Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V08/V8_324.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 18KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/[e-mail] (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/po2.andrew.cmu.edu.288.0.0>;
          Sun, 14 Aug 88 04:09:01 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q003/QF.andrew.cmu.edu.230549a3.dc910e>;
          Sun, 14 Aug 88 04:04:55 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00265> for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Sun, 14 Aug 88 04:04:17 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA00472; Sun, 14 Aug 88 01:04:25 PDT
    id AA00472; Sun, 14 Aug 88 01:04:25 PDT
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 88 01:04:25 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #324

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 8 : Issue 324

Today's Topics:
           Date of Afghan mission to Mir announced
             Economic Conversion
             Re: Spacesploitation
                Re: Satellites
             Re: Space Shuttle fuel leaks
              Re: Skintight Space Suits
                Re: Satellites
    Re: Space Station power supply (was Re: Lithium cells)
           Re: Disagree? I'll cut you off!
        Re: "NukeWinter" garbage (was Re: Aegis, SDI)
             Re: Spacesploitation
            SDI and space station partners
               Re: Economic Conversion
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 5 Aug 88 17:02:24 EDT
From: Glenn Chapman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Date of Afghan mission to Mir announced

     The Soviets have announced Aug. 29th as the launch date for the Soyuz TM-6
mission to Mir.  This mission will bring up an Afghan guest cosmonaut,
either Col. Mohammad Dauran or Capt. Abdol Ahad.  Unfortunately, the Russians
have retreated a bit from announcing the crew in advance.  For a while
they would give out the full flight crew list well in advance.  Now they
will list the names of people training for the flight, and the probable make
up of the prime and backup crew.  The mission date will be announced
well in advance, but not the crew makeup stating that will be selected
shortly before they fly.  For those keeping count the in orbit crew of
Vladimir Titov and Musahi Manarov have now been up for 228 days, nearly 2/3
of their full year mission.
     The Russians have also talked again about future Mars missions.  There
will not be a 1992 flight, but the 1994 mission will contain a rover vehicle
(no details as to size).  The 2000 AD mission will return samples to earth
from Mars.  2010 is the earliest they are now talking about manned missions.
     With their on orbit experience the USSR will be in a position to send
humans to Mars by that date.  It is clear that unless this country's program
changes there is little chance that it will be able to do so also.

                                                           Yours truly
                                                           Glenn Chapman

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

Reply-To: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 88 16:48:18 PDT
From: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim (Jim Bowery)
To: ucsd!nosc!crash!space
Subject: Economic Conversion

Those calling for international cooperation in space have had the
crucial insight that science has always been an international activity
of tremendous value in its own right.  They understand the need to
get away from letting NASA hold our space activities hostage to
the permanent war economy.

We must:

* Expand our scientific activities in space so that we can have broad
international cooperation in space.

* Ensure that all NASA civil servants and contractors working
on large development projects participate in economic conversion
so they can truely contribute to our economy.

Like the economic conversion of the military development industry,
the economic conversion of the civilian aerospace development
industry to the support of open scientific research will promote
a higher standard of living and greater international harmony.


UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim
ARPA: crash!pnet01![e-mail]
INET: [e-mail]

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

Date: 6 Aug 88 01:02:24 GMT
From: aramis.rutgers.edu!klaatu.rutgers.edu![e-mail]  (J Storrs Hall)
Subject: Re: Spacesploitation

>If you think that "common heritage of mankind" is some sort
>of romantic tripe, or Third-World blathering, or One-World
>Commie-nism, so be it.

It is all three.  However, more importantly, it is (an attempt at)
an exercise in power for its own sake, and is merely another of the
endless string of conceits by which the governments of the world
justify the impoverishment of their people.

--JoSH

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

Date: 5 Aug 88 19:16:47 GMT
From: hp-pcd!hpcvlx![e-mail]  (Bill Turner)
Subject: Re: Satellites

> [Text of satellite list deleted]

Isn't it a bit depressing that a deep scientific mission hasn't
been launched by the US since 78?

--Bill Turner

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

Date: 5 Aug 88 18:46:44 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle fuel leaks

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Harold Mueller) writes:
>How do you find a leak in a hydrogen line?  Hydraulic fluid would be
>easy to spot oozing out, but liquid hydrogen would vaporize...

I think they use portable mass spectrometers to spot hydrogen in the air;
they also has the advantage of being sensitive to very small traces.
--
MSDOS is not dead, it just     |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
smells that way.               | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 5 Aug 88 19:42:03 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Skintight Space Suits

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Peter Scott) writes:
>I'm very interested in reading about actual data where it exists, rather
>than speculation.  Where can I find papers on these vacuum chamber
>experiments?

The major source is NASA CR-1892, Development of a Space Activity Suit, by
James Annis and Paul Webb.  Be warned that it's out of print.
--
MSDOS is not dead, it just     |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
smells that way.               | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 5 Aug 88 18:42:30 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Satellites

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steve Hix) writes:
>Pioneer 6    12/16/65 US    (still returning good data)
>Pioneer 7    8/16/66  US    (still active)
>Pioneer 8    12/13/67 US    (still active)

You missed Pioneer 9, which is also still active.  And I think one of the
earlier ones -- Pioneer 8? -- is out of contact and presumed dead, as of
quite recently.  Also, at least one of these Pioneers is returning data
only intermittently, because its spin axis is off enough that its semi-
directional antennas (which see a plane perpendicular to the axis) are
not aligned with Earth most of the time.

You also missed Pioneers 10 and 11, heading out of the solar system.
--
MSDOS is not dead, it just     |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
smells that way.               | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 5 Aug 88 18:45:42 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Space Station power supply (was Re: Lithium cells)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Lucius Chiaraviglio) writes:
>>Main power on the space station is specified as 220 VAC at 20 kHz.
>
>    Isn't this going to cause considerable inefficiency of power
>transmission due to radiative losses...

Actually, what it is mostly going to cause is expenditure of vast sums of
money to develop all-new power hardware to save a few kilograms, when the
money would be much better spend on launching those few extra kilos of
standard aviation (400 Hz) power hardware.  The 20 kHz power is technically
a cute idea, but in terms of getting a space station into orbit and making
it useful, it's totally unnecessary and really dumb.
--
MSDOS is not dead, it just     |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
smells that way.               | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 5 Aug 88 18:22:23 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Disagree? I'll cut you off!

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John F Carr) writes:
>[e-mail] (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) writes:
>>For your further information, Henry Spencer is probably one of the most
>>respected posters on USENET, and most certainly in sci.space.  If Henry
>>Spencer tells you to get some topic off this newsgroup--in this case, SDI,
>>which has its own newsgroup--then YOU GET THIS TOPIC OFF THIS NEWSGROUP.
>
>And who elected him dictator?  Or you his enforcer?  This network does not
>need to answer to any one person, even you.  I will listen to what Henry
>Spencer says, and will likely follow any reasonable suggestions.  I will
>certainly not do either for you...

The thought of good old Obnoxious supporting me truly makes the mind reel;
at least it made mine reel.  While I may sometimes sound like the dictator
of sci.space, especially when the reappearance of the SDI debate makes me
grouchy, I have never claimed any particular authority over the group.
And I do my own enforcing... :-)

I'm unaware of any newsgroup specifically for SDI, although misc.headlines
[I almost wrote talk.headlines... :-)] comes to mind.

>... SDI IS RELEVANT TO SPACE.

No; certain aspects of SDI are relevant to space.  I wouldn't get grouchy
about it if the sci.space discussion confined itself to those aspects (and
preferably to new issues rather than endless shouting matches, which really
accomplish nothing...).
--
MSDOS is not dead, it just     |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
smells that way.               | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 5 Aug 88 18:34:31 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: "NukeWinter" garbage (was Re: Aegis, SDI)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Joe Buck) writes:
>>I was really hoping I had heard the last of the NukeWinter (NW) fabrication.
>>It just goes to show how much damage a politician can do when people think he
>>is a scientist and trust him.
>
>Dr. Sagan has unquestionable scientific credentials in astronomy and
>planetary science.  On the other hand, I've never heard of you.  Like
>other human beings, he also has political views.  And what do you mean
>by "damage"?  ...

In my opinion, there is some reason to wonder whether the TTAPS study was
quite as objective as one would prefer for ground-breaking science.  And
the way it was publicized was, to put it bluntly, political propaganda
rather than careful popularization of science.  This probably did do some
harm to objective investigation of the issue, not to mention science's
reputation as a whole.

But overall, a fabrication it was not.  It was certainly a crude first cut
at analysis, using very simplistic models.  And it did make some assumptions
which qualified as dubious even at the time and just don't hold up to
careful investigation (for example, wildland fires were assumed to make
a contribution equal to urban fires, which was demonstrated to be nonsense
by a detailed study).  However, the overall conclusion stands:  a major
nuclear war could have serious effects on the climate.  Even if one ignores
the howling-blizzard scare stories, there is good reason to believe that it
might produce enough world-wide cooling to cause massive crop failure.
--
MSDOS is not dead, it just     |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
smells that way.               | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 6 Aug 88 19:10:21 GMT
From: polya!cayuga![e-mail]  (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Spacesploitation

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Fred Baube) writes:
>so that we don't end up with something like Heinlein wrote about in
>"The Man Who Sold the Moon", where rockets lay carbon trails on the
>lunar surface to create a giant soft drink logo.

A Coca-Cola logo on the moon bothers me a lot less than no human
presence on the moon.  I don't care whether someone makes a buck (or
trillion) as long as space is opened to us IN MY LIFETIME.  Govts
aren't going to do it.

>Or nuclear contamination of Mars.

Governments are the worst polluters on Earth because they aren't
liable.  That's not going to change in space.

>Presumably, if Capitalist Company "A" can profitably develop a
>tract, then so can Multi-National "ISA", if it has access to
>comparable technology, and a modicum of managerial competence.
>This should then preclude unilateral exploitation.

Ah, but the terms say that "A" has to pay for the surveys, interpret
them, and pay for the mining technology development.  It will have to
recover these costs from the mining profits on inferior locations.
The ISA doesn't have to pay these costs and I'll bet it will end up
being tax-exempt.  I can get better terms from the Mafia; no wonder
the countries with substantial ore deposits love this treaty.  If the
Pacific is "our common heritage" so is the African continent.

-andy
UUCP:  {arpa gateways, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!polya.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:  [e-mail]
[phone]/723-3088 home/cubicle

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

Date: 6 Aug 88 13:52:40 GMT
From: thorin!lhotse![e-mail]  (James Symon)
Subject: SDI and space station partners

>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (James Symon) writes:
> . . .
>>Why? Where else does a discussion of the legitimate uses of space
>>belong? ...
>
>*WHAT* discussion of the legitimate uses of space?  . . .
>But the SDI debates always spend most of their time and energy arguing
>about TOTALLY NON-SPACE ISSUES like whether the software can be made to
>work and whether deployment would be destabilizing and whether the Soviets
>could defeat it easily and so on and so on ad nauseam.
> . . .
>I repeat:  get it off sci.space, please.  Or at least restrict the sci.space
>discussion *entirely* to space-related issues.
>--         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Now that I can agree with. I enjoyed the discussions about particle
beams in space and how far they might reach into the atmosphere, also
the ones about fast acceleration boosters that might allow separation
of warheads before leaving the atmosphere. Those are certainly space
science related. Of course, one might argue that destabilization might
lead to no one getting to space ever, but that's reaching and I agree
it doesn't belong.

"Space-related issues" has, in the past, included the politics of
funding of space exploration. I would like to hear from this group
whether they have seen indications that insistence on the part of our
government that the space station not be off limits to the military IS
seriously jeopardizing our getting international cooperation. Now that
we are a little further down the road, my impressions are that initial
hysteria and propaganda has died down and the SS partners are still on
board.

                Jim Symon
                Rt 4 Box 443
                Chapel Hill, NC 27516
at school:

Jim Symon
Chapel Hill, NC  27599-3175
                    "Better get Helms on the
UUCP:  uunet!mcnc!unc!symon         scrambler, we got incoming
UUCP: decvax!mcnc!unc!symon          treaties all over the screen"
Internet:[e-mail]                - MacNelly

***Don't use "r" or my header line address***

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

Date: 7 Aug 88 00:29:40 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (John F Carr)
Subject: Re: Economic Conversion

In article <[e-mail]> mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com![e-mail] writes:
>They understand the need to
>get away from letting NASA hold our space activities hostage to
>the permanent war economy.

I wrote a paper a few years ago on holding space "hostage" (not in those
words).  My thesis: the US space program has been a political tool, and
has been crippled by its use as such.  I could see NASA where it is now
without the military, but if it were not for the rushes to score quick
political victories we could have done much better (initial prohibition
of orbital flight; later rush to get man in space/in orbit/to Moon;
termination of Apollo when it had served its political purpose;...).
The military has contributed to the space program (you decide for better
or worse), but politics has done far more.  The military is at least
capable of long term planning.

   John Carr             "When they turn the pages of history,
   [e-mail]     When these days have passed long ago,
                          Will they read of us with sadness
                          For the seeds that we let grow?"  --Neil Peart

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

End of SPACE Digest V8 #324
*******************