Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V15_2/V15NO210.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 36KB

Date: Thu, 17 Sep 92 05:06:29
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #210
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Thu, 17 Sep 92       Volume 15 : Issue 210

Today's Topics:
                  Act Now to Support Space Commerce
                            Food in space
Mission Control Status Report for 09/14/92 [#9, 2330 CDT] (Forwarded)
        Moving industry into space (was Re: Who went to Rio?)
                             Moving Venus
                     NASA working on Apollo rerun
                   Pluto Direct Propulsion Options
                   Pulsing rocket engines (2 msgs)
               QUERY Re: Pluto Direct/ options (2 msgs)
             Shuttle Replacement (was: One Small Step...)
                      Small comet impact theory
                STS-47 element set GSFC-012: orbit 49
                   Terraforming needs to begin now
                           Who went to Rio?

    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: Wed, 16 Sep 92 07:29:22 PDT
From: Jim Bowery <[e-mail]>
Subject: Act Now to Support Space Commerce
Newsgroups: sci.space

                      SENATE LEGISLATIVE ALERT
                             FROM THE
                 COALITION FOR SCIENCE AND COMMERCE

Senators Danforth and Hollings are now considering whether to pass a
NASA authorization bill containing key provisions from the Hall/Walker
language for space commercialization.

Time is of the essence.  This will be go/nogo in about a week.

Please >FAX< a LETTER to Hollings at 202/224-4293 and call VOICE to
Danforth at 202/224-6154.

Ask them to introduce and pass the Senate NASA Authorization bill and
mention specifically the launch voucher program and the extention to
the Packard Act of 1990 to include suborbital launches.

--
INTERNET:  [e-mail] (Jim Bowery)
UUCP:   ...!ryptyde!netlink!jim
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA [phone]

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

Date: 16 Sep 92 00:15:10 GMT
From: Bruce Watson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Food in space
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Rui Sousa) writes:
>Anyone can tell me addresses or references on nutricional issues in space?
>I.e. what do astronauts eat nowadays while in orbit and what studies are being conducted on this subject.
>
>Thanks (i surely hope this is not a FAQ...)
>
>Rui

It's not an FAQ. I'm very interested in this too. The food is pretty grim--
worse than airline food (Why do people hate airline food? I think they
do a good job under the circumstances), but it was considerably grimer
during the Mercury-Gemini-Apollo days.

There is a sample 'Space Shuttle Food and Beverage List' in _The Space
Shuttle Operator's Manual_, Joels and Kennedy, Ballantine Books, NY, 1982.
The astronauts may be sophisticated and cerebral but if they chose this
food list, their tastes leave much to be desired. It reads like a
combination of camp food and what pre-teenage kids would eat if their
parents would let them. No wonder the foreign astronauts bring along
their own food.

--
Bruce Watson (wats@scicom)  Tumbra, Zorkovick; Sparkula zoom krackadomando.

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

Date: 16 Sep 92 15:00:12 GMT
From: "John F. Woods" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mission Control Status Report for 09/14/92 [#9, 2330 CDT] (Forwarded)
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Peter E. Yee) writes:
>STS-47 Status Report #9
>Flight controllers today accumulated enough surplus power and breathing air
>to add one extra day to the STS-47 mission should the science team request
>more time.

Somehow, this gives me a mental picture of the flight controllers rummaging
around in their pockets and looking under sofa cushions.

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

Date: 16 Sep 92 14:10:44 GMT
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Moving industry into space (was Re: Who went to Rio?)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <UfzGr*[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jay Denebeim) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]>, Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey writes:
>
> BH> At the moment, "moving some industry off Earth," as a method of
> BH> "saving the environment," must be viewed as pure science fiction.
>
> Gosh, I seem to recall a late-night converstation in the filk room on
> a similar subject.

Was I there?  I don't remember...  by the way, Jay, sorry to miss the
rendezvous for the GPS Delta launch last Tuesday.  I was really,
                                                           really,
                                                               tired.

I couldn't manage to wake up at 0200 and drive to Titusville.  Hope
you found other kindred souls there.  I did get to see it from my
mom's yard, though.  It finally lit off about 0500 and made a nice
yellow flame and noise in the night.  When the solids dropped off they
were a cluster of little red lights floating in the sky.

> Is it SF?  I mean, is it really only possible in fiction using current
> technology, or is it an 'engineering problem'?

Think of the industrial activities doing the most damage to the
environment.

Now think about how much they *weigh*.

Now think about Planet Earth's launch capacity, which is constantly
being discussed here.

This will give you some idea of the problem.

(I hope nobody will explain to me that we won't be lifting the steel
mills of Gary into orbit-- though that *does* happen in some SF
stories.  I just offer this as a thought experiment.)

There is industrial activity in space now.  There will doubtless be
more.  We can hope that costs will come down and space industry will
grow at a rapid rate.  But even in the rosiest scenarios, we are a
long, long way from undertaking replacement of any large fraction of
our most environmentally-nasty industries with spacegoing ones.

If such replacement ever happens, it will be many, many decades from
now.  This may be long enough for the environment to get seriously
worse at current pollution/emission rates.  I think we will have to
deal with these problems by cleaning up Earthbound industries, not by
creating space-based ones.

During the first and second stage         Bill Higgins
flights of the vehicle, if a serious      Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
irretrievable fault should occur and      [e-mail]
the deviation of the flight attitude of   [e-mail]
the vehicle exceeds a predetermined       SPAN/Hepnet: 43011::HIGGINS
value, the attitude self-destruction
system will make the vehicle
self-destroyed.
     --Long March 3 User's Manual
     Ministry of Astronautics, People's Republic of China (1985)

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

Date: 16 Sep 92 12:56:00 GMT
From: pete <[e-mail]>
Subject: Moving Venus
Newsgroups: sci.space

Hey, that's what we like to see; a good practical civil
engineering problem. (^: So hey: here's the cheap easy way
to do it (and you get Mars in a warmer orbit as a bonus).
Just build a whole bunch of big electron accelerators,
and fire off kiloamps of e+ at Mars and a similar quantity
of e- at Venus. After a few centuries of constant current,
the E field will start pulling the 2 planets toward each
other, moderating both their climates. Or maybe it will
just charge up their atmospheres, causing Venus to lose
a whole lot of unwanted cloud cover by repulsion.
      This also guarantees lots of jobs for generations
of us accelerator folk.   (^: (^: (^:

===========================================================================
Now what we really need is a scheme                    Pete Vincent
for Mars and Venus to trade atmospheres.

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

Date: Wed, 16 Sep 92 22:00:48 BST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: NASA working on Apollo rerun

> You know Nick, to borrow a phrase from Ren Hoek - "Your wealth of
> ignorance astounds me." Fortunately, ignorance is (usually) curable.
>


Let's keep the flame level down. Flame wars have started over lesser
slights than the above :-)  Just because you disagree with someone doesn't
mean they have to be "ignorant". There are more than a few who have gone
head to head with Nick and still disagree with him, but that doesn't mean
he doesn't have his facts straight. You have your interpretation of the
facts. Nick has his.

I tend to agree more with Nick, although I applaud that Dan Goldin is
trying to break the old mold. But I think you should take some of Nick's
critique on board.

Okay, it is a baseline plan. There is a problem with some baseline plans.
For instance, the DOE baseline study on Solar Power Sats in ~1978 created a
baseline that basically killed SPS interest in congress. They didn't
include lunar resources, and without them SPS is just plain uneconomical.

> How can you be sure that it increases costs? What is the cost for an
> orbiting return vehicle that can stationkeep for 45 days, vs. a lander
> that contains all the things needed for a return, as well as the cargo
> to be delivered?  In addition, direct descent and ascent can save fuel
> in some cases, further increasing payload.
>


I agree with you here. LOR was selected only for political reasons. Wernher
wanted a huge rocket (the Nova) that went direct A to B and back. That is
understandable. WVB like to build big skyrockets. People interested in
getting something that would be more supportable in the future wanted EOR
(earth orbit rendezvous) and assembly. Kennedy sent the message down that
LOR would be it because it had the best chance of beating the russians.
This was told to me by someone who was in DC in the early '60's when the
debate was raging.

Commercial purchase is certainly the only way to go. I think it would be
silly for NASA to go out and start an R&D project to build a new SV. Far
better is to simply say "I want N tons of my cargo delivered to lunar

surface coordinates X,Y,Z by no later than time T". Then buy the service
from whoever wishes to supply it. I'm glad to hear that Energiya is under
consideration. That shows a bit more open mindedness than NASA has shown in
a very long time.

It is not really clear to me that you need such a large launcher. Send the
cargo one one way unmanned and automated landers. Send the crew on a
refueled DCX or other smaller vessel who's only purpose is to take a couple
people to the lunar base.

Also, as Gordon Woodcock (Boeing, Huntsville) has shown, there are regular
transit orbits from Earth at the space station orbit (or any other) when
the lines of nodes align. You come in over the lunar poles and thus land
pretty much where you want. Worst case is you go into orbit before landing.
You can still bring down the whole vehicle though. That does make sense.

I'm not averse to letting Dennis build his heavy lift if he's willing to
start Wingo Aerospace Corp and put in his bid against the Sherzer
Astronautics Group :-)

> Without major increases in space activities, science and exploration are
> the only justification for human return to the Moon and going to Mars.
>


And without such justifications there is unlikely to be any long term
support. The difficulty here is that the US economy is becoming more and
more dominated by competition for congressional favor. I too have been down
this route: I was once the Spacepac Chapters Coordinator. What I learned
out of it all is that political battles are never won. You refight them
year after year after year: and just when you think you've succeeded, up
pops a new cause celebre and yours becomes a source of funding for it. No
thanks. I'd much prefer doing productive labor. And I'm not saying the
writer isn't: but for him to have his chance at productive labor requires
the efforts of hundreds if not thousands of intelligent people doing
nothing at all except trying to influence government. Just imagine what
would happen if all those manhours were actually allocated to DOING
something REAL!

There are justifications, but they are ones that will come step by step.
The start will be slower than a government program. But the difference is
that just at the point that the government program comes to a screeching
halt because election priorities have changed, the private venture's
exponential growth would pass it up.

No, I can't justify a private venture for going straight to the moon. But I
can justify going to LEO and maybe even GSO. I'd probably argue tooth and
nail with Nick on which ones they were, but then we each get to invest
where our mouths are. And once you have an economically viable LEO
presence, it becomes possible to justify going to the moon. Energetically
you are already half way there. ie, half the risk is already taken. And
once you bring back a few thousand pounds of pet moon rocks, you might be
able to bring along a few scientists as passengers. And so forth.

The thesis behind this is that there will be steady support for NASA. I
have my doubts. Practically speaking, if Goldin can actually get control of
procurement out from under all the red tape; if he can dump the spread the
pork around philosophy; and if he can kill the bigger is better internal
philosophy, then maybe, just MAYBE, he has a chance to accomplish
something.

> Note the name above - FIRST Lunar OUTPOST. Unfortunately, the article
> did not make it clear that this is seen as the first step towards really
> understanding what is needed for a major base. Do you know how to design
> a LOX plant for the lunar surface that is efficient, reasonable in mass
> and maintainable? Nobody I know of does, at least not enough to bet a
> gigabuck on. Plans for all that stuff are further down the line.
>


The point is well taken in a sense. The first commercial people there would
probably not be miners either. I wasn't entirely kidding about the pet moon
rocks. Any idea how much you sell a lunar rock for on Earth? Any idea how
much people paid for chunks of rotting socialist concrete from the Berlin
Wall? There are lots of ways to make money out of the moon, once LEO has
been commercially settled. Most of the early ones are very un-NASA like and
undecorous.

I do admit that it has not been unusual in the past for governments to send
exploratory parties into the wilderness. I just recommend keeping the price
tag down and using commercial resources... and at the out set state that
the outpost is nothing but a support facility for the REAL space program:
the private one, not the NASA one.

> samples for return to earth, doing maintenance, etc. Hardly
> unproductive. As for revenue or commercial interest - well, you
> Libertarians are like the old saw about cynics - you know the cost of
> everything and the value of nothing.
>


I can make similar statements about the Demopublicans who have spent the US
into bankruptcy. They know the cost of programs but they don't have the
foggiest notion of the value of money.



> Storing H2 and O2 for long periods on the lunar surface (two days and a
> night) is expensive and kludgy. Best estimates  by JSC and MSFC are that
> storable propellants are required for safety and cost reasons. H2/O2 was
> looked at for the return vehicle and rejected for now. By the way, the
> lander will use RL-10 engines (the new throttled version - thanks
> SSRT!).
>


It all depends where you land. If you are near the poles (which your direct
ascent OR the Woodcock orbits allow) you can store them where the sun don't
shine.

You also must build in the assumption that if a ship can't lift, it is not
a disaster and front page headlines. That is an advantage of having smaller
vessels like DC-1 for that purpose.

I also do not see any reason at all for not shipping a prototype O2 plant
up on one of the one way cargo carriers. If it works, you modify your
operations and cut cost. If it doesn't work, you sue the manufacturer and
get a new source. :-) Seriously though, aerospace contractors should not be
allowed to bid on a lunar O2 manufacturing plant. It should be done by a
mining and manufacturing company with consulting input from aerospace
people.

And if you are thanking the SSRT, why aren't you planning on supporting it
and using it? Has NASA weighed in on it's side?

> Neither of which can be used for EVAs every other day for 45 days.
> Neither of which are suitable for long term surface ops (8-10 hrs) on a
> long mission. Both of which require extensive maintenance. Both of which
> would have problems with lunar dust - the Apollo suits had problems with
> the seals due to dust on the multi-EVA flights. Lunar dust is a major
> design problem for any lunar base - imagine very hard and fine sandpaper
> grit getting all over and into everything with great adhesive
> properties. NASA wants to do something sensible - learn from past
> experience and improve on what has been done.
>


Absolutely correct. Moon dust is nasty stuff. It is fine, hyperdry and
contains particles of glass. It carries a bit of an electric charge from
implaned ions and sticks to everything like glue. It gets tracked inside
your habitat no matter what you do (unless maybe you spray them down with
water before entry. Or maybe some other fluid that is easily evaporated to
leave the particles as sediment and allow reuses of the cleaner). It itches
like mad, gives some people an almost allergic reaction... [Info from
personal communication from someone who has been there]

> Cost is expected to be several billion a year. NASA intends to ask for
> the money when the DOD/Domestic budget wall comes down. However, another
>


You may have to wait awhile. The current economic climate is not going to
turn around until the world wide changeover from a wartime economy to a
peacetime one has completed. That may take until the end of the decade.

> reviews I have been to, it has been clearly stated that all the pretty
> pictures and diagrams are not final, are just strawmen and are only to
> give the staff a point of departure to debate from. Griffin intends to
> do as much commercial procurement as possible, releasing a set of
> requirements and asking companies to bid on it. Innovative solutions are
> welcome.
>


I understand. Note my comment about what happened to the SPS strawman.
Also, I am glad to hear Griffin wants commercial procurement. I have heard
a number of good things about him. But my prior statements hold: I am
doubtful that it will come to more than another set of file cabinets in the
National Archive.

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

Date: 16 Sep 92 16:17:24 GMT
From: Herman Rubin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Pluto Direct Propulsion Options
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mark Gabriele) writes:
>I was under the impression that there are space-qualified ion thrusters
>in the NASA inventory; these are very low-thrust, weigh about 10 kg, and
>are qualified for one year of operation.  Of course, they do burn a
>pretty serious amount of power, but if you're willing to test a space-based
>nuclear reactor, you'll get all the power you need (25 kW in a small
>reactor).  The only problem is decellerating upon reaching Pluto.  The
>thrust from the ion engines is so small that you'd need to begin to
>slow down very shortly after passing the halfway point, which is
>not going to help make this a short mission.

I doubt that this will be a real problem.  Now I have not done the calculations
myself, but I recall that there was a proposal a long time ago to use an ion
engine to get a Mars orbital device in orbit.  This would have taken 6 months
to break away from earth orbit, 3 months to transfer to the neighborhood of
Mars, and 3 months to get into the desired Mars orbit.  I believe that the
total weight of the system was about 7 tons; this is entirely from memory.

Now earth and Mars are .4 AU apart, and a transfer orbit is longer.  Suppose
we scale this to 40AU, roughly the distance between earth and Pluto.  The
time scales by the square root of the ratio of the distances, so we have
2.5 years.  Also, I have ignored the gravitational potential problem, which
makes the matter worse near the sun.  And with Pluto having such a small
mass, the time to spiral down becomes shorter.  So if the ion rocket can
carry enough reaction mass, the problem is quite tractable.
--
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: [phone]
[e-mail] (Internet, bitnet)
{purdue,pur-ee}!pop.stat!hrubin(UUCP)

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

Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 13:06:18 GMT
From: "Michael K. Heney" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Pulsing rocket engines
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <urf.716491099@sw2001> [e-mail] (Urban F) writes:
>Ali AbuTaha, of Dynamic Transients, is claiming that
>pulsing-engine technology could enable the Shuttle to carry a
>payload of 105.500 kg, as apart from 29.500 today, and also that
>an Ariane 4:s first stage could become so efficient as to make it
>a SSTO vehicle.
>
>The effect responsible for this is "dynamic overshoot", which is
>said to occur at sudden start-up of rocket engines, which has
>been largely neglected, he says. He admits that existing systems
>would need extensive modifications, and that it won't go quickly.
>
>I'm not capable to judge if this is reasonable, comments please?
>[Flight International 16-22 Sept 1992]
>--
> Urban Fredriksson   [e-mail]
> "When a woman thinks quickly, it is called intuition." -- Barbro Alving

I saw an abstract of a paper he wrote for the World Space Congress here in
DC last month.  He talks about "rectifying" the engine thrust to effectively
double the Isp - for the SSME, that moves it from 455 to the 900 sec range.
He claims (correctly; I assume) that you could launch without the SRBs,
making the shuttle/ET combination an SSTO.

I'd be interested in hearing comments on this, too.  If the engines are
actually being pulsed, sounds like it could be a rough ride.  As I didn't
see the actual paper, though, and am not qualified to speak on this even
if I did, I'll not comment further.


--
Mike Heney                |                                  |  Reach for the
[e-mail]   |     * Will Work for Money *      |  Stars, eh?
Kensington, MD (near DC)  |                                  |

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

Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 15:11:10 GMT
From: Paul Dietz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Pulsing rocket engines
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael K. Heney) writes:

> I saw an abstract of a paper he wrote for the World Space Congress here in
> DC last month.  He talks about "rectifying" the engine thrust to effectively
> double the Isp - for the SSME, that moves it from 455 to the 900 sec range.
> He claims (correctly; I assume) that you could launch without the SRBs,
> making the shuttle/ET combination an SSTO.
>
> I'd be interested in hearing comments on this, too.


Sounds seriously deluded.  There isn't enough chemical energy in
oxygen + hydrogen to get an Isp of 900 seconds, even assuming 100%
efficient combustion of a stoichiometric mixture.

    Paul F. Dietz
    [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 16 Sep 92 14:57:41 GMT
From: Doug Mohney <[e-mail]>
Subject: QUERY Re: Pluto Direct/ options
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ron Baalke) writes:

>* Neptune spacecraft will release a probe 6 to 8 days before closest
>  approach. This will enter the atmosphere of Neptune.

Would the same sterilization rules apply to this probe as to anything sent to
land on Mars or Titan?

                 Play in the intelluctual sandbox of Usenet

  -- >                  [e-mail]                        < --

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

Date: 16 Sep 92 16:57:17 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: QUERY Re: Pluto Direct/ options
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mark Brader) writes:
>a simple Jupiter slingshot...

Apart from the problem others have touched on -- the timing is wrong to
get a major gravity assist from Jupiter -- just about any Jupiter
gravity assist is a design headache because of Jupiter's Van Allen belts.
Having to rad-harden your probe for a trip through that inferno is a
serious nuisance.
--
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 16 Sep 92 08:53:09 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Shuttle Replacement (was: One Small Step...)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>>So instead you want to stretch designs, Titan and Delta, that are
>>already 30 years old one more time.
>
>1. The designs in question all have safety factors of 2.0; nothing
>   is being stretched anywhere.

Are you saying that *previous* Titan and Delta launchers have had
safety factors *greater* than 2.0? And how do you translate that
into on time on budget launches?

>2. The existing Titan and Delta are very different from what they
>   where 30 years ago. 30 years of continuous improvement will do
>   that.

Yes, I'm sure that the Wright Flyer would have been a hell of a biplane
after 30 years of add ons too. That would still leave it outclassed by
later designs.

>>No thanks. We can count on
>>general technology advances in the next 12-35 years that will allow
>>us to build something *better* than those roman candles when we
>>actually *need* them.
>
>Except that we can't do the research to develop this technology because
>people like you have made a virtue out of wasting money on the existing
>systems.

Nonsense. Automated manufacturing technology hasn't depended on NASA
funding. Most materials research hasn't depended on NASA funding. Most
electronic control systems progress hasn't depended on NASA funding.
Systems integration and non-destructive testing methodologies haven't
depended on NASA funding. Composite materials development hasn't depended
on NASA funding. Automated CAD/CAM systems didn't even exist when Titan
and Delta were designed. All Titan and Delta have going for them is a
track record of delays, cost overruns, and failures as an old inefficient
design is pushed beyond it's limits. The old brutes are admirable in
the same way as an old 1950s tailfinned Plymouth, but they are lightyears
out of step with modern capabilities and demands.

With the small market for launchers in their class, they are perhaps
"good enough" to continue producing for a few more years. But they
aren't a good basis for a new launch capability that will see us through
the next few decades. Shuttle will be reaching the end of it's useful
life by 2012, maybe sooner if flights are frequent enough to build
high hours on the existing airframes. Follow on vehicles should be
based on the *best* technologies that we know how to build, not on
something designed four decades ago.

Gary

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

Date: Wed, 16 Sep 92 15:03:18 PDT
From: "UTADNX::UTDSSA::GREER"@utspan.span.nasa.gov
Subject: Small comet impact theory

In Space Digest V15 #197,
[e-mail] writes:

>I was just reading the article in Science 31-July about the small
>comet controversy. Quite interesting from a political/sociological
>viewpoint. What I really can't fathom is: what was it about the idea
>that was so upsetting to people in the field that they replied to a
>possibly weak thesis with flaming rhetoric rather than research? Why
>did they wish it had not been published? I'd love to people's
>thoughts on it.

Anytime you combine a journalist with an agenda, a manipulative scientist,
and a susceptible public, you will most likely get something that is
interesting from a sociological point of view.

I am peripherally involved, being the systems analyst at the Center
for Space Sciences at U.T. Dallas.  The head of the Center is Dr. Bill
Hanson, one of the critics of Lou Frank's theory.  Another of its
critics Dr. Bruce Cragin, mentioned in the article, also works here.
Cragin and Hanson never used used what you might call "flaming rhetoric"
against Dr. Frank, they did write a few reasoned and researched rebuttals,
back when this was still an issue in space science.

>For those unfamiliar with the debate, refer to the Science issue cited
>above. And note that the author of the paper was and is a highly
>respected space scientist. Right or wrong, it was an interesting and
>thought provoking idea and deserved more thoughtful response than it
>got.

That sword cuts both ways, Mr. Amon.  The Science article was very short,
and was written from Lou Frank's point of view.  It's obvious you have
done almost no research to support your sweeping condemnation of the
other parties involved.

>OR, to put it really bluntly: if any of the involved are out there
>I'd suggest you allow Dr. Lewis Frank and his few supporters to
>continue to make their case in print as they see fit. If you don't
>like what he says, then respond civilly and scientifically instead of
>being a bunch of asses.

Really, Mr. Amon.  I'm not sure why I feel compelled to respond to
someone who resorts to abuse when he doesn't even know the particulars
of a matter.  It must be vanity.

_____________
Dale M. Greer, whose opinions are not to be confused with those of the
Center for Space Sciences, U.T. at Dallas, UTSPAN::UTADNX::UTDSSA::GREER
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil,
                 is for good men to do nothing." -- Edmund Burke (attr.)

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

Date: 16 Sep 92 16:16:49 GMT
From: Jay Maynard <[e-mail]>
Subject: STS-47 element set GSFC-012: orbit 49
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle

STS-47
1 22120U 92 61  A 92259.61569380 0.00076435  00000-0  25599-3 0   124
2 22120  56.9971  93.6720 0008801 289.1809  70.8314 15.89530661   497

Satellite: STS-47
Catalog number: 22120
Epoch time:      92259.61569380         (15 SEP 92   14:46:35.95 UTC)
Element set:     GSFC-012
Inclination:       56.9971 deg
RA of node:        93.6720 deg          Space Shuttle Flight STS-47
Eccentricity:    0.0008801                  Keplerian Elements
Arg of perigee:   289.1809 deg
Mean anomaly:      70.8314 deg
Mean motion:   15.89530661 rev/day      Semi-major Axis: 6681.7300 Km
Decay rate:       0.76E-03 rev/day*2    Apogee  Alt:        309.22 Km
Epoch rev:              49              Perigee Alt:        297.46 Km


NOTE - This element set is based on NORAD element set # 012.
       The spacecraft has been propagated to the next ascending
       node, and the orbit number has been adjusted to bring it
       into agreement with the NASA numbering convention.

G.L.CARMAN
--
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
[e-mail]      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
      "Certainly I can comprehend pre-beta.  Translations: 1. Alpha
             2. Microsoft marketing BS." -- Chris Waters

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

Date: 16 Sep 92 11:59:04 GMT
From: Bruce D Johnson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Terraforming needs to begin now
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (pete) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]>,
> [e-mail] (Jeff Jackson) writes...

   [intro deleted]
>>
>>I guess the hard part is getting fresh water to these regions.  Here's
>>my wild, uneducated, naive silly idea for all ya'll to shoot holes in.
>>There's tons of sand in these deserts.  You can use sand to make
>>glass, so, use all this glass to make huge solar distillation systems.
>>I'm envisioning long salt-water canals running from the Med. Sea, or
>>Oceans running hundreds of miles inland.  Covering each canal is a
>>greenhouse that heats the water up and makes it evaporate.  At the top
>>of the greenhouse, the vapor is collected and cooled of, and the resulting
>>distilled water is then pumped out into irrigation canals runing
>>perpendicular to the salt-water canals.
>>
> Jeez that's bizarre. I had that exact idea some 10 years ago, in
> detail. Plus a few more twists: use the glass to form solar mirrors
> to fire the glass factories, and use the fresh water to grow crops
> on the ground sheltered from direct sunlight beneath the evaporation
> panels. The vapour is condensed by cool sea water flowing into the
> system along the tops of the evaporators.
>      I see 2 major problems with this scheme, besides labour:

labour not too huge a problem... Not in third world desert areas.

> 1) glass requires lime, to lower its melting point, and yield
> a strong product. Also sand must be very white to yield transparent
> glass.

Does it have to be transparent glass ?

> 2) how do you pump the seawater cheaply?
>
How about wave action ?
Ok there probably isn't much in the Med. but there are plenty of
other deserts to be getting on with.

> Pete Vincent

How about reducing the scale to start with ? Say set up a system with
enough water producing capability to support a medium sized farm.
(Then a bigger farm etc.)
This has several advantages including not being dependant on rain, so
in a drought you actually score !!

I suspect that the straight channel approach may not work though...

1)lots of water in one end...
2)not so much near the other end, and the water getting hotter all
  the time.
3)Hence lots of evaporation at the end - almost none near the beginning.

The problem of what to do with the salt left behind also raises it's head.

How about instead of a straight channel, making a circuit, with the end
at the sea ?
At night the system is left running... Low to no evaporation...
water washes out salt left during the day...

No doubt there are problems  with this setup (note the idea here is not
neccesasarily to teraform the earth in one go but a little bit at a time )

Bruce
[e-mail]

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

Date: 16 Sep 92 04:34:16 GMT
From: Jay Denebeim <[e-mail]>
Subject: Who went to Rio?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey writes:

BH> At the moment, "moving some industry off Earth," as a method of
BH> "saving the environment," must be viewed as pure science fiction.

Gosh, I seem to recall a late-night converstation in the filk room on
a similar subject.

Is it SF?  I mean, is it really only possible in fiction using current
technology, or is it an 'engineering problem'?

--

 |_o_o|\\
 |. o.| || The           Jay Denebeim
 | .  | ||  Software
 | o  | ||   Distillery
 |    |//        Address: UUCP:     duke!wolves!deepthot!jay
 ======                   Internet: [e-mail]
         If the above bounces try: uunet.uu.net!oichq!deepthot!jay
                 BBS:(919)-460-7430      VOICE:(919)-460-6934

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 210
------------------------------