Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V13_5/V13_514.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-28 | 14KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from hogtown.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/Qc:CqLS00WBwA9s05o>;
          Thu,  9 May 91 02:35:03 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Thu,  9 May 91 02:34:58 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #514

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 514

Today's Topics:
             Cheap Rocket Society
               Re: Saturn V and the ALS
     Ethics of Terraforming (was Re: Terraforming Venus)
       Re: Ethics of Terraforming (was Re: Terraforming Venus)
        Re: Terraforming Mars?  Why not Venus?
           Ulysses Status for 05/03/91 (Forwarded)
            SPACE Digest V13 #497
               Re: Saturn V and the ALS
              Re: SPACE Digest V13 #491
            Re: Terraforming Venus
              Re: Why the space station?

Administrivia:

    Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to
  [e-mail].  Other mail, esp. [un]subscription requests,
  should be sent to [e-mail], or, if urgent, to
             [e-mail]

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

Date: 3 May 91 20:51:34 GMT
From: csus.edu!wuarchive!usc!rpi!dali.cs.montana.edu!caen!math.lsa.umich.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!pitt!nss![e-mail]  (Paul Blase)
Subject: Cheap Rocket Society

To: [e-mail]

 2> We, the CRS (Cheap Rocket Society of Kansas) are looking for
 2> stainless steel air tanks rated (or formerly rated) for around
 2> 72 cubic feet or better, for experimental use as fuel tanks.

Take a trip to the nearest SCUBA shop (well, that may be a bit of a trip
for you) and investigate used SCUBA tanks.  Most of them are aluminum,
is stainless necessary?  Steel tanks are, however, available.  Most
shops sell off their old rental gear every year.  Good Luck.

--- via Silver Xpress V2.26 [NR]
--
Paul Blase - via FidoNet node 1:129/104
UUCP: ...!pitt!nss!Paul.Blase
INTERNET: [e-mail]

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

Date: 7 May 91 15:18:26 GMT
From: snorkelwacker.mit.edu!usc!rpi!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Saturn V and the ALS

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Paul Blase) writes:
>3) The system is being designed for >low cost<.  The simpler, more
>inexpensive engines and the fly-by-wire avionics (electric actuators are
>cheaper than hydraulic systems) were mentioned before.  At the design goal
>of 25 launches per year, the system will cost 300$ per pound to orbit...

Latest issue of AW&ST notes a NASA/USAF announcement of a proposal for a
very Energia-like heavylift booster, aimed at $500-1000/lb, including a
note that ALS's $300/lb "has never been credible", or words to that effect.

The piece doesn't elaborate, but one obvious question is where in the world
anyone is going to find customers for launching a heavylift booster every
two weeks.
--
And the bean-counter replied,           | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
"beans are more important".             |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 7 May 91 16:32:50 GMT
From: sdd.hp.com!caen![e-mail]  (Ken Sheppardson)
Subject: Ethics of Terraforming (was Re: Terraforming Venus)


We had progressed to...

>Well if all you want to do is melt the polar caps, why don't you just
>nuke it?

  Is there anyone else out there who questions the ethics of tampering
  with other planets (with or without the presence of life) to make them
  more 'earthlike'? I'm all for non-intrusive exploration and the
  construction of free-floating stations/colonies, but given our history
  of 'Manifest Destiny', rain forest destruction, ozone depletion, strip
  mining, etc, I feel like we should take a hands off approach to space.

===============================================================================
 Ken Sheppardson                                  Email: [e-mail]
 Space Station Freedom Advanced Programs Office   Phone: [phone]
 NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton VA         FAX:   [phone]
===============================================================================

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

Date: 7 May 91 17:32:09 GMT
From: convex![e-mail]  (Peter Cash)
Subject: Re: Ethics of Terraforming (was Re: Terraforming Venus)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ken Sheppardson) writes:

>  Is there anyone else out there who questions the ethics of tampering
>  with other planets (with or without the presence of life) to make them
>  more 'earthlike'? I'm all for non-intrusive exploration and the
>  construction of free-floating stations/colonies, but given our history
>  of 'Manifest Destiny', rain forest destruction, ozone depletion, strip
>  mining, etc, I feel like we should take a hands off approach to space.

You talk as though these things were evil in themselves; I had thought that
they were evil only to the extent that they make this planet a less
hospitable place to live. Suppose that Mars has an ozone layer; what harm
would it do to deplete it? (Assuming that no one lives on Mars, of course.)
And if we can make Mars more like Kansas, how could this be a bad thing?
(Well, maybe we should try for Oregon...;-)




--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
             |      Die Welt ist alles, was Zerfall ist.     |
Peter Cash   |       (apologies to Ludwig Wittgenstein)      |[e-mail]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

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

Date: 7 May 91 16:56:24 GMT
From: wuarchive!rex!rouge![e-mail]  (Fraering Philip)
Subject: Re: Terraforming Mars?  Why not Venus?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Frank Crary) writes:

>Mars' atmosphere IS important for some mechanical purposes: Heat Transfer.
>It is MUCH easier to dump excess heat into the Martian environment than
>into a deep space. This is especially usefull for a spacesuit, where
>the cooling systems account for a BIG chunk  of the suit mass.

Actually, the reason Mars is a better thermal enviornment (_IF_) heat
buildup rather than freezing is a problem, is that the permafrost
makes one hell of a heat sink.

The martian atmosphere is too thin to do that much about heat
transfer; and cryogenics is _much_ harder than in open space, if you
were setting up cryogenic industries.

How much does the cooling system on a skintight weigh? And isn't
carrying around the extra mass of a space suit in gravity going to be
harder than in zero gravity?

Finally, if anyone is interested in space habitat thermal control,
there was an excellent article in the L-5 News about five years ago
called "Nome, Nome on Lagrange" which I would like to recommend. It is
also hilarious...

--
Phil Fraering
[e-mail]
''It's a Flash Gordon/E.E. Smith war, with superior Tnuctip technology
battling tools and weapons worked up on the spot by a billion Dr.
Zarkovs.`` - Larry Niven, describing the end to _Down in Flames_.

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

Date: 6 May 91 23:12:16 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Ulysses Status for 05/03/91 (Forwarded)


                     ULYSSES MISSION STATUS
                           May 3, 1991


     Routine spacecraft operations and data collection remain the
primary activities as Ulysses heads for Jupiter.  Today the
spacecraft is approximately 456 million kilometers (283 million
miles) from Earth, cruising at a heliocentric velocity of 79,200
kilometers per hour (50,500 miles per hour).

     Standard precession maneuvers to re-point the high-gain
antenna toward Earth are being conducted about every five days.
One such maneuver was performed today.  Real-time operations and
recovery of tape recorder data during each daily eight-to-ten
hour pass over the Goldstone Deep Space Network facility are
being conducted from the mission control center at JPL.

     A command sequence to return various components of the
spacecraft to their normal thermal environment (prior to
occurrence of the wobble) was successfully carried out April 17.
The sequence involved switching off the spacecraft's thruster
heaters and switching on other heaters to maintain specific
temperatures for various onboard electronics components.

     Ulysses is a five-year mission to study the sun's poles and
interstellar space beyond the poles.  The spacecraft, launched
Oct. 6, 1990, is managed jointly by the European Space Agency and
NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

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

ReSent-Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Resent-Date:  Tue, 07 May 91 20:34:04 EDT
Resent-From: Tommy Mac <[e-mail]>
Resent-To: [e-mail]
Date:         Tue, 7 May 91 01:50:41 EDT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
Subject:      SPACE Digest V13 #497
Comments: To: [e-mail]
To: david polito <[e-mail]>, Tom McWilliams <[e-mail]>

Re: Planets vs. Open Space

>>It is safer for man to live on a planet, at the bottom of the gravity
>>well, than it is for man to live in space...

>Actually, not so.  The space environment is much more controllable.  It's
>the variations that kill you, not the constant and predictable part of the
>environment.  This was Gerry O'Neill's first and foremost contribution:
>the observation that open space is a *better* location than the surface
>of a planet for human civilization.  You want gravity?  Make as much of
>it as you want using centrifugal force.

Nit-Pik:
  I think Gerry O'Neill and his freshman physics class concluded that open
space is better for Industrial Processes, but not necessarily for Human Homes.
The Human Homes in his scenario were a product of abundant resources in space.

Though I agree that open space is better in terms of industrial (perhaps even
agricultural) processes, I think a planet would still be safer to live on.
The large atmosphere/hydrosphere/lithosphere will tend to keep the basic
fluids of life in balance, and the large atmosphere will tend to protect one
from radiation from space, which requires large (heavy) shielding in space.

Plus, you can't fall off a planet.  (Except maybe a really teeny one)

I'd STILL like to find out which would REALLY be better.....

Tommy Mac
Acknowledge-To: <18084TM@MSU>

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

Date: 7 May 91 04:41:40 GMT
From: wuarchive!usc!jarthur!nntp-server.caltech.edu!ptimtc!rdmei!icspub!astemgw!kuis!rins![e-mail]  (will)
Subject: Re: Saturn V and the ALS

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jim Anderson) writes:
>.  The talk about increasing launches by an order of magnitude or so
>        with use of a 'rebuilt Saturn V/VI/ALS/whatever' brings to mind
>        the discussion that keeps cropping up (that I haven't seen for
>        a while though) about space debris.  Wasn't the Saturn V putting
>        a bunch of garbage into orbit?  And wouldn't any serious usage
>        of a heavy lift launcher produce that much more space garbage?
>        Would this garbage start affecting launch successes? (If a payload
>        isn't usable once it gets on station, and stays usage, I don't
>        consider it a successful payload.
>

    But, buy the same token, Would'nt it be possible to use the heavy launch
    rockets to put larger "space vaccum cleaners" into orbit, to do away
    with such mess?  I read about the "space vaccum cleaners" in Popular
    Science.



                            Will....

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

Date: 7 May 91 17:04:06 GMT
From: wuarchive!rex!rouge![e-mail]  (Fraering Philip)
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V13 #491

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tommy Mac) writes:

[about Saturn V]

>Where do you get those things now, anyway?  I haven't seen one in years.

Well, you might consider visiting JSFC, MSFC, or Kennedy; I know
there's one in Huntsville, and I think at the other two places.

Yes, that big thing on its side with the pigeons roosting in those
bell-shaped things on the end. That's it.

--
Phil Fraering
[e-mail]
''It's a Flash Gordon/E.E. Smith war, with superior Tnuctip technology
battling tools and weapons worked up on the spot by a billion Dr.
Zarkovs.`` - Larry Niven, describing the end to _Down in Flames_.

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

Date: 7 May 91 05:58:10 GMT
From: wuarchive!usc!jarthur!nntp-server.caltech.edu!ptimtc!rdmei!icspub!astemgw!kuis!rins![e-mail]  (will)
Subject: Re: Terraforming Venus


    Well if all you want to do is melt the polar caps, why don't you just
    nuke it?


                            Will....

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

Date: 7 May 91 16:17:51 GMT
From: snorkelwacker.mit.edu!usc!rpi!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Why the space station?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert W Murphree) writes:
>...  I see no signs that the
>exploration of the solar system is really limited by the lack of an
>orbital base.  There is an IMMENSE amount of science that can be done
>with present technology...

You are assuming that "science" and "exploration" are synonymous; care to
explain this?
--
And the bean-counter replied,           | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
"beans are more important".             |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #514
*******************