Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V15_0/V15NO095.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 33KB

Date: Tue, 11 Aug 92 05:07:36
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #095
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Tue, 11 Aug 92       Volume 15 : Issue 095

Today's Topics:
                   Capsule location list (at last!)
           Energiya's role in Space Station assem (6 msgs)
                    EURECA orbit raising manoeuvre
          Historical records of NASA (selected) [continued]
                          Home made rockets
                     Info on Challenger accident
                     More second-hand info on TSS
                   Seeding Mars with life (4 msgs)
                        SPS fouling astronomy
         Weekly reminder for Frequently Asked Questions list

    Welcome to the Space Digest!!  Please send your messages to
    "[e-mail]", and (un)subscription requests of the form
    "Subscribe Space <your name>" to one of these addresses: listserv@uga
    (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle
    (THENET), or [e-mail] (Internet).
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 10 Aug 92 18:51:17 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Capsule location list (at last!)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <aero.713460930@io> [e-mail] (Aero Student Account) writes:
>Apollo 1                           (Article lists Langley; I
>                                    believe it was placed in the
>                                    Titan silo with Challenger's
>                                    debris)

There was talk of doing that but it hasn't actually happened, I believe.
For a long time the capsule was in carefully-protected storage at Langley
against the possibility that improvements in forensic technology could
shed new light on the fire.  Maintenance of the storage facility (which
included nitrogen overpressure) was becoming troublesome, and the idea
of further investigation of the accident is no longer taken seriously,
so there was talk of moving it to the Challenger-debris silo.  In the
end, I think, they settled for leaving it where it was but dispensing
with some of the more elaborate protective measures.

>Apollo 2                           Kansas Cosmosphere

Error:  there never was an "Apollo 2".  The three unmanned tests before
the fire were known as AS-201, AS-202, and AS-203.  The first manned flight
was designated AS-204, but there was debate about a name for it; the crew
wanted "Apollo 1" but the booster people were calling it "Apollo 4" by
analogy with Gemini naming.  After the fire, the matter was resolved in
favor of the crew's choice, at the request of their widows.  This left
the early unmanned tests in limbo, the more so because for some reason
the first post-fire unmanned test was officially named "Apollo 4".  NASA
HQ finally decided that there would be no retroactive naming of the
unmanned tests.  So there is no "Apollo 2" or "Apollo 3".
--
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 10 Aug 92 20:41:29 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Energiya's role in Space Station assem
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>>Come now Mr. DeLuca, your grasping as straws. When fabrication begins
>>it won't take long to build another. As to killing the project, not
>>likely give the huge and lasing political support it has received.

>And after we build the other, do we put it on an Energia again?  I dunno about
>that.

Well why not? Are you saying that is a launcher fails then it sholdn't ever
be used again? Well that would pretty well wrap it up for the Shuttle woldn't
it.

>Huge and lasting political support?  Come now...they keep trying to pull money
>from it, and it barely survives.
                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I remember it quite well. The last three attempts to kill Freedom went
down to defeat by almost a 2 to 1 margin. You may consider that 'barely
surviving' but I don't.

>>If it bothers you that much, let's build spares along with the original.
>>We will still save billions.

>One reason why I distrust your scheme is your willingness to toss around
>money building useless backups or fixing inadequacies.

Those 'useless backups' are called risk reduction. *NO* large scale effort
is done anywhere without a lot of it. Suppose HL Delta fails and is
grounded? Wouldn't it be nice to have a backup? Wouldn't it also be nice
to have two suppliers competing against each other to provide us the best
service for the lowest cost?

As for fixing inadequacies, I don't accept all as inadaquacies. All I am
doing is showing that if they are indeed problems they can be fixed with
a small portion of our savings.

What would you do? Suppose somebody comes up with an idea to save GM $4
billion a year and they come to you for advice. You spot a flaw in the
plan which can be fixed for a fraction of the savings. From what you say
above, you would rather toss the plan and loose the savings rather than
make any changes.

>How is this form
>of waste any different from the waste that currently exists in NASA?

Because it provides more and better capability.

>And no, we aren't really saving money, because every time someone points
>out yet another flaw in your reasoning you toss another couple hundred
>million dollars at the problem.

My allocation of the savings buys us:

1. An unmanned return vehicle
2. Cheaper launch costs
3. A lunar base
4. Two separate HLV's
5. Two separate SSTO development efforts
6. An orbital maneuvering vehicle.

If the Shuttle lasts another 20 years, we could have all this AND an
additional $50 billion or so in life cycle cost savings.

So not only are we saving money, we are getting pieces of infrastructure
we don't have today and need.

>You've already allocated your savings well into the next century.

No, we have allocated my savings to about the year 2,000. Hardly
'well into the next century'. Also, the biggest item I am adding
is a lunar base which if removed takes away about half the allocation.

>>Sure there are engineering concerns as well. So far nobody has posted
>>anything more than vague worries about pogo but nothing specific.

>There are also political concerns and capability concerns.

Nobody has raised any capability concerns which haven't been addressed.

>You've refused
>to acknowledge any political stumbling blocks and you ignore the fact that
>our capability *will* be reduced in space.

First of all, nobody has shown any capability which will be lost.

As to political stumbeling blocks, sure there will be some. However, the
US space program will be far better off if we take that chalange.

>Without that, we're spending a little less money
>on less capability in space, and sacrificing budgetary flexibility.

No, we are spending less money of a more flexable system able which is
far more productive (space stations do a lot more research than Shuttles).

   Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
|  [e-mail]     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
+----------------------256 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1992 18:08:50 GMT
From: Dennis Newkirk <[e-mail]>
Subject: Energiya's role in Space Station assem
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gerald Cecil) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Chris Jones) writes:
>>To date, all (both) flights of the Energiya used two strap-on boosters, I
>>believe.
>You may be right about flight #2 w/ Buran ... I'll look for pictures
>tomorrow.

Both Energia flights have used 4 strap-on boosters.  They are designed to be recoverable
but were not intended to be recovered from at least the first flight.  Reusability of
the core stage is only the concept of putting Buran wings and tail on it.  A photo of
such a model was in Aviation Week a couple of years ago.

> Anyone know of a picture that shows the 3rd stage?

The only pictures I've found so far are from television coverage of the launch.  They
show two cylinders attached the sides of the payload at its base that could be related
to the upper stage.  The payload has since been reported in the Russian press to be
both a prototype Salyut Design Bureau automated material processing station AND a
'laser battlestation'.  The lack of information supports belief that it was a
classified payload.

>Clark states that the SL-16 has different engines than the Tsyklon (SL-11 and
>SL-14), but this is attributed to private conversations with ``officials''.

There's nothing unusually mysterious about the Tsyklon first stage engine. I don't
have a summary handy, but it's definitly not related to the RD-170.

Dennis Newkirk ([e-mail])
Motorola Inc, Land Mobile Products Sector
Schaumburg, IL

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

Date: 10 Aug 92 20:49:48 GMT
From: Doug Mohney <[e-mail]>
Subject: Energiya's role in Space Station assem
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Matthew DeLuca) writes:
>
>>>You can 'save' $3 billion, but you better be happy spending
>>>that $3 billion on social welfare programs, because it sure as hell won't be
>>>spent in space.
>
>>First of all, even if I agreed with that, so what?
>
>Wasn't it just last week that you were allocating your savings to lunar bases
>and planetary probes?  One of your selling points was all the new space
>projects we can get started.  Without that, we're spending a little less money
>on less capability in space, and sacrificing budgetary flexibility.  Looks
>like a bad deal to me.

He's a Democrat. Hassss to be a democrat. Just fill in "Cut the Defense budget"
and "use the savings for -------" to get the bottom line.

Of course, trying to point out the fight to save SSTO funding as an
illustration of how things don't really change all that much in Congress slips
past him.

Maybe he's going to get commission on sales of Russian space hardware?


                 Support U.N. military force against Serbia

  -- >                  [e-mail]                        < --

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

Date: 10 Aug 92 17:33:20 GMT
From: Gerald Cecil <[e-mail]>
Subject: Energiya's role in Space Station assem
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article [e-mail], [e-mail] (Chris Jones) writes:
>To date, all (both) flights of the Energiya used two strap-on boosters, I
>believe.

Nope, the Buran flight also used 4 strap-ons.  There's a great picture of the
whole stack on the pad on p. 23 of the May 1992 Physics Today.

[e-mail] writes:
>Also has anyone even looked at the dynamics of the vibration
>environment? Bet you would have to do a lot of beefing up to get station
>elements on Energia from a structural standpoint.
> ... the numbers that I quoted the other day on structural qualification
>levels (payloads)on the Shuttle (+/- 10 G in Z, +/- 6 G in X and Y) are to
>qualify at a 1.1 factor for a very benign shuttle system. ...
>For other launchers without throttable engines or with large
>thrust chambers, the qualification g factors are much higher.

Good points to consider. But note that Energiya is DESIGNED to launch the CIS
Shuttles which have wings, are derivatives of the US Shuttles, and are therefore
subject to similar constraints on launch stresses as the US STS. The Energiya
strap-ons are liquid boosters, so they should be throttable (is this a word?).
Also, as we discussed last week, you apparently need to increase the wall thickness
of the SSF modules from 4 mm to 2 cm or so anyway, to handle the extra radiation
load at 40+ deg. inclination orbits.
---
Gerald Cecil 919-962-7169  Dept. Physics & Astronomy
U of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3255 USA
-- Intelligence is believing only half of what you read; brilliance is
   knowing which half. ** Be terse: each line on the Net costs $10 **

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

Date: 9 Aug 92 23:16:00 GMT
From: Anthony Frost <[e-mail]>
Subject: Energiya's role in Space Station assem
Newsgroups: sci.space


  > Considering the operational record of Energia and its
  > Cyclone Boosters I would

Minor point, AFAIK the Energia boosters are based on the Zenit,
not the Tsyklon/Cyclone launcher...

         Anthony


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

Date: 10 Aug 92 22:03:53 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Energiya's role in Space Station assem
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>... But note that Energiya is DESIGNED to launch the CIS
>Shuttles which have wings, are derivatives of the US Shuttles, and are
>therefore subject to similar constraints on launch stresses as the US STS.

Despite much popular mythology, and a few paranoid pronouncements from
the military, there is no particularly good evidence (that I know of)
that the Buran design is an STS derivative.  Clearly it was strongly
influenced by the US design, but the similarities are superficial.
Certainly its structural design would be very different, since the
main engines are on the Energia core rather than the Buran orbiter.

>The Energiya strap-ons
>are liquid boosters, so they should be throttable...

There is potential for making them throttlable, but they probably aren't
throttlable as designed.  Making a rocket engine throttlable is not simple;
it is done only when necessary.

In Energia's case, the crucial engines are not in the strap-ons but in the
core.  The strap-ons are pushing a fairly fully fuelled core, so they can
run flat out without producing particularly high accelerations.  The crucial
question is whether the core engines can be throttled back as their tanks
empty out.
--
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 10 Aug 92 22:56:34 GMT
From: Bev Freed <[e-mail]>
Subject: EURECA orbit raising manoeuvre
Newsgroups: sci.space

European Space Agency

06 August 1992

           EURECA ORBIT RAISING MANOEUVRE SUCCESSFUL

The evaluation and testing undertaken in the ESOC control centre have
resulted in a full understanding of the mechanisms that led to the early
termination of the first Orbital Transfer Manoeuvre of EURECA on 2 August.
Appropriate adjustments have been introduced in the ground segment and
the EURECA spacecraft.  Consequently, it was decided to execute the Orbit
Raising Manoeuvre on 6 August in the time period 10 hrs. 27 min. to 10 hrs.
56 min. Universal Time.  Real-time telemetry received showed excellent
performance of EURECA in all subsystems.  The attitude was maintained very
stably throughout the manoeuvre.  The spacecraft is now in an elliptical
orbit with an apogee altitude of 507 km and a perigee altitude of 471 km.
The second burn, which circularized the orbit, is now scheduled to take
place on Friday, 7 August.  Some of the experiments of the payload which
do not depend on a microgravity environment are already activated.

The rest of the payload will be switched on when the operational orbit
has been achieved.


07 August 1992

                       EURECA IN ITS MISSION ORBIT

The successful accomplishment of EURECA's ascent manoeuvre carried out
yesterday, 6 August 1992 at 12.27 local time enabled ESA's operations
centre at Darmstadt, Germany, to proceed today 7th August, with the
circularization of the elliptical orbit, according to plan.

On 7 August 1992 at 11 hrs. 26 min. local time, while the spacecraft
was traveling over the Maspalomas ground station, EURECA's thrusters
were fired by control centre command for a duration of 11 minutes and
14 seconds.  Indications received half an hour later from the satellite
via ESA's ground station at Perth, Australia, confirmed the nominal
execution of the burn, with the spacecraft in a healthy state
and orbiting the Earth at slightly more than a 508 km altitude.

Subsequent to further checkout and calibration runs, the experimental
phase of the mission will commence on Monday.



--
Bev Freed - via FidoNet node 1:129/104
UUCP: ...!pitt!nss!freed
INTERNET: [e-mail]

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

Date: 10 Aug 92 23:20:07 GMT
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Historical records of NASA (selected) [continued]
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Tony Wickersham) writes:
> Oops! I just found more entries.  These records were _not_ classified,
> but have been accessioned and (probably) cataloged.
>
> NATIONAL ARCHIVES - GREAT LAKES REGION
> 7358 South Pulaski Road
> Chicago, IL  60629
> [phone]
>
>      _Records of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration_
> (Record Group 255, 4 cubic feet).  Speeches and papers, 1960-61, and
> Project NERVA records, ca. 1960-73, from the Lewis Research Center,
> Cleveland, OH.  Materials open.
>
> (ibid., p. 75)

Thanks, Tony.  Interesting!

NERVA records in Chicago, eh?  Might be worth some snooping around.

Like I need one more project...

     O~~*           /_) ' / /   /_/ '  ,   ,  ' ,_  _           \|/
   - ~ -~~~~~~~~~~~/_) / / /   / / / (_) (_) / / / _\~~~~~~~~~~~zap!
 /       \                          (_) (_)                    / | \
 |       |     Bill Higgins   Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
 \       /     Bitnet:     [e-mail]
   -   -       Internet:  [e-mail]
     ~         SPAN/Hepnet:      43011::HIGGINS

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

Date: 10 Aug 92 20:18:04 GMT
From: Bob Pendelton <[e-mail]>
Subject: Home made rockets
Newsgroups: sci.space

From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (Henry Spencer):
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Frederick A. Ringwald) writes:
>>> I have recently got into the field of making home-made rockets ...
>>
>>What you describe doing is amazingly dangerous. If you persist in it, I
>>hope you do get caught and arrested, as you are a public menace, if
>>you're still alive to read this post!
>
> What I posted the last time this came up:

> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bob Pendleton) writes:
>>If you're not a pro, DON'T try it. It just isn't as simple as it
>>looks.
>
> I'd revise that slightly:  if you're not a pro, don't try it unless you
> are prepared to turn yourself into at least a semi-pro first.

Sheesh! I hardly ever read this list any more. So I decide to read it
while waiting for a build and find something I wrote 2.5 years agoing
being quoted. Never underestimate the memory of the net.

There is one other danger to consider. Even if you become a pro or
semi-pro, you may inspire non-pros to blow their hands off.

During my teenage basement bomber phases (an amazing number of bright
kids go through this phase, I think of it as evolution in action) I
used carefully prepared propellants and wound paper tubes.  My
failures burned and made loud *pops*. Some other kids in the
neighborhood "copied" me. They were not nearly as careful as I was.
One kid lost most of a hand and part of his face.

There are many levels of danger to building home made rockets.

                Bob P.
--
Bob Pendleton             | As an engineer I hate to hear:
[e-mail]              |   1) You've earned an "I told you so."
Speaking only for myself. |   2) Our customers don't do that.
                   <<< Odin, after the well of Mimir. >>>

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

Date: 10 Aug 92 21:47:29 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Info on Challenger accident
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (J. Zufi) writes:
>... When Challenger
>was destoryed in 1987 (?), was this newsgroup around, and if so
>were there official responses/analysises of the accident posted?

1986.  Yes, the group was around.  There were various postings concerning
the accident, including (I think) a scanned-in copy of the conclusions of
the Rogers Commission, but I don't know where you'd find it online today.

The Rogers Commission report is, or was, available from the US Government
Printing Office.  It's a substantial book; I don't think anyone is going
to type it in for you. :-)
--
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 10 Aug 1992 14:27 EDT
From: Greg Macrae <[e-mail]>
Subject: More second-hand info on TSS
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes...
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (J. D. McDonald) writes:
>>
>>But how hard would it be to carry several spooling systems, and try
>>them all?
>
>Not hard at all... except that Congress will then ask why you want to
>spend its hard-stolen money on developing more than one.  After all,

It would have been difficult to switch between spooling systems.  Remember
that space walks are a last resort, and the hardware must have a high
probability of working without a space walk.  Now design a system that
uses several spoolers, doesn't dangle any broken cables, and uses only one
line at a time...

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

     MacRae                  |      In what windy land
                             |   Wanders now my dear little
  [e-mail]  |       Dragonfly hunter?
                             |                      -Chiyo-ni
--------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 10 Aug 92 18:47:06 GMT
From: Paul Dietz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Seeding Mars with life
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (David Knapp) writes:
|> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Kenneth Tolman) writes:
|> >
|> > It appears that with today's technology an attempt to begin terraforming
|> >Mars could begin now.

|> I think you should put that idea out of your head immediately.
|>
|> If we *do* allow for even a non-sterilized craft to enter Mars atmosphere,
|> we endanger the ability to detect any previous life that may have existed there.
|> We also have no idea whatsoever what Earth's life forms (mostly bacterias
|> and funguses I'm guessing) would do to Mars.


Actually, the idea that we could "seed Mars" right now is nonsense.

The driest places on Earth, like the dry valleys of Antarctica, are
tropical rain forests compared to Mars.  Liquid water cannot exist
at the surface of Mars.  No terrestrial cell could survive, let
alone reproduce, there.  Even the icecaps have pressures too low
for liquid water to exist.  No liquid water = no terrestrial life.
Period.

And let's not forget the lethal unfiltered UV, and the
oxidizing surface conditions.  Remember that the Vikings didn't
even detect the expected carbonaceous meteorite remnants, so
we know there are active processes destroying organic matter there.
This likely has something to do with the UV, which steadily produces
highly oxidizing hydroxyl radicals in the atmosphere.

    Paul F. Dietz
    [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1992 21:57:30 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Seeding Mars with life
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Paul Dietz) writes:
>... Liquid water cannot exist
>at the surface of Mars.  No terrestrial cell could survive, let
>alone reproduce, there...

Paul has presumably forgotten that a bacterial colony was found alive
inside the Surveyor 3 camera retrieved from the Moon by Apollo 12.
Staph, it was; presumably one of the technicians who assembled it had
a sore throat.  It survived the sterilization process and three years
on the Moon.  It wasn't exactly thriving -- almost certainly it was
completely dormant -- but it was alive.

However, I do agree with his basic point:  the present surface of Mars
is lethally inhospitable, enough so that seeding it with Earth organisms
is probably pointless now.
--
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 10 Aug 92 23:04:14 GMT
From: Bob Kanefsky <[e-mail]>
Subject: Seeding Mars with life
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail] (John Roberts) asks:
|> Does anybody have the [Planetary Protection] requirements for a
|> [Mars] lander?

No, but I know the answer to this:

|> I presume the Viking landers were sterilized, otherwise their tests for
|> Mars life would have been meaningless.

I was reading about that a few months ago, probably in a book called
_To_the_Red_Planet_.  As I recall, they sterlized the Viking landers
by heating them to something like 100 degrees Centigrade for a couple
of days.  They needed to design a special computer that would still work
after this treatment.

Bob Kanefsky
______________
If I accidentally expressed any opinions above, they're mine,
and not Sterling's or NASA's.

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

Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1992 23:03:11 GMT
From: David Knapp <[e-mail]>
Subject: Seeding Mars with life
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Paul Dietz) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (David Knapp) writes:
>|> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Kenneth Tolman) writes:
>|> >
>|> > It appears that with today's technology an attempt to begin terraforming
>|> >Mars could begin now.
>
>|> I think you should put that idea out of your head immediately.
>|>
>|> If we *do* allow for even a non-sterilized craft to enter Mars atmosphere,
>|> we endanger the ability to detect any previous life that may have existed there.
>|> We also have no idea whatsoever what Earth's life forms (mostly bacterias
>|> and funguses I'm guessing) would do to Mars.
>
>
>Actually, the idea that we could "seed Mars" right now is nonsense.
>
>The driest places on Earth, like the dry valleys of Antarctica, are
>tropical rain forests compared to Mars.

You don't know that, and, in fact, nobody else does either. There is
strong evidence that there exists abundant water supplies within the
Martian regolith.  We might expect that life forms would exist lower in the
soil *anyway* due to the atmospheric pressure, constinuents and abundant
UV.   We will need to go there and physically investigate the strata to confirm
or deny amounts of water in the regolith.

>Liquid water cannot exist
>at the surface of Mars.

But it can deeper in the regolith.

>No terrestrial cell could survive, let
>alone reproduce, there.

Not on the surface, but perhaps deeper in the regolith it could. More
research needs to be done to confirm the upper crust and regolith structures
and other properties.

Do you know for a fact that there is no geothermal activity *anywhere* on
Mars that might still be supplying enough heat to maintain liquid water
within the soil?

>Even the icecaps have pressures too low
>for liquid water to exist.  No liquid water = no terrestrial life.
>Period.

It's not that simple (comma)  If it were that simple, NASA would not be
so concerned about contamination.

>And let's not forget the lethal unfiltered UV, and the
>oxidizing surface conditions.  Remember that the Vikings didn't
>even detect the expected carbonaceous meteorite remnants, so
>we know there are active processes destroying organic matter there.

Viking landers didn't look everywhere. They looked not even as deep as
what the dust storms could pile up.


>This likely has something to do with the UV, which steadily produces
>highly oxidizing hydroxyl radicals in the atmosphere.
>
>    Paul F. Dietz
>    [e-mail]


--
David Knapp                                      University of Colorado, Boulder
Highly Opinionated, Aging  and                      [e-mail]
Perpetual Student of Chemistry and Physics.
            Write me for an argument on your favorite subject.

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

Date: 10 Aug 92 19:07:22 GMT
From: Paul Dietz <[e-mail]>
Subject: SPS fouling astronomy
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Andrew - Palfreyman) writes:
...
|> ..and reducing debt, cutting the population growth curve and salving
|> first world consciences into the bargain.
|>
|> This futuristically global argument reminds me of the James Burke idea
|> of the Carbon Ration system he proposes in the epilogue to his "After
|> The Warming" documentary. Whether the idea is technologically sound I
|> leave to the Spencers, Dietzs, Szabos, Coffmans and Sherzers.


It's mostly bullshit.  Using the situation in Ethiopia, etc. to justify
SPS is flagrant pandering to the guilt-du-jour.

Africa's problem is *not* lack of electricity.  There is enormous
untapped hydroelectric potential there right now, much more than they
could absorb anytime soon.  There is potential at the mouth of the
Congo River for 30 GW of hydropower -- and that would only be stage
one of a project there.  Technology exists to transport this power
anywhere in Africa (there has even been talk of building dams there
for exporting power to Europe).  They can't use or afford to do this
now, but then they can't afford or use SPS power either.

A generic problem with all SPS gee-whiz macroengineering dreams is
that they assume that no advances will be made in any competing
technologies.  Multiple orders-of-magnitude improvements in economics
are waved around for SPS, but all the competitors are assumed to go
nowhere.  Considering how far in the future SPS is, this is just
absurd.

    Paul F. Dietz
    [e-mail]


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

Date: 10 Aug 92 17:47:28 GMT
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Weekly reminder for Frequently Asked Questions list
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,sci.space.shuttle

[Jon Leech is taking a vacation from cyberspace.  Our Special Guest
Host this week:  Usenet's favorite ukulele-playing physicist,
W. Skeffington Higgins!]

"Thankyouthankyouthankyou.  It's great to be here.  Say, do you know
how many elephants can fit in a Soyuz?  Three!  But they have to be
REALLY GOOD FRIENDS!  And now, on with the Weekly Reminders!"

    This notice will be posted weekly in sci.space, sci.astro, and
sci.space.shuttle.

    The Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) list for sci.space and sci.astro is
posted approximately monthly. It also covers many questions that come up on
sci.space.shuttle (for shuttle launch dates, see below).

    The FAQ is posted with a long expiration date, so a copy may be in your
news spool directory (look at old articles in sci.space). If not, here are
two ways to get a copy without waiting for the next posting:

    (1) If your machine is on the Internet, it can be obtained by anonymous
FTP from the SPACE archive at ames.arc.nasa.gov (128.102.18.3) in directory
pub/SPACE/FAQ.

    (2) Otherwise, send email to '[e-mail]'
containing the single line:

help

    The archive server will return directions on how to use it. To get an
index of files in the FAQ directory, send email containing the lines:

send space FAQ/Index
send space FAQ/faq1

    Use these files as a guide to which other files to retrieve to answer
your questions.

    Shuttle launch dates are posted by Ken Hollis periodically in
sci.space.shuttle. A copy of his manifest is now available in the Ames
archive in pub/SPACE/FAQ/manifest and may be requested from the email
archive-server with 'send space FAQ/manifest'. Please get this document
instead of posting requests for information on launches and landings.

    Do not post followups to this article; respond to the author.

    "Thanks, ya been a great audience!"

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 095
------------------------------