Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V15_0/V15NO096.TXT

Text File | 1993-07-13 | 36KB | 828 lines

Date: Tue, 11 Aug 92 05:10:56
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #096
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Tue, 11 Aug 92       Volume 15 : Issue 096

Today's Topics:
                 CIS shuttles as technology transfer?
           Energiya's role in Space Station assem (2 msgs)
                      Home made rockets (4 msgs)
                    HST management, Earth pointing
                                 SPS
             SPS feasibility (WAS: SPS fouling astronomy)
                       Topex/Poseidin is Away!
                         Whales and dolphins

    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: Mon, 10 Aug 1992 23:18:02 GMT
From: Gerald Cecil <[e-mail]>
Subject: CIS shuttles as technology transfer?
Newsgroups: sci.space

Someone recently brought up the issue of technology transfer in
cooperative programs with the CIS. I think this has always been
overstated, in that most space-qualified technology seems to
lag terrestrial ``spin-offs''.  However, there have been pretty
clear-cut cases. The most blatant rip-off would seem to me to be in
the design of the CIS space shuttles.  (Apologies if this was
discussed ad nauseum when Buran first flew.) Sure, form follows
purpose, but the resemblance to US orbiters is striking and I had
thought that the delta wing of the US orbiter arose primarily from
airforce cross-range requirements, NASA prefering a straighter wing
for better low-speed stability.  Does anyone know the history of the
CIS shuttle development and associated incidents of industrial espionage,
or did their engineers just copy stuff from Popular Mechanics?
--
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 cost the Net $10 **

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

Date: 10 Aug 92 20:14:21 EDT
From: Chris Jones <[e-mail]>
Subject: Energiya's role in Space Station assem
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, cecil@physics (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.

It turns out I was wrong (and you were right).  After looking at the pictures
you refer to and one in a Scientific American article showing Buran on
Energiya, I'd now say both Energiya flights used four strap-on boosters.  Some
notes I made when trying to calculate its liftoff thrust show that I knew this
at one time, so I just forgot in the interim.  (Sigh.  Age-onset amnesia?)

>        But pre-launch & launch photos of the 1st flight of Energiya
>(eg. pp. 163, 166, & 176 in The Soviet Manned Space Program by Phillip
>Clark 1988, ISBN 0-517-56954-X) clearly show 4 strap-ons, paired 2 to
>a side; p. 176 shows 3.

That's what it looks like to me.

Just to add more information, I'll mention that I've also read that Energiya is
7.5 tons overweight, which decreases its payload by an equal amount.
--
Chris Jones    [e-mail]

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

Date: 11 Aug 92 02:43:46 GMT
From: Matthew DeLuca <[e-mail]>
Subject: Energiya's role in Space Station assem
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>>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.

No, I am not saying that.

Energia has flown twice, with problems on at least one of those flights, so
the reliability of the system is fairly dubious.  If we put a third of our
station on one and it blows up, are you going to trust them when they say
"now we've got it fixed"?

In comparison, the Shuttle has some fifty launches under its belt, and we
understand it pretty well.  If we lose another one it will *probably*
(unless there's an ongoing problem like the O-rings that we haven't heard
about yet) be from a one-time event like a manufacturing defect or freak
weather problem.  The system itself is tried and true; Energia is not.

>>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.

At what cost to the program?  When was the last time the station was funded
at the full request?  This huge and lasting support certainly isn't enough to
ensure that it's funded properly.  I consider it still hanging by a thin
political thread.

>Those 'useless backups' are called risk reduction.

To use the case with the HL rockets, I fail to see how starting two new
development projects is less risky than using a system that is functional
and in place.

>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.

No, situation is more like if someone came up with a plan that would save
$4 billion on the surface, but required spending $3.5 billion to fix up.

"Here's this plan that will save you $500 million per year.  All you have to
do is shut down 20 domestic car plants, go into a joint venture with a
Russian automotive carmaker, develop four new lines of vehicles, including
two that run on electricity.  Your savings should start in approximately
2005."

That's closer to what you are proposing, and I can't say I agree.  There are
far too many points of failure in all the new development needed for me to
trust your ideas.

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

>Because it provides more and better capability.

It's already been established by a number of people that the actual capability
is *less*, but you refuse to acknowledge that.

>My allocation of the savings buys us:

>1. An unmanned return vehicle

Of lower capability, less gentle return, and running on theoretical
technology.

>2. Cheaper launch costs

Paper launch costs are always cheaper.

>3. A lunar base

Your $20 billion cost estimate for this is ludicrous.  If the station is
going to cost $30 billion, how are you going to make a lunar base for less?

>4. Two separate HLV's

I agree this would be useful.  However, if these HLV designs are so wonderful,
why don't the companies build them and let the world beat a path to their
door?  If they can't fly without a guaranteed government-subsidized market,
I have to wonder about their true viability.

>5. Two separate SSTO development efforts

We've got one underway.  I agree a second one would be nice, although if you
consider NASP, we really have two as it is.

>6. An orbital maneuvering vehicle.

Agreed, useful.  Not that it can handle payloads the size of the ones the
Shuttle can deal with, but still handy.

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

"All this, and more!"

If you really believe that all those costs are accurate for twenty years
into the future, I have a set of Ginsu knives to sell you.

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

Again, the OTV and heavy-lift rockets would be useful.  I disagree that we
have to scrap our entire current infrastructure to get them, though.

>>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.

Considering that these whiz-bang changes can't take effect until sometime
around 1997 at the earliest, let's just say I disbelieve you.

>>There are also political concerns and capability concerns.

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

If you consider "we don't want to do that anyway" as a form of address, I
suppose you are right:

Me: "What if we want to return a 30,000 lb piece of sensitive equipment?"

You (and others, to be sure): "We don't want to do that anyway"

>>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.

I just showed one above, so your statement is incorrect.

>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).

Let me get this straight: Freedom can do more science than Freedom and
the Shuttle together?

Remember, your plan eliminates any science capability independent of the
station.  If we lose the station for whatever reason, we really *will*
have to beg the Russians for a ride.

--
Matthew DeLuca                      "I'd hire the Dorsai, if I knew their
Georgia Institute of Technology      P.O. box."
Office of Information Technology                - Zebediah Carter,
Internet: [e-mail]              _The Number of the Beast_

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

Date: 11 Aug 92 01:26:52 GMT
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Home made rockets
Newsgroups: sci.space

-From: [e-mail] (Bob Pendelton)
-Subject: Re: Home made rockets
-Date: 10 Aug 92 20:18:04 GMT
-Organization: HaL Computer Systems, Inc.

-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.

In the Washington area, two different groups of kids managed to kill themselves
making bombs. They had access to a bulletin board that gave detailed
instructions on bomb fabrication, no doubt written by experts who were
highly skilled and always careful. The teenagers had the interest, but not
the skill or the caution. A third group succeeded in building the bombs,
then used them to try to blow up the houses of neighbors they didn't like.

If kids really want to learn about pyrotechnics, and if they're bright
enough, they can learn it by detailed study of advanced chemistry texts.
By the time they know enough to do anything, they've probably learned
enough to understand the danger of what they're doing, and to exercise
considerable caution. If well-meaning experts decide to pass out the
predigested assembly instructions to everybody, then there will be plenty
of idiots and novices who try it without understanding what they're getting
into.

John Roberts
[e-mail]

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

Date: 11 Aug 92 02:02:26 GMT
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Home made rockets
Newsgroups: sci.space

-From: [e-mail] (Richard Martin)
-Subject: Re: Home made rockets
-Keywords: rockets, fire, injuries, pain, blood, scorch marks
-Date: 10 Aug 92 15:54:30 GMT
-Organization: Carp Systems International, Kanata, ON

-Here's a very simple, safe, easy and challenging part of model
-rocketry.  With a little common sense, nobody can get hurt...
-and it's cheap, too.

-Take a match, preferably one out of a match book with a blue head.
-Wrap the head tightly in aluminium foil, leaving an exhaust port.
-Deform a paper clip to about a 30 degree angle, and place the
-match `rocket' on top.

Just so long as nobody tries to "improve" the design by adding more match
heads or strengthening the containment. Match phosphor has a reputation as
a powerful and unstable propellant/explosive.

One source I read stated that just three match heads once propelled a
quarter-inch steel bolt so that it flew right through a glass window,
hit a concrete wall, and knocked a big chip out of the wall.

Safety goggles are also strongly recommended for any work involving
flammable materials and oxidizers.

John Roberts
[e-mail]

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

Date: 11 Aug 92 03:07:23 GMT
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Home made rockets
Newsgroups: sci.space

-From: [e-mail] (Steve J. Quest)
-Subject: Re: Home made rockets
-Date: 8 Aug 92 22:10:07 GMT
-Organization: Iowegia Waffle BBS, Clive IA USA, [phone]

[e-mail] (Frederick A. Ringwald) writes:
-> Please DO NOT DO THIS, for the sake of your safety and the safety of
-> everyone around you. This is a very good way to get KILLED or SEVERELY
-> MUTILATED.

-        I think you are broadbrushing a might when you say that
-nobody can safely manufacture their own engines.  Daily I work
-with high power optical radiations, and the lethal high voltages
-associated with their production.  Needless to say, safety is
-something I am always thinking about.

And of course you're highly trained in your field. If only a fraction of
the people who try to build their own rocket engines *aren't* trained,
and only one rocket engine builder in a hundred gets seriously injured, that's
still a pretty high price to pay. In the interest of safety, I think it's
better to give out the general instruction "please don't do it", then perhaps
to discuss situations that might be exceptions.

-        I also used to manufacture my own engines as a kid.  The
-best all purpose "cheap" fuel I came up with was "Black Jack
-Roofing Tar" mixed with Potassium Chlorate as the oxidizer.

Potassium or sodium chlorate was what the little brother of a friend of a
friend tried as an oxidizer. It detonated while he was assembling it, and
punched so many holes through his intestine that he died horribly of
infection within a few days. Whichever one he used, I think it has a
pretty poor reputation for stability in amateur use.

-I used fired clay nozzles (ceramic, per se) and
-aluminum engine casings.

Nozzles are another extremely critical item. If not made just right, they
either don't work properly or cause the rocket to explode.

-Deployment was electronic on my rockets,
-many of which had radio transmitting beacons.

-Safety features were built into all of my rockets with
-40 kilo or greater fuel loads.

Forty kilograms!? That's way up into the range of "lock you up and throw
away the key if they catch you".

-        If someone comes up to me and asks me how to make engines
-for experimental rockets, I will be more than happy to help them -
-provided that they make SAFETY a primary concern.

Maybe they'll be careful - but what if they tell someone else who isn't
careful?

-One can only have fun in science
-if they are able to grow beyond the preset limits that government
-or society set.

Some of the recombinant DNA people certainly seem to feel that way! :-)
A high percentage of the old Superman episodes dealt with scientists who
got carried away with their experimentation.

But I don't think this is a good lifelong philosophical approach to learning.
For the most part, if a specific law is unduly restrictive, efforts should
go toward changing the law.

If you're right, maybe we could promote safer science education by selecting
some innocuous scientific experiments and banning them - for instance, make
it illegal to mix vinegar and baking soda. :-)

[Another post]
-Mechanical guidance was required, as usual with long fuel burns.
-Night launches were spectacular, as you would get a column of
-white fire at least 5 times longer than the rocket itself....sq

Sounds like you were really a top-notch rocket designer. Probably not
one amateur rocket designer in a thousand could do as well as you did. So
what was reasonably safe for you could still be very dangerous for others.
I learned early not to hand a big Fresnel lens to a random person outdoors -
the usual instinctive reaction is to try to look at the sun through it!

John Roberts
[e-mail]

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

Date: 10 Aug 92 22:52:09 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Home made rockets
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Frederick A. Ringwald) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>
>[e-mail] writes:
>
>> I have recently got into the field of making home-made rockets and have
>> been experimenting with various types of cheap, readily availible fuels and
>> cannisters.
>[...]
>> Launch sites have
>> proved to be a bit of a problem as with the current state of political
>> affairs here, we are a touch scared of being arrested.
>>
>> If anyone has any new/different ideas for fuels, chemical components,
>> homemade flares, please let me know.
>
>
>Please DO NOT DO THIS, for the sake of your safety and the safety of
>everyone around you. This is a very good way to get KILLED or SEVERELY
>MUTILATED.
>
>If you enjoy building and flying rockets, please see the newsgroup
>rec.models.rockets. Their FAQ gives a good introduction to the hobby of
>model rocketry, which if practiced carefully, is safe and a lot of fun.
>Model rocketry isn't expensive: I paid for, built, and flew my first
>models when I was 10. Model rockets aren't really toys, either: good
>ones can fly over 1000m high, can glide or parachute down, and you can
>have multistaged rockets or even flying scale models of famous
>spacecraft, such as the Saturn V.
>
>But DON'T make you own engines, and follow the safety rules. I also
>know a father who, with his son, was making homemade rockets and not
>bothering to test them for flightworthiness (also called aerodynamic
>stability), and furthermore was igniting them in a non-standard and
>patently unsafe manner (instead of using a safety-certified electrical
>launcher, they were sticking lit punks into the rocket engines'
>nozzles). One of the rockets shot up and burned his eye, damaging his
>cornea severely. I hope he was eventually all right: he sure didn't
>look it when I last saw him.
>
>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!
>
>Fred Ringwald

This is the standard party line of the *model* rocketry enthusiasts,
but it's a result of the "complete safety at any price" mentality of
modern American society. Homemade rockets, and homemade rocket engines,
*can* be extremely dangerous, but no more so than riding a motorcycle
or rock climbing if practiced with a bit of common sense. Common sense
is required, especially in firing and flying free projectiles. You
should launch from behind a berm and make sure the area out to the
maximum possible impact range is clear of people. When making rocket
fuel, you should be as cautious as ammunition reloaders and amateur
chemists. You *can* have an explosion or fire at any time. Your fuel
lab *shouldn't* be your kitchen unless you are willing to lose your
house. Don't make or store big batches of fuel. Use protective equipment.
Obey all local laws and zoning restrictions. Get permission to use any
range facilities, etc.

The book "Rocketry for Amateurs" has range designs, rocket designs,
fuel recipies, and intensive safety precaution information for the
amateur rocketeer. You don't have to limit yourself to Estes models.
If you don't take the proper precautions, you're as dangerous as
someone randomly firing a high power rifle in a shopping mall. In
*that* case, you deserve to be arrested. Carmel candy rocket fuel
is *extremely* dangerous to handle. Unless you have remote controlled
fuel processing equipment, I'd recomend that you change to zinc/sulphur
or some other mixture that doesn't require melting the fuel. Forget
about black powder. Another name for a black powder rocket is *pipe
bomb*.

Gary

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

Date: 11 Aug 92 01:46:29 GMT
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: HST management, Earth pointing
Newsgroups: sci.space

-From: [e-mail] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
-Subject: HST management, Earth pointing (was Re: Hubble used for spying?)
-Date: 10 Aug 92 16:33:19 GMT
-Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory

-In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (John Roberts) writes:
-> This was a contributing factor to the mirror aberration - DoD essentially
-> told NASA to keep their noses out of the fabrication process, because they
-> were uncomfortable about having civilians knowing about the classified
-> portions of the process. As a result, NASA didn't have enough supervisory
-> presence to catch the errors Hughes Danbury made.

-There is not the only reason.  NASA was also trying to keep project
-management costs to a minimum, so they tried to keep the HST staff
-small and give the contractors lots of freedom.  This approach
-receives lots of praise from critics when it works!

Ah yes, the government "hands-off" technique that worked so well with the
savings and loans. :-)

That is another reason. During fabrication, the HST budget was cut
substantially. I believe in the hearings it was stated that at one point
there were only three NASA inspectors, where for a project of that cost
and complexity they would normally have used eight. So it was probably a
combination of DoD pressure and budget pressure that kept NASA involvement
lower than it should have been.

-> I'm not sure, but when HST is pointed at the Earth for half of each orbit,
-> I think the door in front of the telescope aperture is kept closed until
-> Earth is out of the way. There must be a reaction wheel routine programmed
-> to compensate for the opening and closing of this door.

-This sounds wrong to me.  I thought they just avoided pointing at
-Earth.  But I don't really know.  Perhaps someone more familiar with
-HST operations can comment.

If it doesn't, then most of the sky will be off limits most of the time.
HST isn't really meant to maneuver very rapidly, and some of the exposure
times stated are nearly half of an orbit.

There are operational rules on the minimum angle between the axis of the
telescope and the sun/moon/Earth when the door is open. Uncertainty about
the current angles (as in the case of the recent faulty upload) is one of
the things that puts HST into safe mode. In addition, I believe there's
a photodetector to close the door autonomously if HST is pointed too close
to a bright object.

John Roberts
[e-mail]

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

Date: 11 Aug 92 02:55:16 GMT
From: "Frederick A. Ringwald" <[e-mail]>
Subject: SPS
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] (John Roberts) writes:

> -Even if
> -you could import diamonds from the Moon, gold from the asteroids, or
> -star sapphires from Mars, could you beat the transportation costs?
>
> Gem-quality diamonds from the moon, probably so, and gold from the asteroids,
> maybe, provided you didn't flood the market. Both of these would require at
> least minor advances in current technology.

You're kidding, aren't you? Got any numbers to back up these assertions?

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

Date: 11 Aug 92 00:06:00 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: SPS feasibility (WAS: SPS fouling astronomy)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Frederick A. Ringwald) writes...
>Again, kindly supply numbers and literature references. Otherwise, how
>can I tell if your arguments aren't just anecdotal?
>
>Laser transmission from the Moon takes care of sky brightness and radio
>static problems, but still leaves atmospheric heating open. (It also
>dispenses with a traditional geostationary SPS advantage, perpetual
>power transmission, but this is relatively minor: power companies today
>store enormous amounts of reserve power by pumping water uphill.)
>
>Most seriously, too, it has not addressed the issue of cost.
>
The cost is covered during a general buildup of lunar resource development
Reference the Lunar materials development papers of the last few years for
numbers.  A very up to date set is from the ASCE Space 92 conference June 1-5
1992 in Denver CO.  Look Especially for Dr. Criswell's papers on the subject.
Also the Marshall Space Flight Center and NASA HQ is funding preliminary
studies on cost and feasablity.

>> although to carry your analogy to its logical
>> conclusion we must turn off all of our lights at night and quit buring
>> fossil fuels due to the degradation it causes to astronomy.
>
>That's taking it to its logical extreme, a little different from taking
>it to its logical conclusion, but it'd suit me fine, all the same.
>
>> Yes it will mean a greatly increased standard of living for a variety of
>> reasons.
>
>Again, WHAT reasons? Electric cars do not require SPS for their
>development.

No but converting a transportation infrastructure that runs on billions of
gallons on Hydrocarbons per year to one of running on Terawatts of electricity
will require a vast increase in electrical production. Where else are you
going to get the energy in a non, polluting manner. The thermal pollution of
SPS is miniscule compared to tradtional technologies.  Also the laser is tuned
to a frequency that will not be absorbed by the atmosphere.

>> All development of solar tech in the U.S. is carried out by SDIO and they
>> just got their throat cut by congress critters pushing bread and circuses
>> at the expense of the future.
>
>Did you say all? This is news to me.
>
Too bad you don't read the news.  There is some work being done by Sharp of
Japan on BSFR enhanced silicon cells. They are the only ones outside of SDIO
doing any meaningful work.  Here is a list of the developments and the sponsors

AlGaAs/CuInSe2 thin film tandem cells [Boeing Defense & Space & Kopin Corp]
GaAs/Ge tandem cells [TRW]
Amorphus (sp) silicon cells [sponsored by Larry Labs]

There is no other development except a little by TI that I read about recently.
The first two above are high efficiency cells (over 22% with Boeing up to 37%
for the concentrators and 26% on Planar) For more information here I suggest
you read my and my partner's paper on the SEDSAT 1 advanced power system
technology demonstration satellite from last year's Small Sat Conference.

>> No we say that we must finally open up the last frontier to development. No
>> single technology or service from space will justify the expense BUT, taken
>> together, the development of the resources of the solar system, whether it
>> be solar energy from space, materials from the Moon, asteroids, and other
>> planets will raise the planetary standard of living to a height that will
>> make today look like the abode of dirt dwellers.
>

>What does this mean? It has a religious ring to it. Energy might work
>(the point of this thread is to find out), but why should we want to
>import bulk material from space to Earth? Few extraterrestrial ores
>match the quality of those found on Earth, save for iron-nickel
>asteroids, and there's already plenty of steel in landfills. Even if
>you could import diamonds from the Moon, gold from the asteroids, or
>star sapphires from Mars, could you beat the transportation costs?
>Lunar chromium doesn't seem inviting. He3 remains speculative, much
>more so than SPS. And there is NO market for lunar oxygen on Earth.
>There might be one in space, but this seems like a circular argument:
>there isn't, if there's no *other* reason to go into space.

This is a flame and meant to be a flame. If you are so stupid that you do not
know what this means why don't you pull your head out of the sand and read the
papers. The Rio summit endorsed only ONE space technology and that was laser
power beaming from the moon. In case you have not read we are running out of
almost all of the easily obtainable minerals here on Earth. Don't quote me
your stupid statistics about percentages in the earth's crust. i know them
as well as you. What you do not seem to see is that to get at those percentages
we would have to pollute the world to an extrem extent just to keep up with
preseent growth in the second world, not to mention the development of the
third world's standard of living. They want cars and computers and bridges
just like you in your comfortable American world.  There is a great big
world out there, wake up to it.

>> This will allow the
>> Ethopians, our perennial starving masses to irrigate there land and finally
>> grow enough food to be taken off the planetary welfare roll
>
>This assumes an end to the civil war there, which is largely an ethnic
>conflict. If you can get these people to stop hating each other and
>peacefully coexist, more power to you.

Abraham Maslow in his text on psychology identified a heirarchy of wants and
needs. Formost among them is food and shelter.  That is the underlying cause
of the war in Ethopia at this moment.  The struggle just happens to be
tribaly not ethnically. Eritrian separtist movement is a tribal movement and
so are most of the rest in Africa. Food comes before race and you protect your
family (tribe) first.

The SPS will help those who want to be helped. It can be used to rasie our
standared of living without the destructiveness of raping the resources of the
Earth. I propose that it is wise in your own conceit people like yourself that
throughout history have played the role of opposition to the future by
ridiculing the Columbus's, and Wrights and Goddards and VonBrauns of the world.

Part of religion is passion and yes I have a passion for the exploration and
development of space, not for the sake of that exploration and development
as and end in and of it self, but for the betterment of the lives of us
all here on earth.  I sure as heck have not seen your name associated with
anything doing that.

I don't usually go this orbital on a post like that but somtimes the arrogance
and presumption of the poster just begs for it.

Dennis Wingo, University of Alabama in Huntsville.

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

Date: 10 Aug 92 23:47:15 GMT
From: Tyler Brown <[e-mail]>
Subject: Topex/Poseidin is Away!
Newsgroups: sci.space

    Topex/Poseiden has just successfully launched!

        [e-mail]

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

Date: 11 Aug 92 02:26:06 GMT
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Whales and dolphins
Newsgroups: sci.space

-From: [e-mail] (Frank Teusink)
-Subject: Re: Whales and Dolphins
-Date: 10 Aug 92 09:18:57 GMT

[e-mail] (John Roberts) writes:
-[(a reaction on) a discussion on the intelligence of whales]

-To me, it seems rather pointless to discuss whether or not whales and
-dolphins have "intelligence", because we just do not have a clear
-enough understanding of what "intelligence" means. Our understanding
-of human intelligence is somewhat better. If we look at the amount of
-"human-intelligence" of whales, they seem to score rather low (beachings
-and the like).  The problem with  this is most people feel that this
-is not fair with respect to the  whales (I do). So, it seems interesting
-to look for the reason why there is this difference between our
-""objective"" understandig of intelligence and the "thing" whales seem
-to have.

I agree - I've been trying in my posts to center on intelligence as it
relates to humans. Human intelligence has many dimensions, some more easily
definable than others. The main interest for humans in the intelligence
of other species is in how they might interact with humans. A hypothetical
species that has a powerful brain but just uses it to sit there and meditate,
without even any attempt at communication, would not be of much interest to
humans, though we might want to identify them so as to avoid inadvertently
eating an intelligent species. Both killer whales and dolphins can interact
considerably with humans, and are thus deserving of some consideration for the
potential of their intelligence, though it's clear that they're not
"humans with fins".

Even mice and rats have very sophisticated brains in some respects, but that
doesn't cause me to feel that we should grant them admission to the UN. :-)

-Frank Teusinl

-P.S. Why is this thread in sci.space?

The original topic was SETI, and how we might identify intelligence in life
forms we find elsewhere. From this the topic extended to how we might
identify intelligence in other species on Earth. Since it's fairly clear
that chimpanzees and gorillas are pretty intelligent, the discussion centered
on the more difficult subject of whales.

John Roberts
[e-mail]

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

Date: 
P
From: [e-mail]

Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro
Subject: Re: Hubble used for spying? + other neat info
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: 10 Aug 92 23:14:26 GMT
Article-I.D.: uoft02.1992Aug10.181427.9315
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services
Lines: 32
Sender: [e-mail]
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]



> While perfectly good, the HSP has not been the most productive instrument.
> It takes almost 30 minutes to ramp up the potential for observing but
> it has to be shut down for earth crossings - somthing that happens frequently
> in a low earth orbit.
>

Correction:


As was pointed out to me by a very frustrated memeber of the HSP team, the
instrument is working quite well and the above information is incorrect.
As it came from sources who should know I was not aware it was not correct.
I am sorry for any confusion this may have caused.



>
> Also they will be upgrading the onboard computer system to something
> approaching a real computer including a 386 processor.  That will be a big
> help.
>
>

And point of fact, I never claimed a cray or amiga, I just commented that
this was a significant improvement - granted almost anything would be.

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Robert Dempsey
 Joint Institute for Laboratory Astrophysics
 Boulder, CO

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 096
------------------------------