Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V15_2/V15NO295.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 34KB

Date: Thu,  8 Oct 92 05:00:08
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #295
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Thu,  8 Oct 92       Volume 15 : Issue 295

Today's Topics:
                    Alleged Benefits of Military $
                   another sad anniversary (2 msgs)
                   Bootstrap hardware for LunaBase
                      Clinton and Space Funding
                   Controversy over V-2 anniversary
                            Cosmic strings
Don't forget  Other Guy(was Re: Von Braun -- Hero, Villain, or Both?)
                     Laser Space Mirror (2 msgs)
                            MYSTERY OBJECT
                            overpopulation
            Pioneer Venus Out of Fuel, Orbit Deteroriating
                              Population
                    Population here and elsewhere?
                     Sputnik I - 35th anniversary
                       Switching ALSEP back on
                     UFO EVIDENCE VS. Carl Sagan

    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, 7 Oct 92 16:55:39 BST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Alleged Benefits of Military $

> I believe it is also true that higher income people spend less of their
> money than low income people, so their money is likely to go into the
> economy fewer times.  I have heard this as an explanation for the fact
> that the increase in income during the Reagan years did not produce
> sustained increases in consumer demand; the increases went to people
> who spend less of their money.  Not being an economist, I cannot vouch
> for the validity of this argument, but it tends to contradict what Gary
> said.
>


The funny thing is... the most common complaint about the US economy is
not that people are spending too little, but that they are not SAVING
enough. Savings is what is used for capital investment according to
standard economics. I think that is even true with old fashioned Keynesian
economics as well as the more modern Austrian and Chicago schools.

Japan is said to have a very high savings rate. One of the things you see
very often in US discussions of opening up the Japanese markets is the
desire for them to have a more consumer oriented economy. Right now rich
and poor alike save at a very high rate and the investment is poured back
into the economy.

Savings and consumption BOTH drives economic well being. But to say that
there is a higher multiplier by simply increasing the velocity of money is
fool hardy. Without a high savings rate a high money velocity will just
buy more Japanese consumer goods per unit time.

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

Date: 7 Oct 92 06:43:26 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: another sad anniversary
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes...
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>>
>>>The dowlink path loss is -278 db from the moon.
>>
>
>>Anyone willing to spend a couple of thousand dollars could receive
>>a 1 watt signal from the Moon with sufficient margin to decode digital
>>data, or copy analog voice. An EME grade station is probably still
>>required to pick up video, or high bandwidth data.
>>
>>Gary KE4ZV
>
>Gary my figure if from the Lunar Observer mission baseline published at JPL
>in 1991.  This is the baselne for all future missions and the link margin
>is discussed extensively in there.  What is your source? I will look it up
>in the ARRL hanbook just to see what they have.

Indeed Dennis, the 1991 ARRL Handbook is my source. -278 db is the
*roundtrip* loss for EME work at 2304 MHz. Note that path loss is
a function of frequency. I don't know what frequency the LO is planning
to use. Note also that path loss increases directly with frequency, but
also that antenna gain increases directly with frequency for a given
physical size antenna. The effects cancel. Finally, note that EME requires
the Moon to be a passive reflector. One way loss for an active radiator
is *not* just 3 db less than round trip EME loss because the substantial
losses of passive reflection are deleted.

The excellent Microwave Handbook from the RSGB lists the following
formula for calculating free space path loss:

path loss (db) = 92.45 + 20*log(f) + 20*log(d)

where f is in gigahertz and d is in kilometers.

At 2.3 GHz, the path loss one way from the Moon is -210.7 db. That
means roundtrip loss would be -216.7 db, so the scattering loss due
to lunar reflection is 61.3 db. Getting rid of the Moon as a passive
reflector makes a big difference.

Gary

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

Date: 7 Oct 92 12:52:27 GMT
From: FRANK NEY <tnc!m0102>
Subject: another sad anniversary
Newsgroups: sci.space

So how about landing a series of corner reflector arrays set to the
EME sub bands from 50Mhz to 20GHz or whatever?

Should take care of the scatter....

Frank Ney N4ZHG EMT-A  LPVa NRA ILA GOA CCRTKBA "M-O-U-S-E"
Commandant and Acting President, Northern Virginia Free Militia
Send e-mail for an application and more information
----------------------------------------------------------------
Look!  A one-line mathematical limerick:
((12 + 144 + 20 + (3 * 4^1/2)) / 7 + (5 * 11) = 9^2 + 0
--
The Next Challenge - Public Access Unix in Northern Va. - Washington D.C.
703-803-0391 To log in for trial and account info.

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

Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 17:00:56 GMT
From: Nick Haines <[e-mail]>
Subject: Bootstrap hardware for LunaBase
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

   [about Nick Szabo's analysis of costs for a moon base]

   It looks like there is no point analyzing Nick's post as long as he insists
   on using unrealistically bad numbers for ideas he doesn't like.

Odd, this has long been my sentiment about many of his posts, with the
substitution of "good" for "bad" and "likes" for "doesn't like".

(his figures for ice mining and constant belief in self-reproducing
machines and the like fill me with wonder).

Nick Haines [e-mail]

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

Date: 7 Oct 92 05:52:26 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Clinton and Space Funding
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,talk.politics.space,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Herman Rubin) writes:
>
>There is another, and extremely important, reason for colonization, namely,
>escape from an oppressive government.  The Spanish colonies were moderately
>successful only where they were eminently profitable; the missions in
>California must be considered a failure.  The French colonies in Canada
>and Louisiana were not particularly successful.  On the other hand, the
>English colonies to escape oppression were generally quite successful,
>even bringing in others.  A major part of the US immigration in the 19th
>century was to escape oppression.

That's true, but the entry cost for space is considerably higher than
for a man with an ax and a gun trekking out on foot to find elbow
room. And likely to remain so for a long long time. Any space colonies
are likely to have to be highly regimented in order to survive at all.
When disident groups have colonized the ocean floor, nearly as difficult
a place as space, then we'll see if colony life is really less oppressive
than our lives here.

Gary

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

Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 18:07:51 BST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Controversy over V-2 anniversary

> Many more people in Japan died in the fire-bombing raids
> then were killed by the Hiroshoma/Nagasaki raids. If memory
> serves me right 90,000+ were killed in the first fire-bombing
> raid on Tokyo.
>


The photographs of the firestorm aftermath in Japanese cities are
chilling. You really cannot tell the difference between Hiroshima,
Nagasaki and every other city in Japan. If anyone wants the
percentages of the cities that were flattened (I mean flattened as in
to the ground) I have them available from a set of books that are a
reprint of the complete set of "Impact" a magazine that was
"CONFIDENTIAL" and published to pass information and knowledge
between USAAF flyers in WWII.

Most of the cities were at least 50-70% leveled. Not just city
centers; the whole damn cities, suburbs and all. The only difference
at the time was that the A bomb only took one plane. They had already
done the same to every other city. Those two were "saved" and left
intact for this very special demonstration.

Trivia: a prisoner in a below ground jail cell very close to ground
    zero survived.
    At least 9 (and possibly twice that number) people survived

    BOTH nuclear explosions.

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

Date: 7 Oct 92 14:10:00 GMT
From: Justin Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cosmic strings
Newsgroups: sci.space

What are cosmic strings?  Is there any consensus within the
astronomy community as to whether they exist?
--
Justin R. Smith
Department of Mathematics and Computer Science
Drexel University
Philadelphia, PA 19104                    [phone]

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

Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 19:55:49 GMT
From: David Breneman <kopachuk!dcb>
Subject: Don't forget  Other Guy(was Re: Von Braun -- Hero, Villain, or Both?)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:
Deletions...
>
>Coming from technologically behind, Sergei beat Wernher to the first
>satellite, the first man in orbit, the first woman in orbit, the first
>lunar flyby, the first space station, and other points in the "first"
>game.
>

Isn't it true that the Redstone existed before the Vanguard, and that
Von Braun lobbied for using it to send a satelite into orbit, but since
the Redstone was "owned" by the Army, Eisenhower wanted to let NACA's
Vanguard have the first shot, especially since the launch was tied
into the International Geophysical Year observance.  After numerous
Vanguard failures, and after the Soviets slapped together the Sputnik
mission *in*order*to* beat the US into space, the US governemnt
agencies finally got together and agreed to let Von Braun use the
Redstone as a satellite launch vehicle to bolster space program morale.
If it hadn't been for inter-department politics in the US government,
the Soviets would have had the *second* satelite, but the US was (as
stated policy) in no hurry, and the Soviets wanted to be first at all
cost.  In fact, James Oberg (if I remember his name correctly) in his
book _Red Star in Orbit_, documented that all the "firsts" noted
above (except the space station) were done *primarily* to beat the
US and score propaganda coups.  The US announced a long-term goal,
and the Soviets rushed in with very little concern for safety,
scientific value, etc.

--
David Breneman     Sys Admin, Tacoma Screw Products, Inc. |  ____  ____  ____
[e-mail]           |   SCREWIE the TSP CLOWN sez-  |   /   /___  /___/
 ..!uunet!tacoma!dcb      |  "Nylok lock nuts lose their  |  /   ____/ /
CompuServe: 75760,1232    | binding strength after 1 use!"|

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

Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 00:26:37 +0000
From: Andrew Haveland-Robinson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Laser Space Mirror
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>As most of the infrastructure is on Earth, the Space cost would be minimal.
>The ground laser system can be large in area, allowing a small mirror.
>
>Questions:
>
>1) I would think that the limiting size of the mirror would be its capacity
>to withstand the waste heat. Any ideas on how small we could make the mirror
>with todays technology?

You think you need a very long laser for a highly collimated beam - even so,
I think the divergence due to atmospheric heating could render it
ineffective.  The beam could be diverged and re-collimated as a much wider
parallel beam, to reduce atmospheric distortion, but the engineering
required would be phenomenal to stop the lenses from melting/distorting.

>2) What would be the best way to convert the infra-red light back to
>electricity?

How about a huge lens focused on a black boiler in a greenhouse??

>3) How efficiant would the total system be? Especially compared to current
>ground based power transmission?

Very low!

>4) Is anyone working on such a scheme? I think SDIO was considering space
>mirrors for defense purposes.

I should think that light pressure knocking the mirrors out of alignment and
orbit would be a bigger problem, give the kind of intensities needed!
After atmospheric absorption of course...

I think research into conventional solar energy/storage technology would
be money better spent, though would be an interesting research topic.

+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Haveland-Robinson Associates     | Email: [e-mail]         |
| Pine Cottage, Osea Island, Essex |        [e-mail] |
| CM9 8UH England.  0621-88756     | Also:  081-800 1708  081-802 4502    |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 17:43:20 BST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Laser Space Mirror

> It occured to me two years ago that a very large solar sail could
be
> used as a giant bill-board in the nighttime sky.  At $50 million
> dollars (excluding launch) you'd probably get some takers and still
> make a profit.  It was a silly notion (I'm sure greenpeace would
> concur), but if anyone has some venture capital - I'm free come

> one year's time... :-)
>


If someone is willing to pay for it, it is, by definition, NOT a
silly notion. If there were no takers after a bit of PR and marketing
hype, THEN I'd agree that it was a silly notion.

The secret to opening the space frontier is to be found in plastic
mounted bits of old satellites; pet moon rocks; committing ashes to
the deep; asteroid desk sets (Ceres, Vesta, Pallas... Collect em!
Trade em with your friends!); garbage disposal... and so forth.

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

Date: 6 Oct 92 22:38:00 GMT
From: Bill Nunnelee <[e-mail]>
Subject: MYSTERY OBJECT
Newsgroups: sci.space

-> The latest packet from Goddard came today and object #20961 was
-> listed as having reentered on Sep 30.
->
-> Object 20961 was a Navstar GPS booster rocket.  Its designation was
-> 90 103C.  The Navstar GPS 2A-01 was launched on Nov 26, 1990.  This
-> booster rocket is listed in the RAE tables as being 2.3 meters long
-> and 1.5 meters in diameter.  It is called a PAM-D.

Thanks for the info!  I've never seen any reentering space junk before.


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

Date: 7 Oct 92 08:00:14 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: overpopulation
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bruce Scott) writes:
>[e-mail] (Paul Dietz) writes:
>>[e-mail] (Bruce Scott) writes:
>>>But this is just because the great die-off has started.
>>"Great die off" is bullshit, of course.  The world population has
>>never been healthier, wealthier or longer lived, on average, and
>>the trends are positive in most of the world.
>
>Au contraire. For Asia, excepting India, you are correct. For Africa and
>Brazil, you're dead wrong. I think you may be misled by trade figures
>and the like in cases like India and Brazil. There is no question that
>for the "middle class" in those countries things have never been better.
>But this class is no larger than 30 pct for Brazil and 10 for India. Yes

Which is the largest middle class either country has ever had. IE things
are better now than in the past.

>I know, that is only two countries, but they are big countries and when
>they go wrong it is not trivial. India has been charmed by the lack of
>really big natural disasters for some time now. But in the 1950's there
>was a famine whose effects were averted because the US fed the whole
>population for two years. That was with 300 million people. They lose if
>that happens now.

The difference is the Green Revolution. Their food production is 5 times
higher than in the 1950s. A prolonged drought could cut into their food
exports, but is unlikely to throw them into starvation.

>I do note the absence of comment from you concerning
>last year's disaster in Bangladesh. I repeat that 3 million homeless on
>shifting mud flats do not happen unless population limits have already
>been crossed. Unlike Floridans, many of them simply starved to death.

The difference between poor people living in a flood plain and Florida
residents in the path of a hurricane should be obvious. It's the fact
that the area involved was smaller, didn't stay flooded, and State Farm
claims adjusters were out the next day. Bangladesh's problems stem from
their poverty and their location, not their population density per se.
Bangladesh has rich delta soil and with modern agricultural techniques
could be a rich exporter of food. The fact that the country is almost
entirely at sea level and located in a typhoon plagued area is a problem
shared by Holland, and to a lesser extent by Florida and the Mississippi
delta. The solution can also be similar, dikes and shelter mounds.
You confuse the results of avoidable poverty with population density.

>A little travel where things have gone wrong can really open eyes. I
>suggest it, even only once. I've seen this for myself in Eastern Turkey.
>These armies of dirty children who feed off passers by will not grow up
>into the rosy Third-World technocrats one reads about in G Harry Stine
>novels.

However, population density is not the source of Turkish poverty. The
perfect counterexamples being Singapore and Hong Kong. High population
density doesn't have to cause poverty. Local government policies can cause
poverty, and have in most poor nations. Africa is the prime example of
this. Famines in Africa stem from warfare, corruption, and faulty policy.
Much of Africa employs neolithic farming practices while buying jet aircraft
and tanks. Only 10% of arable land is under cultivation on the continent.
The population density of most of Africa is less than that of the Eastern
United States. Yet the Eastern US is a large food exporter. The average
African is not stupid, but he is often ignorant and exploited by his government
and his superstitions. Reducing population density won't solve his problems.
Ending the ideological warfare and ending gross corruption in government
would allow Green Revolution techniques to be taught and applied to a
continent with soils that have been barely touched, and resources that
have barely been tapped. Africa is much like 17th century North America,
with the difference that the Indians have jet aircraft and tanks to use
in their tribal warfare.

Gary

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

Date: 7 Oct 92 14:32:22 GMT
From: Nate Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: Pioneer Venus Out of Fuel, Orbit Deteroriating
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John P. Mechalas) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Shari L Brooks) writes:
>>>Contrary to some beliefs, PVO is not simply on a crash course into the
>>>center of the planet. It is in a highly elliptical orbit with a periapsis
>>>that is slowly decaying.  It has a 24 hour orbit period and literally every
>>>day, at closest approach, the s/c dips a little deeper into the atmosphere
>>>and suffers more drag. The next orbit, then, has an even *lower* periapsis.
>>>Around Wednesday, this effect will become so pronounced that it won't be
>>>able to continue through the orbit and will have its orbit slowed so much that
>>>that periapsis encounter will be its last.
>>
>>I am not sure I understand this.  It seems to me that every time the S/C
>>encounters atmospheric drag, the orbit should lose energy.  I always thought
>>that this would circularize the orbit (decrease the apoapsis) before
>>significantly decreasing the periapsis.  Where did I go wrong?  Don't circular
>>orbits of a given radius have less energy than an elliptical orbit with
>>that same value as the periapsis?
>
>Yes, but the radius to the spacecraft changes because of the drag forces.
>   When a s/c enters the atmosphere, the drag force cause the semi-major axis
>to decrease by 4 * pi * Drag / n^2 per orbit (assuming a nominally cirular
>orbit).  The altitude of the s/c also decreases.  Since orbital velocity is
>inversely proportional to the semi-major axis and the radius, as those
>terms decrease, the velocity must increase.  Orbital energy is defined as
>being inversely proportional to the semi-major axis as well, so energy
>increases, too.  The result is a more energetic, and more elliptic orbit.
>   It is very counter-intuitive, as is a lot of orbital mechanics.  :)
>
>--
>John Mechalas                                          "I'm not an actor, but
>[e-mail]                                 I play one on TV."
>Aero Engineering, Purdue University                     #include disclaimer.h

well, i'd like to add my 2 cents.
for the purpose of this argument, do we consider the atmospheric drag to be
negligible at a certain distance away from Venus?  suppose we do.  then we
would need to know if the apoapsis is "outside" of the atmosphere.  if so,
then the drag effect will almost entirely be observed in the apoapsis height,
as the semi-major axis shrinks.  when all the orbit has fallen into the
atmosphere, for drag purposes, then the periapsis height will be affected,
but not in the way we would picture it.  the argument of periapsis is the
angle between the periapsis point on the orbit and the ascending node, where
the satellite rises through the equatorial plane of the planet.  this would
be racing ahead of the satellite, in a mathematical sense, so that by the
time the satellite reaches the old point of periapsis, that point will have
advanced around the orbit to a new location.  think of it as "the slowing
down here reduces the height on the other side", sort of.

but if the satellite only briefly dips into the atmosphere, then the effect
will be as Shari described it: circularization.  of course, by the time the
apoapsis has been brought into a height equivalent to the original periapsis
height, the whole orbit will be subject to drag forces.

another point:  the semi-major axis reduces, the energy is inversely
proportional to the semi-major axis, but it is NEGATIVE.  so its magnitude
will increase, yes, but the satellite LOSES energy.

- nate
Millstone Hill Radar Station
Westford, Mass.
(we track satellites for MIT Lincoln Labs)

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

Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 19:05:27 BST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Population

> And Ed, you helped them. Not because you didn't like birds but
> because you bought into the whole "Environmentalists are killing
> us!" lie. That 'all` environmentalists want only to stifle the
> economy. That business is in business to create jobs. Wake up! They
> are there for money and if they're allowed, some would smash the
> last tree on the planet to get a clean shot at the last tiger.
> How are your interests being served by your stance? I need to
> understand just what you're after. Are they paying you or do you

> just hate people who don't think just like you?
>


I wonder if you realize just how easy and how much fun it is to wind
up the politically correct. I don't think anyone on this net really
wants to wipe out ecosystems. But I think there is a great deal of
disagreement on the degree to which this is an actual threat and the
means of dealing with the problem if it must be dealt with.

There are environmentalists who are quite capitalist in outlook and
think that the only way to save the environment is to put a price tag
on it and sell it. People take care of valuable property. They only
trash what came for nothing or what belongs to someone else.

And what sort of dialogue are you starting? You are castigating
businessmen in ways that a far, far worse than anything anyone has
said about environmentalists. I will admit there are businessmen who
don't give a damn. Do you admit there are environmentalists who also
don't give a damn? Should I ask if you are being paid or do you just
hate people who don't think like you? Debate if you will, but start
off with the assumption that lots of us do NOT agree with you and
will probably NEVER agree with you. If I acted like this in Belfast
I'd not have any friends at all. Most of my musician friends are died
in the wool socialist if not communist. I'm an equally adamant
libertarian. We get along by respecting each others opinions, even
when we do not agree.


> You've closed your mind to ideas because you didn't like what
> someone, somewhere said or caused to happen. "You
> environmentalists", what, are they not people? Why must you label
> people? So you can exclude or dismiss them? Some are nuts, some are
> great, most are just concerned enough to try to make a difference.
> But you put words into all their mouths and then flame them all.
> Not constructive, Ed.
>


Well you are looking awfully closed yourself. You seem to be starting
from the premise that you ARE right. If you calm down enough, you
might find that people will work to protect the environment. I
regularly gave to an environmental group that went out and worked
with businessmen to save parcels of land, got large corporate
donations to protect larger chunks (Nature Conservancy). They do
quite well because they are sensitive to issues outside of their own,
and they do not approach environmentalism from an ideological defined
position. Get off the high horse about all us nasty capitalists and
you might find some of us will help voluntarily. Just DONT try to get
the legislature to threaten us into "volunteering" though.


> I propose that if we buck the vested interests and use our brains

> we can have jobs, trees, owls and much much more. Perhaps these
> folks who used to chop trees could build space hardware? How about
> tree "planters"?
>


The persons chopping trees come in several flavors. There are those
who have their own lands and are tree farmers. Their continued
existance depends on the quality of their stewardship. They treat
trees as a renewable resource, which they are.

There are those who cut on public lands, ie the commons. They have no
interest in conservation because what they don't cut, someone else
will... And since they leave after the cutting is done, they have no
responsibility for the long term. Solve that problem by making those
lands either privately owned by the lumber companies, or taking them
out of production altogther by giving them to Audobon, Nature
Conservancy or the Sierra Club.

Then there are the Japanese businesses that bribe third world
politicians and bureaucrats into giving them access to giant tracts
of forest for a fraction of their true worth. They basically clear
cut and run... If they owned the land they'd also have a stake. Or
better yet, if the third world governments vested ownership in local
corporations and let them handle the selling, they'd probably wring
better deals out of the cutting. Not to mention they'd have an
interest in the long term. The 10 or 20 years you mention is only the
case for forests which are unowned and thus unmanaged.

Show me a raped forest and I'll show you a government bureaucracy
behind it.

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

Date: 7 Oct 92 08:25:43 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Population here and elsewhere?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <gdavis.718295859@griffin> [e-mail] (Gary Davis) writes:
>
>     With the relatively low priority and lack of basic understanding
>of our environment shown by most on this board;it is indeed merciful
>that none are actively in this area.
>What does bringing back dinosaurs have to do with such a critical
>human dilemma as uncontrolled population growth. Persons who ecourage such
>must either be quite ignorant of the future consequences or so insensitive
>to the situation that reason eludes them.
>
>Rush Limbaugh was quoted recently as stating that population growth
>was a "phoney" issue since if we move the entire world pouplation
>as it exists presently, to the state of Texas the human density would
>equal that of New York City. Pooh.. Pooh.. population growth and the
>environment are a ploy of the liberals!
>
>Aside from the fact that Limbaugh is a pompus donkey;the truly frightening
>part is he has so many mindless idolators in his ranks.
>
>Yes, if he had his way I'm sure Earth would become the planet Gideon.

Linbaugh is correct that the entire Earth's population could fit in
Texas with a density no higher than NYC, which is a lower density than
many other cities such as Toyko, Hong Kong, or Mexico City. Of course
no sane person would want to live in NYC. :-) So a Texas sized NYC would
likely be no more attractive.  Hooty Owl would have to give way to
Sam Starling and Pete Pigeon. Randy Rat would move in as well.

I've pointed out that if the entire world population produced garbage
at the rate of NYC dwellers, it would take 10,000 years to cover the
state of Nevada with it to a depth of 100 feet, incidentally turning
Nevada into the richest mine of primary metals and other resources
such as methane. We're not running out of physical space to meet our
population demands. If every person on Earth used energy at the rate
of NYC dwellers, that would only represent 1/2000th of the amount of
solar energy that reaches the Earth each day. 3% of the US population
produces an overabundance of food from 30% of our arable land using
Green Revolution techniques and our soil is no richer than many other
country's soils.

The Earth is not resource poor, energy poor, or short of space. What it
does lack in most of the world is suitable social freedom to properly use
it's resources for the economic benefit of individuals.

Gary

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

Date: 7 Oct 92 03:37:42 GMT
From: "John A. Weeks III" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Sputnik I - 35th anniversary
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bruce Watson):
> Today the earth has approximately 7000 moons.

How many of these moons have stable orbits?  In this case, I define stable
to mean that they will stay in orbit for 100+ years without expending any
fuel.  (I have a hard time considering something like Sputnik or Echo I to
be a "moon".)

What would it take to build a sattelite that would stay up for a long time
without having to be reboosted or carrying large amounts of fuel?  Could you
use large solar panels or RTG's to power an ion thruster?  Is there a stable
Earth orbit for a small sattelite?

-john-

--
==============================================================================
John A. Weeks III        [phone]            [e-mail]
Newave Communications, Ltd.                ..!uunet!tcnet!newave!john

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

Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 17:54:16 BST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Switching ALSEP back on

> I've noticed that too. Maybe there's a fourth power of something in
the
> equation, having to do with heat flow.
>


That would make sense. The half life only tells us that half of the
original atoms have decayed. It should mean that the heat wattage
output is halved. But the output of interest is electrical so the RTG
must be looked at as a heat engine... and heat engine efficiency
depends on the dT between source and sink and I believe also the
absolute T is Kelvin. Ie, you get more energy per 1K at 1000K than at
0K... And the form of that equation is T^4.

What say Bill?

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

Date: 7 Oct 92 12:28:12 GMT
From: Jim Mann <[e-mail]>
Subject: UFO EVIDENCE VS. Carl Sagan
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Jeff Bytof) writes:
> Robert E. McElwaine, Esq., states:
>
> >          It's too bad that so many people accept his [Dr. Carl
Sagan's]
> >          pronouncements without question.
>
> I agree with Bob, but only on this one, *small*,  point.
>
> Jeff Bytof
> [e-mail]
>
> (I am of course referring to Dr. Sagan's hobby interests - "ethical
>  macaques" and the thesis that Patrick Buchanan is a "baboon" -
>  not to his well-founded and exciting work modeling the chemistry
of
>  Saturn's moon, Titan!)

Why?  Because it is unfair to the baboons?


--
Jim Mann
Stratus Computer   [e-mail]

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 295
------------------------------