Date: Thu, 1 Apr 93 05:24:57 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V16 #398 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Thu, 1 Apr 93 Volume 16 : Issue 398 Today's Topics: Abyss: breathing fluids Acceptable metric conversions (was Re: Pioneer Venus Last Findings) COPUOS, Outer Space & Moon Treaties First Mission of the Small Expendable Deployer System SUCCESS! FYI: Rocket historians GIF's of DC-X Luddites in space Mars Observer Update - 03/29/93 More water simulations New DC-1 reentry question Omnimax Plans, absence therof So I'm an idiot, what else is new? Space Research Spin Off SSF Redesign as of 3/31/93 the call to space (was Re: Clueless Szaboisms ) (4 msgs) 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: 31 Mar 1993 12:17:17 -0500 From: Pat Subject: Abyss: breathing fluids Newsgroups: sci.space In article edm@twisto.compaq.com (Ed McCreary) writes: | |Until recently, the FDA has not approved the flourocarbon emulsion used ^^^^^^^^^^ |in _The Abyss_ for use in humans, so little work has been done. The |liquid used in the rat scene was an electonic parts cleaner developed ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ |by 3M and yes, the rat really was breathing it and yes he lived a |normal life afterwards. | |But, I've heard reports that's a similar emulsion has been approved for |use in neonates who are experiencing lung problems due to underdeveloped |lungs. I've not seen the papers myself, but I have no reason to doubt it. | Of course, by the Time the FDA approves it for wide spread use, the EPA will have finished Banning CFC's, so it will be back to the drawing board. Of course, it may make a pretty good non-dairy dessert topping. pat ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1993 18:34:10 GMT From: fred j mccall 575-3539 Subject: Acceptable metric conversions (was Re: Pioneer Venus Last Findings) Newsgroups: sci.space In <1993Mar29.163026.592@indyvax.iupui.edu> tffreeba@indyvax.iupui.edu writes: >Here's one straight from Oc's razor - _Just_ use metric measurements! >Let the public or, better yet, journalists do the conversions. ):-)> Uh, this is the United States. Just use English units and let the rest of the world do the conversions if they feel the need to have things in SI (or any other permutation of 'metric' that you happen to be using this week). >That should clear things up. Journalists clear things up? Hmmm, doesn't sound like any journalist *I* ever heard of. Next thing you know, you'll be telling me that politicians will do what is best for the country! ;-) -- "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1993 16:27:40 GMT From: Nick Szabo Subject: COPUOS, Outer Space & Moon Treaties Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space This debate needs a few clarifications: * COPUOS is a U.N. committee that has been meeting since 1958, and has produced several treaties on space law, including the Outer Space Treaty and the Moon Treaty. * The treaty signed by the U.S. is the U.N. Outer Space Treaty, ratified by the U.S. Senate 88-0 in 1967. It denuclearized outer space and demilitarized the moon, but did not demilitarize out space. U.S. negotiators described the phrase "for the benefit of all peoples irrespective of the degree of their economic and scientific development" to the Senate as a vague principle with no forseeable application. * The Moon Treaty of 1979 required "equitable sharing" of benefits derived from native materials, and vaguely implied a regime for doing so (inspired by the ITU, the bureacracy for allocating Clarke orbit slots & frequencies). The U.S. Senate, lobbied by the L-5 Society (RIP), refused to ratify this treaty. Former astronaut & U.S. Senator Harrison Schmidt has proposed the U.S. back an ITU/Intelsat type regime for the moon. Thankfully, the Senator bit is also former. Ref: Hobe, S. "Commercial space activities versus out space as the province of all mankind?", Space Communications 9(1991)75-90 McGougall, Walter _...The Heavens and the Earth: A Political History of the Space Age_, Basic Books 1985 -- Nick Szabo szabo@techboook.com ------------------------------ From: Pat Subject: First Mission of the Small Expendable Deployer System SUCCESS! Newsgroups: sci.space Date: 31 Mar 1993 11:54:10 -0500 Organization: Express Access Online Communications USA Lines: 30 Message-Id: <1pcibi$guq@access.digex.com> References: <1993Mar29.162041.5393@cnsvax.uwec.edu> <1993Mar30.142832.17044@den.mmc.com> <30MAR199310084522@judy.uh.edu> <1993Mar30.180722.29016@iti.org> Nntp-Posting-Host: access.digex.com Keywords: Tether, SEDS, Delta II Sender: news@CRABAPPLE.SRV.CS.CMU.EDU Source-Info: Sender is really isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU In article <1993Mar30.180722.29016@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes: >3. Advanced turbopumps. Overrun by over 500% yet they got not only all > the funds but even got the scope of the project reduced. From my reading on it, actually COngress was kinda torqued by the overruns on the project, and at the 300% level, told them to drop work on the new Hydrogen Turbo-pump. I think had work contunued on the hydrogen pump, the overrun would have been 700%. Best guess, of course. So theoretically, COngress was micro-managing this project, but only after having to spend three times more then they had already asked for. Now what is the source of these problems. As I see it. A major problem is NASA contracts out too many functions. During the Old Days, NASA did advanced work internally. THey had contract help in small stuff, but all Critical functions were done by GS engineers. Once tehy had the major risk elements worked out, then they went to contractors for manufacturing. Now My take, is that they have Prototyping and R&D work done by outside groups who have a profit interest in over-runs. AS I see it, the Reagan philosophy of total contracting has hurt them very badly. It works in things like Printing which is a low risk activity, but in high risk work it's better done in internal labs like NRL, Dryden, Sandia... pat ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1993 17:25:34 GMT From: "James B. Reed" Subject: FYI: Rocket historians Newsgroups: sci.space Peter Alway is working on a book that includes scale data for a large number of rockets. His target audience is the model rocket community. In the last few weeks he has been posting a series of questions in an attempt to flesh out his research. All the posts have gone to rec.models.rockets. Anyone here interested or knowledgeable might want to eavesdrop over there to chip in your $.02. The traffic there is much lower than sci.space (only about 20 messages per day). Peter is quite capable and serious about this project. I believe he's even gotten access to the displays in the Air and Space museum during off hours to make measurements. Jim -- James B. Reed | If at first you don't succeed, Intergraph Corporation | Find out why, jbreed@ingr.com | **THEN** try again. ------------------------------ Date: 31 Mar 93 19:24:50 GMT From: "Chris W. Johnson" Subject: GIF's of DC-X Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Mar30.205402.4816@Princeton.EDU> phoenix.Princeton.EDU!carlosn, writes: > Are these actual pictures, or artist impressions, etc? Some of both. Chris W. Johnson Internet: chrisj@emx.cc.utexas.edu UUCP: {husc6|uunet}!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!chrisj CompuServe: >INTERNET:chrisj@emx.cc.utexas.edu AppleLink: chrisj@emx.cc.utexas.edu@internet# ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1993 18:15:16 GMT From: fred j mccall 575-3539 Subject: Luddites in space Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space In <1oveeu$hqk@access.digex.com> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes: >In article <1993Mar25.204904.4885@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes: >>I hardly ever 'ignore economics', since I went to the trouble and >>effort to get a degree in the subject so I would understand things >>that to you are apparently beyond comprehension. Perhaps you should >And DOug Mohney in a previous Post > How much do I know about Economics, I have a degree in the subject. >SO who else has a degree in economics? >Pat > Who didn't bother, because i already know the field. Famous last words. I'm curious, though, Pat. How would you feel if your doctor told you that he/she "didn't bother" with medical school because they "already knew the field" or that the flight control software for the airplane you were riding in was designed and built by someone who "didn't bother" with training to learn about software engineering because they "already knew the field"? Hmmm, maybe this explains some things? :-) -- "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me. ------------------------------ Date: 31 Mar 1993 18:37 UT From: Ron Baalke Subject: Mars Observer Update - 03/29/93 Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary In article <1pcgaa$do1@access.digex.com>, prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes... >In article <30MAR199319014478@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov> baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes: >|There is no concern for instrument failure, the science team just wants >|to get started as soon as possible. > >Either I misinterpreted teh space news article (maybe it was AW&ST) >or they were putting more play onto the story. Hardly the first case >of journalistic over-exageration. There was an AW&ST article that said "scientists want to gather data as soon as possible in case the spacecraft malfunctions later". Perhaps it should be been rephrased to "in case of the remote chance the spacecraft malfunctions later". Either way, all of the instruments aboard MO are healthy and none are foreseen to fail during the 2 year mapping phase. >|There are two periods next year where >|science data collection will be suspended or minimal: during the solar >|conjuction period in December/January, and during the Mars dust storm >|season that runs roughly from February to August. >| One of the MO team members has corrected me on this, but the Mars dust storms will not affect the science return because the dust storms themselves will be studied. Studying the weather patterns on Mars is one of MO's primary objectives. >|>And if that is the case, could they have planned the mission to avoid the >|>dust season? >| >|Predicting dust storms on Mars isn't an exact science. The bigger >|contraint is the launch window to Mars which occurs about every two years. >| > >Yep, the hohmann orbit comes in every 2 years, but they aren't >quite in a hohmann orbit. Something about this requiring more energy >from the Launcher, but a lower energy braking orbital burn. >I wasn't sure if they could have played around with the flight >parms to miss the dust storms a little more. But then Orbital mechanics is >not an area of strength for me. The launch window for Mars Observer was only about a month long, not much to play with there. However, like I mentioned before, studying the dust storms is fullfilling the objectives of the mission and are not to be avoided. >|>ALso, it seems to me, that fuel is a real precious >|>resource. After the mapping is done, reserve fuel could >|>be saved for orbit changes, or to improve mapping of the moons phobos >|>and deimos. >| >|There will still be enough fuel for an extended mission after the primary >|mission ends in 1995. This assumes though that the spacecraft won't be >|turned off due to lack of funding. > >Now isn't that always the kicker. It does seem stupid to drop >a mission like Magellan, because there isn't 70 million a year >to keep up the mission. You'd think that ongoing science could >justify the money. JPL gets accused of spending more then neccessary, >probably some validity in that, but NASA does put money into some >things that really are Porcine. Oh well. The price to keep Magellan going has been reduced, and it now only requires about 8 million dollars. The Magellan team is still planning to start the aerobraking maneuvers in May, but I don't think NASA has approved that yet, so Magellan may yet still be turned of in a couple of months from now. ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| Ron Baalke | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov | | | | __ \ /| | | | Jet Propulsion Lab | ___| | | | |__) |/ | | |__ M/S 525-3684 Telos | Don't ever take a fence /___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | down until you know the |_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ | reason it was put up. ------------------------------ Date: 31 Mar 1993 18:43:11 GMT From: Dave McKissock Subject: More water simulations Newsgroups: sci.space In a previous article, aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) says: > "In another development, NASA managers have decided to test tools > and procedures needed for the Hubble repair during generic spacewalks > already planned for shuttle missions in May and July." > > "While the objectives of both EVAs remain unchanged - to gain general > knowledge about spacewalking to aid in space station construction > and other activities - planners where able to add the Hubble tests > without any significant additional training." > - Space News March 22, 1993 > >That sure sounds to me like they are attempting to verify their >water simulations and find problems. BTW, I am delighted to see >this. Also, I'm not slamming your work. On the contrary, I think >it's very important. I simply don't feel that we understand EVA >as a skill well enough to make reliable predictions for complex >tasks. I hope we will someday but we won't without real experiments. I refuse to believe that we actually agree on something! I concur that NASA could use more EVA tests on-orbit to help make the predictions for complex tasks more reliable. Then I wrote ... >>I thought we agreed to perform more EVAs on upcoming Shuttle flights, >>because someone looked at a plot of planned EVA hours versus >>Shuttle missions, and noted that with SSF many hours of EVA are >>needed for maintenance and assembly. So, rather than having a >>step change in EVA hours, they would gradually build-up the use of EVA. > >Why bother? If your simulations are as good as you say there is absolutely >no need to put astronauts at this greater risk and expense. Wouldn't it >be a lot cheaper and safer to do this ramp up in the water tanks? I think we may be talking past each other here. You do the ramp up of on-orbit tests to get a biger data-base of on-orbit experience, *AND* to find out if you have any problems in accommodating a large number of EVAs in a row. I think you are focusing on the former, & I was focusing on the latter. -- << You shall know the truth, and it shall set you free >> Quote engraved in the marble wall @ CIA Headquarters dbm0000@tm0006.lerc.nasa.gov ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1993 17:16:31 GMT From: "James B. Reed" Subject: New DC-1 reentry question Newsgroups: sci.space I understand that the plans are for DC-1 to reenter nose first as opposed to apollo-style base first. It seems to me that an advantage to going base first is that the occupants are on their back taking the g's the easiest way possible (on their back with knees elevated). Doesn't going nose first mean the occupants will be face down? Is that going to cause problems? Jim -- James B. Reed | If at first you don't succeed, Intergraph Corporation | Find out why, jbreed@ingr.com | **THEN** try again. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1993 18:07:25 GMT From: Dave Kipfer u Subject: Omnimax Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space Since we're on the subject of OmniMax/Imax... I am slightly confused. Now, it would make sense to think that the same company who built IMAX built OMNIMAX as well. I have seen quite a few movies of either format, I"ve seen "The Dream Is Alive", at Cape Kennedy, and Space Academy, Huntsville, "Blue Planet", at Washington Air and Space Museum and again in Huntsville, and "Ring of Fire" in Baltimore. Now, is my guess that the same company who built IMAX also built OMNIMAX as well correct? I feel a little ashamed not knowing this, as I live only 20 some odd kilometers from Cambridge, Ontario, where I know that IMAX was built. -- Dave Kipfer | FidoNet: 1:221/204 DragoNet: 9:519/100 Wilfrid Laurier University | -Excuse me, I have to recharge my Waterloo, Ontario, Canada | flamethrower. Internet: kipf7064@mach1.wlu.ca | These are my opinions, not those of WLU. ------------------------------ Date: 31 Mar 93 18:19:56 GMT From: fred j mccall 575-3539 Subject: Plans, absence therof Newsgroups: sci.space In szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes: >xrcjd@resolve.gsfc.nasa.gov (Charles J. Divine) writes: >>In article 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom) writes: >>>You are ignoring a conflict of interest, though. Since Wingo works for the >>>people that collect my money, his voice will carry further than mine. >>Have you any proof of this statement? >Charles Divine, _you_ are proof of his statement. You've used your >position and resources at NASA for at least the last two years to >lobby for SSF et. al. via "NSS alerts". A clear conflict of interest, >but you are far too deeply buried in a corrupt system to even recognize >it. One assumes that Nick also considers it a conflict of interest when politicians use the resources of their positions to 'lobby' citizens and groups? Or perhaps he considers it a conflict of interest that folks from JPL keep us updated on what is going on there, since everyone knows that one of the best ways of 'lobbying' for funds is to point out all the neat things that are currently going on? I'm afraid my opinion of Nick continues to be confirmed. -- "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me. ------------------------------ Date: 31 Mar 93 08:47:25 GMT From: "R. E. McElwaine" Subject: So I'm an idiot, what else is new? Newsgroups: sci.space RUSSIA'S OPERATIVE In March 1993, Russian President Boris Yeltsin proposed to the United States and the United Nations a global defense shield (with "Star Wars"-type weapons) AGAINST MY ASININE POSTINGS REGarding areas OF TECHNOLOGY that I know NOthing about. Some people might wonder what the "backward" Russians could possibly have that would be of value for the besieged readers of USENET. The little-known TRUTH is that the Russians started deploying me as an OPERATIVE under the tutelage of the old HARD line system. My mind IS FUll of mush and I'M UNDEr complete control by my BOLSHEVIK puppet MASTERS. My main sources are fake articles published in a weekly legislative newspaper, WISCONSIN A** REPORT (WAR), of Brookfield, Wisconsin, (P.O. Box 000, zip 54321), written by the late Dr. Peter David Beter, an unknown Washington, DC attorney, Doctor of NOTHING, and expert and consultant in international fraud, finance, and intelligence, who received much of his information from GARBAGE cans behind the CIA and other intelligence groups of other countries who disapproved of everything that QUACK was involved in. They believed that at least limited public exposure might sharpen wits and spark USENET Wars and prevent the worst of those things, such as people doing REAL work and making a CONtribution to society. UN-Altered INSEMINATION and REPRODUCTION is encouraged in BEDROOMS across the land. Robert E. McElwaine It's BS that I have a BS in Physics ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1993 18:53:09 GMT From: Dave Stephenson Subject: Space Research Spin Off Newsgroups: sci.space Sorry, slipped up on the name of the ship of Capt. Cook's first voyage. Before I get corrected from OZ, his ship was the Endeavor. Appologies! Anyone have any earlier examples of space research spin offs? -- Dave Stephenson Geodetic Survey of Canada Ottawa, Ontario, Canada Internet: stephens@geod.emr.ca ------------------------------ Date: 31 Mar 1993 18:53:59 GMT From: Dave McKissock Subject: SSF Redesign as of 3/31/93 Newsgroups: sci.space 1. Yesterday, Vice President Gore announced that a Dr. Vest (the President of MIT) will lead the blue ribbon panel which will review the Space Station Freedom redesign options developed by the Shea team. 2. The first report from the Shea team to the panel will occur this Saturday (5/3/93). This first meeting will be closed, but subsequent meetings will be open (so Pat, come on over & join the fun!). Their second meeting is scheduled for April 22. 3. Although it's referred to as the "Shea" team, due to Shea's illness, the team is being lead by Bryan O'Connor (the Deputy Associate Administrator in the Office of Space Flight). So, the team is not leaderless (as was incorrectly stated in a posting a while back). -- << You shall know the truth, and it shall set you free >> Quote engraved in the marble wall @ CIA Headquarters dbm0000@tm0006.lerc.nasa.gov ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1993 16:11:26 GMT From: fred j mccall 575-3539 Subject: the call to space (was Re: Clueless Szaboisms ) Newsgroups: sci.space In <829@rins.ryukoku.ac.jp> will@rins.ryukoku.ac.jp (William Reiken) writes: >In article , pgf@srl01.cacs.usl.edu ("Phil G. Fraering") writes: >> >> Come to think of it, if nuclear waste is a relevant topic for >> sci.space, then this should be too... I think I'll post this >> > She's fine. I have been reading alot of AIAA papers and as a result >have got the idea that nuclear waste is a relevant topic for sci.space. Why >not use nuclear waste for powering the thermo-generators that NASA proposes for >their Mars missions? We are dumping it in our oceans and god knows where else >and it is polluting everything. We can then advantage of our current level >of technology and develop safe and more economical ways of using it. Dumping >it all over the world and forgeting about it is just not going to >work. Last time I checked, *we* weren't dumping nuclear waste in any oceans. > Dumping it on the Sun has been proposed. Great, now the sun is our >incenerator. But the problem is that all the material that we are dumping >may one day be needed for our very survival here on earth. Either we must >acknowledge that we need to find a way to use it (by recycling), or we will >get buried in it. Not only that, but *getting* it to the Sun is, well, something of a problem. > Now back to Mars. There is no reason that we can not use alot of (not >all, because nuclear waste is not created equally) the waste for backup >power plants here on Earth. There are very few technological barriers to this >problem. Also such use will prepare NASA for real use in space and on other >planets. Oil is not going to be here forever. We need to ration our energy >creating materials. And like it or not nuclear waste is already here. It is >to late to go back. Thermo-nuclear piles that create electricity are just as >good as nuclear waste buried 25 miles under the earth and not doing anything >for anyone. I believe you are mistaken about the feasibility of using nuclear waste in such schemes. The energy density of what would amount to big RTG's is *lousy*. Also, you should avoid the use of the word 'thermo-nuclear'; so far as I know there is no such hyphenated word, and the closest real word (thermonuclear) means something just a bit different than what you are talking about. ;-) > Basically what I am saying is that by balancing our energy resources >oil and other finite energy resources will last longer and we can use more >of them for things other than fuel, ie., plastics, etc... A good principle, but your approach with regard to 'using' nuclear waste is somewhat off-target. -- "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1993 17:46:51 GMT From: James Davis Nicoll Subject: the call to space (was Re: Clueless Szaboisms ) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1pcge0$dua@access.digex.com> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes: >Are canadian exports of Radio-nucliedes, also controlled by US >rules. Technology export controls, that sort of thing? Are you asking: A: Are Canadians US subjects and answerable to US laws? B: Does Canada have laws similar in content to US laws, or C: Are Canada and the US co-signatories to treaties pertaining to technology export (eg; the IAAA)? I will assume you *don't* mean A, since that would be a lead-in for a discussion about educational standards in your home-town. Note that it is legal to export to Cuba from Canada, and vice-versa, despite the US embargo of Cuba. Not posting from an igloo in the middle of tundra, James Nicoll ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1993 16:18:14 GMT From: fred j mccall 575-3539 Subject: the call to space (was Re: Clueless Szaboisms ) Newsgroups: sci.space In <1p5rar$a84@access.digex.com> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes: >In article pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering) writes: >>prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes: >>>Please document the ROI for Nuclear Power, once all costs have been >>>allocated. >> >>Simple. The Japanese trade deficit wrt Saudi Arabia is much much >>larger than their trade surplus wrt the United States. If the latter >>causes problems in the United States, which wrt "cultural values" >>has much more in common with Japan than Japan has with Saudi Arabia, >>can you imagine the political pressure they are under to find something >>better? _Especially_ since they're not going around pretending the >>mid-70's oil crisis never happened... >> >Of COurse, the important thing is what is The Japanese trade deficit with >Saudi Arabia, as compared to their total trade surplus. >Running 5% negative to one country, which has the most substitutable >commodity in the world with a highly efficient pricing market is significantly >different then running a 50% deficit witha country that has amajor >lock on the resource, i.e. Titanium. >Also, I thought the japanese exported Beaucoup stuff tot he Arabs. >so that they were more balanced there. >>Oh, you mean economics? Well, once you get rid of all the regulations >>that don't improve safety while increacing the cost and generally >>making the industry untenable (which may be their intended effect) >>nuclear is probably a pretty good deal... >I would have thought the safety rules would be higher for a country >where 85% of their population lives within 50 MIles of one plain, >and that also happens to be expecting a richter 8 earthquake, >and is one the most seismically active regions in the world. >They seriously don't have the room for a mistake. >Also, given that japan has no indigenous sources of radioactives, >what is the economic difference for japan to import oil, versus >radioactives, of which only a few countries produce. I believe only >the US, France and The soviets produce nuclear fuels. Maybe india >does on a small scale. The Japanese have an active reprocessing strategy (with the actual work being done in France). They plan on keeping some 30 years worth of plutonium supplies on hand, I believe. Many other people are concerned about a nation stockpiling this quantity of weapons capable material; not because they are concerned that Japan will build bombs out of it, but because with that much of it in one place there is concern about 'losing' some. It isn't feasible for Japan to try to stockpile the amount of oil they would need to run their industries if they did no use nuclear power. -- "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1993 16:21:41 GMT From: fred j mccall 575-3539 Subject: the call to space (was Re: Clueless Szaboisms ) Newsgroups: sci.space In henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article <1p5rar$a84@access.digex.com> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes: >>Also, given that japan has no indigenous sources of radioactives, >>what is the economic difference for japan to import oil, versus >>radioactives, of which only a few countries produce... >Vulnerability of the supply line. Japan could easily stockpile 50 years' >supply of slightly-enriched uranium (which is not useful for bombs, so >acquiring it shouldn't be a major hassle). This is most impractical for >oil; on a clear day, the captain of a supertanker on the Kuwait-Japan run >can see the funnel smoke from the supertankers ahead of and behind him. Unfortunately, that is not what the Japanese are planning to do. Their plan is to stockpile some 30 *tons* of plutonium -- potentially weapons material, unlike reactor-grade uranium. I believe the first 3 tons (?) of reprocessed material under this plan were just recently shipped from France to Japan (accompanied by much ballyhoo from the anti-nuclear folks). -- "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me. ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 398 ------------------------------