Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V13_6/V13_666.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-19 | 18KB

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/ccLkiUO00WBwQ3Rk5l>;
          Wed, 19 Jun 91 03:45:36 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <ccLkiOW00WBwA3Q04=@andrew.cmu.edu>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 91 03:45:31 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #666

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 666

Today's Topics:
             Re: Help for science writer
           INFO: Clandestine Mars Observer Launch??
            Re: Beanstalk analysis reprise
         Re: Moonbase movie *Plymouth* to air Sunday?
               Re: satellite refuelling
Re: The Reasons for a Station? Was Re: Rational next station design...
          Re: Extra Terrestrial Intelligence

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: 31 May 91 00:58:23 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!uwm.edu!linac!mp.cs.niu.edu![e-mail]  (Neil Rickert)
Subject: Re: Help for science writer

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (anthony.r.rizzo) writes:
>The implication of such misuse is that American corporations
>are designing products on the basis of worthless analyses,
>done by incompetents.  Unfortunately, all involved, including

 Hey don't get so upset.  This is only mathematics.  For years, corporations
have been doing the same quality of analysis in more serious areas such as
economics and finance.

--
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
  Neil W. Rickert, Computer Science               <[e-mail]>
  Northern Illinois Univ.
  DeKalb, IL 60115                                   [phone]

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

Date: 31 May 91 02:29:27 GMT
From: att!fang!tarpit!bilver![e-mail]  (Don Allen)
Subject: INFO: Clandestine Mars Observer Launch??


This information is presented for your persusal and is a continuation
of my policy of informing the public what is currently available. As
usual my *disclaimer* is simply to present the data and let you form
your own opinion(s). Please feel free to agree,disagree,discuss or
ponder :-)

As I do not have a great amount of time available to pursue follow-ups
exclusively, comments to me should be directed via mail.

The following article comes from the ParaNet UFO Echo.

-----Begin Included Text----------------------------------------------



Message #6059 - INFO.PARANET
   Date : 28-May-91 23:31
   From : ParaNet(sm) Information Service
     To : All
Subject : Clandestine Mars Observer Launch??

*****************************************************************
                 I M P O R T A N T  N O T I C E
               concerning the following text file
*****************************************************************
ParaNet  makes  no  endorsement of this material  and  the  views
expressed herein are not necessarily the views of ParaNet.   This
information is provided as a public service only.

This file is SHARETEXT material.  This means that you are free to
distribute  it to anyone you like, as long as it is not used  for
commercial purposes, you do not charge for it, you do not  remove
this header, or change the contents in anyway.  Additionally,  we
ask  that  you contribute to ParaNet, if possible,  to  assure  a
continuation  of  this valuable, educational  SHARETEXT  service.
The  suggested  contribution is $75.00 and entitles you  to  full
access to our comprehensive library and our network of electronic
affiliates  all  over the world.  Other services  are  available.
Mail your contribution to:

ParaNet Information Service
P.O. Box 172
Wheat Ridge, CO  80034-0172

ParaNet(sm):  Freedom of Information for a better world!

(C) 1991 ParaNet(sm) Information Service.  All Rights Reserved.
****************************************************************
ParaNet File Number: 01156
****************************************************************

     On  May  26th, our own Don Ecker was seen on  Hard  Copy,  a
television  news  program,  discussing the recent  visit  to  the
United  States  by Marina Popovitch, a Russian  Colonel  who  has
knowledge of the ill-fated Phobos II space probe sent to Mars  to
send  back  information  on the red planet  and one of its moons,
Phobos. According to Popovitch, the probe was destroyed by a long
cigar-shaped  object  as it approached  the  orbiting  satellite.
Although  this  information is speculative and not  confirmed,  a
recent  article  appearing in a science publication  did  confirm
that a strange shadow was seen prior to Phobos II spinning out of
control  and breaking contact with earth.  Obviously there  is  a
lot yet to be learned about what really happened up there.
     ParaNet  has received information that Richard C.  Hoagland,
the  noted author of The Monuments of Mars - a book  detailing  a
possible  surface anomaly on the planet, that NASA  has  covertly
launched  the Mars observer spacecraft to speed to Mars  to  find
out  what  is  going on up there.  Below is  a  reprint  of  that
article.   Our members are encouraged to provide any  information
that would substantiate or disavow these claims.
=================================================================

                       U.S. MARS MISSION?

[Extracted  from  SpaceNews,  5-13-91,  a  publication   normally
concerned with amateur radio topics.]

WWCR's  radio broadcast "For The People" on 03-May-91  carried  a
report  by  Richard C. Hoagland, who believes the  United  States
might have a spacecraft on its way to the planet Mars in order to
investigate  the  "Cydonia Message" first  discovered  in  photos
taken  by Viking 1 in 1976.  Hoagland believes the Mars  observer
spacecraft  was  deployed  by the  Space  Shuttle  "Atlantis"  on
mission STS-38.  According to official records, STS-38 carried an
AFP-658  satellite into orbit.  An AFP-658 satellite measures  65
feet  long  and  15 feet in  diameter.   Hoagland  believes  this
payload  was  actually  a booster rocket for  the  Mars  observer
spacecraft   which  was  later  mated  with  the  Mars   observer
spacecraft on a following STS mission.

Observers  reported seeing Atlantis and its satellite  deployment
during  mission  STS-38.   Some observers  reported  seeing  both
objects  illuminated  by  a reddish glow, which  has  yet  to  be
explained.   On later orbits, the deployed satellite appeared  to
have vanished.

Hoagland feels that if such a spacecraft were on its way to Mars,
it  should  be transmitting on X-band using  pseudo-random  noise
encoding.  Hoagland is trying to get in touch with scientists who
have deep space X-band receive capabilities to see if signals can
be detected coming from Mars.  The reception of intelligent radio
signals from Mars could indicate that either the US or the Soviet
Union   have  Mars  observers  sending  valuable  data  back   to
scientists on Earth.

Cydonia is a Martian desert located in the northern hemisphere of
Mars.   It contains a mile-long, 1500 foot humanoid "face" and  a
system of five-sided pyramids.  Through images taken by Viking 1,
the  "face"  was found to contain such detail as an  eye  socket,
eyeball  and pupil, nose and mouth.  The facial  proportions  are
those of early man.

An  investigation  into  Cydonia  could  help  to  confirm  these
findings and shed light into their meaning.

END

PARANET FILE NAME: SPACENEW.TXT

--
-* Don Allen *-  InterNet: [e-mail]  // Amiga..for the rest of us.
USnail: 1818G Landing Dr, Sanford Fl 32771 \X/ Why use anything else? :^)
UUCP: ..uunet!tarpit!bilver!vicstoy!dona      0110 0110 0110 Just say NO!
Illuminati < MJ-12|Grudge|TLC|CFR|FED|EEC|Bush > WAR = "New World Order"

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

Date: 31 May 91 06:18:04 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!torsqnt!geac!torag!w-dnes![e-mail]  (Walter Dnes )
Subject: Re: Beanstalk analysis reprise

[e-mail] (Ron Carter) writes:

> Note:  This analysis is of the static case.  It ignores
> tidal considerations which are important to objects in the
> Earth-Moon-Sun system.  A working beanstalk will require
> damping mechanisms to compensate for tidal forces.  Dynamic
> momentum-transfer devices such as vertical Lofstrom loops
> or space fountains could also transmit forces from far up
> the tether back to the earth, reducing the tether's taper
> and the amount of material required.

     I get to play the devil's advocate again. I don't like to
destroy people's dreams, but a reality check is in order here.
Your calculations seem to be based on an airless earth, i.e a
good vacuum. Don't forget that we have an atmosphere. I briefly
considered cross-posting this followup to sci.geo.meteorology,
but decided not to since it's all in support of a theoretical
space discussion. Some questions to consider...
     1) You've allowed for longitudinal forces. What about
perpendicular forces ? What happens when the beanstalk gets hit
by a 100 km/h (60 mph) wind ? How about a 250 km/h (150 mph)
jetstream somewhere in the stratosphere ? Can you supply some
typical "Asurf" values along with the taper as a function of
height. I work in the Atmospheric Environment Service, (Canada's
weather service) in a unit that calculates meteorological
parameters for construction. Just down the hall from me, our
industrial meteorologist does recommendations for CSA-S37, the
design standard for antenna towers in Canada. I'd like to ask
her to calculate the wind loading on the lowest (and thinnest)
portion of the beanstalk.
     2) Since a geosynchronous orbit sits on the equator, you
won't have to worry about icing... *AT SEA LEVEL*. At higher
elevations in the atmosphere it will be a worry in two ways.
Heavy icing will strain the beanstalk by sheer weight alone.
Icing will also increase the cross-section that wind loading
works on.
     3) Surface temperatures at the equator can hit 40C to 50C.
You can expect -40C to -50C up in the atmosphere, and some
utterly farcical values (both hot and cold) in the vacuum of
space. How will your materials react to this gradient ? How will
the outer-space portion of the beanstalk react to extreme diurnal
cycles (day/night) in a vacuum ?
     4) Besides a beanstalk, you'll also be operating the world's
biggest damn lightning rod. What happens to the crystalline
structure of the beanstalk after a few hits ? I'm assuming, of
course, that the beanstalk isn't so thin at low levels that the
first good strike evaporates several meters of the beanstalk.
     5) What about charged particles in the van Allen belts
"doping" the crystalline structure of the beanstalk ?
     Questions 4 an 5 are important because you need the great
strength of a pure "whisker". Chemical impurities and crystal
irregularities will decrease the strength to the breaking point.
     I remain a skeptic re: tethers/beanstalks. I hope against
hope that I'm proven wrong, but I think that the real-world
problems are insurmountable.

Walter Dnes
-------------------------
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

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

Date: 1 Jun 91 08:51:52 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!mintaka!ogicse!plains![e-mail]  (Brett G Person )
Subject: Re: Moonbase movie *Plymouth* to air Sunday?

Is this a pilot?  Could be a neat series.  Especially if the moonwere
to suddenly be ripped out of oorbit and....
H
ope they make it a series.  We could use a good SF network show again.
--
Brett G. Person
North Dakota State University
uunet!plains!person | [e-mail] | [e-mail]

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

Date: 1 Jun 91 20:31:32 GMT
From: sequent!muncher.sequent.com![e-mail]
Subject: Re: satellite refuelling

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:

>Again, it's like the early days of avation and the Kelly Act. Without it and
>the incentives it provided (multi-engines, advanced navigation and large
>cargo areas) we wouldn't have the aerospace industry we have today.

These technologies, and many more besides, came out of WWI and WWII, not
the Kelly Act.  I question whether the Kelly Act -- which was targeted
towards the U.S. government business of mail delivery, _not_ passenger
service -- had any positive impact beyond mail delivery.

As for satellite refueling from Earth, it is at best a marginal proposition
for a very small number of satellites, at worst another excuse for a
large and wasteful government pork barrel.  It would not contribute in any
significant way towards the furthering of space industry, and if undertaken
in the huge $multi-billion proportions that Frank Carey has proposed, would
create a severe detriment and disincentive to the development of space
industry.

Real infrastructure is developed by mutual agreement and business
partnership of the parties concerned, not by dictation from
politically motivated central planners pulling numbers out of the blue.


--
Nick Szabo                [e-mail]
"If you understand something the first time you see it, you probably
knew it already.  The more bewildered you are, the more successful
the mission was." -- Ed Stone, Voyager space explorer

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

Date: 27 May 91 13:34:48 GMT
From: att!news.cs.indiana.edu!news.nd.edu!mentor.cc.purdue.edu!pop.stat.purdue.edu![e-mail]  (Herman Rubin)
Subject: Re: The Reasons for a Station? Was Re: Rational next station design...

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Daniel Fischer) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (George William Herbert) writes:
> >Here are the missions that I want to see done that I think can be done only
> >or best by a station:
>
> >    * Long-term Human studies
> This kind of study is being performed by the Soviets since two decades; they
> have had people up for 1 year and flown a doctor on a 200+ days mission. What
> could be learned by repeating these boring adventures that they don't already
> know and are likely ready to join?

One year is long term?  One item of great importance is the effect of low
gravity on conception, pregnancy, and development.  This will not be found
on earth.  Another question is the ability of at least a moderate human
community to operate for an extended period of time.  Now we could isolate
a community on earth, but not in zero g.

> >    * some Microgravity (not all)
> Microgravity reasearchers prefer quick return of their samples and do *not* ask
> for superduper manned stations that can be served only once in a while.

Why should manned stations be served only once in a while?  Until this is
not the case, we do not have a manned space program.

> >    * most Biological science
> What Biological science? Again the Soviets have done all that before,especially
> with the Biosputnik spacecraft where many foreign experiments were flown.
> Adding up points 1 & 3 one could also ask: why should we be interested at all
> in the response of biological systems to microgravity as all life as we know it
> has developed under 1g conditions? Seems like a lousy circular argument: "We
> need man/animals in space so that we can learn how badly space affects them..."

There is far more of the accessible universe which is very low g than 1 g.
I am including, as a particular part, the asteroids, which are capable of
supplying more far more living space than earth.  Now whether we can maintain
a satisfactory low g ecology has not even been investigated; this means, among
other things, growing food, recycling wastes, light and heavy industry.  What
do we know?  We know what has happened to humans, animals, and seeds carried
up to orbit with high acceleration, and returned to earth with high
acceleration.

Maybe we do need some gravity, and possibly periods of acceleration can do this.
Biological systems developed in acquatic conditions, but leaving the sea made a
big difference.

We know essentially nothing, and we can not learn it on earth.
--
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: [phone]
[e-mail] (Internet, bitnet)   {purdue,pur-ee}!l.cc!hrubin(UUCP)

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

Date: 27 May 91 19:06:58 GMT
From: usc!nic.csu.net!csun.edu!corona![e-mail]  (Stephen Walton)
Subject: Re: Extra Terrestrial Intelligence

In article <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] (Frank Crary) writes:
>
>Clusters are only violent and short lived on an astrononical time scale.
>On the scale of a civilization, they are quite constant.

Doubt if you'd want to take the risk of a colony being wiped out by
a nearby supernova.  If we learned anything from SN 1987A, we learned
that there is essentially no outward warning that a star is about to
blow.  Besides, unless your putative colony ships take terraforming
technology along, there won't be any oxygen-atmosphere planets in
open clusters.  Earth started with an N2-CO2 atmosphere which only
reached its present composition perhaps half a billion years ago.
--
Stephen Walton, Dept. of Physics & Astronomy, Cal State Univ. Northridge
    "Lately it occurs to me/What a long, strange trip it's been"

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #666
*******************