Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V10_0/V10_095.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 17KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from beak.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/[e-mail] (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/UZ9Pjeu00VcJ8Evk4=>;
          Sun,  1 Oct 89 03:25:31 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sun,  1 Oct 89 03:25:04 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #95

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 10 : Issue 95

Today's Topics:
              Re: NEW SUBSCRIBER
     Re: Galileo Jovian atmospheric probe -- is it sterilized???
               Re: Pluto meets Neptune
            Alternative Space Goal
       Re: Shuttle to HEO or the Moon (was Re: Saturn V & F-1)
     Re: Galileo Jovian atmospheric probe -- is it sterilized???
               Re: Pluto meets Neptune
     Re: Galileo Jovian atmospheric probe -- is it sterilized???
        Re: San Diego L5 Space Activism Report 9/20/89
             Re: Mars Mission ship design
           Re: Space goals, cheap launchers
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 24 Sep 89 19:06:40 GMT
From: sun-barr!texsun!texbell!uhnix1!jane![e-mail]  (Rikhit Arora)
Subject: Re: NEW SUBSCRIBER

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Avery Ray Colter) writes:
> [e-mail] (Michael Ryan, FSF) writes:
>
>>Request to be put on distribution
>
> If you're not already, how did you post here???
> --

One does not have to be on the distribution list to be able to post to any
newsgroup (atleast that's how it's from here).  I'm not on the sci.space
dist. list, yet I'm making this posting!!

Rikhit Arora
Univ. of Houston.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                .............                    |       Rikhit Arora
 And, while with silent, lifting mind I've trod  |    [e-mail]
    The high untrespassed sanctity of space,     |    [e-mail]
Put out my hand, and touched the the face of God.|    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 23 Sep 89 21:41:33 GMT
From: jtsv16!geac!yunexus!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Galileo Jovian atmospheric probe -- is it sterilized???

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Paul Dietz) writes:
>If your goal is to preserve a pristine environment, then, yes, current
>actions are "dumb".  But do not assume this goal is widely held, or
>even correct (or incorrect) in any absolute sense.

Do remember, also, that a pristine environment hereabouts is bare rock with
an atmosphere of CO2, methane, and ammonia.  The oxygen that we're so fond
of breathing, and those green things that produce it, were the direct cause
of the biggest environmental disruption in Earth's history, probably
slaughtering far more species than we've yet managed to.

"The alternative to change is another sort of change."
--
"Where is D.D. Harriman now,   |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
when we really *need* him?"    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 23 Sep 89 21:43:58 GMT
From: jtsv16!geac!yunexus!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Pluto meets Neptune

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Laurence Larry Sheldon) writes:
>Some times Pluto is closer to the Sun, sometimes Neptune is, right?
>
>To a non-astronomer (me) it would appear that (given common centers, the
>Sun) at some time the orbital "discs" must intersect, and would thus
>provide for a collision.  What am I missing?

The orbits are in three dimensions, not two.  They do not in fact intersect.
Pluto does not cross Neptune's orbit, it passes above it.
--
"Where is D.D. Harriman now,   |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
when we really *need* him?"    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 24 Sep 89 16:08:33 PDT
From: mordor!lll-tis!oodis01!riacs!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com![e-mail] (Jim Bowery)
To: ucsd!nosc!crash![e-mail]
Subject: Alternative Space Goal

Before one can specify an alternative space goal for the US, one must
understand its current space goal:

Maintain the current cashflow structure which goes under the heading
of "The Space Program."

To most of us, when it is stated in this way, it becomes clear that almost
ANY alternate space goal will be better.  Unfortunately, since the current
goal is to maintain the current cashflow structure (with, perhaps, enhanced
levels) any reasonable alternatives have already been rhetorically "claimed"
by "The Space Program."  No matter what reasonable goal you offer, the
politicians in NASA and elsewhere will portray current activities, whatever
they may be, as being in service of your goal.

Understand, then, that the goal I am about to specify has nothing to do
with NASA or "The Space Program" and their current activities are about
as destructive to this goal as is theoretically possible:

Utilize industrial civilization to remove itself from the biosphere and
provide a larger substrate for diverse technical, cultural and biological
evolution.

I'm sure there are more poetic and perhaps parsimonious ways of saying
such a thing (as I think Solari has in his writing) but there it is, in
a sentence, more or less.

PS: Henry, NASA's charter includes operating transportation services and
facilities for space.  This surprised me when I learned of it but it also
explains why Congress had to take specific action to clarify that NASA was
not to involve itself in commercial communications satellite services.
Too bad Congress didn't have the same foresight about transportation and
facilities -- many of us might be living in space by now.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Bowery    Phone: [phone]
PO Box 1981                  Join the Mark Hopkins Society!
La Jolla, CA 92038   (A member of the Mark Hopkins family of organizations.)

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

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

Date: 24 Sep 89 23:31:53 GMT
From: uhccux!munnari.oz.au!bruce!monu1!vaxc![e-mail]  (Gareth Bull)
Subject: Re: Shuttle to HEO or the Moon (was Re: Saturn V & F-1)

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Steve Hosgood) writes:
>
> Wasn't there some plan to allow the shuttle to carry a fuel tank in the
> cargo bay? This was, as I remember, being talked-about before the shuttle
> flew, but I've heard no mention since.
>
> If this could be done, wouldn't the system equal the much-vaunted Saturn V's
> performance? After all the shuttle's power-to-weight ratio is better than
> the S5 at launch, surely the difference is the lack of a 3rd stage?

        If you do that, where do you put the cargo ? Isn't that, after all
the whole point of having a vehicle with Saturn-V performance, to put HEAVY
payloads into orbit ?


--
        [e-mail]  OR  [e-mail]
                           Alias: Gareth Bull

                          Opinions ? Who, me ?

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

Date: 24 Sep 89 22:00:01 GMT
From: uccba!uceng![e-mail]  (daniel mocsny)
Subject: Re: Galileo Jovian atmospheric probe -- is it sterilized???

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Paul Dietz) writes:
> "Dumb" is a loaded word that I take to mean "does things I don't like."

I can think of at least two working definitions for "dumb."

(1) "Dumbness" is the inability to accurately predict all the
consequences of an action. This is a rather restrictive definition,
because the opposite of "dumbness" sounds like "omniscience." However,
as our accumulated store of information and our ability to
manipulate it continues to exponentiate, we will probably become
less "dumb" by this definition.

(2) "Dumbness" is proportional to the amount of energy we must expend
to realize goal X. Take, for example, the problem of stopping a train
(without regard to the final state of the train). If you are very dumb
you can pile a large mass of rocks over the tracks. A less dumb
approach would be to tear up a moderate length of track. A much less
dumb approach would be to put your man on board (or convince someone
already on board) to apply the brake.

(1) and (2) obviously interrelate. To a good approximation, the more
energy we expend to realize some specific goal, the more side effects
we are likely to get, and the more surprising they will be.

To bring this discussion back to space: does anyone know of any earth
organisms that could survive in Jupiter's atmosphere as we currently
picture it? If so, how much of the atmosphere would they contaminate,
and how long would they require to do so? How fast would they have
to reproduce to avoid being eliminated entirely by atmospheric
circulation (which I assume cycles most of the Jovian atmosphere
through temperatures and pressures lethal to protein-based life)?

Dan Mocsny
[e-mail]

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

Date: 24 Sep 89 22:02:53 GMT
From: uccba!uceng![e-mail]  (daniel mocsny)
Subject: Re: Pluto meets Neptune

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Tom Neff) writes:
> Alright, alright, enough!  WE ADMIT IT.  Neptune and Pluto's orbits
> intersect precisely in two places, and in fact they go >BONK!< every
> 3,247.8 years, bounce off each other, and resume their orbits in
> retrograde.

What about all the intersections between the orbits of Luna and Terra?

Dan Mocsny
[e-mail]

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

Date: 23 Sep 89 21:26:25 GMT
From: ibmpa![e-mail]  (nick szabo)
Subject: Re: Galileo Jovian atmospheric probe -- is it sterilized???

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tom Neff) writes:
>Without wishing to sound too Luddite or holistic,

Nevertheless, you succeeded in doing so.  :-)

>I think it's true that
>if we screw up the pristine surfaces of other planets with biological
>infections or massive "industrial" projects

There has been a lot of loaded terminology thrown around this newsgroup
lately.  The planets are Pristine, and human presence (or the presence of
any other kind of Earth life) is Contamination.  I happen to think this is
100% backwards.   Earth life (the only kind we know) is what we must work
on preserving.   Thousands of species ares dyings every year in our rain
forests.  Nuclear weapons threaten our own form of life, humans.  And we're
worried about trillions-to-one odds (to be liberal) of "contaminating" Jupter
life with Earth life?  Come on.

Do we really think planets are Pristine and Earth life is Contamination?
If so, we shouldn't be going into space at all.  Logically, we should kill
ourselves now and let the Earth go back to its original Pristine state.

This philosophy is _not_ a triviality, and it is _not_ inevitable that
humans or other Earth life will make into space.  When people think that
the planets are Pristine and Earth life is Contamination, they do what we
have just witnessed the Christic Institute do, they picket and lobby and
try to get court injunctions against an important part of our space
exploration effort.  The Christic Institute is a powerful, intellectual,
and quite influential organization.  Our words have emotional meanings,
and if we loosely throw around phrases like "pristine planets" and
"biological infection" to describe space exploration/settlement, people
will naturally think that it is wrong, and that it should be stopped, and
they will stop it.


>designed to save a few bucks
>over a few decades or centuries, future generations will curse our names.

Just like right now we curse the names of Christopher Columbus, Ferdinand
Magellan, Andrew Carnegie, Henry Ford, and Leland Stanford.  Those jerks!
  :-)

This forum goes all over the world, folks.  Thousands read it, at universities,
at NASA, and at places like Christic.  Think about it.




--
--------------------------------------------
Nick Szabo
uunet!ibmsupt!szabonj
These opinions are not related to Big Blue's

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

Date: 25 Sep 89 22:34:46 GMT
From: bfmny0![e-mail]  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: San Diego L5 Space Activism Report 9/20/89

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Harm Munk) writes:
>You Americans have a strange perception of democracy: bargaining for support
>like this is disgusting.

Goodness knows it's never done in the Netherlands...! :-)
--
"Nature loves a vacuum.  Digital    \O@/    Tom Neff
  doesn't." -- DEC sales letter     /@O\    [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 25 Sep 89 21:44:17 EDT
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender
    and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement.
Subject: Re: Mars Mission ship design


>From: ns-mx![e-mail]  (Jacob Hugart,134E LC,5-5506,)
>Subject: Re: Mars Mission ship design

>Here's some more:

>o    Before sending people to Mars, send some pre-fab space platforms
>    with supplies of food, water, and oxygen, so that if something 'bad'
>    happens, there will be an oasis at the mission's destination.
Sounds like a good idea, if you can afford it. You could also send part or all
of the return craft, and anything else the astronauts won't need until they're
there. These shipments would be on slow, economical unmanned craft. Everything
would be tested extensively before the astronauts embarked.

For the establishment of a Mars colony, you could send a batch of robots to
assemble a habitat and a power and manufacturing infrastructure out of
native materials. This has been suggested for the moon, but I think Mars is
more likely to have a good supply of all needed materials. (Power could be
a problem.) Since *any* Mars colony is expected to be many decades away,
perhaps by then technology will have advanced to the point where this is
practical.

>o    Instead of a ring design for pseudo-gravity, how about a low-thrust
>    engine that could be kept firing (thrusting? :-) during the trip, so
>    that 'down' would be towards the engine and 'up' away from it?  This
>    wouldn't work in orbit, so maybe those Martian Oases should be rings.
>    (Isn't there some maneuvering problems when turning against the
>    force of the spin, anyway?)
I think that's beyond any likely near-term technology. In any event, an
engine that could produce any noticeable (by humans) thrust continuously
could get the craft to Mars so quickly that 0g would not be a health problem.

>Any other brainstormers out there?
There's an easy way to save a *lot* of money on a manned Mars mission: just
don't provide for a return trip. The astronauts get there, work for a few
weeks or months, then get to do whatever they want. You probably wouldn't
even have much trouble finding volunteers. (OK, maybe you couldn't get
public funding for it. Sounds like a good private sector project :-)
                               John Roberts
                               [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 25 Sep 89 22:57:29 EDT
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender
    and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement.
Subject: Re: Space goals, cheap launchers


>From: rochester![e-mail]  (Brian Yamauchi)
>Subject: Alternative Space Goals, Anyone? (was Re: SpaceCause)

>More funding for robotic space probes would definitely help both space
>science and space exploration, and companies like AMROC, SSI, and
>OSC/Hercules seem to be on the right track towards providing low-cost
>access to orbit.

>Brian Yamauchi                University of Rochester
>[e-mail]        Computer Science Department

Remember that what these companies offer (at least in the near term) is
low cost *per launch*, not *per pound*. Cost per pound is even higher than
the shuttle. If you can build a small satellite weighing a few hundred
pounds or less which can do anything you want while in low earth orbit,
that's fine. If you buy lots of launches to assemble something big in orbit,
you're paying a premium to subsidize the small launch companies. However,
as I previously stated, subsidizing the small companies is not necessarily
a bad idea, as long as you know that's what you're doing.

Can any of these small launchers be equipped with a secondary booster, and get
a payload of usable size into lunar or interplanetary trajectories?
                                 John Roberts
                                 [e-mail]

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

End of SPACE Digest V10 #95
*******************