Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V13_7/V13_708.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-25 | 17KB

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/4cNk8AS00WBwAASE4x>;
          Tue, 25 Jun 91 04:42:52 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 91 04:42:47 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #708

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 708

Today's Topics:
            Re: RFD:  talk.politics.space
            Democracy:  Easy Come, Easy Go
            Re: Death of the Space Station
              Re: Fermi Paradox
         Re: The Space Station Nobody Wanted
                Survey
        Re: Tethers (was Re: Laser launchers)
            Fred's Operatic Death
               Re: More on Freedom Vote
                 Martian Face

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: 6 Jun 91 14:15:36 GMT
From: att!cbnews!cbnewsl![e-mail]  (Stuart Warmink)
Subject: Re: RFD:  talk.politics.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ian Taylor) writes:
> BTW I think that it not a good basis to start a new newsgroup simply
> because some people are not interested in certain aspects of the discussion.
> eg I am not particularly interested in NASA prediction bulletins, so why not
> sci.space.nasa.prediction.bulletins?

I would like to see a separate "politics" newsgroup; separating the "factual"
from the "viewpoint" postings is a great idea I think. It wouldn't be a case
of deciding what discussion are interesting or not - sci.space would contain
updates, news items etc. and talk.politics.space (or even sci.space.politics?)
the usual heated discussion :-)

As for the example of the prediction bulletins: they only get posted on
a monthly basis anyway.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stuart Warmink, Whippany, NJ, USA  |  [e-mail]  |       Hi!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Thu, 6 Jun 91 06:18:27 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Jim Bowery)
To: crash![e-mail]
Subject: Democracy:  Easy Come, Easy Go

I wrote:
>              ...whenever a civil servant or contractor flies into
>Washington D.C. to lobby for something like Space Station Fred, it is
>only fair that the government also pay for at least one taxpaying
>citizen to fly into Washington D.C. to lobby against something like
>Space Station Fred.

Matthew Deluca writes:
> When a NASA person flies from, say, Houston to Washington to testify before
> a panel on behalf of Freedom, that person is speaking on behalf of an
> arm of the government.  When you fly to Washington to speak against
> Freedom, you are going as an individual.  For that reason, I fail to see
> why the government should pay your ticket.  If you fly to Washington on
> behalf of some organization you belong to, then that organization should
> pay your way, and you are on an equal basis with the NASA person.  Where
> exactly is the problem?

The problem is in your reading "testify before a panel" when I wrote
"lobby".  Look at my message again.

When anyone, including a taxpayer, is asked by Congress to testify
before a panel, I don't object to the government picking up the tab.

When someone who is receiving tax dollars lobbies Congress to give them
more tax dollars, a positive feedback system is created that ultimately
undermines democracy itself.  When they actually FLY INTO WASHINGTON,
hang out in hotels, take Congressmen/staffers out to dinner or whatever,
they should be thrown in jail.

Since we appear unwilling to throw the rascals in jail as they should
be, the least we can do is provide free travel expenses to taxpaying
citizens with a countervailing point of view.

Democracy:  Easy come, easy go.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Bowery      619/295-3164               The Coalition for
PO Box 1981                                   Science and
La Jolla, CA 92038                             Commerce
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 6 Jun 91 23:41:37 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!noose.ecn.purdue.edu!sparkyfs.erg.sri.com!ads.com!killer![e-mail]  (Michael Wallis)
Subject: Re: Death of the Space Station

>   I'd have to say that the political-military impetus for going-it-alone
> has or is disappearing with the current state of the world. We should
> leverage the USSR's experience and presence in space with our superior
> technology and push on together to the moon instead of wasting scarce
> money (on both sides) on a silly, obsolete competition that no longer
> has much political meaning. This may , of course, be hard for those
> with ecomomic or military agendas to swallow.

Well ... I think "political-military impetus" isn't the issue. We (mankind)
needs to get into space and a station is a stepping stone. I agree that the way
NASA has approached it isn't at all cost effective, but I doubt Congress will
do what is needed, namely decide what they want a station to do, how much they
want to pay for it, appropriate the money and put it in eschrow, and announce
that they'll pay it to the first US-owned company or consortium that operates a
station meeting their requirements for a year and a day.

> ObST: It's really time for some kind of International space agency
> dedicated to exploration.

Naw ... just Yet Another Layer of bureaucrats.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Wallis                                  |INTERNET:      [e-mail]
Computer Consultant                        |CI$:           75470,1264
Santa Clara, CA                               |bix:           mwallis
"I'd rather be building rockets!"       |#include <Standard/Disclaimer.h>

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

Date: 7 Jun 91 04:44:16 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!transfer!lectroid!sw.stratus.com![e-mail]  (Tarl Neustaedter)
Subject: Re: Fermi Paradox

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Dani Eder) writes:
> [stuff about sending people to other stars via information and replicators]
>
> Conclusion: The Fermi Paradox is very much with us.

Nope. Several problems with your scenario:
    1) Technological civilization may not survive long enough to produce the
       rather complex equipment you describe. Already mentioned.
    2) The replicators may not be physically possible. Unknown.
    3) Even if the technology existed, someone has to pay for it. If there
       is no obvious payback from such a massive effort, it won't happen.

       Note: Expansion of the race by itself is not a payback. You may want
             it, I may want it, but it doesn't put money in the pocket of the
             person building the hardware.

    4) Other stellar systems may not have the resources for inhabitation.
       Colonies would starve or not even arrive.
    5) Subsidiary colonies may not have the urge to expand. Indeed, they might
       destroy the receiving apparatus as soon as enough people have arrived to
       sustain comfortable life. After which it may be a long time before they
       have the urge to expand. If ever - They might have learned to limit
       birth rates and not need to expand.
    6) Replicator technology, if possible, might make it unnecessary to
       colonize. If you can build anything locally, why go anywhere else?

--
         Tarl Neustaedter    [e-mail]
         Marlboro, Mass.    Stratus Computer
Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions.

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

Date: 6 Jun 91 18:38:34 GMT
From: unmvax!uokmax![e-mail]  (Robert W Murphree)
Subject: Re: The Space Station Nobody Wanted

[e-mail] writes:


>People who say that any space station is better than nothing ignore the
>fact that everything NASA does also has a fair amount of PR value.  The
>PR value of Fred would be even more negative than that of the Shuttle or
>of the HST.  But at least the Shuttle and the HST do have a purpose,
>whereas Fred does not.

>One person even complained, "While everyone was busy yelling about how
>the space station would not meet their particular needs,  it lost the
>support it needed to come into being."  What a colossal waste to spend
>so much money on something nobody will use!  Why did it need to come
>into being anyway, just to be "mankind's first step toward the stars"
>or some other such quasi-religious reason?  If you ask me, even if
>this were a worthy goal, Fred would be a step in the wrong direction.

I agree fully. the space station is a solution in search of a problem.
Or better yet, the problem is greedy aerospace companies. The solution
is to cut the space station.  Call your congressmen today

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

Date:         Thu, 06 Jun 91 20:48:38 EDT
From: Tom McWilliams <[e-mail]>
Subject:      Survey

Re:  Questions regarding space exploration

I started a survey a while back, but no-one responded!

Let's try again


ATTENTION ******* ATTENTION ******** ATTENTION ********** ATTENTION



       NASA needs your help (or anyone's, they're really messed up)



A special team of scientists needs to know the opinions of the educated
public, so that we may make the proper suggestions to the Congessional
subcomitte hearings about America's goals in space (if they ask).

Please answer the following questions as truthfully as you can, and
please keep sci-fci restricted (don't include Faster-than-light or
Time travel)

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

  1
 11      What efforts should the government make in space?
  1
 111

|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

222
   2     What efforts would you personally invest in.
  2              (buy stock or work on)
2222

|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

3333
  _3     What do you forsee, fifty years away, in space, whether
   3           American, Multi-national, both, or neither.
3333

|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Please keep your answer restricted to five items each, though you are by
no means required to come up with five for both of them.

And I still have the responses of the people that sent me stuff before (both
of them) so you don't need to send me any, unless you've changed yer minds.

Again, I'll post results when (if?) I get enough response to make it
intersting.

E-mail to
                     [e-mail]

Tom
Acknowledge-To: <18084TM@MSU>

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

Date: 5 Jun 91 20:05:50 GMT
From: ssc-vax!bcsaic!hsvaic![e-mail]  (Dani Eder)
Subject: Re: Tethers (was Re: Laser launchers)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (joefish) writes:
>
>
>The long things you were discussing are called "beanstalks",
>and are science fiction, because the materials to make them
>possible will never exist.   A steel cable 20 miles long will
>break from it's own weight.   The question is:  How can discussions
>of beanstalks be stopped?
>

Kill all the thinking people on the planet.  The best available
carbon fiber is 3 times stronger and 5 times lighter than the
best steel wire.  The theoretical breaking length for Amoco
Thornel T-1000 fiber (tensile strength=1 million psi, density=
0.066 lb/in^3) is 15 million inches, is 236.7 statute miles.

This is the limit IF YOU DO NOT TAPER THE CROSS SECTION.  If
you do, your cross section changes by a factor of e per scale
length.  The scale length is the theoretical breaking length
reduced by the design factor of safety.  Let us make it 2.0
for a reasonalbly safe design.  Then to stay at cross section
ratio of no more than 400, we can go 6 scale lengths, which
would be 720 statute miles.  This is for a material already
offered fo sale by Amoco.

If look to theoretical limits, diamond has a compressive
strength of above 7.5 million psi, and a density of .12 lb/in^3,
this gives a theoretical crush height of about 1000 statute
miles.  At this point the Earth's gravity well is only 4
scale lengths deep.  So in theory there are in fact materials
that can serve for a beanstalk.

Dani Eder

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

Date: Thu, 6 Jun 91 16:37:16 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Jim Bowery)
To: crash![e-mail]
Subject: Fred's Operatic Death

Well, it looks like we get to watch Fred bleed and bellow Italian
lyrics for a while.  Anyone care to guess how long before the fat
lady sings?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Bowery      619/295-3164               The Coalition for
PO Box 1981                                   Science and
La Jolla, CA 92038                             Commerce
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 5 Jun 91 22:35:38 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!spool.mu.edu!cs.umn.edu!kksys!wd0gol!newave![e-mail]  (John A. Weeks III)
Subject: Re: More on Freedom Vote

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Matthew DeLuca):
> In <[e-mail]> [e-mail]:
> > In <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Matthew DeLuca):

> > > As for the production line bit, the production line was closed when
> > > Challenger blew up, and yet we have Endeavour.

> > Yup.  Of course, now that they've assembled Endeavor, they no longer have
> > the stock of spare parts they did before Challenger blew up.

It is more than just the stock of spare parts, it is the orbiter airframe.
This is a very large and expensive part of the shuttle, and one that must
be built right and fully tested.  You cannot easily replace the basic
structure of an orbiter if it fails (if there is anything left to replace).

At the time of the Challenger accident, there was an extra airframe.  It
was used up, and there are no plans in place to replace the airframe.  At
one point, I think NASA wanted to build another set of shuttle spares,
but money was not authorized.

> Actually, I understand that the spare part situation is better now than it
> was before; they were cannibalizing parts from one shuttle (usually Columbia)
> to keep the others flying; this has been rectified.

The spare part situation is much better, but there is one more factor in
the equation...time.  When a shuttle is sitting on the pad and something
breaks, it is usually quicker to use parts 'stored' at KSC rather than
waiting for shipment from a supplier or a contractor site.  It is much
more expensive for a shuttle to be laid up on the pad than being laid
up in the VAB because they are burning PR dollars when the shuttle is on
the pad.

> [I meant to say before Challenger blew up, not when.]

It didn't really blow up, it broke up and the fuel burned somewhat rapidly.
The result was much the same, however.

-john-

--
=============================================================================
John A. Weeks III               [phone]             [e-mail]
NeWave Communications, Ltd.                        ...uunet!tcnet!newave!john

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

Date: 6 Jun 91 19:48:16 GMT
From: pyramid![e-mail]  (Lon Stowell)
Subject: Martian Face

>[e-mail] (Gene Gross) writes:
>>
>> BTW, I have a copy of the original NASA photo showing the "Face."  It
>> is rather grainy, but I simply don't see how you can miss the "Face."
>> It is nothing like the Kermit face that someone said they saw on Mars,
>> nor is it anything like the face in the moon.  This thing is so
>> distinct that it will capture your attention immediately.
>

   Geez, when I asked for a copy of the "face" I didn't mean to
   start a religious war...

   I just wanted a postscript, xbm, GIF copy of it emailed to me
   so I can put in in my background on an Xterminal....

Do you have an electronic copy of the face?  If so, would you
mind e-mailing it to me?

[e-mail]

Someone responded with info, but they were on a VAX and our ELM
and the VAX don't seem to agree on mail headers...>:-)

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #708
*******************