Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V11_4/V11_418.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 19KB

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/YaIt0ua00VcJQUrU5S>;
          Fri, 18 May 90 02:03:39 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Fri, 18 May 90 02:03:10 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V11 #418

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 11 : Issue 418

Today's Topics:
          Re: space news from April 9 AW&ST
                 Unsubscribe
               Re: Sex in space
            Re: Terraforming Venus
               Re: What was NOTSNIK ???
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 17 May 90 19:09:32 GMT
From: usc!samsung!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!IDA.ORG!pbs![e-mail]
Subject: Re: space news from April 9 AW&ST

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
> (deleted)
>
> The Cape York spaceport, complete with Soviet Zenit boosters, is going
> full speed ahead whether the US likes it or not.  United Technologies'
> USBI division would like to take on the job of managing construction
> and operation of the spaceport, and the Australians like the idea, but
> Cape York wants to start *operations* in 1995 and the White House is
> still dithering about export licenses to permit USBI to participate.
> "An Administration source" says no decision is likely until Washington
> figures out its policy on launch competition from "non-market economies".
> The Australians point out that they're already stretching their original
> March 23 deadline, and they have a list of non-US companies that could
> do the job.
>
> The Australians are hoping for a sensible US policy on Soviet boosters
> at Cape York, and see some reasons for hope.  Cape York is entirely a
> commercial venture with no government financing.  There would be no
> Soviet involvement on-site -- Glavcosmos would be strictly a hardware
> supplier, and local personnel would be trained to operate Zenit.  Cape
> York would get exclusive foreign rights to Zenit.  And USBI would be
> making money on the business, if it's involved.
>
> Cape York has started work on an environmental impact statement, with
> construction to begin immediately on final approval in 1992.  A Soviet
> satellite might be the first payload launched, in 1995.  Full operation,
> in 1997, would start at five launches per year.
>
> The basic Zenit is Zenit 2, two LOX/kerosene stages lifting 15.7 tons
> into low orbit from Cape York.  Zenit 3 adds a third stage from Proton,
> giving 4.5-5.9 tons into GTO, giving 1.9-2.4 into Clarke orbit.  The
> Zenit 3 has not yet flown, although its components all have considerable
> flight experience, with Zenit 2 flying since 1985 and the third stage
> used many times on other boosters.  Glavcosmos says Zenit reliability
> is 95%.  Cape York is looking at putting a Western third stage on Zenit 2.
>
I see nothing wrong with this Zenit proposal.  There is certainly no reason for
dithering over the issue by the Bush Administration.  They are talking about
possibly going to Mars WITH the Russians, yet they are affraid to let an
American firm work at Cape York right next to some Soviet hardware.  This does
not make sense.  How is a joint Soviet/American Mars Expedition going to get off
the ground if their rockets are "off limits" to U.S. aerospace corporations?

Cape York is going to be THE spaceport of the 21st Century.  I hope the United
States does not miss out on the action there because of as myopic viewpoint
now.  In fact, I would like to see a Shuttle launch pad installed at Cape York
as the start of a CANZUS Space Alliance.  (CANZUS = Canada, Australia, New
Zealand and United States).

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Thu, 17 May 90 19:42:10 EST
Subject: Unsubscribe
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.



      Please unsubscribe me from the SPACE distribution.  Thank you.

                                    David R. Brierley
                                    [e-mail]

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

Date: 17 May 90 07:00:52 GMT
From: rochester!uhura.cc.rochester.edu![e-mail]  (Luwenth the Lewd)
Subject: Re: Sex in space


    Okay, I have heard enough of this discussion to post something
that I got off the net last year.  I do not remember whether it was
from sci.space.shuttle, sci.space, or rec.humor, and it really does
not matter.  I doubt that the below has ever been attempted, and I do
not think that they would really perform the experiment.  Even if they
did, I do not think that our nice, friendly democratic government
would allow funding to continue... but I digress.  Do not treat the
following as real, and have fun :)

                Luwenth the Lewd

---- what was grabbed inserted here :)

The impression I get is that X's in the following mark deletions made
to protect those involved.  I couldn't find out what shuttle mission
was involved or who did the research.  I also couldn't find the
appendices.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

                 XXXXXX Experiment 8 Postflight Summary
                      NASA publication 14-307-1792

                                   by
                         XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
                         XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

                                ABSTRACT

The purpose of this experiment was to prepare for the expected
participation in long-term space based research by husband-wife teams
once the US space station is in place.  To this end, the investigators
explored a number of possible approaches to continued marital relations
in the zero-G orbital environment provided by the XXXXXX shuttle
mission.

Our primary conclusion is that satisfactory marital relations are within
the realm of possibility in zero-G, but that many couples would have
difficulty getting used to the approaches we found to be most
satisfactory.

                              INTRODUCTION

The number of married coubles currently involved in proposals for long-
term projects on the US space station has grown considerably in recent
years.  This raises the serious question of how such couples will be
able to carry out normal marital relations without the aid of gravity.

Preliminary studies in the short-term weightless environment provided by
aircraft flying on balistic trajectories were sufficient to demonstrate
that there were problems, but the duration of the zero-G environment on
such flights is too short to reach any satisfactory conclusions.
Similar experiments undertaken in a neutral bouyancy tank were equally
inconclusive because of the awkwardness of the breathing equipment.

The primary conclusion that could be drawn from these early experiments
was that the conventional approach to marital relationships (sometimes
described as the missionary approach) is highly dependent on gravity to
keep the partners together. This observation lead us to propose the set
of tests known as STS-75 Experiment 8.

                               METHODOLOGY

The co-investigators had exclusive use of the lower deck of the shuttle
XXXXXXXX for 10 intervals of 1 hour each during the orbital portion of
the flight.  A resting period of a minimum of 4 hours was included in
the schedule between intervals. During each interval, the investigators
erected a pnumatic sound deadening barrier between the lower deck and
the flight deck (see NASA publication 12-571-3570) and carried out one
run of the experiment.

Each experimental run was planned in advance to test one approach to the
problem.  We made extensive use of a number of published sources in our
efforts to find satisfactory solutions see Appendix I), arriving at an
initial list of 20 reasonable solutions.  Of these, we used computer
simulation (using the mechanical dynamics simulation package from the
CADSI company) to determine the 10 most promising solutions.

Six solutions utilized mechanical restraints to simulate the effect of
gravity, while the others utilized only the efforts of the experimenters
to solve the problem.  Mechanical and unassisted runs were alternated,
and each experimental run was videotaped for later analysis.
Immediately after each run, the experimenters separately recorded their
observations, and then jointly reviewed the videotapes and recorded
joint observations.

The sensitive nature of the videotapes and first-hand observations pre-
cludes a public release of the raw data.  The investigators have pre-
pared this paper to summarize their results, and they intend to release
a training videotape for internal NASA use, constructed from selected
segments of the videotapes and additional narrative material.

The following summary is organized in two sections; the first covers the
mechanical solutions, while the second covers the "natural" approaches.
Each solution is described briefly, and then followed by a brief summary
of the result. Some summaries are combined.

                          SUMMARY OF RESULTS

1) An elastic belt around the waist of the two partners. The partners
    faced each other in the standard or missionary posture.

Entry was difficult and once it was achieved, it was difficult to
maintain.  With the belt worn around the hips, entry was easy, but it
was difficult to obtain the necessary thrusting motion; as a result,
this approach was not satisfactory.

2) Elastic belts around the thighs of the two partners. The female's
    buttocks were against the groin of the male, with her back against
    his chest.

An interesting experiment, but ultimately unsatisfactory because of the
difficulty of obtaining the necessary thrusting motion.

3) An elastic belt binding the thighs of the female to the waist of the
    male.  The female's buttocks were against the male's groin, while
    her knees straddled his chest.

Of the approaches tried with an elastic belt, this was by far the most
satisfactory. Entry was difficult, but after the female discovered how
to lock her toes over the male's thighs, it was found that she could
obtain the necessary thrusting motions.  The male found that his role
was unusually passive but pleasant.

One problem both partners noticed with all three elastic belt solutions
was that they reminded the partners of practices sometimes associated
with bondage, a subject that neither found particularly appealing.  For
couples who enjoy such associations, however, and especially for those
who routinely enjoy female superior relations, this solution should be
recommended.

4) An inflatable tunnel enclosing and pressing the partners together.
    The partners faced each other in the standard missionary posture.
    The tunnel enclosed the partners roughly from the knees to waist and
    pressed them together with an air pressure of approximately 0.01
    standard atmospheres.

Once properly aroused, the uniform pressure obtained from the tunnel was
sufficient to allow fairly normal marital relations, but getting aroused
while in the tunnel was difficult, and once aroused outside the tunnel,
getting in was difficult. This problem made the entire approach largely
unusable.

5) The same inflatable tunnel used in run 4, but enclosing the partners
    legs only.  The partners faced each other in the missionary
    position.

6) The same inflatable tunnel used in run 4, but with the partners in
    the posture used for run 2.

Foreplay was satisfactory with both approaches; in the second case, we
found that it could be accomplished inside the tunnel, quite unlike our
experience with run 4.  Unfortunately, we were unable to achieve entry
with either approach.

A general disadvantage of the inflatable tunnel approach was that the
tunnel itself tended to get sticky with sweat and other discharges. We
feel that the difficulty of keeping a tunnel clean in zero-G makes these
solutions most unsatisfactory.

7) The standard missionary posture, augmented by having the female hook
    her legs around the male's thighs and both partners hug each other.

8) The posture used in run 3, but with the female holding herself
    against the male by gripping his buttocks with her heels.

Initially, these were very exciting and promising approaches, but as the
runs approached their climaxes, an unexpected problem arose. One or the
one or the other partner tended to let go, and the hold provided by the
remaining partner was insufficient to allow continued thrusts. We think
that partners with sufficient self-control might be able to use these
positions, but we found them frustrating.

9) The posture used in run 2, but with the male using his hands to hold
    the female while the female used her heels to hold the male's thighs.

Most of the responsibility for success rested on the male here, and we
were successful after a series of false starts, but we did not find the
experience to be particularly rewarding.

10) Each partner gripping the other's head between their thighs and
    hugging the other's hips with their arms.

This was the only run involving non-procreative marital relations, and it
was included largely because it provided the greatest number of distinct
ways for each partner to hold the other.  This 4 points redundant hold
was good enough that we found this solution to be most satisfactory.  In
fact, it was more rewarding than analogous postures used in a
gravitational field.

                             RECOMMENDATION

We recommend that married couples considering maintaining their marital
relations during a space mission be provided with an elastic belt such
as we used for run 3 (see Appendix II).  In addition, we advise that a
training program be developed that recommends the solutions used in runs
3 and 10 and warns against the problems encountered in runs 7 and 8.

We recognize that any attempt by NASA to recommend approaches to marital
relationships will be politically risky, but we feel that, especially in
cases where long missions are planned, thought be given to screening
couples applying to serve on such missions for their ability to accept
or adapt to the solutions used in runs 3 and 10.


---- end of insertion :)
--
[e-mail] |-----Skaters dream:  Board to Death------
[e-mail] |-Fencing: Two grown people attacking each
[e-mail]       |  other with swords, and you ask for sanity???

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

Date: Thu, 17 May 90 18:19:09 EDT
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender
    and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement.
Subject: Re: Terraforming Venus


>From: china.uu.net![e-mail]  (Dan Williams)

>Lets try a combination of methods for Terra-Forming Venus.  Move Mars into
>orbit to provide a binary Earth-Moon style system.  This puts them close
>together while we work on them. Then throw the catalyst mined from mercury
>(What was it, Magnisium?) to reduce the atmosphere and then start bombing
>the surface with asteroids to blow off atmosphere, crack the crust to start
>some vulcanism to burry waste products from the burning catalyst and
>provide water.  You could even use the new moon to shadow the surface.

All this will take tremendous quantities of resources (including comets/
asteroids) that are much more valuable in space. Huge energy expenditures are
also involved. For instance, Paul Dietz calculated the energy required to
lift Venus' atmosphere into space: 2.5E28 Joules, equivalent to the energy
from reacting 140 million metric tons of antimatter, or the total solar energy
striking the planet for 2800 years. Assuming you want to live on something
the size and shape of Venus, it would be much, much easier, quicker and
cheaper to just build yourself a giant hollow Venus, with everything but the
gravity. You could even have a sky (outer transparent shell, with a few km
of atmosphere) and a magnetosphere. Space travel would be easy, due to the
low gravity.

(How about filling the interior of the sphere with air? I think the
gravitational attraction would be low enough to allow a breathable mix
throughout. It might tend to get a little dark toward the center, and
I'm not sure of the temperature distribution and wind patterns, but that's
a trillion cubic kilometers of living space. :-)

Look for a moment at the proposal to drop magnesium to convert the CO2 into
MgO and C. If I calculated correctly, this would require about 1.1kg of
magnesium for every kg of CO2. You would therefore need a total of 5.1E20 kg
of magnesium, or nearly *300 million cubic kilometers* !!! If you had that
volume of material in space, you could make a hollow sphere the size of Venus
with a shell nearly 600 meters thick (or many other more useful things, of
course).

As for human habitation of an un-terraformed Venus, there is a way it might
work, if there are worthwhile resources on the surface. We could establish a
penal colony, for terrorists and hardened criminals with life sentences. With
a little imagination, it could be designed so there is no possibility of
escape. The prisoners would work at mining in exchange for supplies and
possibly energy. There would be a very strong incentive not to be sent there.
All it needs is a short, descriptive name. Let's see - punishment, no escape,
searing heat, sulfur fumes - any ideas? :-) :-) :-)
               John Roberts
               [e-mail]

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

Date: 17 May 90 03:33:42 GMT
From: clyde.concordia.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: What was NOTSNIK ???

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Daniel Fischer) writes:
>] ...The then-Naval Ordnance Test Station
>] (now the Naval Weapons Center) developed and tested a satellite-carrying
>] rocket that was launched from an aircraft.
>
>Is that true? Did it ever work? Why wasn't this way of launching satellites
>followed on? I've heard from German aerospace experts that a thing like
>Pegasus wasn't possible until recently because the aerodynamics of the first
>part of the flight required modern avionics and computers...

If you don't put a *wing* on the rocket, launching one from an aircraft
is no big deal, and it's been done repeatedly in various causes (e.g. the
tests of the USAF's now-defunct F-15-launched Asat).

A quick look at some of the usual references doesn't reveal any mention
of NOTSNIK, but there were several such projects that got proposed at
various times and got as far as feasibility tests (i.e., not actual
satellite launches, but partial hardware tests that demonstrated the
idea would work).
--
Life is too short to spend    |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
debugging Intel parts. -Van J.| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

End of SPACE Digest V11 #418
*******************