Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V10_1/V10_150.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 16KB

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/usr11/tm2b/space/[e-mail] (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/gZEB:Fe00VcJA94E5U>;
          Sat, 21 Oct 89 16:33:22 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 89 16:33:00 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #150

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 10 : Issue 150

Today's Topics:
      USA TODAY POLL:  CALL AND SHOW SUPPORT FOR SPACE!!
             Re: The Moon vs. My Backyard
                Voyager Update
                 5th orbiter?
         NASA Headline News for 10/12/89 (Forwarded)
            Re: def of 'Luddites'
                Halley's Comet
       Re: NASA Headline News for 10/04/89 (Forwarded)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 12 Oct 89 01:55:22 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Eric William Tilenius)
Subject: USA TODAY POLL:  CALL AND SHOW SUPPORT FOR SPACE!!

USA TODAY is conducting a reader opinion poll.  The topic:

     "ARE WE SPENDING TOO MUCH MONEY EXPLORING SPACE?"

They have a TOLL-FREE number for you to call and leave your COMMENTS
(not just a simple yes/no question, this!).

     CALL:   1-800-255-5463

You have up to 3 minutes to leave your comments, so THINK of what you're
going to say before you call!!

It's important that we all call and express support for space exploration!
CALL TODAY:  1-800-255-5463.

The results will be published in Friday's USA TODAY, along with selected
quotes and comments.

- ERIC -

Eric W. Tilenius     | Princeton Planetary Soc. | [e-mail]
523 Laughlin Hall    | 315 West College         | [e-mail]
Princeton University | Princeton University     | rutgers!pucc.bitnet!ewtileni
Princeton, NJ  08544 | Princeton, NJ  08544     | princeton!pucc!ewtileni
609-734-7677         | 609-734-7677             | COMPUSERVE:  70346,16

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

Date: 10 Oct 89 19:31:52 GMT
From: ibmpa![e-mail]  (nick szabo)
Subject: Re: The Moon vs. My Backyard

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (nick szabo) writes:
>>(NB1: liquid oxygen accounts for less than 20% of the mass of payloads
>>launched into space...
>
>Rocket fuel in general, however, is 50% or better.  Cheap LOX in space
>would make a lot of UDMH/N2O4 systems switch to LOX/LH2 instead.
>

Chemical rockets are a very inefficient way to get around the solar system.
We might very will switch to ion, MPD, EML, and/or NERVA-like propulsion
during the next 20 years.  Then even the 20% will be gone.


>Um, Nick, I'd be interested to see how you get reaction mass out of a solar
>or nuclear electric system; you'll still need fuel, although perhaps less.
>There will also be problems with things that want high thrust.  (For example,
>most satellites going to high orbit would prefer not to spend weeks working
>their way up through the Van Allen belts with low-thrust engines.)

There is at least one nuclear electric design, MPD, that can deliver high
thrust.  EML and NERVA also deliver high thrust.  Most of them cannot use
LoX; none of them require it.  And who knows what else we may discover in
the next 20 years before the proposed Lunar Base is
completed.  Gambling against innovation is a good way to lose your shirt.

If we _are_ in the sad state of still using chemical orbital transfer
propulsion in 20 years, the demand for LoX will still be several orders
of magnitude below that needed to pay back a $150 billion investment with
20 year's interest.  Even Donald Trump's biggest deals are two orders of
magnitude below that.

>
>>There are several discovered, and probably dozens of undiscovered, asteroids
>>closer energy-wise than the Moon.  For a tiny, tiny fraction of this
>>lunar base cost--less than 1%!--we could find these asteroids and
>>characterize their surfaces...
>
>We need to know about their interiors, not just their surfaces.  Pointing
>a telescope at the Moon is no more costly than pointing one at an asteroid,
>but it doesn't tell us what we need to know.

Wrong!  Scientists can tell a lot about the innards from surface data and
from studying asteroid samples on Earth.  Granted, we need to go drill
holes in a few asteroids one of these days--which is why I support an
Asteroid Rendesvous mission.

Meanwhile, we can do asteroid surveys and Antartic sample-return missions
for very cheap, and learn quite a lot before we start lifting the heavy
hardware.

We already know, for example, that asteroids contain lots of oxygen.

>
>>>I say we colonize the moon as soon as
>>>we can figure out what's there.
>>
>>Really?  What if we find out there's nothing there?
>
>You mean the way Columbus found out there was nothing in the Americas?
>(No ":-)" -- he wanted spices, not savages and wilderness.)

Are you saying the Puritans _did_ find something in Greenland?  I
can just imagine Henry Spencer on the Mayflower: "Plymouth Rock?  Are you
crazy?  Everybody knows Greenland is closer!"  :-)

Perhaps the '49ers should have settled Death Valley instead.  :-)


>
>>We _have_ mapped the Moon pretty well...
>
>Look at the geochemical maps.  No we *haven't* mapped the Moon well, at all.
>(The geochemical maps are a few thin stripes of data across lots and lots of
>totally unknown territory.)

But we _have_ photographed 99% of the surface.  We have had several people
orbiting the Moon for days with nothing else to do but eyeball the surface
and look for good spots.  We have returned samples from many different sites.
The place is a dud.  A total washout.  "Magnificent Desolation."  There are
no concentrated ore-forming processes like on Earth, Mars, and probably many
other places in the solar system.

>How many concentrated ores would you find in half a dozen random samples
>from the surface of small areas of, say, Texas?  Especially if you chose
>the areas primarily for safe helicopter landings, rather than geological
>interest?

Ore-forming _processes_.  Nearly all such processes require liquid
volatiles of some sort, usually water.  The remainder require vulcanism.
Nothing of this sort exists on the Moon.  The surface has been pulverized
for billions of years by meteors that have turned its surface into an
undifferentiated rubble of soil and rocks.

Also, I would expect to find quite a lot of things from photographing 99%
of the Earth's surface and eyeballing from orbit ten miles up for several days.

>
>>There are many, many other locations in the solar system.  How about let's
>>go take a look at them?
>
>No objection -- but let's not pretend that none of those interesting
>locations are on the Moon.  We don't know that.

I am quite in favor of geochemically mapping _all_ the Moon, especially the
poles, with the Lunar Geoscience Observer or equivalent.  What I am _not_
in favor of is spending huge sums of money, and destroying countless other
technology endeavors, for the sake of building campsights on what could
very well be the Death Valley of the solar system.

"Know what everything costs."
         Donald Trump

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

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

Date: Wed, 11 Oct 89 15:17:35 PST
From: Peter Scott <[e-mail]>
Subject: Voyager Update
X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"[e-mail]"

Extracted from NASA's _Voyager Bulletin_, Mission Status Repo
rt No. 95,
October 2:

A five-mile-tall, geyser-like plume of dark material has been discovered
erupting from the surface of Neptune's cold moon Triton in images returned
last month by Voyager 2.

The discovery comes just as the Neptune encounter [...] officially ends today,
October 2.

[...] Surface temperatures on Triton have been measured to be about -390 F,
and the terrain is among the most varied seen anywhere else in the solar
system.

Voyager 2's camera captured the eruption shooting dark particles high into
Triton's atmosphere.  Resembling a smokestack, the narrow stem of the dark
plume, measured using stereo images, rises vertically nearly 8 km (5 mi) and
forms a cloud that drifts 150 km (90 mi) westward in Triton's winds.

While Voyager scientists are trying to determine the mechanism responsible
for the eruption, one possibility is that pressurized gas, probably nitrogen,
rises from beneath the surface and carries aloft dark particles and possibly
ice crystals.  Whatever the cause, the plume takes the particles to an
altitude where they are left suspended to form a cloud that drifts westward.

The dark plume was first discovered in stereo images taken by Voyager 2.  The
image [shown here, pity you can't see it :-)] was taken on August 24 from a
distance of 99,920 km (62,000 mi).  The image shows the geyser-like colum
nearly in profile, since the spacecraft was only 16 degrees above the horizon
as seen from Triton's surface at the base of the plume.

[...]

As of today, the long-lived project will now be known as the Voyager
Interstellar Mission [just what we need... some VIM... pjs].


Peter Scott ([e-mail])

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

Date: Wed, 11 Oct 89 19:30 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: 5th orbiter?

     Certain organiztions are saying we need at least one more orbiter
after Endevour

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

Date: 12 Oct 89 19:16:19 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: NASA Headline News for 10/12/89 (Forwarded)

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Thursday, Oct. 12, 1989                      Audio:  202/755-1788
-----------------------------------------------------------------

This is NASA Headline News for Thursday, October 12th......

Shuttle engineers and technicians are working towards a launch of
the space shuttle Atlantis and its cargo, the Galileo spacecraft,
during a 24-minute window beginning at 12:57 P.M., Tuesday,
October 17.  After evaluating the work that will remain after
replacing the number 2 main engine controller on the orbiter,
officials estimate there is a 50-50 chance of completing the work
in time to launch on Tuesday.  Managers will make a final
decision at about noon on Saturday whether a Tuesday launch is
achievable or whether the launch will occur on Wednesday, October
18.

Meanwhile, the Washington Post reports a spokesman for the three
groups who oppose the launch because of Galileo's plutonium power
supply, said they would attempt to appeal U.S. District Court
Judge Oliver Gasch's ruling that the launch may proceed.  They
said they will ask the Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia to overturn his decision.  The paper reports that
because appeals involving temporary restraining orders are not
normally permitted, lawyers for the groups may first seek an
injunction, which is appealable, from Judge Gasch...and then
appeal his expected rejection.

NASA has announced that beginning with next week's STS-34
mission, medical consultations between astronatus in space and
nasa physicians on the ground will become a routine part of all
space shuttle flights to help improve the understanding and
provide timely treatment of initial space motion sickness
symptoms.  A private medical communication will be schedule
between shuttle crew members and mission control center flight
surgeons during the pre-sleep periods on the first 2-days of each
flight.  Additional consultations may be requested by either the
crew or the flight surgeons.






                        *************










-----------------------------------------------------------------
Here's the broadcast schedule for public affairs events on NASA
Select television.  All times are eastern.

Sunday, Oct. 15.....

     Noon           STS-34 crew arrival at KSC.

All events and times are subject to change without notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
These reports are filed daily, Monday through Friday, at 12 noon,
Eastern time.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A service of the Internal Communications Branch (LPC), NASA
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.

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

Date: 13 Oct 89 06:45:11 GMT
From: hubcap!ncrcae!ncr-sd!crash!orbit!pnet51![e-mail]  (S Schaper)
Subject: Re: def of 'Luddites'

oops! you are right! mea culpa :-(

UUCP: {amdahl!bungia, uunet!rosevax, chinet, killer}!orbit!pnet51!schaper
ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51![e-mail]
INET: [e-mail]

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

Date: 14 Oct 89 05:23:00 GMT
From: pikes!udenva!isis!scicom!paranet!f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG![e-mail]  (Michael Corbin)
Subject: Halley's Comet

To All:

I am wondering where I might secure information regarding the
study that was made of Halley's Comet a couple of years ago.  I
am interested in perusing the data and findings on the missions.

Mike Corbin
[e-mail]

--
Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: [e-mail]

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

Date: 15 Oct 89 12:46:48 GMT
From: munnari.oz.au!csc!ccadfa!usage!basser!metro!otc![e-mail]  (Greg Wilkins)
Subject: Re: NASA Headline News for 10/04/89 (Forwarded)

The christics are connected to Peacenet and have address:
  igc:christic
Now, to send mail to them you will need to find a gateway to an
IGC network (Econet, peacenet, greennet, web, IBASE, Nicarao, peacenet
sweden, pegasus) I know there must be one somewhere as the IGC networks get
a full news feed and don't come from Australia (where I am) as it has all
the alt groups that we dont get. If you can't get a local gateway, there is
one here in the land of oz(pegasus):

from pegasus:   igc:christic
from ACSnet (this is a guess):     igc:[e-mail]
from elsewhere in the world:    igc:[e-mail]

I think the oz.au is right for USENET.  Anyway, look at my return address
and change gregw.otca to peg.pegasus.  I don't know how the ':' will be
treated though??? It would be interesting to see any bounced mail with
at least three different types of networks and 4 gateways inbetween!!!
At least that would belong in sci.space as it will have gone thru a
satellite 4 times!!

At worst I'll forward on any questions/flames/statements/invitations to
live on another planet etc... to them.

in article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (daniel mocsny) says:
> The members of the Christic Institute do not appear to be opposing the
> launch of Galileo because it will increase industrial productivity
> enough to put them out of work. (What is their product, BTW?) So to
> call them "luddites" is erroneous, and (dare I say this) it reflects
> unfavorably on the speaker's grasp of technological history.

But the advancement of science may reduce the numbers who hold
traditional religious beliefs.  Thus any planetary mission that may
indicate how the solar system was formed (in more than seven days) could be
taking business from the funding agencies of the Christics :-)

I know this is really beyond the scope of sci.space, but does anybody
know what flavour of christins^D^Danity they are???
(I would ask them directly but I don't think they would understand the
question, and if they did would not answer on a scale of Fanatic to
enlightened.)

Greg Wilkins              ACSnet:[e-mail]  igc nets:   igc:peg:gwilkins
 "To sin by silence when  Phone(w):  [phone]  Telex:           OTCAA120591
  they should  speak out  Phone(h):  [phone]  Snail:OTC Services R&D,
  makes  cowards of men"  Fax:       [phone]        GPO Box 7000,
           - Abe Lincoln  O/S ph: (prefix) 612 #        Sydney 2001, Australia

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

End of SPACE Digest V10 #150
*******************