reasonably" sure) that there is no life, then we can begin to change Mars to suit our taste. -- Josh Hopkins "I believe that there are moments in history when challenges occur of such a compelling nature that to miss them is to j-hopkins@uiuc.edu miss the whole meaning of an epoch. Space is such a challenge" - James A. Michener ------------------------------ Date: 10 Sep 92 01:26:09 GMT From: Shari L Brooks Subject: Is NASA really planning to Terraform Mars? Newsgroups: sci.space In article <+7qn_q-.tomk@netcom.com> tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes: [Mr Kunich posts his idea for terraforming Mars, which is basically to send a bunch of algae over and let Nature or, rather, *Gaia*, take her course] >It is a simple, possibly even elementary, matter to find >various bacteria, algae, fungi, lichen etc. that can exist >in the harsh environment of Mars. Or, for that matter, the >upper reaches of the Venusian atmosphere. These life-forms >are small, light and quite capable of being transported in >rather massive quantities to these planets by presently >possessed technology. Should there not be appropriate life >forms, our present knowledge of biotechnology should lead >us to be able to develop some in fairly short order. >I suggest that we send a space vessel bearing our life >substitutes to Mars and Venus. The cost is relatively >miniscule. Thereon we can sprinkle the makings of man >himself. I don't think we should necessarily send over anything that we have bioengineered or altered or ensorcelled or whatever. But I have always thought, there are plenty of bacteria & single-celled algae capable of putting up with the Venusian extremes. I don't know about the Gaia thing but certainly, with little or no native competitors, evolution and survival of the fittest will take over. Life is all-pervasive, and will grasp at any opportunity to fill its environment to the maximum possible extent. Look at how extreme the measures are we must take to completely sterilize anything. >Oh, maybe the results won't look like our ideas of life. If >Gaia lives on Venus I am sure that she is a Venusian Gaia. >We would find her, perhaps, a little hot blooded for our >tastes. The Martian Gaia might be more to our liking but >then again who is to say? So too for the Titan Gaia. [...] >Of course it would be unethical to interfere with any life >there may be already there. So considerable exploration >would be necessary to give a moral basis for such a >project. I am not sure that it would be wise or even interesting to seed every planetary body we happen across. There are other uses - both scientific and commercial - for Mars. Since no one has really concluded that Mars *lacks* life now, it would be folly to seed it before that determination has been finalized. Even if only to prevent David Knapp from going ballistic :) but seriously. Once the opportunity to determine if native life existed on Mars or Titan disappears, it cannot be regained. ...I don't think morals have anything to do with it... >A couple of comments have come my way in regards to the >Gaia principle. Maybe I ought to make myself lucid. That always helps on the net ;) but we all get seized by incoherence sometimes! [Mr Kunich goes on about his views on the Gaia principle at some length] >Others can trace the beginnings of life on this planet, >step by step, through eons of time. Showing how each >evolution follows the previous and theorizing about the >ecological changes that presented themselves to produce >these changes. Cause and effect, cause and effect. perhaps in 2 billion years when Earth is a burned out husk some weird Venusian creatures will debate on whether life originated in a sulfuric acid soup or whether it was seeded by the 3rd planet from the sun >No, as I say, I find the principle of Gaia attractive. I >find that it is a theory that can be tested. I have >suggested a test of that theory that can be run for a >miniscule fraction of what terraforming projects of other >types would cost. Something that requires very little in >the way of new technology. And something that could result >in the bringing of life to other lifeless worlds in this >universe. I am not sure that you are testing Gaia so much as you are testing Darwin. -- Shari L Brooks | slb%suned1.nswses.navy.mil@nosc.mil NAVSOC code NSOC323D | shari@caspar.nosc.mil NAWS Pt Mugu, CA 93042-5013 | --> All statements/opinions above are mine and mine only, not the US Navy's. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 20:59:38 GMT From: Paul Dietz Subject: Is NASA really planning to Terraform Mars? Newsgroups: sci.space In article <22205@suned1.Nswses.Navy.MIL> slb@slced1.nswses.navy.mil (Shari L Brooks) writes: >I don't think we should necessarily send over anything that we have >bioengineered or altered or ensorcelled or whatever. But I have >always thought, there are plenty of bacteria & single-celled algae >capable of putting up with the Venusian extremes. Excuse me? If by the "Venusian extremes" you mean the surface of Venus (with its extreme temperature and pressure), this is simply wrong. No living creature based on the common terrestrial model (proteins, DNA, etc.) could survive those conditions. Indeed, even the somewhat less extreme conditions inside hydrothermal vents here on earth are too hot for amino acids to survive. Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu ------------------------------ Date: 13 Sep 92 22:50:56 GMT From: Nick Szabo Subject: Is NASA really planning to Terraform Mars? Newsgroups: sci.space >I'd appreciate if you would not lump me into a PC pigeon hole because I >prefer to maintain my life support system. We were talking about Venus, not Earth, and I didn't think that I was reffering to you. I was reffering to people who naively extrapolate Earth-bound ethics into space. >If you want to make your backyard unlivable, go ahead, but the second you are >doing things that make *everyone's* backyard unlivable, you should expect >a response. If you think that this behavior is limited to vogue PC yuppies, >you are quite mistaken. You must have great barbeques in your backyard on Venus. :-) The point is to make Venus livable, not to make Earth unlivable. Ditto for terraforming Mars, etc. -- szabo@techbook.COM Tuesday, November third ## Libertarian $$ vote Tuesday ^^ Libertarian -- change ** choice && November 3rd @@Libertarian ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Sep 92 19:06:47 -0500 From: pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering) Subject: Nasa's Apollo rerun vs. Zubrin... \Those expecting a lunar base out of NASA's proposed "return to the /moon" are in for a big disappointment, according to a recent Aviation \Week article. It describes FLO, which stands for "First Lunar /Operations", apparently because it repeats in form and function \our first lunar operations, Apollo. /The missions would have a crew of four instead of a crew of three, in \an enlarged Apollo-style capsule. The craft would land directly on /the surface instead of doing Apollo's lunar-orbit rendesvous, increasing \costs but allowing the craft to land at lattitudes higher than the /equator. The system requires -- get this -- a launcher 1.5 times the \size of Saturn 5! [Gore-y details deleted] \They would try out /tiny experiments in making LOX and lunar soil bricks, as a sop to \those who want a real lunar base. No production plants, no /mass driver, and no biosphere. Most time at the "base" \would be spent by the astronauts huddled in their capsules, /studying each other. There would be no revenue or commercial \interest in the project. I suspect they're trying to attack Robert Zubrin's _Moon Direct_ scenario. This effectively refutes it, because if it were worth doing, "we High Priests would have considered doing it by now. Except we haven't. We looked at his stuff, and we deceided we didn't want to do it that way, so his way musn't be any good. We'll do as much materials research as the state of the art permits, as long as we don't have to leave the stone age." [reformatting Nick...] \ They propose a monster rocket 1.5 times the capability of Saturn 5, /which would not be used by anybody outside NASA. Thus, I would give a ... Nick, don't you think it's funny that they think they need a rocket 1.5 times the size of the Saturn 5 to return to the moon? These guys couldn't even return to the moon if you gave them a full-size, fully operational moon rocket. They'd complain about how it was too small for the job. BTW, Zubrin's Moon Direct uses 2 Titan IV's, or 1 Titan IV and one shuttle. And in-situ fuel production for the return trip. Check it out. -- 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 --> Support UN military force against Doug Mohney <-- ------------------------------ Date: 14 Sep 92 07:06:27 GMT From: Ron Baalke Subject: New lunar spacecraft Newsgroups: sci.space In article <2AB11BA8.AE2@deneva.sdd.trw.com>, hangfore@spf.trw.com (John Stevenson) writes... >Lunar Orbiters 5 and 6 were in polar orbits. The radio navigation data >collected (which would be used to develop models of the lunar >gravitational field) are either lost or stored on punch cards and so far >unretrievable. JPL was attempting to recover this data in support of the >Lunar Observer mission, which has since been cancelled. The loss of such >pricey and important data is representative of the post Apollo era. :-( > The results of the Lunar Orbiter gravity data was published in 1968 and 1969, and there's a nice map of the gravity field on page 605 in the Lunar Sourcebook. Note that there has been *no* gravity mapping of the Moon's farside. This is because lunar spacecraft were either too far from the surface when on the farside, or the Moon itself blocked any radio transmissions to Earth. ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| Ron Baalke | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov | | | | __ \ /| | | | Jet Propulsion Lab | ___| | | | |__) |/ | | |__ M/S 525-3684 Telos | Anything is impossible if /___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | you don't attempt it. |_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ | ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Sep 92 13:06:51 PDT From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery) Subject: new name for NASA? Nick Szabo writes: >'Twas carelessness, but it is an interesting idea. Since we have a >North American Free Trade Agreement, it would make some sense to combine >our efforts in space as well. This is a really bad idea. There are critical aerospace technologies getting support from Mexico and Canada because NASA HQ has deemed them politically incorrect. The more centralized we have made funding for space technology, the more that funding has been used to suppress progress in space. ------------------------------ Date: 13 Sep 92 22:16:22 GMT From: James Davis Nicoll Subject: new name for NASA? Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Sep13.014825.10331@techbook.com> szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes: >In article <1992Sep13.002051.8574@cc.uow.edu.au> gkm@cc.uow.edu.au (Glen K Moore) writes: > >> In the Sun Herald (Sydney) on 13th September NASA's name was stated as >> meaning North American Space Agency. >> Since this appeared in an article by Peter Pockley on a two page 'Science >> and Education ' column and appeared very authoritative perhaps NASA has >> changed its name? But then again perhaps it is just newspaper carelessness. > >'Twas carelessness, but it is an interesting idea. Since we have a >North American Free Trade Agreement, it would make some sense to combine >our efforts in space as well. The problem with having a co-operative program with another nation is that should the other nation change its priorities, the co-operative program can get derailed as vital parts of the program fail to be supplied by the nation changing its mind. Why place Canadian programs at the mercy of Congress (Or USAmerican ones at the mercy of Parliment)? Anyone care to comment on the USA's track record in international space operations? I seem to recall it isn't good... James Nicoll ------------------------------ Date: 13 Sep 92 23:39:08 GMT From: "Phil G. Fraering" Subject: Pluto Direct Propulsion Options Newsgroups: sci.space henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >There is also a serious technical problem with using electrical propulsion >for this particular mission: what's your power supply? RTGs are too heavy >for major power outputs, and solar doesn't work so well in that neighborhood. >It would have to be a nuclear reactor. A sound idea, but not something that >can be done in a hurry. I guess I wasn't too clear in my first follow-up: I meant an ion drive flyby instead of an solid-fueled rocket flyby; surely it could build up enough speed to get there in a reasonable amount of time before the sunlight becomes totally useless (I guess around Jupiter) and a deployable concentrator could be used... (I can hear them now. "Eeek! deployable! Ever since Galileo, we're not supposed to use deployable structures until hell freezes over! We're supposed to be stuck with whatever can fit inside the payload shroud until the end of time!" Why not just _not_ drive the probe across the country half a dozen times before launch?) -- 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 --> Support UN military force against Doug Mohney <-- ------------------------------ Date: 14 Sep 92 06:37:59 GMT From: Ron Baalke Subject: Pluto Fast Flyby mission goals... Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Sep11.143918@gracie.IntelliCorp.COM>, treitel@gracie.IntelliCorp.COM (Richard Treitel) writes... >In article <10SEP199220221219@iago.caltech.edu>, irwin@iago.caltech.edu (Horowitz, Irwin Kenneth) writes: >|> quick development schedule, as well as a short flight time. The current plans >|> are to launch in 1998 on an 8 year direct flight (hopefully). > ^^^^ >I'm puzzled. Given a small number of pretty standard instruments, and a >destination no more distant than Neptune which we've already visited, what >needs six more years to be developed? This may be fastER but I'd hesitate >to call it fast. > The mission has only been proposed. If it is approved, then the mission won't officially start until around 1994. ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| Ron Baalke | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov | | | | __ \ /| | | | Jet Propulsion Lab | ___| | | | |__) |/ | | |__ M/S 525-3684 Telos | Anything is impossible if /___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | you don't attempt it. |_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ | ------------------------------ Date: 13 Sep 92 23:43:39 GMT From: "Phil G. Fraering" Subject: Pluto Fast Flyby mission goals... Newsgroups: sci.space steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes: >How long did they fire the test engines for? I think several months of intermittent operation. If you really want, we could keep the same design for the electrode/screen et al and just take advantage of all the neat new solar cell technology which has gotten on the shelf in the meantime (shelf as in "We can get it off the shelf.") > So, ion drives are cheaper and faster than ordinary propulsion. > I don't know of a "better" criteria you can apply... >That you can be reasonably sure the mission will succeed? Can you be that certain with using five stacked Star 48's (or whatever they're using)? -- 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 --> Support UN military force against Doug Mohney <-- ------------------------------ Date: 13 Sep 92 20:47:54 GMT From: TS Kelso Subject: Two-Line Orbital Element Set: Space Shuttle Newsgroups: sci.space The most current orbital elements from the NORAD two-line element sets are carried on the Celestial BBS, (513) 427-0674, and are updated daily (when possible). Documentation and tracking software are also available on this system. As a service to the satellite user community, the most current elements for the current shuttle mission are provided below. The Celestial BBS may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300, 1200, 2400, 4800, or 9600 bps using 8 data bits, 1 stop bit, no parity. Element sets (also updated daily), shuttle elements, and some documentation and software are also available via anonymous ftp from archive.afit.af.mil (129.92.1.66) in the directory pub/space. STS 47 1 22120U 92257.58333333 .00075744 00000-0 25599-3 0 51 2 22120 56.9960 103.0456 0008624 282.6993 324.3532 15.89350753 178 -- Dr TS Kelso Assistant Professor of Space Operations tkelso@afit.af.mil Air Force Institute of Technology ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Sep 92 19:47:44 EDT From: Tom <18084TM@msu.edu> Subject: Value of Terraforming Mars >There are two issue that need to be adressed before anyone is going to take >this seriously. >1) Is this cheaper than massive planting projects? I think you have under-estimated the value of terra-forming Mars. Besides the increase in farm (as well as other) land, there are also the cultural changes that would occur, and also the fact that the power to terra-form Mars implies an inter-planetary civiliaztion anyway. Unless you go with the idea presented originally, involving probe-o'-life missions that cost little, and depend on time and natural growth for their power. -Tommy Mac . " + .------------------------ + * + | Tom McWilliams; scrub , . " + | astronomy undergrad, at * +;. . ' There is | Michigan State University ' . " no Gosh! | 18084tm@ibm.cl.msu.edu ' , * | (517) 355-2178 ; + ' * '----------------------- ------------------------------ id aa03511; 13 Sep 92 14:28:02 EDT To: bb-sci-space@CRABAPPLE.SRV.CS.CMU.EDU Newsgroups: sci.space Path: crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!news.sei.cmu.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!agate!boulder!ucsu!ucsu.Colorado.EDU!fcrary From: Frank Crary Subject: Re: Terraforming Mars Message-Id: <1992Sep13.165951.4932@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> Keywords: Martian water lots of water Sender: USENET News System Nntp-Posting-Host: ucsu.colorado.edu Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder References: <1992Sep11.074027.14938@rose.com> Distribution: na Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 16:59:51 GMT Lines: 30 Source-Info: Sender is really news@CRABAPPLE.SRV.CS.CMU.EDU Source-Info: Sender is really isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU In article kfree@arghouse.UUCP (Kenneth Freeman) writes: >Water has mass. How much water would have to be poured on to >Mars for it to stay there? (Or how many comets... Mars an >ocean world? :) That's one of the major questions about Mars: There are lots of erossion features on the surface, and good reasons to think the northern hemisphere was once a shallow ocean (during the first billion years of the planet's history.) You can also calculate the rate of water loss (e.g. from dissociation and escape in the upper atmosphere), and the amount of water in the polar caps and in permafrost. Unfortunately, these estimates don't even come close to adding up: The loss rate is fairly low compared to the amount of water that must once have been there, but the polar caps and permafrost can't account for this much water either. There are two possibilities: That there is some (unspecified) additional loss mechanism (and Mars did, in fact, loose most of it's primordial water) or there is _alot_ more water on Mars than we currently observe (subsurface water tables?) It's at least possible that _no_ additional water is required to terraform Mars: Given a warmer and thicker atmosphere, enough water might come out of the permafrost, polar caps and whereever else it is. Frank Crary CU Boulder ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 198 ------------------------------