Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V13_7/V13_782.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-05 | 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/IcR0eRS00WBwMGXU5H>;
          Fri,  5 Jul 91 01:58:53 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Fri,  5 Jul 91 01:58:48 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #782

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 782

Today's Topics:
      Re: Excavating (minig) gold in the space by NASA.
 Re: United Space Federation IEC/BOD/Members & Supporters E-Mail List
          114th Scout rocket launch set (Forwarded)
             Re: Access to Space
      Re: Excavating (minig) gold in the space by NASA.
           USF Reply from Rick R. Dobson ( Founder)
         Re: USF Reply from Rick R. Dobson ( Founder)
      Re: Excavating (minig) gold in the space by NASA.
                 ERS-1 Launch

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: 14 Jun 91 01:21:58 GMT
From: swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!emory!Dixie.Com!wa4mei!ke4zv![e-mail]  (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Excavating (minig) gold in the space by NASA.

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tom Pressburger) writes:
>What's the density of these materials in sea water?  I heard there were
>billions and billions of bucks in the riches of a cubic mile of ocean.
>
>-tom

According to the CRC Handbook, 2 mg per ton. (don't you just love mixed
units). That's roughly 2 parts per million. Not far from the 9 parts
per million quoted for the asteroid. And we can *walk* to the sea.
Processing equipment is easily and cheaply moved to the site. And no
ore crushing is needed. Minable ores on land run around 30 mg per ton.

Gary

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

Date: 21 Jun 91 20:47:02 GMT
From: aunro!alberta!herald.usask.ca!ccu.umanitoba.ca!bison!sys6626!inqmind![e-mail]  (Norman Paterson)
Subject: Re: United Space Federation IEC/BOD/Members & Supporters E-Mail List


> [edited from a long posting:]
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
> >____________________________________________________________________________
> >   United Space Federation,Inc.  IEC/BOD/Members E-Mail Addresses
> >
> >From: Rick R. Dobson
> >      Executive Director
> >
> >
> >__________________________________________________________________________
> >*******  United States of America United Space Federation Group **********
> >__________________________________________________________________________
> >
> >
> >Dani Eder     Member USF USA Group
> >              Internet:  [e-mail]
> >
> >
>
> To Mr. Dobson:
> As they say here in the South: "Yoah in a big heap o' trouble boa"
>
> I wrote you asking to be placed on your mailing list if it was to be
> a 'discussion' type list.  I said if it was only to be used for
> broadcast type messages, then not to bother.  I received several
> back issues of information about what the USF was for.  I wrote
> you a detailed message on why I thought the USF was a bad idea,
> but as of today I have not received any response to my comments
> nor any indication that my response was redistributed to anyone
> else (can anyone else verify this?).  Now I find my name listed
> as a member of your group, something which I do not want.  If it
> hasn't occurred to you, I may want to correspond with you in
> order to try to change your mind, or merely to keep an eye on you.
>
> To the rest of the NET: I oppose the formation of a USF of the
> type presentented by Mr. Dobson, for reasons which I will be
> happy to discuss further with anyone who wants to.  To list me
> as a 'member' is a misrepresentation of my position on this
> subject since it implies support.
>
> Dani Eder

Sir if I was in your shoes, to teach someone a lesson and relieve yourself
and others of a nuisance, I would take legal action against the USF. I'm
sure it wouldn't take much more than a phone call to a lawyer. Norman
Paterson Qpg. MB CANADA

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

Date: 22 Jun 91 02:10:54 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!news.arc.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: 114th Scout rocket launch set (Forwarded)

Jim Cast
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                              June 20, 1991
(Phone:  [phone])

John J. Loughlin II
Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md.
(Phone:  [phone])

George Diller
Kennedy Space Center, Fla.
(Phone:  [phone])

Ed Parsons
U.S. Air Force Space Systems Division
Los Angeles AFB, Calif.
(Phone:  [phone])


RELEASE:  91-93

114TH SCOUT ROCKET LAUNCH SET


    NASA is scheduled to launch a U.S. Air Force communications
experiment into a 450 mile circular orbit aboard a Scout rocket June
28, 1991, from Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif.  The 90-minute launch
window extends from 10:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. EDT.

    At a cost of $3 million, the U. S. Air Force Radiation
Experiment (REX) is designed to test sophisticated communications in a
high-radiation environment.  The knowledge gained from this type of
experiment is fundamental to designing the communications equipment
capable of reliable operation in the harsh environment of outer space.
REX is managed by the U.S. Air Force Space Systems Division in Los
Angeles and was built by Defense Systems Inc., McLean, Va.

    Scout/REX is the only Scout mission planned for 1991.  Standing
just over 75 feet tall, the four-stage, solid propellant vehicle built
by LTV Missiles and Electronics Group in Dallas develops approximately
125,000 lbs. of thrust at lift-off.  The first Scout was launched in
July 1960.

    The Scout program is managed by NASA's Goddard Space Flight
Center, Greenbelt, Md.  NASA's Kennedy Space Center is responsible for
Scout launch operations at Space Launch Complex 5.  The NASA Launch
Director and the supporting launch team are from the Expendable
Vehicles Directorate headquartered at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station,
Fla.,  with a resident office at Vandenberg AFB.

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

Date: 20 Jun 91 21:50:02 GMT
From: prism![e-mail]  (Matthew DeLuca)
Subject: Re: Access to Space

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

>>From the perspective of the companies launching the satellites, the (IMHO
>>the appropriate point of view) the satellites are indeed 'self-sustaining'
>>(is this another term for profitable?)

>No, self-sustaining is not the same thing as profitable. Suppose Boeing
>decided to halt all product design. That would make them a lot more
>profitable (they save the billions they spend to design new aircraft) but
>they would no longer be self-sustaining.

Okay, perhaps I missed it in the original post, but how did you come up
with the statement that comsats aren't self-sustaining?  New satellite
designs are continually coming out, so the example you gave above doesn't
seem to apply.

>This may or may not be true. At this time nobody who buys a launch
>pays the entire cost of that launch. No matter who launches your
>satellite there are huge costs associated with building the infrastructure
>and launcher not paid by satellite users.

Well, once the original investment has been paid off, all the user really
should be paying is the incremental cost anyway.  In the case of launching
facilities and research paid for by the government in years past, this
cost can be pretty much written off as a government investment that doesn't
need to be repaid or recouped.
--
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: 20 Jun 91 20:58:52 GMT
From: agate!spool.mu.edu!sdd.hp.com!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!cronkite!exodus!concertina.Eng.Sun.COM![e-mail]  (Eolid enthusiast)
Subject: Re: Excavating (minig) gold in the space by NASA.

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Arto Wikla) writes:
>Remember what happened to the economy of Spain after
>they had found the gold of America!
>(There was a gold-inflation, which ruined the economy and finally
>was the end of super-power Spain.)

Does this imply that we ought to encourage the Japanese/Russians/ESA/
Americans/<fillinyourownbetenoirhere> to agressiveley work toward
acquiring the asteroid resources in question?  :}




--
------------
  The only drawback with morning is that it comes
    at such an inconvenient time of day.
------------

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

Date: 20 Jun 91 20:44:12 GMT
From: vax5.cit.cornell.edu![e-mail]
Subject: USF Reply from Rick R. Dobson ( Founder)

1)  The USF as a Single entity would not create or inforce space law as
a certian determined group of demogoges have suggested.  The USF would
be set up very simular to how ESA is set up and would consist of three
organizational bodies.

         A)  A planning body which would plan, propose, and create
             potential international space projects which would be
             undertaken by this International Space Agency and
             would consist of the the Scientific Community, the
             Industrial Community, the Acedemic Community.  When
             projects are aproved to be undertaken by this agency
             the membership of this body will be involved in the
             undertaking of these projects.

         B)  A governing or regulatory body which would review
             proposed projects submitted by the planning body to
             be debated and either approved or disaproved.  This
             body would consist of the national representitives
             of Nations involved in this agency and would be the
             only body of the USF with reglatory powers, appointed
             representitives of the National Space Programs which
             would act as a advisory committee to the National Delegates
             , apointed legal specaliasts from around the world to
             serve as an advisory committee to the national delegates
             , and lastly the Secretary General of the U.N. would
             have a honorary position in this body.

         C)  A adminastrative body which sole purpose will be to
             undertake and manage this international projects only
             after they have been approved by the reglatory body
             and worked out by the planning body.  This adminastrative
             body will be the core of the USF as and you can clearly
             see does not create or inforce space law as the demogoges
             have attempted to misslead people to believe!


2)  The USF is now small but is growing very rapidly!  The USF is a Not-
For-Profit Corporation which sole purpose is to set up an International
Civil Space Agency by 1993 as outlined above!  Its not the sinister and
dark organization that these few determined demogoges have been attempting
to mislead people into believing!

3)  I am the Founder of the USF and have recieved untrue and trumped up
false allegations from these same few demogoges whose only purpose it
seems to be is to cause havic, confusion, and ill feelings towards the
USF and its efforts on the net!  I am not an acedemic and on top of that
I have a bad writing disibility which hampers me greatly, but I keep
on going as my intentions are sincere and the USF efforts are important!
I served 6yrs in the US Navy as a Aircraft Tech. and worked on some of
the most advanced aircraft in the world. I am 26 years old and a strong
supporter of space developement both maned and unmaned as I feel both
have there place and purpose in the over all developement of space.

4)  USF support groups are now starting all over the world and highly
skilled and educated people are now joining the USF effort!  I may be
the founder of the USF but I never said I was the best to lead this
effort or the best qualified!  But at least I got off my dead ass and
started something instead of just sitting around and yapping about it!

                                   Rick at USF/HQ/USA

P.S. I have a writing disibility and it is hard for me to make speedy
replies to these demogoges, so to all the people on the net who came
to my aid in countering these people and have offered open support on
the net for the USF I thank you and hope for your continued support.


An International Civil Space Agency By 1993 - An Idea Whose Time Has Come!

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

Date: 21 Jun 91 13:20:27 GMT
From: mentor.cc.purdue.edu!pop.stat.purdue.edu![e-mail]  (Herman Rubin)
Subject: Re: USF Reply from Rick R. Dobson ( Founder)

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:

            ......................

>          B)  A governing or regulatory body which would review
>              proposed projects submitted by the planning body to
>              be debated and either approved or disaproved.

            ......................

Not only do you propose to have a body to plan space activities, but
also one which could disapprove such activities.  This is no way for
anyone who believes in any form of individual freedom to act.

I see the proposed USF as a means to allow an international body to
stifle space activities, and nothing else.  Without the Cold War, I
doubt if much of what has been accomplished in space would have been
done.  International control means subjugation.
--
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: 21 Jun 91 14:39:28 GMT
From: rochester![e-mail]  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Excavating (minig) gold in the space by NASA.

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tom Pressburger) writes:
>>What's the density of these materials in sea water?  I heard there were
>>billions and billions of bucks in the riches of a cubic mile of ocean.

>According to the CRC Handbook, 2 mg per ton. (don't you just love mixed
>units). That's roughly 2 parts per million. Not far from the 9 parts
>per million quoted for the asteroid. And we can *walk* to the sea.
>Processing equipment is easily and cheaply moved to the site. And no
>ore crushing is needed. Minable ores on land run around 30 mg per ton.

1 metric ton = 1000 kg = 10^6 grams = 10^9 milligrams.

2 mg/ton is about 2 parts per BILLION.

The concentration of gold in seawater is listed as 1.1 x 10^-2 mg/m^3,
or about 50 kilograms per cubic mile.  Platinum is not even on the
table.

    Paul F. Dietz
    [e-mail]

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

Date: 21 Jun 91 18:28:02 GMT
From: agate!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!blacks![e-mail]  (Robbie)
Subject: ERS-1 Launch

Received June 20:

Please be informed that ARIANESPACE has confirmed to ESA that the
Launch Campaign is being resumed today for a target ERS-1 Launch
date on
               16 July 1991 at 23:46 Kourou Time,
       i.e.
               17 July 1991 at 01:46 UTC
                                3:46 Central European Time

The above decision is due to the positive results of the tests
carried out by industry until now, which give good confidence on
the fact that the corrective actions developed and tested are
curing the problem identified on the ARIANE third stage engine.
Obviously, the actual launch date is strictly dependent upon
positive results of the second and final set of test at industry
and of the availability of all the ground facilities required
during the Launch and the Early Orbit Phase (LEOP).

This is from M. Fea.

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #782
*******************