Date: Thu, 8 Oct 92 05:00:08 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V15 #295 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Thu, 8 Oct 92 Volume 15 : Issue 295 Today's Topics: Alleged Benefits of Military $ another sad anniversary (2 msgs) Bootstrap hardware for LunaBase Clinton and Space Funding Controversy over V-2 anniversary Cosmic strings Don't forget Other Guy(was Re: Von Braun -- Hero, Villain, or Both?) Laser Space Mirror (2 msgs) MYSTERY OBJECT overpopulation Pioneer Venus Out of Fuel, Orbit Deteroriating Population Population here and elsewhere? Sputnik I - 35th anniversary Switching ALSEP back on UFO EVIDENCE VS. Carl Sagan 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: Wed, 7 Oct 92 16:55:39 BST From: amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk Subject: Alleged Benefits of Military $ > I believe it is also true that higher income people spend less of their > money than low income people, so their money is likely to go into the > economy fewer times. I have heard this as an explanation for the fact > that the increase in income during the Reagan years did not produce > sustained increases in consumer demand; the increases went to people > who spend less of their money. Not being an economist, I cannot vouch > for the validity of this argument, but it tends to contradict what Gary > said. > The funny thing is... the most common complaint about the US economy is not that people are spending too little, but that they are not SAVING enough. Savings is what is used for capital investment according to standard economics. I think that is even true with old fashioned Keynesian economics as well as the more modern Austrian and Chicago schools. Japan is said to have a very high savings rate. One of the things you see very often in US discussions of opening up the Japanese markets is the desire for them to have a more consumer oriented economy. Right now rich and poor alike save at a very high rate and the investment is poured back into the economy. Savings and consumption BOTH drives economic well being. But to say that there is a higher multiplier by simply increasing the velocity of money is fool hardy. Without a high savings rate a high money velocity will just buy more Japanese consumer goods per unit time. ------------------------------ Date: 7 Oct 92 06:43:26 GMT From: Gary Coffman Subject: another sad anniversary Newsgroups: sci.space In article <5OCT199216173458@judy.uh.edu> wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Mfsc.Nasa.Gov writes: >In article <1992Oct5.133115.10677@ke4zv.uucp>, gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes... >>In article <1OCT199219492037@judy.uh.edu> wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes: >>> >>>The dowlink path loss is -278 db from the moon. >> > >>Anyone willing to spend a couple of thousand dollars could receive >>a 1 watt signal from the Moon with sufficient margin to decode digital >>data, or copy analog voice. An EME grade station is probably still >>required to pick up video, or high bandwidth data. >> >>Gary KE4ZV > >Gary my figure if from the Lunar Observer mission baseline published at JPL >in 1991. This is the baselne for all future missions and the link margin >is discussed extensively in there. What is your source? I will look it up >in the ARRL hanbook just to see what they have. Indeed Dennis, the 1991 ARRL Handbook is my source. -278 db is the *roundtrip* loss for EME work at 2304 MHz. Note that path loss is a function of frequency. I don't know what frequency the LO is planning to use. Note also that path loss increases directly with frequency, but also that antenna gain increases directly with frequency for a given physical size antenna. The effects cancel. Finally, note that EME requires the Moon to be a passive reflector. One way loss for an active radiator is *not* just 3 db less than round trip EME loss because the substantial losses of passive reflection are deleted. The excellent Microwave Handbook from the RSGB lists the following formula for calculating free space path loss: path loss (db) = 92.45 + 20*log(f) + 20*log(d) where f is in gigahertz and d is in kilometers. At 2.3 GHz, the path loss one way from the Moon is -210.7 db. That means roundtrip loss would be -216.7 db, so the scattering loss due to lunar reflection is 61.3 db. Getting rid of the Moon as a passive reflector makes a big difference. Gary ------------------------------ Date: 7 Oct 92 12:52:27 GMT From: FRANK NEY Subject: another sad anniversary Newsgroups: sci.space So how about landing a series of corner reflector arrays set to the EME sub bands from 50Mhz to 20GHz or whatever? Should take care of the scatter.... Frank Ney N4ZHG EMT-A LPVa NRA ILA GOA CCRTKBA "M-O-U-S-E" Commandant and Acting President, Northern Virginia Free Militia Send e-mail for an application and more information ---------------------------------------------------------------- Look! A one-line mathematical limerick: ((12 + 144 + 20 + (3 * 4^1/2)) / 7 + (5 * 11) = 9^2 + 0 -- The Next Challenge - Public Access Unix in Northern Va. - Washington D.C. 703-803-0391 To log in for trial and account info. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 17:00:56 GMT From: Nick Haines Subject: Bootstrap hardware for LunaBase Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Oct6.203214.336@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes: [about Nick Szabo's analysis of costs for a moon base] It looks like there is no point analyzing Nick's post as long as he insists on using unrealistically bad numbers for ideas he doesn't like. Odd, this has long been my sentiment about many of his posts, with the substitution of "good" for "bad" and "likes" for "doesn't like". (his figures for ice mining and constant belief in self-reproducing machines and the like fill me with wonder). Nick Haines nickh@cmu.edu ------------------------------ Date: 7 Oct 92 05:52:26 GMT From: Gary Coffman Subject: Clinton and Space Funding Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,talk.politics.space,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton In article hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes: > >There is another, and extremely important, reason for colonization, namely, >escape from an oppressive government. The Spanish colonies were moderately >successful only where they were eminently profitable; the missions in >California must be considered a failure. The French colonies in Canada >and Louisiana were not particularly successful. On the other hand, the >English colonies to escape oppression were generally quite successful, >even bringing in others. A major part of the US immigration in the 19th >century was to escape oppression. That's true, but the entry cost for space is considerably higher than for a man with an ax and a gun trekking out on foot to find elbow room. And likely to remain so for a long long time. Any space colonies are likely to have to be highly regimented in order to survive at all. When disident groups have colonized the ocean floor, nearly as difficult a place as space, then we'll see if colony life is really less oppressive than our lives here. Gary ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 18:07:51 BST From: amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk Subject: Controversy over V-2 anniversary > Many more people in Japan died in the fire-bombing raids > then were killed by the Hiroshoma/Nagasaki raids. If memory > serves me right 90,000+ were killed in the first fire-bombing > raid on Tokyo. > The photographs of the firestorm aftermath in Japanese cities are chilling. You really cannot tell the difference between Hiroshima, Nagasaki and every other city in Japan. If anyone wants the percentages of the cities that were flattened (I mean flattened as in to the ground) I have them available from a set of books that are a reprint of the complete set of "Impact" a magazine that was "CONFIDENTIAL" and published to pass information and knowledge between USAAF flyers in WWII. Most of the cities were at least 50-70% leveled. Not just city centers; the whole damn cities, suburbs and all. The only difference at the time was that the A bomb only took one plane. They had already done the same to every other city. Those two were "saved" and left intact for this very special demonstration. Trivia: a prisoner in a below ground jail cell very close to ground zero survived. At least 9 (and possibly twice that number) people survived BOTH nuclear explosions. ------------------------------ Date: 7 Oct 92 14:10:00 GMT From: Justin Smith Subject: Cosmic strings Newsgroups: sci.space What are cosmic strings? Is there any consensus within the astronomy community as to whether they exist? -- Justin R. Smith Department of Mathematics and Computer Science Drexel University Philadelphia, PA 19104 (215) 895-1847 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 19:55:49 GMT From: David Breneman Subject: Don't forget Other Guy(was Re: Von Braun -- Hero, Villain, or Both?) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Oct5.183016.1@fnalf.fnal.gov> higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes: Deletions... > >Coming from technologically behind, Sergei beat Wernher to the first >satellite, the first man in orbit, the first woman in orbit, the first >lunar flyby, the first space station, and other points in the "first" >game. > Isn't it true that the Redstone existed before the Vanguard, and that Von Braun lobbied for using it to send a satelite into orbit, but since the Redstone was "owned" by the Army, Eisenhower wanted to let NACA's Vanguard have the first shot, especially since the launch was tied into the International Geophysical Year observance. After numerous Vanguard failures, and after the Soviets slapped together the Sputnik mission *in*order*to* beat the US into space, the US governemnt agencies finally got together and agreed to let Von Braun use the Redstone as a satellite launch vehicle to bolster space program morale. If it hadn't been for inter-department politics in the US government, the Soviets would have had the *second* satelite, but the US was (as stated policy) in no hurry, and the Soviets wanted to be first at all cost. In fact, James Oberg (if I remember his name correctly) in his book _Red Star in Orbit_, documented that all the "firsts" noted above (except the space station) were done *primarily* to beat the US and score propaganda coups. The US announced a long-term goal, and the Soviets rushed in with very little concern for safety, scientific value, etc. -- David Breneman Sys Admin, Tacoma Screw Products, Inc. | ____ ____ ____ dcb@tacoma.uucp | SCREWIE the TSP CLOWN sez- | / /___ /___/ ..!uunet!tacoma!dcb | "Nylok lock nuts lose their | / ____/ / CompuServe: 75760,1232 | binding strength after 1 use!"| ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 00:26:37 +0000 From: Andrew Haveland-Robinson Subject: Laser Space Mirror Newsgroups: sci.space In article ralph.buttigieg@f635.n713.z3.fido.zeta.org.au writes: >As most of the infrastructure is on Earth, the Space cost would be minimal. >The ground laser system can be large in area, allowing a small mirror. > >Questions: > >1) I would think that the limiting size of the mirror would be its capacity >to withstand the waste heat. Any ideas on how small we could make the mirror >with todays technology? You think you need a very long laser for a highly collimated beam - even so, I think the divergence due to atmospheric heating could render it ineffective. The beam could be diverged and re-collimated as a much wider parallel beam, to reduce atmospheric distortion, but the engineering required would be phenomenal to stop the lenses from melting/distorting. >2) What would be the best way to convert the infra-red light back to >electricity? How about a huge lens focused on a black boiler in a greenhouse?? >3) How efficiant would the total system be? Especially compared to current >ground based power transmission? Very low! >4) Is anyone working on such a scheme? I think SDIO was considering space >mirrors for defense purposes. I should think that light pressure knocking the mirrors out of alignment and orbit would be a bigger problem, give the kind of intensities needed! After atmospheric absorption of course... I think research into conventional solar energy/storage technology would be money better spent, though would be an interesting research topic. +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Haveland-Robinson Associates | Email: andy@osea.demon.co.uk | | Pine Cottage, Osea Island, Essex | ahaveland@cix.compulink.co.uk | | CM9 8UH England. 0621-88756 | Also: 081-800 1708 081-802 4502 | +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 17:43:20 BST From: amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk Subject: Laser Space Mirror > It occured to me two years ago that a very large solar sail could be > used as a giant bill-board in the nighttime sky. At $50 million > dollars (excluding launch) you'd probably get some takers and still > make a profit. It was a silly notion (I'm sure greenpeace would > concur), but if anyone has some venture capital - I'm free come > one year's time... :-) > If someone is willing to pay for it, it is, by definition, NOT a silly notion. If there were no takers after a bit of PR and marketing hype, THEN I'd agree that it was a silly notion. The secret to opening the space frontier is to be found in plastic mounted bits of old satellites; pet moon rocks; committing ashes to the deep; asteroid desk sets (Ceres, Vesta, Pallas... Collect em! Trade em with your friends!); garbage disposal... and so forth. ------------------------------ Date: 6 Oct 92 22:38:00 GMT From: Bill Nunnelee Subject: MYSTERY OBJECT Newsgroups: sci.space -> The latest packet from Goddard came today and object #20961 was -> listed as having reentered on Sep 30. -> -> Object 20961 was a Navstar GPS booster rocket. Its designation was -> 90 103C. The Navstar GPS 2A-01 was launched on Nov 26, 1990. This -> booster rocket is listed in the RAE tables as being 2.3 meters long -> and 1.5 meters in diameter. It is called a PAM-D. Thanks for the info! I've never seen any reentering space junk before. ------------------------------ Date: 7 Oct 92 08:00:14 GMT From: Gary Coffman Subject: overpopulation Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Sep27.165420.16307@samba.oit.unc.edu> Bruce.Scott@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Bruce Scott) writes: >dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: >>Bruce.Scott@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Bruce Scott) writes: >>>But this is just because the great die-off has started. >>"Great die off" is bullshit, of course. The world population has >>never been healthier, wealthier or longer lived, on average, and >>the trends are positive in most of the world. > >Au contraire. For Asia, excepting India, you are correct. For Africa and >Brazil, you're dead wrong. I think you may be misled by trade figures >and the like in cases like India and Brazil. There is no question that >for the "middle class" in those countries things have never been better. >But this class is no larger than 30 pct for Brazil and 10 for India. Yes Which is the largest middle class either country has ever had. IE things are better now than in the past. >I know, that is only two countries, but they are big countries and when >they go wrong it is not trivial. India has been charmed by the lack of >really big natural disasters for some time now. But in the 1950's there >was a famine whose effects were averted because the US fed the whole >population for two years. That was with 300 million people. They lose if >that happens now. The difference is the Green Revolution. Their food production is 5 times higher than in the 1950s. A prolonged drought could cut into their food exports, but is unlikely to throw them into starvation. >I do note the absence of comment from you concerning >last year's disaster in Bangladesh. I repeat that 3 million homeless on >shifting mud flats do not happen unless population limits have already >been crossed. Unlike Floridans, many of them simply starved to death. The difference between poor people living in a flood plain and Florida residents in the path of a hurricane should be obvious. It's the fact that the area involved was smaller, didn't stay flooded, and State Farm claims adjusters were out the next day. Bangladesh's problems stem from their poverty and their location, not their population density per se. Bangladesh has rich delta soil and with modern agricultural techniques could be a rich exporter of food. The fact that the country is almost entirely at sea level and located in a typhoon plagued area is a problem shared by Holland, and to a lesser extent by Florida and the Mississippi delta. The solution can also be similar, dikes and shelter mounds. You confuse the results of avoidable poverty with population density. >A little travel where things have gone wrong can really open eyes. I >suggest it, even only once. I've seen this for myself in Eastern Turkey. >These armies of dirty children who feed off passers by will not grow up >into the rosy Third-World technocrats one reads about in G Harry Stine >novels. However, population density is not the source of Turkish poverty. The perfect counterexamples being Singapore and Hong Kong. High population density doesn't have to cause poverty. Local government policies can cause poverty, and have in most poor nations. Africa is the prime example of this. Famines in Africa stem from warfare, corruption, and faulty policy. Much of Africa employs neolithic farming practices while buying jet aircraft and tanks. Only 10% of arable land is under cultivation on the continent. The population density of most of Africa is less than that of the Eastern United States. Yet the Eastern US is a large food exporter. The average African is not stupid, but he is often ignorant and exploited by his government and his superstitions. Reducing population density won't solve his problems. Ending the ideological warfare and ending gross corruption in government would allow Green Revolution techniques to be taught and applied to a continent with soils that have been barely touched, and resources that have barely been tapped. Africa is much like 17th century North America, with the difference that the Indians have jet aircraft and tanks to use in their tribal warfare. Gary ------------------------------ Date: 7 Oct 92 14:32:22 GMT From: Nate Smith Subject: Pioneer Venus Out of Fuel, Orbit Deteroriating Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary In article <1992Oct7.004757.24245@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> mechalas@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (John P. Mechalas) writes: >In article <1at959INNru4@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> bafta@cats.ucsc.edu (Shari L Brooks) writes: >>>Contrary to some beliefs, PVO is not simply on a crash course into the >>>center of the planet. It is in a highly elliptical orbit with a periapsis >>>that is slowly decaying. It has a 24 hour orbit period and literally every >>>day, at closest approach, the s/c dips a little deeper into the atmosphere >>>and suffers more drag. The next orbit, then, has an even *lower* periapsis. >>>Around Wednesday, this effect will become so pronounced that it won't be >>>able to continue through the orbit and will have its orbit slowed so much that >>>that periapsis encounter will be its last. >> >>I am not sure I understand this. It seems to me that every time the S/C >>encounters atmospheric drag, the orbit should lose energy. I always thought >>that this would circularize the orbit (decrease the apoapsis) before >>significantly decreasing the periapsis. Where did I go wrong? Don't circular >>orbits of a given radius have less energy than an elliptical orbit with >>that same value as the periapsis? > >Yes, but the radius to the spacecraft changes because of the drag forces. > When a s/c enters the atmosphere, the drag force cause the semi-major axis >to decrease by 4 * pi * Drag / n^2 per orbit (assuming a nominally cirular >orbit). The altitude of the s/c also decreases. Since orbital velocity is >inversely proportional to the semi-major axis and the radius, as those >terms decrease, the velocity must increase. Orbital energy is defined as >being inversely proportional to the semi-major axis as well, so energy >increases, too. The result is a more energetic, and more elliptic orbit. > It is very counter-intuitive, as is a lot of orbital mechanics. :) > >-- >John Mechalas "I'm not an actor, but >mechalas@gn.ecn.purdue.edu I play one on TV." >Aero Engineering, Purdue University #include disclaimer.h well, i'd like to add my 2 cents. for the purpose of this argument, do we consider the atmospheric drag to be negligible at a certain distance away from Venus? suppose we do. then we would need to know if the apoapsis is "outside" of the atmosphere. if so, then the drag effect will almost entirely be observed in the apoapsis height, as the semi-major axis shrinks. when all the orbit has fallen into the atmosphere, for drag purposes, then the periapsis height will be affected, but not in the way we would picture it. the argument of periapsis is the angle between the periapsis point on the orbit and the ascending node, where the satellite rises through the equatorial plane of the planet. this would be racing ahead of the satellite, in a mathematical sense, so that by the time the satellite reaches the old point of periapsis, that point will have advanced around the orbit to a new location. think of it as "the slowing down here reduces the height on the other side", sort of. but if the satellite only briefly dips into the atmosphere, then the effect will be as Shari described it: circularization. of course, by the time the apoapsis has been brought into a height equivalent to the original periapsis height, the whole orbit will be subject to drag forces. another point: the semi-major axis reduces, the energy is inversely proportional to the semi-major axis, but it is NEGATIVE. so its magnitude will increase, yes, but the satellite LOSES energy. - nate Millstone Hill Radar Station Westford, Mass. (we track satellites for MIT Lincoln Labs) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 19:05:27 BST From: amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk Subject: Population > And Ed, you helped them. Not because you didn't like birds but > because you bought into the whole "Environmentalists are killing > us!" lie. That 'all` environmentalists want only to stifle the > economy. That business is in business to create jobs. Wake up! They > are there for money and if they're allowed, some would smash the > last tree on the planet to get a clean shot at the last tiger. > How are your interests being served by your stance? I need to > understand just what you're after. Are they paying you or do you > just hate people who don't think just like you? > I wonder if you realize just how easy and how much fun it is to wind up the politically correct. I don't think anyone on this net really wants to wipe out ecosystems. But I think there is a great deal of disagreement on the degree to which this is an actual threat and the means of dealing with the problem if it must be dealt with. There are environmentalists who are quite capitalist in outlook and think that the only way to save the environment is to put a price tag on it and sell it. People take care of valuable property. They only trash what came for nothing or what belongs to someone else. And what sort of dialogue are you starting? You are castigating businessmen in ways that a far, far worse than anything anyone has said about environmentalists. I will admit there are businessmen who don't give a damn. Do you admit there are environmentalists who also don't give a damn? Should I ask if you are being paid or do you just hate people who don't think like you? Debate if you will, but start off with the assumption that lots of us do NOT agree with you and will probably NEVER agree with you. If I acted like this in Belfast I'd not have any friends at all. Most of my musician friends are died in the wool socialist if not communist. I'm an equally adamant libertarian. We get along by respecting each others opinions, even when we do not agree. > You've closed your mind to ideas because you didn't like what > someone, somewhere said or caused to happen. "You > environmentalists", what, are they not people? Why must you label > people? So you can exclude or dismiss them? Some are nuts, some are > great, most are just concerned enough to try to make a difference. > But you put words into all their mouths and then flame them all. > Not constructive, Ed. > Well you are looking awfully closed yourself. You seem to be starting from the premise that you ARE right. If you calm down enough, you might find that people will work to protect the environment. I regularly gave to an environmental group that went out and worked with businessmen to save parcels of land, got large corporate donations to protect larger chunks (Nature Conservancy). They do quite well because they are sensitive to issues outside of their own, and they do not approach environmentalism from an ideological defined position. Get off the high horse about all us nasty capitalists and you might find some of us will help voluntarily. Just DONT try to get the legislature to threaten us into "volunteering" though. > I propose that if we buck the vested interests and use our brains > we can have jobs, trees, owls and much much more. Perhaps these > folks who used to chop trees could build space hardware? How about > tree "planters"? > The persons chopping trees come in several flavors. There are those who have their own lands and are tree farmers. Their continued existance depends on the quality of their stewardship. They treat trees as a renewable resource, which they are. There are those who cut on public lands, ie the commons. They have no interest in conservation because what they don't cut, someone else will... And since they leave after the cutting is done, they have no responsibility for the long term. Solve that problem by making those lands either privately owned by the lumber companies, or taking them out of production altogther by giving them to Audobon, Nature Conservancy or the Sierra Club. Then there are the Japanese businesses that bribe third world politicians and bureaucrats into giving them access to giant tracts of forest for a fraction of their true worth. They basically clear cut and run... If they owned the land they'd also have a stake. Or better yet, if the third world governments vested ownership in local corporations and let them handle the selling, they'd probably wring better deals out of the cutting. Not to mention they'd have an interest in the long term. The 10 or 20 years you mention is only the case for forests which are unowned and thus unmanaged. Show me a raped forest and I'll show you a government bureaucracy behind it. ------------------------------ Date: 7 Oct 92 08:25:43 GMT From: Gary Coffman Subject: Population here and elsewhere? Newsgroups: sci.space In article gdavis@griffin.uvm.edu (Gary Davis) writes: > > With the relatively low priority and lack of basic understanding >of our environment shown by most on this board;it is indeed merciful >that none are actively in this area. >What does bringing back dinosaurs have to do with such a critical >human dilemma as uncontrolled population growth. Persons who ecourage such >must either be quite ignorant of the future consequences or so insensitive >to the situation that reason eludes them. > >Rush Limbaugh was quoted recently as stating that population growth >was a "phoney" issue since if we move the entire world pouplation >as it exists presently, to the state of Texas the human density would >equal that of New York City. Pooh.. Pooh.. population growth and the >environment are a ploy of the liberals! > >Aside from the fact that Limbaugh is a pompus donkey;the truly frightening >part is he has so many mindless idolators in his ranks. > >Yes, if he had his way I'm sure Earth would become the planet Gideon. Linbaugh is correct that the entire Earth's population could fit in Texas with a density no higher than NYC, which is a lower density than many other cities such as Toyko, Hong Kong, or Mexico City. Of course no sane person would want to live in NYC. :-) So a Texas sized NYC would likely be no more attractive. Hooty Owl would have to give way to Sam Starling and Pete Pigeon. Randy Rat would move in as well. I've pointed out that if the entire world population produced garbage at the rate of NYC dwellers, it would take 10,000 years to cover the state of Nevada with it to a depth of 100 feet, incidentally turning Nevada into the richest mine of primary metals and other resources such as methane. We're not running out of physical space to meet our population demands. If every person on Earth used energy at the rate of NYC dwellers, that would only represent 1/2000th of the amount of solar energy that reaches the Earth each day. 3% of the US population produces an overabundance of food from 30% of our arable land using Green Revolution techniques and our soil is no richer than many other country's soils. The Earth is not resource poor, energy poor, or short of space. What it does lack in most of the world is suitable social freedom to properly use it's resources for the economic benefit of individuals. Gary ------------------------------ Date: 7 Oct 92 03:37:42 GMT From: "John A. Weeks III" Subject: Sputnik I - 35th anniversary Newsgroups: sci.space In <28242@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM> wats@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Bruce Watson): > Today the earth has approximately 7000 moons. How many of these moons have stable orbits? In this case, I define stable to mean that they will stay in orbit for 100+ years without expending any fuel. (I have a hard time considering something like Sputnik or Echo I to be a "moon".) What would it take to build a sattelite that would stay up for a long time without having to be reboosted or carrying large amounts of fuel? Could you use large solar panels or RTG's to power an ion thruster? Is there a stable Earth orbit for a small sattelite? -john- -- ============================================================================== John A. Weeks III (612) 942-6969 john@newave.mn.org Newave Communications, Ltd. ..!uunet!tcnet!newave!john ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 17:54:16 BST From: amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk Subject: Switching ALSEP back on > I've noticed that too. Maybe there's a fourth power of something in the > equation, having to do with heat flow. > That would make sense. The half life only tells us that half of the original atoms have decayed. It should mean that the heat wattage output is halved. But the output of interest is electrical so the RTG must be looked at as a heat engine... and heat engine efficiency depends on the dT between source and sink and I believe also the absolute T is Kelvin. Ie, you get more energy per 1K at 1000K than at 0K... And the form of that equation is T^4. What say Bill? ------------------------------ Date: 7 Oct 92 12:28:12 GMT From: Jim Mann Subject: UFO EVIDENCE VS. Carl Sagan Newsgroups: sci.space In article rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (Jeff Bytof) writes: > Robert E. McElwaine, Esq., states: > > > It's too bad that so many people accept his [Dr. Carl Sagan's] > > pronouncements without question. > > I agree with Bob, but only on this one, *small*, point. > > Jeff Bytof > rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu > > (I am of course referring to Dr. Sagan's hobby interests - "ethical > macaques" and the thesis that Patrick Buchanan is a "baboon" - > not to his well-founded and exciting work modeling the chemistry of > Saturn's moon, Titan!) Why? Because it is unfair to the baboons? -- Jim Mann Stratus Computer jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 295 ------------------------------