Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V13_6/V13_683.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-22 | 19KB

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/IcMlPTW00WBwI3Jk5H>;
          Sat, 22 Jun 91 05:22:39 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 91 05:22:34 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #683

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 683

Today's Topics:
         Re: INFO: Clandestine Mars Observer Launch??
         Re: Self-sustaining infrastructures
          Re: space news from April 8 AW&ST
          Re: Extra Terrestrial Intelligence
               Re: More on Freedom Vote
            Re: RFD:  talk.politics.space
               Re: More on Freedom Vote
               Re: More on Freedom Vote
          Re: vacuum energies for propolsion
            female cosmonauts (the
            Re: RFD:  talk.politics.space
         Re: Do shuttle boosters damage ozone layer?

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: 2 Jun 91 13:27:15 GMT
From: bu.edu!stanford.edu!agate!darkstar!ucscb.UCSC.EDU![e-mail]  (71024000)
Subject: Re: INFO: Clandestine Mars Observer Launch??


Perhaps a bit off the subject, but anyone heard any interesting news about
the Face on Mars (as reported by the Weekly World News) since supposedly it
started talking?

Yes, I know WWN is not what one could call strictly factual, but it's
interesting and funny as hell.


--
_______________Don't push me, 'cause I'm close to the edge________________________________________________________________________-Grandmaster Flash____________
Reverend Antman, minister of Pornography, Graffiti consultant, and the Thug.
Disclaimer:  Bass for ya face, Santa Cruz!
"Welcome my friends to Palomar.  Where men are men, and women need a sense of        humor."
                                             -Carmen, _Love and Rockets_
________________________________________________________________________________

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

Date: 2 Jun 91 15:57:14 GMT
From: mintaka!think.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!ox.com!hela![e-mail]  (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Self-sustaining infrastructures

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nick Janow) writes:

>You're making the (IMO mistaken) assumption that humans are needed for
>repair/refueling/refitting of satellites.

So far all the robotic attempts to repair have failed. The Solar Max
repair would have failed had there not been humans on hand.

>You are ignoring the possibility of improved robotics.

I never said there would be no robotics on this station. When you and Mr.
Szabo are willing to let nurses stick needles in your arms by tele-
operation we can talk.

>A human may be more versatile than a robot, but a robotics
>service can be more economically versatile than humans.

Depends. I myself don't think that the drawings can be kept accurate
enough for robots. Besides, you miss the point; this is a job shop. It's
main buisness is repair/upgrade but they will have lots of free time if
that's all they do. The rest of their time is spent doint whatever
people will pay for.

  Allen
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Allen W. Sherzer |   DETROIT: Where the weak are killed and eaten.         |
|   [e-mail]   |                                                         |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: 3 Jun 91 13:00:27 GMT
From: pilchuck!seahcx!phred![e-mail]  (Peter Jarvis)
Subject: Re: space news from April 8 AW&ST

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>
>.... NASA currently has far too many studies
>and far too little hardware development.  It's time to pick the half-dozen
>most promising ideas and put some real development money into them, in full
>recognition that at least a couple will probably be blind alleys.  "To find
>oil, drill lots of wells."


And how do you propose to get NASA the money to "drill lots of wells"?
Congress can't even decide on how much to appropriate for a minimal Space
Station.........

Peter Jarvis........Physio-Control

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

Date: 3 Jun 91 12:59:45 GMT
From: agate!bionet!uwm.edu!caen!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!emory!wa4mei!ke4zv![e-mail]  (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Extra Terrestrial Intelligence

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Me) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Anastasios Vergis) writes:
>>There is yet another possibility: Any sufficiently advanced civilization
>>will blow up, when experimenting with not well-understood physics
>>which unleash unsuspected and catastrophic amounts of energy,
>
>    I think the conclusions stated here are ridiculous.  If a civilization
>were capable of "creating" black holes (However unlikely) it would not likely
>have all its beans in the same basket.  In other words not all of its people
>would likely reside in the same solar system or planet.  I think it would be
>likely that they would not do a great deal of experimenting on their home
>planet.   If they were advanced enough to destroy them selves quickly and by
>accident, they would most probably do research in space. Space offers many
>advantages for research, the first of which would be limiting the damage
>you could cause.
>
>    Just an Opinion.

I think you are mistaken. Before the first H-bomb was tested, there was
some concern among scientists that it might start a self-sustaining
chain reaction with the hydrogen of the oceans, totally consuming the
earth. It was tested anyway. I read that the scientist whose job was
to calculate whether this could occur fainted when he saw the size
and rapid growth of the fireball. He thought momentarily that he
*might* have dropped a decimal point. We know enough today to know
that their fears were unfounded, but they weren't sure. Yet they
went ahead.

There has been speculation on this group lately about tapping "vaccum
energy". This is certainly not well understood. It is conceivable that
attempting to tap this energy might cause a local "phase change" in the
zero state that would propagate through a few lightyears releasing
enormous amounts of energy as the new zero state established itself.
Much as dropping a seed crystal in a super-saturated solution causes
a rapid phase change throughout the liquid.

The problem is that, in poorly understood problems, doing the experiments
to understand the phenomenon might cause a totally unforseen catastrophy.
Yet history says we do the experiments anyway.

Gary

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

Date: 4 Jun 91 00:54:09 GMT
From: rochester![e-mail]  (Brian Yamauchi)
Subject: Re: More on Freedom Vote

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>On the floor of the full house Jim Chapman (D-TX) will introduce an
>amendment to restore full funding. The amendment will 'tax' 3% of all
>the agencies except Vetrans and NASA which will raise $1.5B for the
>Freedom space station.

Is this *all* agencies or just all HUD/Independent Agencies (NSF, EPA, etc.)?

>In addition, $500M in cuts identified by the
>NASA Authorization bill (and ignored by the Appropriation Subcommittee)
>can be enacted to bring Freedom up to full funding.

Does anyone know which specific projects are affected by these
proposed cuts?
--
_______________________________________________________________________________

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

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

Date: 3 Jun 91 13:09:03 GMT
From: mentor.cc.purdue.edu!pop.stat.purdue.edu![e-mail]  (Herman Rubin)
Subject: Re: RFD:  talk.politics.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Randall Atkinson) writes:
> The proposal for  talk.politics.space  appears to be well-done
> in charter, rationale, and naming.
>
> I fully support it.  I stopped reading sci.space some time back
> precisely because of the flood of "political" postings.

I agree with the first paragraph.  However, I do not see that it is
possible to separate the political from the scientific.  How would one
class the recent arguments about manned space which hinge on what is
scientifically true or technologically possible?
--
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: 3 Jun 91 20:55:47 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!hela![e-mail]  (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: More on Freedom Vote

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Doug Mohney) writes:

>>If the full house voted today, Freedom would receive full funding.

>And you are so naieve as to think that you can get Congress to kill the
>Shuttle, which is already operational, to go to tin cans....

I never said it would be easy, I just said it could be done. In fact, it
is happening even as we speak.

   Allen
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Allen W. Sherzer |   DETROIT: Where the weak are killed and eaten.         |
|   [e-mail]   |                                                         |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: 4 Jun 91 04:49:25 GMT
From: prism![e-mail]  (Matthew DeLuca)
Subject: Re: More on Freedom Vote

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

>>Congress is working on killing the shuttle and going to cans?  Could you
>>elaborate?

>It's more than just Congress, it's also the Space Council and space
>activists. Look at the signs: OMB is using the money for another
>orbiter to fund HLV work. Congress is moving toward commercial
>procurement policies which will move cargo off the Shuttle. The
>only thing left is spacelab and Freedom resuply which can be done
>for FAR less with expendables.

What money for another orbiter are you referring to?  Unless I've missed
something, there has been *no* appropriation for a fifth orbiter, although
NASA has been asking for one for a decade.  They might have *hoped* to
use some quantity of money for a new orbiter, but that's not the same as
what you're implying.

As far as commercial procurement policies go, most commercial cargo was
removed from the shuttle manifest after Challenger...whatever commercial
cargo is left is insignifigant, at best.  As for what is left, you are
forgetting military research, astronomical research, (such as ASTRO, now
scheduled to fly again) scientific projects such as the tethered vehicle
experiment slated to go up soon, high-altitude winged vehicle performance
research, and any number of ideas I haven't mentioned.  There are lots
of things for which the shuttle is well-suited, so I don't expect to see
it discarded in favor of a thirty-year backward step in time.

>If NASA doesn't get the orbiters they will be forced to allow for
>the use of ACRV or perhaps Comet to transport astronauts. When
>that happens the Shuttle is finished.

It looks like NASA will have a fleet of four orbiters for an indefinite
period of time; when the next shuttle is lost or retired from service,
it's a fair bet that we'll see funding for a replacement.  The only real
way I don't see this happening is if there is a replacement for the shuttle
on the horizon, such as a second-generation vehicle derived from NASP
research, or perhaps one of the designs currently under very preliminary
consideration.  The chance of us using capsules again for astronaut
transport is *zero*.

>This won't happen overnight and it will take work by activists
>who want to see cost effective infrastructure. But it will
>happen.

Happily, I see no sign that you are correct.  We are looking at a
diversivication of our launch capabilities, and a reduction in dependence
on the shuttle, but that's about it...it's not going away.
--
Matthew DeLuca
Georgia Institute of Technology      "I'd hire the Dorsai, if I knew their
Office of Information Technology      P.O. box."  - Zebadiah Carter,
Internet: [e-mail]    _The Number of the Beast_

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

Date: 3 Jun 91 02:08:36 GMT
From: agate!earthquake.Berkeley.EDU![e-mail]  (George William Herbert)
Subject: Re: vacuum energies for propolsion

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Loren Petrich) writes:
>    "Quantum vacuum engines" tapping zero-point energy sound like
>a cute thought, but they'll NEVER work. That's because the zero-point
>energy is the energy that is always present at the lowest state. Since
>one cannot go lower than that, zero-point energy can never be
>extracted.

    Actually, you can... place 2 conductive sheets within about
a nanometer of each other, and the vaccum energy drops... leading to such
interesting effects as an increase in the local speed of light between
the sheets etc.  Admittedly, by a miniscule amount...

    (btw, this may be an idealized derivation that won't work for
    'real' plates with quantum-level fluctuations... but the math
    for the idealized case seemed rigid)

-george william herbert
[e-mail]

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

Date: 3 Jun 91 08:04:07 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!torsqnt!lsuc!canrem![mark.herring%canrem.uucp]@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (mark herring)
Subject: female cosmonauts (the

Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Female Cosmonauts (the Soviet experience)

FC>I refered, however, to the possibility that Tereshkova was the first
FC>to get a sever case of SAS. As opposed to the first to suffer from
FC>it.

        Actually, Gherman Titov in Vostok II would have been the first
        person to suffer from SAS.  He reported nausea to a point where
        he had to almost retreat into himself for a number of hours.

                Sparky
                Qmail Support
---
 ~ DeLuxe 1.1 #1 ~ I remember when Saturns were rockets, not cars.
--
Canada Remote Systems.  Toronto, Ontario
NorthAmeriNet Host

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

Date: 2 Jun 91 16:03:27 GMT
From: swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!ra!uvaarpa!murdoch![e-mail]  (Randall Atkinson)
Subject: Re: RFD:  talk.politics.space

The proposal for  talk.politics.space  appears to be well-done
in charter, rationale, and naming.

I fully support it.  I stopped reading sci.space some time back
precisely because of the flood of "political" postings.

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

Date: 4 Jun 91 01:15:37 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com![e-mail]  (Mark Robert Thorson)
Subject: Re: Do shuttle boosters damage ozone layer?

I asked this question about a year ago, and the following authoritative
posting was received in reply:

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

/Gateways/Usenet/sci/chem/Space Shuttle Destroys Ozone Layer ???
11663.3.517.2 Re: Space Shuttle Destroys Ozone Layer ???
8/9/90 07:55 65/2949 [e-mail] (P.A. Newman)
Lines 1 to 14 of 65 (21%)
***
On 6 Aug 90 [e-mail] (Mark Robert Thorson) wrote:

>The current issue of Buzzworm, an "environmental journal" has a short article
>on page 14 describing the pollution effects of the space shuttle.  Quoting
>from vol 2 no 4 (probably one of the last issues of this high-overhead glossy
>rag):
> ...
>Huh?  Could any of these figures possibly be true?  If Space Shuttle
>launches might cause 10% or even 1% of the ozone problem, that seems
>like a serious cause for concern!  I rather suspect somebody must have
>slipped a few digits in reporting this story.  Can somebody please provide
>some real numbers on how much the Space Shuttle contributes to the ozone
>problem.

**************************
I talked to Charlie Jackman (one of the authors of the above quoted
study)
and his response follows:
**************************
The atmospheric modelling study of the space shuttle effects on the
stratosphere involved three independent theoretical groups, and was
organized by Dr. Michael Prather, NASA/Goddard Institute for Space
Studies.  The three groups involved Michael Prather and Maria Garcia
(NASA/GISS), Charlie Jackman and Anne Douglass (NASA/Goddard Space
Flight Center), and Malcolm Ko and Dak Sze (Atmospheric and
Environmental Research, Inc.).  The effort was to look at the effects
of the space shuttle and Titan rockets on the stratosphere.

The following are the estimated sources of stratospheric chlorine:

   Industrial sources:    300,000,000 kilograms/year
      Natural sources:     75,000,000 kilograms/year
      Shuttle sources:        725,000 kilograms/year

The shuttle source assumes 9 space shuttles and 6 Titan rockets are
launched yearly. Thus the launches would add less than 0.25% to the
total stratospheric chlorine sources.

The effect on ozone is minimal:  global yearly average total ozone would
be decreased by 0.0065%. This is much less than total ozone variability
associated with volcanic activity and solar flares.

The influence of human-made chlorine products on ozone is computed
by atmospheric model calculations to be a 1% decrease in globally
averaged ozone between 1980 and 1990. The influence of the space shuttle and
Titan rockets on the stratosphere is negligible.  The launch
schedule of the Space Shuttle and Titan rockets would need to be
increased by over a factor of a hundred in order to have about
the same effect on ozone as our increases in industrial halocarbons
do at the present time.

Theoretical results of this study will be published in the Journal of
Geophysical Research in the next few months in the paper "The Impact of
the Space Shuttle on Stratospheric Chemistry and Ozone" by M. J.
Prather, M. M. Garcia, A. R. Douglass, C. H. Jackman, M. K. W. Ko, and
N. D. Sze.

Charles Jackman, Atmospheric Chemistry and Dynamics Branch,
Code 916, NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center,
Greenbelt, MD  20771

***********************
P. A. Newman
Code 916
NASA/GSFC

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #683
*******************