Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V15_3/V15NO310.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 40KB

Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 05:00:05
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #310
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Tue, 13 Oct 92       Volume 15 : Issue 310

Today's Topics:
                    Alleged Benefits of Military $
                   Bootstrap hardware for LunaBase
                   Drop nuc waste into sun (2 msgs)
                       HRMS Press Kit (Repost)
                       LunaOne: Beyond Boostrap
                        motions of astronouts
                One Small Step for a Space Activist...
                        Toshiba vs. Chaparral
                         What use is Freedom?

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

Date: 10 Oct 92 23:52:00 GMT
From: Mark Goodman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Alleged Benefits of Military $
Newsgroups: sci.space

To:    sci.space From:  Mark W. Goodman ([e-mail]) Re:
Benefits of Military Spending?  Date:  10/9/92

Since my posting expressing skepticism about the claimed benefits
of military spending there have been a number of thoughtful (and
some not so thoughtful) replies.  I would like to respond to them
as a group.

Steinn Sigurdsson writes that the article he referred to, claiming
that NASA procurement spending flows through the economy 7 times
while most government spending goes through only twice, was based
on NASA's own studies.  This makes me more skeptical than I was
before.  Beyond the obvious potential for bias in having NASA
evaluate the benefits of its own programs, NASA's terrible track
record in self-promotion through economic "analysis" has left it
with little credibility on such matters.  Still, I have not yet
had the chance to look up the reference, so I won't dismiss it out
of hand.

I am willing to believe that I am wrong about the direct economic
effects of giving money to middle and upper middle income people
versus lower income people.  The former may well have a greater
stimulating effect.  There are, however, significant economic and
social costs of poverty that such arguments fail to capture.

As for the overall argument, I have seen well-reasoned arguments
on both sides of the issue of whether military spending is a
benefit to or a drain on the economy.  The empirical evidence does
not appear to offer a conclusive answer.

To me, the key question is "Compared to what?"  Compared to not
spending the money or spending it in wasteful ways, military
spending may well be beneficial.  Compared to sensible government
investments (and I don't think that's an oxymoron) in
infrastructure, education and training, and technology, military
spending is probably a drain.  I would argue that the most
productive approach should not be to resist military spending cuts
but to push for the money saved to be used in sensible ways
(including reducing the deficit, though it will not go very far).

On the question of spinoffs, several people have challenged my
assertion that spinoffs from military technology are becoming less
common.  I'm not sure whether the empirical evidence supports this
assertion or not, but there are several trends that support my
conclusion.

1) Military technology is increasingly isolated from civilian
technology because of increasingly specialized and arcane military
requirements and specifications, and by secrecy and restrictions
on technology transfer.

2) Military R&D represents a declining portion of overall R&D, and
cutting edge developments are increasingly coming from private,
civilian R&D.  Military technology is no longer particularly
advanced compared to civilian technology, making the impediments
mentioned in point 1) more significant.

3) Military R&D is typically driven by demanding top-down
technical specifications with little concern for cost.  The
resulting technologies may be ill-suited to the open market where
cost/performance tradeoffs are different.

The question I would pose to those who oppose military spending
cuts because they would hurt technology development is this:
Security considerations aside, wouldn't it be more efficient to
invest directly in technologies with civilian applications and to
promote the commercial development of these technologies than to
procure economically useless high-technology weapons systems in
the hope of civilian technological spinoffs?

By the way, thanks for the many kind words of encouragement
regarding my Congressional Science Fellowship.

In this regard, Edmund Hack wites:

>(quoting me):
>>...  Congressional staff
>>members are not expected to pursue their own agendas, but those
of their
>>bosses.
>
><HA! HA! ROFL>
>The staffers of the various subcommittees have agendas of their
own and
>pursue them with vigor. Ask around. Read the book "Hill Rat" that
a
>former staffer wrote. It is in hardback right now.

It is true that Congressional staffers have a certain degree of
discretion to pursue policy agendas of their own, but ultimately
this depends on the autonomy their bosses give them, which can
vary widely.  They serve at the pleasure of their bosses, and
their bosses are ultimately accountable for the actions of their
staffs.

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

Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 17:46:19 BST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Bootstrap hardware for LunaBase

> $30 billion is not the construction cost. It is the construction
cost
> *plus* the development engineering cost, by far the largest part of
> the cost. A second set incurs only bent metal cost, much cheaper.

> Probably no more than $8 billion even with the modifications
required
> for surface use.
>


I don't entirely disagree with your numbers, but this statement is
financial nonsense (no offense). You amortize R&D costs over some
number of units. In the case of fixed capital investment, you
amortize it over a period of time specified by tax laws for a
particular class of capital equipment. You don't write it off in one
lump sum against the first unit of production.

Please use reasonable accounting practice when you state things like
this. Boeing and the 747 is a reasonable model of how to charge the
R&D and manufacturing facilities against N units of a product over a
long time period. I'm sure there must be someone out there like Dani
who could tell you how they did it.

BELIEVE ME. The second unit is NOT just the cost of bent metal.

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

Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 18:13:56 BST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Drop nuc waste into sun

> Why on earth do you think that fusion doesn't produce waste?
> Read up on the effects of neutron bombardment.  Commercial fusion
> reactors will produce substantial amounts of waste, but it won't
> be in the form of spent fuel rods.
>


I would strongly disagree with the word substantial. It is also
important to note that they are not high level wastes. The only "high
level" waste is a bit of tritium, and if it all escaped you couldn't
detect it outside the plant. It wouldn't even overdose someone in the
plant itself.

And if you go to He3 fusion, there are very few fast neutrons. Most
of the energy comes out as fast electrons from which energy is
extracted directly as electricity via a magnetic field. What neutrons
there are come from a lower probability reaction similar to that in
the current D-T reactors.

The life cycle waste of even a D-T plant is small in comparison with
the waste from a decommissioned fission plant. Addtionally it can
simply be buried for a few decades since it is mostly low atomic
number materials that have gotten a bit of a kick from the fast
neutrons. Not particularly nasty stuff at all.

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

Date: 12 Oct 92 15:45:06 GMT
From: Don Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Drop nuc waste into sun
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Stan Bischof) writes:

>Last I saw, one of the goals was to eventually get to a D-D reaction
>so that the only byproduct is an energetic alpha, as opposed to the
>14MEV neutron from the easier D-T fusion.

D-D reactors won't happen any time soon (read: 50 years). The reaction
cross section for D-D fusion at 30keV ("typical best" ion temp in a big
tokamak) is about two orders of magnitude lower than the cross section for
D-T. We can't even manage a Q (the ratio of power *in* to power *out*)
better than about 0.5 with D-T in the present machines (TFTR and JET).

Besides, the two D-D fusion reactions are:

D + D -->   T(1.01MeV) + p(3.02MeV) 50%
      --> 3He(0.82MeV) + n(2.45MeV) 50%

Now, because of the cross section difference, the Tritium instantly burns up:

D + T --> 4He(3.5MeV) + n(14.1Mev)

So, for each three deuterons you burn up, you get two high energy neutrons
(one at 2.45MeV, one at 14.1MeV). A slight improvement over D-T fusion (two
neutrons per two deuterons), but not much.

>It's that hot neutron that
>causes the problems you are referring to, and which indeed creates
>some nasty byproducts in the reaction chamber walls.

Yup.

>At the worst, however, a DT reactor should produce much less waste
>than a fission reactor.

True. And most of it radioactivity lasts hours, days, or years rather than
decades, centuries, or millenia.

>Long time off in any case, which is a shame.

Right now, the only way we know how to lick the problem is by throwing
money at it (as they say in the fusion biz, "Size Buys.") It's probably
a good idea to keep the funding a bit tight and encourage the physicists
to come up with a few more bright ideas (I like "second stability regime"
tokamaks, but that's just 'cuz I did my thesis on one).

>Stan Bischof
>HPSR
--
 Dr. Donald W. Roberts
   University of California                                     Physicist
   Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory        Recreational Bodybuilder
   [e-mail]                                          Renaissance Dude

 The ideas and opinions expressed here do not represent official policies
 of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,  the University of California,
                or the United States Department of Energy.

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

Date: 12 Oct 92 23:05:09 GMT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: HRMS Press Kit (Repost)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro

[I'm reposting this since the previous version contained garbled text.  Thanks
 to Andrew Yee for supplying a clean version. - Ron Baalke ]


HIGH RESOLUTION MICROWAVE SURVEY  (HRMS)

PRESS KIT

OCTOBER 1992

PUBLIC AFFAIRS CONTACTS

NASA HEADQUARTERS, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Office of Space Science and Applications
Michael Braukus

Ames Research Center, Mountain View, Calif.
Michael Mewhinney

Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.
Mary Hardin


CONTENTS


General Release                  1
Media Services Information       3
Quick-Look Facts                 4
Project History                  5
Project Objectives               6
Targeted Search                  7
Sky Survey                       9
Signal Detection Plans           10
Project Management               11



GENERAL RELEASE

NASA TO BEGIN SEARCH FOR INHABITED PLANETS

RELEASE:  92-161


     On Oct. 12, NASA will begin the most comprehensive search ever conducted
for evidence of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe.

     The search will use telescopes and antennas to detect radio transmissions
from other planetary systems.  The search will commence 500 years after
Columbus landed in North America.

     "In the first few minutes, more searching will be accomplished than in all
previous searches combined," according to Dr. John Billingham of NASA's Ames
Research Center, Mountain View, Calif.

     "Over the past few decades, " Billingham added, "scientific opinion has
increasingly supported the theory that complex life may have evolved on planets
orbiting other stars in the galaxy and the universe.  In some cases, further
evolution may have led to the emergence of intelligence, culture and
technology."

     Billingham, the program chief at Ames, said the High Resolution Microwave
Survey (HRMS) consists of two parts -- a Targeted Search and a Sky Survey.

     The Targeted Search will use the largest available radio telescopes around
the world to search the frequency range from 1,000 to 3,000 megahertz, seeking
a variety of patterns that may indicate the presence of an artificially
generated signal.  A megahertz is a unit of frequency equal to one million
cycles per second.

     The Targeted Search will perform the most sensitive search ever conducted
of solar-type stars less than 100 light-years distant.  The Targeted Search
begins from the world's largest radio telescope at the National Astronomy and
Ionosphere Center's Arecibo Observatory in Puerto Rico. It is operated for the
National Science Foundation by Cornell University.

     The Sky Survey will use the 34-meter antennas at NASA's Deep Space Network
sites in the northern and southern hemispheres to scan the entire sky over the
frequency range from 1,000 to 10,000 megahertz.  The Sky Survey begins at the
Goldstone, Calif., site.

     "Because of the large increase in the area of sky and frequencies covered,
a signal will have to be stronger to be detected by the Sky Survey," Billingham
said. "But it could detect signals emitted in distant regions from directions
that would be overlooked if the search were limited to nearby solar- type
stars," he added.

     Both elements of the HRMS are using specially developed digital signal
processing systems capable of simultaneously analyzing tens of millions of
radio frequency channels.

     The HRMS is managed by NASA's Ames Research Center, which also is
responsible for the Targeted Search project.  The Jet Propulsion Laboratory,
Pasadena, Calif., is responsible for the Sky Survey.

     The HRMS is part of NASA's Toward Other Planetary Systems program in the
Solar System Exploration Division, Office of Space Science and Applications at
NASA Headquarters, Washington, D.C.


- end -


MEDIA SERVICES INFORMATION

NASA SELECT TELEVISION TRANSMISSION

     There will be no live NASA Select coverage of the HRMS deployment on Oct.
12, 1992.  Video footage oftghe HRMS deployment will be taken for documentary
and archival purposes.



HRMS QUICK LOOK

PROJECT DESCRIPTION:  The High Resolution Microwave Survey (HRMS) operates
under the aegis of the Toward Other Planetary Systems (TOPS) program in the
Solar System Exploration Division at NASA Headquarters.  The TOPS program will
employ a variety of astronomical techniques, including microwave surveys, to
search for planets around other stars.  The HRMS Targeted Search and the Sky
Survey will begin concurrently at Arecibo, Puerto Rico, and Goldstone, Calif.
The project's initiation is called the "Initial Deployment of the NASA High
Resolution Microwave Survey."

INITIAL DEPLOYMENT DATE/SITES:  Oct. 12, 1992 - The National Astronomy and
Ionosphere Center's 305-meter (1,000-foot diameter) radio telescope near
Arecibo, Puerto Rico, will be used for the Targeted Search.  This telescope is
operated for the National Science Foundation by Cornell University.  The new
34-meter (112-foot diameter) antenna at NASA's Goldstone Deep Space
Communications Complex near Barstow, Calif., willbe used for the Sky Survey.

Time of Deployment: Targeted Search at 3 p.m.  EDT, Arecibo, Puerto Rico; Sky
Survey at noon PDT, Goldstone, Calif.

Project Duration:  Expected to last until about 2001.


PROJECT HISTORY


     The Earth is the only location known to harbor life.  But as knowledge of
the nature of life has grown, so too have estimates of the likelihood of life
beyond Earth.  Some locations can be searched directly for signs of life as
Mars was by the Viking Project of the mid-1970's.  There are billions of other
locations outside of this solar system that cannot be searched directly because
of the enormous distances involved.

     In 1959, it was first proposed that a method existed to accomplish an
indirect search for life by the use of radio astronomy techniques to detect
signals that might be produced on other planetary systems.  Such signals would
provide unique evidence of the existence of intelligent life elsewhere in the
universe.

     In 1972, a National Academy of Sciences report on astronomy and
astrophysics stated that "a project with the goal of detection of intelligent
life elsewhere may, in the long run, be one of science's most important and
most profound contributions to mankind and to our civilization."  Also in 1972,
NASA published its first report describing how NASA-developed technology could
make such a search possible.

     In the years between 1972 and 1988, NASA maintained a low-level research
and development activity that resulted in the initiation of the Search for
Extraterrestrial Intelligence Microwave Observing Project (MOP) in FY 1989.

     In 1992, NASA established the High Resolution Microwave Survey (HRMS) as
part of the Toward Other Planetary Systems (TOPS) program within NASA's Solar
System Exploration Division.  The Sky Survey (scanning the entire sky for
strong signals coming from any direction) will begin observations at noon PDT
using a 34-meter antenna at NASA's Goldstone Deep Space Communications Complex
near Barstow, Calif.

     The HRMS will be initiated on Oct. 12, 1992 in two concurrent phases, the
Targeted Search, managed by NASA's Ames Research Center, Mountain View, Calif.,
and the Sky Survey, managed by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.

     The Targeted Search (focusing with a very high degree of sensitivity on
1,000 nearby stars similar to the sun) will begin observations at 3 p.m. EDT
using the National Science Foundation's National Astronomy and Ionosphere
Center's 305-meter telescope near Arecibo, Puerto Rico.

     The Sky Survey (scanning the entire sky for strong signals coming from any
direction) will begin observations at noon PDT using a 34-meter antenna at
NASA's Goldstone Deep Space Communications Complex near Barstow, Calif.


PROJECT OBJECTIVES


     The detection and characterization of planetary systems around other stars
is the goal of NASA's Toward Other Planetary Systems (TOPS) program.  Earth's
solar system is still the only known example of a planetary system, and Earth
is the only known planet that sustains life.  Recent astrophysical observations
suggest the existence of other planetary systems around distant stars.  The
existence of these systems could support the hypothesis that life may exist
beyond Earth in another solar system.

     Beginning in fiscal year 1993, NASA's Solar System Exploration Division
will expand it TOPS program to include a new project called the High Resolution
Microwave Survey (HRMS). The project will observe the microwave region of the
electromagnetic spectrum in a manner that can detect signals produced by a
distant technology.

     Potentially, there are billions of solar systems in the Milky Way galaxy
at tremendous distances from Earth.  There are billions of locations outside
Earth's solar system that may contain life but cannot be searched by robotic
spacecraft.  By providing a means of locating and studying distant planetary
systems for evidence of technology generated by life in those systems, the
addition of HRMS to TOPS will expand and enhance this search for evidence of
life.

The TOPS program originally was designed to be fully responsive to the document
"Strategy for the Detection and Study of Other Planetary Systems and Extrasolar
Material: 1990-2000," issued in 1990 by the Space Studies Board's Committee on
Planetary and Lunar Exploration.  In the same year, the Space Studies Board's
Committee on Planetary Biology and Chemical Evolution recommended the following
four objectives in its report entitled "Search for Life's Orign":

   1) To determine the frequency and morphology of nearby planetary systems.

   2) To determine the frequency of occurrence of conditions suitable to the
orign of life.

   3) To search for presumptive evidence of life in other planetary systems.

   4) To search for evidence of extraterrestrial technology.

     With the incorporation of the HRMS, the TOPS program will address each of
these objectives and provide for an expanded comparative study of the universe.


TARGETED SEARCH


     Scientists at NASA's Ames Research Center will conduct the Targeted Search
portion of the HRMS.

     The Targeted Search will examine 1,000 nearby solar-type stars within 100
light years distance from Earth (one light year is approximately 5.9 trillion
miles).  The objective is to test the hypothesis that extraterrestrial
technologies are transmitting radio signals whose characteristics are greatly
different from natural sources of radio emissions and that the HRMS radio
telescopes are sensitive enough to detect them.  Some stellar clusters and
nearby galaxies also will be observed.  The frequency range covered will be
1,000 to 3,000 megahertz (MHz).

     Scientists believe that electromagnetic radiation is the most efficient
means for accompishing information transfer over interstallar distances.  All
electromagnetic waves travel at the speed of light, but radio waves use lower
energy photons than light or other radiation and are not absorbed by the
interstaller medium.

     Of all possible electromagnetic frequencies, the radio portion of the
spectrum suffers least from natural background noise.  Microwave radio
frequencies between about 1,000 and 10,000 megahertz allow detection of the
weakest signals because the background noise, due to our galaxy and the Earth's
atmosphere, is least.

     To achieve the highest possible sensitivity, the largest available radio
telescopes will be used to conduct the Targeted Search. The number of targets
covered will be much larger than previous searches, and the range of
frequencies covered will be thousands of times greater than all previous
searches combined.

     To accomplish this, specialized digital signal processing equipment has
been constructed to listen for microwave radio transmissions reaching the Earth
from distant planetary systems.

     The specialized digital signal processing equipment will simultaneously
study the radio spectrum over tens of millions of individual frequency
channels, at spectral resolutions ranging from 1, 2, 4, 7, 14 and 28 hertz
(cycles per second).  The equipemnt can automatically detect continuous carrier
waves or narrow band (limited range of frequencies) pulses whether they remain
constant in frequency or drift slowly because of some relative acceleration
between transmitter and receiver.  Low noise feeds and cryogenically cooled
receivers will provide access to all frequencies between 1,000 and 3,000
megahertz.

     A special wide frequency bandwidth Multi Channel Spectrum Analyzer (MCSA)
and real-time pattern recognition systems will be deployed at radio astronomy
observatories with the largest existing antennas.  The MCSA is a spectroscope
that dissects the incoming radio signal into a large number of very fine
resolution frequency channels.  When combined with the NASA signal detectors
built for the project, the sytem also is capable of detecting continuous wave
signals as well as narrow band pulses, a likely form of interstellar
transmission.  An automatic data analysis subsystem will be used to detect the
presence of fixed frequency or drifting continuous wave (CW) signals or
sequences of regularly spaced pulses.

     The Targeted Search will use the National Science Foundation's National
Astronomy and Ionosphere Center's 305-meter (1,000-ft) diameter radio telescope
located at the Arecibo Observatory near Arecibo, Puerto Rico, for the initial
deployment of the HRMS on Oct. 12, 1992.  The system will have a total of 10
megahertz of bandwidth.  It will simultaneously analyze tens of millions of
channels of spectral data at 1, 2, 4, 7, 14, and 28 hertz resolutions.  The
system will be transported to other large radio telescopes around the world in
a systematic fashion over the 10-year period of the search.  This will ensure
that all target stars have been fully covered.

     In 1995, the National Radio Astronomy Observatory's (NRAO) 140-foot
telescope in Green Bank, W. Va., will become a dedicated facility for the HRMS,
permitting very large observations of each target at each frequency.  It will
serve as the logistical hub of the HRMS Targeted Search. Over the next 3 years,
three more such systems will be built and packaged into two mobile research
facility trailers for air transport to the observation sites.


SKY SURVEY


     The NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., will conduct the Sky
Survey portion of NASA's HRMS to search for radio signals from other planetary
systems.  The Sky Survey will scan all directions of the sky to cover a wide
range of frequencies from 1,000 to 10,000 megahertz.

     NASA's HRMS will conduct a comprehensive, systematic search of a portion
of the microwave radio spectrum to detect evidence of radio transmissions from
other planetary systems.  An intentionally transmitted signal is easiest to
detect in a frequency band where the background radio noise or static is
minimal.  One of the quietest frequency bands is the "microwave window," which
lies between 1,000 and 10,000 megahertz.  Since the quiet characteristic of
microwave frequencies does not change throughout the galaxy, it is
reasonable to assume that others might also choose this band.

     The Sky Survey observation technique involves automatically mapping small
areas of the sky, called sky frames.  As the observations are completed, the
sky frames will be assembled to form mosaic maps, one for each frequency band,
of all the microwave detections over the entire sky.  For each of the 31
frequency bands, the sky is divided into several hundred frames, as if the sky
were a giant checkerboard.  Each frame takes 1 to 2 hours to map.

     The Sky survey will initially use the 34-meter (112-foot) diameter
antenna at the Goldstone Deep Space Communications complex of NASA's Deep
Space Network in California's Mojave Desert. Toward the latter part of the
survey, the search will move to a similar antenna near Canberra, Australia.

     In 1992, the Sky Survey will begin with a prototype system.  The
prototype receiver, spectrum analyzer and signal processor will break up
incoming microwave radio signals into 2 million separate frequency
channels.  The system can be configured in a single polarization mode
with 40 megahertz total bandwidth or a dual polarization mode with 20 megahertz
total bandwidth.  Specially designed digital hardware, operating at
supercomputer speeds, will simultaneously process the 2 million channels to
identify and separate interstallar signals that have "artificial"
characteristics from background radio noise and terrestrial interference, such
as Earth-orbiting satellites.  The most promising candidate signals will be
subjected to detailed screening and will be saved for subsequent verification
and study by the scientific community.

     The prototype will be used to test and verify the design of the Sky Survey
control and data processing algorithms.  The operational Sky Survey system
currently is being designed and constructed.  It will provide 16 times the
capability of the prototype and will feature a 32 million channel spectrum
analyzer with a bandwidth of at least 320 megahertz.  Starting in 1996, the
system will begin to map the entire sky 31 times in both the northern and
southern hemispheres during an observational phase that is expected to last 6
years and produce more than 25,000 sky frames.


SIGNAL DETECTION PLANS

     In the event that a signal is detected from another planetary system, a
formal verification procedure will be implemented.  The procedure stipulates
that before any public announcement is made, the signal detection must be
independently onfirmed by other observers or research organizations.

     After the discovery has been verified, national and international
authorities are to be informed.  News of the confirmed discovery then will be
disseminated promptly, openly and widely through scientific channels and the
news media.  All data necessary for the confirmation of the detection will be
made available to the international scientific community through publications,
meetings, conferences and other appropriate means.

     No response to any confirmed signal will be sent from Earth until
appropriate international consultations have occurred.


PROJECT MANAGEMENT


NASA Headquarters, Washington, D.C.

Dr. Wesley Huntress    Director, Solar System Exploration Division
Dr. Nicholas Renzetti  Manager, Telecommunications and Data Acquisition Science
                       Complex, Goldstone Deep Space Communications Complex
Dr. Michael J. Klein   JPL SETI Project Manager and HRMS Sky Survey Manager
Dr. Samuel Gulkis      HRMS Deputy Project Scientist
J. Richard Kolden      HRMS Sky Survey Implementation Manager


Arecibo Observatory, Puerto Rico

Dr. Daniel Altschuler  Director

     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Einstein's brain is stored
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | in a mason jar in a lab
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | in Wichita, Kansas.

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

Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 18:28:37 BST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: LunaOne: Beyond Boostrap

> How are you going to get the millions of tons of fab equipment to
> the moon?
>


It's not millions of tons for IC production and probably never was.
Grad students made simple IC's in the lab at the CMU EE department
back in 1974. I once helped unload one of the few REALLY big pieces
of equipment, an Ion Implantation Device. That did way a ton or two.
But the rest of the lab put together would have gone up in a shuttle
bay, clean room and all.

Production facilities need not be all that much more. And besides,
the technologies have improved and the equipment is getting smaller.
Although some of the really advanced stuff is getting pretty pricey.
It might almost cost a few tenths of a percent of its launch cost :-)

The silicon refining is usually done one silicon bar at time in a
zone refining furnace. Then you need to cut it into planchets with
precision equipment. The masking and etching processes are no big
deal; implantation and epitaxial growth do not require huge
equipment; new Near Field Optic techniques will probably make the
X-ray etching unnecessary for the next generation; testing and dicing
is no particular problem. A hundred tons max for a minimal production
line is my guess. You could do research quantity production on a few
tens of tons.

All that said, I'm not sure I'd see much market for complex chips on
the moon and I doubt they could compete (within the next 30 years)
with Earth based technology as an export unless there was a big R&D
base and the Lunies kept their own trade secrets. ie if they made a 4
terrabyte Ram chip and no one else did. Not very likely for a
colonial outpost.

It would make sense to make solar cells for local use locally. The
processing for them is much simpler than for complex IC's.

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

Date: Monday, 12 Oct 1992 15:13:41 TUR
From: enis tuncer <[e-mail]>
Subject: motions of astronouts
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.space,sci.space.shuttle

Hi,

I have two questions,

1. I know that the suits that astronouts wear are not suitable for them to move
 quickly, forget about their suit. How their reflexes change in space(not in sp
ace shuttle because in space shuttle there is air)? do they move faster? And th
e effect of gravity on human motion?

2. Astronouts don't use their balance systems, what kinds of problems do they h
ave when they came to earth?

THANX.

Enis TUNCER
M.E.T.U.
PHYSICS DEP.
A10630 at trmetu

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

Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 12:35:17 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: One Small Step for a Space Activist...
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

           One Small Step for a Space Activist...
                Vol. 3 No. 10 - October 1992
                             By
                  Allen Sherzer & Tim Kyger

For several months we have been writing about the effort to
find a new home for the SDIO SSRT program and to find
funding to build the DC-Y vehicle or some sort of orbital
demonstrator. This effort was delayed due to an unexpected
threat to the DC-X when the House Appropriations Committee
Defense Subcommittee transferred DC-X funds to the NLS
program. Now funding for DC-X looks secure (see below) and
it is time to begin the push for DC-Y. The strategy for
accomplishing this comes in three parts: 1) The Inside Game,
2) The Outside Game, and 3) The Media Game.

The Inside Game is the game that has been played to date to
bring the SSRT program into existence.  This is the game of
people who know people; of deals made in offices, or on golf
courses.  So far it has worked very well for SSRT; there
has, indeed, been a Phase I and a Phase II program.

The inside game will also be the game required to achieve
the establishment of an SSRT Phase III program, along with
its associated funding lines.  This "issue" is being worked
by the very insiders who in the three past years have
brought the current SSRT program into existence. Current
inside activities consist of identifying the best place for
Phase III of SSRT and convincing that group to aggressively
pursue bringing SSTO into their shop (note the name change).
In addition, Air Force Space Command officials are being
briefed on the potential cost reductions and increases in
flexibility possible with SSTO. Together, these activities
are providing demand pull which will help convince Congress
(and putative Clinton Administration if there is one) that
SSTO deserves funding.

The Outside Game is where our help is needed. It began when
space activists rallied with letters and phone calls to Rep.
Murtha (D-PA) asking him to restore SSRT funds. The size of
our response suprised a lot of Congresscritters because it
was so large compared to the size of the SSRT effort. It
also, frankly, suprized SSTO supporters.

The second phase of the Outside Game is about to begin. The
goal of Phase II is to have space activists visit every
newly elected Congresscritter in the entire House of
Representatives by early 1993. To accomplish this your help
is needed. We are preparing packets containing all the
information you will need to help accomplish this goal. This
packet will contain:

1. A paper describing how to make an appointment and visit
your representative

2. A presentation on SSTO to give your representative

3. Background papers on SSTO to give your representative

4. A "20 Questions about SSTO" paper to give to others

In addition, arangements have been made to get you the
support of insiders. They will help you cut through red tape
in order to help you actually make an appointment and help
you go through your presentation with role playing
excercises.

The final element of the strategy is the Media Game. As much
as possible we must get DC-X and SSRT in the public mind.
This will not only help support SSRT but will also stimulate
interest in space in general. To date the Media Game has
seen the least activity. Can you help? Do you know about or
have access to major (or even minor) media? If so, contact
us ASAP; we need your help. This project has a 'tech
support' line: 202-225-8459, 800-787-5314 (voice mail), or
800-78SPACE. You can also send email to [e-mail] or
[e-mail].

Activists have played an important role in keepint SSRT
alive this year. It is in our hands to make phase III a
reality.

This effort is a project of the Space Frontier Society with
major support being provided by the Ann Arbor Space Society.
More thanks to come! If you want to become involved in this
project, give us a call.

                     Legislative Roundup

                          SSTO/SSRT
It looks like the staffers who were attempting to transfer
the SSRT funds into the NLS program have cried 'uncle' and
will not impede DC-X this year. This came largely as a
result of the letters and phone calls you have made. One
well placed House staffer said: "Murtha said that he felt
like a catbox had been dumped on him from out of the blue".

Mr. Murtha deserves our thanks. Drop him a line thanking
him; it will go a long way to reinforce his support.

                      Commercial Space
As of October second, it looks like the Senate will include
launch vouchers as a two year trial in the NASA
Authorization bill. In addition, it looks like the Senate
will agree to civil use of NASA facilities, termination
liability, launch indemnity, and trade secret provision.

                        Inside Space

If you get the new Science Fiction Channel on cable, be sure
to check out "Inside Space" every Sunday at 9:00 EST.

                       NSS Petition Drive
NSS has endorsed Dr. Zubrin's petition calling on the next
president to devote serious effort to SEI. Watch this space
for progress reports.
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------195 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: 12 Oct 92 12:15:56 GMT
From: "Richard J. Gaylord" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Toshiba vs. Chaparral
Newsgroups: rec.video.satellite,sci.space

you can get the monterey 50 which is identical to the 90 except with no
surround sound or pip so that's irrelevant.

the chapparal people provide great service (i've been dealing with them
for over 5 yrs).

chapparal doesn't engage in unethical or illegal business practices (as
far as i know) which is more than be saidfor toshiba.

monterey is totally american made (as far as i know) if you care..

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

Date: 10 Oct 92 23:54:00 GMT
From: Mark Goodman <[e-mail]>
Subject: What use is Freedom?
Newsgroups: sci.space

To:    sci.space
From:  Mark W. Goodman ([e-mail])
Re:    What Good Is Freedom?
Date:  10/9/92

I have followed this thread with some amusement.  The answers
offered to the question "What good is Fred?" seem to focus on the
question of its size.  What does that have to do with anything?

The question ought to be: "What useful things can you do with
Fred?"  Size may be an issue, but in the tradeoff of capability
versus cost, bigger is not obviously better.

So does anyone care to venture an answer to the question as I have
posed it?

--
Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose.
(the space scientist's lament)

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 310
------------------------------