Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V15_0/V15NO098.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 35KB

Date: Wed, 12 Aug 92 05:00:08
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #098
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Wed, 12 Aug 92       Volume 15 : Issue 098

Today's Topics:
                   Capsule location list (at last!)
              CONSCIOUSNESS AND SCIENCE DISCUSSION GROUP
           Energiya's role in Space Station assem (5 msgs)
                   Germans drop European Shuttle ?
                      Home made rocket follow up
                          Home made rockets
          Optus I-B/Long March launch scheduled 2300Z 13 Aug
                        Seeding Mars with life
                       Star Trek (anti-)realism

    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: 11 Aug 92 15:19:41 GMT
From: John Methot <[e-mail]>
Subject: Capsule location list (at last!)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <aero.713460930@io> [e-mail] (Aero Student Account) writes:
>
>     A long time ago, someone asked about the present locations of
>some capsules; I said I had a list and would post it in a few days.
>Well, after a month, I finally found the list.
>
>     My main source is an article titled "Where Have All the
>Spacecraft Gone?" from the October, 1985 issue of _Space_World_.
>
>Abbreviations:
>
>ASRC  - Alabama Space & Rocket Center, Huntsville, AL
>JSC   - Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX
>KSC   - Kennedy Space Center, Cape Canaveral, FL
>LM    - Lunar Module
>LTA   - Lunar Training Article
>MA    - Mercury - Atlas
>MR    - Mercury - Redstone
>NASM  - National Air and Space Museum, Washington, D.C.
>USAFM - United States Air Force Museum, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH
>
>
>Spacecraft                         Location
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
...
>Skylab (unknown #)                 Junkyard near KSC
...
Is there a NASA junkyard, or does this refer to the private "collection"
just south of KSC that contains the dismembered SST mockup?

My curiosity was also piqued by the reference to a Gemini capsule being stored
"in the Titan silo with the Challenger debris."  Can someone elaborate
(succinctly, since I assume this was discussed at the time)?  Where is
this Titan silo and why is the Challenger debris stored there?  Is this
a symbolic tomb or is there a more technical reason for using a silo?

BTW, this list was fascinating, thanks for posting it!

John Methot

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

Date: 11 Aug 92 14:38:46 GMT
From: Cameron Randale Bass <[e-mail]>
Subject: CONSCIOUSNESS AND SCIENCE DISCUSSION GROUP
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian,soc.college,talk.religion.misc,talk.origins,sci.math,sci.chem,sci.misc,sci.bio.technology,sci.physics,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David C. Chorlian) writes:
>
>
>In sci.math you write:
>
>
>>     Compare the scientific breakthroughs in Victorian England where
>>     nothing much of note was happening socially.  Compare breakthroughs
>>     in the US between 1947 and 1960 when nothing much exciting
>>     was happening socially.
>
>In fact, Victorian England was the site of perhaps the biggest
>social change in human history--from an agrarian to an industrial
>society.  The fact that this occured without a great deal of
>overt violence does not mean that nothing was happening.  And it
>is not difficult to embed Darwin's course of development in
>the general context of social and cultural life.  And then
>what about Duhem's remarks about the difference between
>French and English physicists--could this be related to the
>different social contexts from which they came?

     Certainly there are differences in great agglomerations of
     people.  I believe below I stated 'other than the obvious
     effects societies have on their pursuits'.

     However, I would claim that society remained much the
     same for a very large timespan in Victorian England.  If
     insist otherwise, then you would have to insist that there
     is *always* something happening of note (the cold war was going
     on during the other timespan that I mentioned, probably the
     most dangerous period in human history if you want to take this
     tack).  As far as Darwin goes, it certainly is not difficult to
     put his work in social context for the time, especially since
     his work was used a posteriori by a number of people to justify
     things that they were going to do anyway.  This certainly does
     not say anything about the a priori significance of social
     context in the development of the theory (I suspect that
     the fact that society allowed him a bunch of free time and
     a free ride was of much more importance).

>>      Claiming great concurrent undercurrents of history between
>>      social history and scientific history (other than the obvious
>>      effects societies have on their pursuits) is a bit far-fetched.
>>      It strikes me as a bit Marxist, and we all know how successful
>>      this has been at describing/predicting economic systems.
>
>Some parts of Marx's work is quite useful in illuminating the
>capitalist process of production, even prescient for the time
>when it was written.  It's stupid to take it dogmatically, and
>equally stupid to think it can only be taken dogmatically.

     This certainly was not dogmatic.  It was simply the recognition
     that the 'great currents' idea seems to be held in common by
     both Marx and the previous poster.  I believe that the 'great
     currents' idea has pretty much fallen by the wayside in
     Economics (though there are always holdouts).  As far as the usefulness
     of other parts of Marx's work, I suppose that is always open
     to debate, though probably not appropriate here.

     One final comment:  humans are very good at finding patterns,
     even when they do not exist.

                                dale bass
--
C. R. Bass                                           [e-mail]
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            [phone]

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

Date: 11 Aug 92 12:36:28 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:

>Energia has flown twice, with problems on at least one of those flights, so
>the reliability of the system is fairly dubious.

Mr. DeLuca, this is why they make test flights.

For a very small amount of money we can find out. If it works, we save
billions. If it doesn't, we haven't lost much. Plug that into any decision
model and it will tell you that it is a good idea.

Your main problem is that cost seems to be the one consideration that you
don't consider valid.

>>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?

1992.

>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.

With three consecutive 2 to 1 votes in favor of it? You can't possible
be serious.

>>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.

Well for one thing, it gives us backup incase this functional system fails.
It also saves us billions and won't cost us a cent if it doesn't work.

>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.

You mean we would save $500 million! Well that's horrible. I can certainly
see why you wouldn't want to do that. I mean, what if everybody did that?
Well pretty soon, space would become affordable and access would be easy.
We can't let that happen.

>"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."

In other words, thinking for the long run is a bad idea.

>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.

The Shuttle remains as a backup until the entire system becomes operational.
If it works we save billions, if not, we loose nothing. Why does that bother
you so much?

>>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.

The only area is in material return. I have seen no specific criticisms
of that, only vague statements that it might not work or that it doesn't
exist and therefore will never exist.

So tell us Mr. Deluca, how much do you suppose this vehicle would cost
both to develop and operate? After you have done that we can then see
if there will be savings or not.

>>1. An unmanned return vehicle

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

Perfectly adaquate technology. As to the theoretical technology, I don't
consider the Apollo capsule theoretical technology.

>>2. Cheaper launch costs

>Paper launch costs are always cheaper.

Remember, we don't pay a dime until they meet the agreed launch price.
If they fail, we loose nothing and if it works we will have cut launch
costs by 90% compared to Shuttle.

Why is that such a bad idea?

>>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?

The obvious answer is because it will use Freedom components and is therfore
off the shelf. More importantly, most of the Freedom design money was wasted.

>>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?

Because there is no market. Providing supplies to Freedom could be a market
which wold be valuable to commercial space AND save us money. However, you
seem to consider both bad ideas.

>If they can't fly without a guaranteed government-subsidized market,
>I have to wonder about their true viability.

Nobody is asking for a subsidy. All they are asking for is to be able
to compete.

>>5. Two separate SSTO development efforts

>We've got one underway.

Only because NASA isn't funding it. NASA can't fund it because they have
a full plate with Freedom and Shuttle. The two consume all their money.

>I agree a second one would be nice, although if you
>consider NASP, we really have two as it is.

I suppose. But why do you consider a dead program as a fallback?

NASP was killed this year. It had to be to pay for Freedom and the Shuttle.

>>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.

OK, get specific. Tell us the requirements, justify those requirements,
and then tell us the cost.

>>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!"

Do the numbers Mr. DeLuca and tell me where you don't agree.

>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.

As a basis for comparison they are just fine. Sure inflation will add
cost but it will add cost to Shuttle faster. BTW, my costs are actually
high since I assume vehicles are bought in quanity of one. Under this
plan you would buy Atlas's a dozen at a time which would more than double
Atlas production. This would result in significant savings.

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

Since you haven't shown it cannot be done at the estimated costs, your
assessment cannot be considered valid. Again: post your requirements,
justification, and assessment of cost.

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

That would come under justification.

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

Yep. Ending Shuttle frees up billions which could accomplish much more
science. Again, you refust to consider cost of your actions.

>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.

Tell you what, let's compromise. At the time we are taling about Freedom
will be designed so that replacements could be built for maybe three
billion each. I'll can the Lunar base and build six additional Freedom
stations just for you. That way we won't have all our eggs in one basket.

  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?"                               |
+----------------------255 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: 11 Aug 92 12:59:02 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:

[Lots of stuff]

Allen, I guess I have to concede the discussion.  Part of the problem I have
with your plan is that you require absolutely no justification for your
numbers; any number quoted to you by anyone who has a new idea is automatically
accepted as accurate and valid.  For the simple reason that those numbers
have no basis in reality, I can neither confirm nor refute them.
--
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 14:50:37 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Energiya's role in Space Station assem
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>>But if you use Energia, mass isn't a problem anymore. The internal NASA
>>report on using Energia has it up with four Energia and Shuttle flights;
>>that leaves plenty for whatever you want.

>Any chance of getting a summary of that internal report on the Net?

I asked my source again who said no.  Suffice it to say that it was
generated in the Reson Program office for Freedom. They broke Freedom
into three payloads with a fourth as a spare and intend to launch, meet
a Shuttle, and do assembly. They may also have budgeted one or two
Energia flights to show reliability.

   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?"                               |
+----------------------255 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: 11 Aug 92 14:37:44 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:

>Allen, I guess I have to concede the discussion.  Part of the problem I have
>with your plan is that you require absolutely no justification for your
>numbers;

Bullshit. My Soyuz numbers come from the company suthorized to sell them in
the US. My Atlas and Titan numbers come from the list price of those launch
vehicles. My HLV numbers come from the contractors after a multi-million $$
design effort by experienced engineers. My numbers for return vehicle are
based on NASA estimates for HL-20 and similar lifting bodies. There is
EXTENSIVE and redundant justification for all of them.

When you can refute them with more substance then 'well maybe not' then
I will agree. What's wrong with these numbers?  You seem to think that
it is impossible to come anywhere close to the cost of anything until
it is actually built. I agree that this is the case with normal govenrment
procurement but that is not what we are talking about. Boeing is building
a brand new aricraft yet they are willing to agree on the price and
performance today. When GM builds a car they can tell you the cost before
they begin. I myslef spend a lot of time writing and costing proposals. If
I don't do a good job we either don't get the work or loose money on the
job.

   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?"                               |
+----------------------255 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: Tue, 11 Aug 92 15:20:09 GMT
From: Doug Mohney <[e-mail]>
Subject: Energiya's role in Space Station assem
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>>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.
>
>You mean we would save $500 million! Well that's horrible. I can certainly
>see why you wouldn't want to do that. I mean, what if everybody did that?
>Well pretty soon, space would become affordable and access would be easy.
>We can't let that happen.

Yes, but your random allegations imply we save $4 billion and can spend $4
billion on other projects, Mr. Sherzer.

This is where Matt and I have a problem with your magic math.

>>"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."
>
>In other words, thinking for the long run is a bad idea.

With the current budget situtation, it is extremely difficult to fund long-lead
items. As noted, NASA does not operate under a multi-year budget.

>>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.
>
>The Shuttle remains as a backup until the entire system becomes operational.
>If it works we save billions, if not, we loose nothing. Why does that bother
>you so much?

You left out money to keep Shuttle(s) running. And excuse me, if you lose your
"system," you've pissed away both time (experiments sitting on the ground which
could have been launched by shuttle) and money.

>>>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.
>
>The only area is in material return. I have seen no specific criticisms
>of that, only vague statements that it might not work or that it doesn't
>exist and therefore will never exist.

No, material return is not the only area. Flexablity of vehicle is another
which you hand-wave. You cannot say that:

    1 tin-can, cramped space, 3 people, limited on-orbit movement

                =

    7 people, lots of space, plenty of tools, large manovering envelope,
    anywhere from 7 to 28 days on orbit. Oh yah. CANADARM.

We've had people who have SAT IN a Soyuz call you on your hand-waving "we
can just cram' em in" figures. Perhaps they're less credible because they've
actually worked with the hardware ?

>>>1. An unmanned return vehicle
>
>>Of lower capability, less gentle return, and running on theoretical
>>technology.
>
>Perfectly adaquate technology. As to the theoretical technology, I don't
>consider the Apollo capsule theoretical technology.

Oh? Now you're going to rebuilt Apollo too? Hmm. My, what a big cash register
you have.

>>>2. Cheaper launch costs
>>Paper launch costs are always cheaper.
>Remember, we don't pay a dime until they meet the agreed launch price.
>If they fail, we loose nothing and if it works we will have cut launch
>costs by 90% compared to Shuttle.

Sure. And we have Shuttle grounded until you prove it's cheaper. Or we are
funding both Shuttle and your exploratory projects. Despite the fact (FACT)
NASA has to fight for money to keep good probes already running. Despite the
fact you have to fight to keep SDI/SSTO funded.

>As a basis for comparison they are just fine. Sure inflation will add
>cost but it will add cost to Shuttle faster. BTW, my costs are actually
>high since I assume vehicles are bought in quanity of one. Under this
>plan you would buy Atlas's a dozen at a time which would more than double
>Atlas production. This would result in significant savings.

Actually, you're trying to claim being pessimistic on a very optimistic set of
numbers.

>>Let me get this straight: Freedom can do more science than Freedom and
>>the Shuttle together?
>
>Yep. Ending Shuttle frees up billions which could accomplish much more
>science. Again, you refust to consider cost of your actions.

Oh, myth, myth. It's already been established if a stake is put through
Freedom's heart, it will NOT result in the money being funneled into "new
brilliant" projects. It will end up feeding programs on the ground or the
budget deficit.

>>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.
>
>Tell you what, let's compromise. At the time we are taling about Freedom
>will be designed so that replacements could be built for maybe three
>billion each. I'll can the Lunar base and build six additional Freedom
>stations just for you. That way we won't have all our eggs in one basket.

You are talking nonsense. Freedom dies on the pad, you'll have to fight to get
money for one (1) replacement. Not six.


                 Support U.N. military force against Serbia

  -- >                  [e-mail]                        < --

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

Date: 11 Aug 92 12:00:10 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Germans drop European Shuttle ?
Newsgroups: sci.space

Whilst skimming thru the TV channels last week, I caught sight of the
German research minister, Riesenhuber, saying that Hermes was 'unacceptable'
(not exact translation) to the German government in either manned or unmanned
form. Two days later he showed up at the European Space Operations Centre to
congratulate senior management on the fine job they'd done on Eureca. I'm
cynical enough to believe that when politicians start throwing praise around,
one should watch one's back. The ESA ministerial conference in November will
probably contain some nasty surprises.........

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

Date: 11 Aug 92 15:34:44 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Home made rocket follow up
Newsgroups: sci.space

>
> o  There are currently available reloadable engines up to, I think,
>    20,480 Newton-seconds Specific Impulse! and as small as 20 N-s.
>    Why bother with anything else... these reloadables are much more
>    efficient than anything an individual is likely to make, and
>    MUCH cheaper.
>
> o  Right now us people in HPR (High Powered Rocketry) are having the
>    DOT review the rules for transport of reloadables.  We DO NOT need
>    any negative publicity at the moment, or in the future.
>
> The original poster is just **** out of luck.  I do not remember where
> he is located.  There are quite a few people in the US, Australia,
> New Zealand and the UK that are into amateur rocketry.  These groups
> have been around for a while. Check rec.models.rockets and rec.pyrotechnics
> if you want to get in touch with them.
>
> David Utidjian

I was the original poster of the message and was suprised at the number of
replies that I have recieved. We always have been fairly saftey concious but
with the horror stories that have been posted, we have tripled our saftey
measures.

A number of people suggested rec.models.rockets and rec.pyrotechnics :
Unfortunately these groups have either been discontinued or else we don't get
them.

As for Stes and "cheap and freely availible" model rockets, they are totaly
unavailable here and also happen to be illegal. (Posting from South Africa)
We got one from a friend who came back from the UK and that was what started
the whole interest in it. If we could get hold of them, of course we would use
those instead. We really don't have a death wish.

Thanks for your concern

Mike
"Who dies with the most toys wins!"




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

Date: 11 Aug 92 14:22:34 GMT
From: Dillon Pyron <[e-mail]>
Subject: Home made rockets
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>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.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you   :-)

>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>...
>
>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
This is one thing that is really hurting me.  I'm trying to start a new
company, but all the venture capital people want us to get $25M worth of
liability insurance.  Of course, first year premiums are about what they are
willing to invest.

>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
Sure, but I hauled out a DB when I was actively climbing.  Seems they thought
they were safe, but their rope was woefully inadequate.

>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*.
Before anyone gets started, maybe a little Estes rocketry would be appropriate.
If nothing else, you will avoid reinventing the wheel.  And you learn a little
about safety.

One thing that MUST be understood is the power of this "stuff".  My brother and
I, when we were young and immortal, played with explosives.  Our first trial
involved about 1 oz (30 g to be exact) of ANFO.  Blew a 22 inch diameter hole,
9 inches deep, in a stone foundation (Old East Texas home, abadoned for at
least 20 years).  Properly tamped, but we didn't know how far back to setup.
Didn't get far enough away (ouch).

>
>Gary
>
--
Dillon Pyron                      | The opinions expressed are those of the
TI/DSEG Lewisville VAX Support    | sender unless otherwise stated.
[phone] (when I'm here)     |
[phone] (when I'm home)     | Lawyers are like nuclear warheads, every-
[e-mail]          | body has some, and when you use them, they
                                    f*ck everything up.
                                                  Danny DeVito, _OPM_

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

Date: 11 Aug 1992 15:46:39 GMT
From: George William Herbert <[e-mail]>
Subject: Optus I-B/Long March launch scheduled 2300Z 13 Aug
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gregory N. Bond) writes:
>Launch of the Optus I-B satellite is scheduled for 0900 AEST (+1000)
>August 14 (2300Z August 13) according to reports in todays papers.

We've got a time/date confirmation from the Chief Engineer of the LM3
program (presuming I got his title right) who's here at ISU as a student.

>(Actually, the whole thing is a complete WOMBAT(*) and is the booby prize
>for Optus gaining the licence as the second Australian phone carrier).
>((*) WOMBAT, a large but nearly-blind burrowing mammal of legendary
>stupidity native to Australia. Also SLA: Waste Of Money, Brains And
>Time.)

Well, dunno about that.  I've got some Australian communications engineers
going bonkers over the ideas of having this sat to play with for a few
years. 8-)


-george william herbert
[e-mail]  [e-mail]  [e-mail] until 28 aug
++ copyright 1992 george william herbert. All rights reserved.  Permission   ++
++ granted for Usenet transmission/use and followup/reply articles/mail use  ++

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

Date: 11 Aug 92 10:12:18 GMT
From: Paul Dietz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Seeding Mars with life
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (David Knapp) writes:


|> >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.

There exists abundant water of hydration, and ice, probably.  But *not*
liquid water anywhere near the surface.  The pressure is simply too low.


|> 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.

Life exists at depth on earth only because it also exists at the surface.
Soil organisms decompose organic compounds produced by photosynthesis.
Deep organisms that eat oil run on fossil photosynthetic energy.
Even the "vent" organisms are exploiting the chemical gradient set up
by photosynthesis (they oxidize the reduced chemicals coming out of the
vents), and are therefore not completely geothermally powered.


|> >Liquid water cannot exist
|> >at the surface of Mars.
|>
|> But it can deeper in the regolith.

Irrelevant.


|> >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.

This seems very unlikely.  What could they eat?


|> 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?

Liquid water could not be maintained at the surface.  At depth?  Perhaps,
but what's the energy source for the organisms?



|> >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.

NASA is constrained by a pointless treaty.


|> >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.

The Viking landers looked at spots that were not very dry by Martian
standards.  And, unless you are proposing some magical mechanism
that keeps the carbonaceous debris falling on the planet from ending
up at those sites, the GCMS results do corroborate the aeronomical
information about the oxidizing conditions there.

---

Henry:

I did know about the Surveyor spores.  I didn't consider dormant
spores to be living cells.  They were not undergoing any metabolic
activity, so in an actively hostile environment they could not
repair damage and would eventually become nonviable.

    Paul F. Dietz
    [e-mail]

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

Date: 11 Aug 92 14:22:36 GMT
From: David Parkins <[e-mail]>
Subject: Star Trek (anti-)realism
Newsgroups: sci.space

In response to the statement that no real navy would let a 35 year captain
a ship. Reference Captain John Paul Jones US or Colonial navy during
the US revolutionary war, I'm pretty shure he was around 35 when he got
his first command. He moved up in the stature of ship he commanded by such
acts as capture.


dave parkins

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 098
------------------------------