Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V15_3/V15NO311.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 31KB

Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 05:03:00
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #311
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Tue, 13 Oct 92       Volume 15 : Issue 311

Today's Topics:
                    Alleged Benefits of Military $
                            ASRM pollution
               Bootstrap hardware for LunaBase (2 msgs)
          Fusion vs. Fission (was: Drop nuc waste into sun)
                       LunaOne: Beyond Boostrap
          One View on Extraterrestrial Life from 1919 (SETI)
                   Pres Debate & military spending
                               Roswell
                             Telepresence
                    Toshiba vs. Chaparral (2 msgs)
                     Transportation on the Moon.
        WE ARE STILL HERE: THE 500 YEARS CELEBRATION (3 msgs)
                    What use is Freedom? (2 msgs)
                    Where can I find space files?

    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: 12 Oct 92 15:34:28
From: Steinn Sigurdsson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Alleged Benefits of Military $
Newsgroups: sci.space

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


   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.

Obviously I have no way of personally verifying NASA's figures,
although two (non-US)government economists I talked to (one
macro, one micro ;-) seemed to think the figures were realistic.
The procurment multiplier is between 2 and 10 from the Nature
article - which BTW was written by some independent consultants
according to the acks., the citations were to NASA reports (which
I again note are _mandated_ by Congress, including the district
breakdown - anybody know if the methodology is also mandated?).
Note also that this does not include spinoffs or priming mulitpliers
(eg the current SSC argument, that by providing a large stable
market for high tech goods such as electronics and computers
provides the incentive to invest in facilities that also serve
consumers, I believe Motorola is pushing that line hard on SSC,
I suspect HP would agree with something like that, JPL was one
of the early large consumers of their calculators...).
    Arguably government expenditure that achieves short
term multipliers greater than 1/fraction of GDP used by gov
is directly justified, although personally I think expenditures
on space science and engineering development are justified on
intangibles alone.
    In the end OMB and CAO (sp?) will check NASA's numbers,
at some point you just have to accept that the numbers may be valid.

|  Steinn Sigurdsson    |I saw two shooting stars last night        |
|  Lick Observatory    |I wished on them but they were only satellites    |
| [e-mail] |Is it wrong to wish on space hardware?        |
| "standard disclaimer"    |I wish, I wish, I wish you'd care - B.B. 1983    |

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

Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 17:28:18 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Phil G. Fraering)
Subject: ASRM pollution

\    I'm currently doing some research on goverment-sponsored risk
/communication.  Does anyone out there know were I might find some info
\on the recent debate between NASA and the residents living near the
/ASRM test facilities.

\    This research is for the purpose of understanding the process of
/risk communication only, and will not be used to either attack or
\defend NASA's position on this issue.

I personally would like to find out if there are some dubious
environmental effects to ASRM, especially since it's one of Al
"Environmental Vice President" Gore's favorite pork barrel projects.
It might be worth knowing about these to either 1) Change Gore's mind
about the project, and maybe to favor something else or 2) Change
the mind people about Al Gore.

I've given you my ulterior motives, but could you please let
_me_ know too?

/ Thank's just all to pieces.

Hmmph. Looks like someone's been watching too much of
the "'Round the Bend Southern Gardening with Euphobia
Stokes" TV show...


--
Phil Fraering [e-mail] where the x is a number from 1-5.
Phone: [phone] SnailMail: 2408 Blue Haven Dr., New Iberia, La. 70560
---------------------
Disclaimer: Some reasonably forseeable events may exceed this
message's capability to protect from severe injury, death, widespread
disaster, astronomically significant volumes of space approaching a
state of markedly increaced entropy, or taxes.

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

Date: 12 Oct 92 19:34:28 GMT
From: Doug Mohney <[e-mail]>
Subject: Bootstrap hardware for LunaBase
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nick Szabo) writes:
>>and do
>>not change the comparison of lunar mining vs. alternatives.
>
>Also correct. However the advantage of the moon isn't cost, is't time.
>
>Eventually we will make extensive use of asteroids and comets. But first
>we will use the advantage of close Lunar material because it's faster
>and provides easier access to the people needed to operate and debug
>the facility.

Shhhhhhshhh... now that makes sense... :)


                 Play in the intelluctual sandbox of Usenet

  -- >                  [e-mail]                        < --

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

Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 20:30:00 GMT
From: Greg Moore <[e-mail]>
Subject: Bootstrap hardware for LunaBase
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>> $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.
>
    Yes and no.  What you are saying is correct.  But in the original
context I think the numbers were wrong.  Nick was attempting to show that
the "shack" would cost something over $100 Billion.  BUT, this money
has been accounted for.  First of all, the umber was in error because it
was taken from the life-cycle of Freedom, not the R&D/production of the
cans.

    Secondly, it appers that Nick was trying to say that the R&D costs
would have to be applied twice, once to Freedom, then again to the Moonbase.
That is faulty math.  What you are saying is that the total cost should
be DIVIDED between the two.  That is correct.

    (Now Nick, before you get on m bandwagon, I admit, I don't recall
the exact number you used, I believe it was $130 Billion?)


>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: 12 Oct 92 16:26:59 GMT
From: Don Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fusion vs. Fission (was: Drop nuc waste into sun)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.physics.fusion

[I'm cross-posting to sci.physics.fusion--DWR]

[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, D-D doesn't produce an alpha (directly). The two D-D fusion
reactions are:

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

Because of the cross section difference, the Tritium instantly burns up:

D + T -- 4He(3.5MeV) + n(14.1Mev)  [here's where the alpha appears]

So, on average, for each five deuterons consumed, two high energy neutrons
are produced (one at 2.45MeV, one at 14.1MeV). An improvement over D-T
fusion (two neutrons per two deuterons plus two tritons), 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 D-T reactor should produce much less waste
>than a fission reactor.

True. And most of its radioactivity lasts hours, days, or years rather than
decades, centuries, or millenia. (Fission has the distinct advantage of
*actually working*, however).

>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. A big tokamak like ITER might just work: as they say in the
fusion biz, "Size Buys." It's probably a good idea to keep the funding a
bit tight to 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: Mon, 12 Oct 92 20:54:21 GMT
From: Doug Mohney <[e-mail]>
Subject: LunaOne: Beyond Boostrap
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

Export, no. Avoid importing from Earth, yes.

                 Play in the intelluctual sandbox of Usenet

  -- >                  [e-mail]                        < --

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

Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 21:07:29 GMT
From: Larry Klaes <[e-mail]>
Subject: One View on Extraterrestrial Life from 1919 (SETI)
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space,sci.misc,sci.skeptic

        The following passage is quoted from AN INTRODUCTION TO ASTRONOMY,
    by Forest Ray Moulton, PhD, The MacMillan Company, New York, published
    in 1919.

        Chapter 9, "The Planets", Section 174, "Explanations of the
    Canals of Mars", page 288:

        "It is a curious fact that those who know but little about
    astronomy are nearly always very much interested in the question
    whether other worlds are inhabited, while as a rule astronomers
    who devote their whole lives to the subject scarcely give the
    question of the habitability of other planets a thought.  Astro-
    nomers are doubtless influenced by the knowledge that such spec-
    ulations can scarcely lead to certainty, and they are deeply
    impressed by the fundamental laws which they find operating in
    the Universe.

        "Nevertheless, there seems to be no good reason why we should
    not now and then consider the question of the existence of life,
    not only on the other planets of the solar system, but also on the
    millions of planets that possibly circulate around other suns.  Such
    speculations help to enlarge our mental horizon and to give us a
    better perspective in contemplating the origin and destiny of the
    human race, but we should never forget that they are speculations."

        Larry Klaes  [e-mail]
             or - ...!decwrl!verga.enet.dec.com!klaes
                 or - [e-mail]
                     or - [e-mail]

             "All the Universe, or nothing!" - H. G. Wells

        EJASA Editor, Astronomical Society of the Atlantic

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

Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 21:07:21 GMT
From: "Carlos G. Niederstrasser" <phoenix.Princeton.EDU![e-mail]>
Subject: Pres Debate & military spending
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space,sci.space

Here is something which I think the space community should start pushing for
very soon.

In yesterday's presidential debate all three candidates agreed that if we are
to cut defense spending, we better start retraining and retooling so that money
is not wasted and jobs are not lost.  Perot in partiuclar said that the
conversion from military hardware should be to some other high technology... it
is hard to convert from potato chips to computer chips in time of war
(paraphrase)  Well, we all know (at least those of us who read these groups)
that one of the technologies that is most closely related to the military is
space.  It is time to get the word out.  We have to let the next administration
know that one of the most logical (and probably easiest) transformations would
be from military hardware to space hardware.  In fact many of the people
working on one are working on the other

The possibilities are there... spy-technology to remote sensing, hypersonic
research to civilian aircraft, etc.  All these seem painfully obvious, in fact
almost too ovbious to be brought up.  But the fact is that it is not really
happening, defense workers are loosing their jobs, and the space budget is
going down.  Take a recent example, to save jobs Bush agreed to sell F15 to
Saudi Arabia, a highly contraversial decision.  How about if to save those same
jobs the same money had been used for a space program tha M-D might be involved
in.  Some of the money goes to retraining, some to the actual project.  It
sounds logical, but it is not being done.

It is time to move, or we will loose our chance to rip the benefits of the much
talked about 'peace dividend.'

--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| Carlos G. Niederstrasser        |   It is difficult to say what   |
| Princeton Planetary Society     | is impossible; for the dream of |
|                                 | yesterday, is the hope of today |
|                                 |   and the reality of tomorrow   |
| [e-mail]   |---------------------------------|
| [e-mail]     |    Ad Astra per Ardua Nostra    |
---------------------------------------------------------------------

--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| Carlos G. Niederstrasser        |   It is difficult to say what   |
| Princeton Planetary Society     | is impossible; for the dream of |
|                                 | yesterday, is the hope of today |

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

Date: 12 Oct 92 18:55:40 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Roswell
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael Corbin) writes:
>... Below is a reprint of an article which appeared in a "science" magazine
>about the crash recovery investigation being conducted by a retired Air
>Force Intelligence officer. Although there is *no* hard evidence that the
>vehicle recovered was an extraterrestrial spacecraft...

Come now.  If you're going to reprint stuff from Air&Space, have the decency
to at least summarize the whole article, rather than taking part of it out
of context.  Much the most interesting thing in that article was the
observation that a crash of a hush-hush *US* project could easily account
for the fuss and the secrecy... especially since the location was ideal for
such a thing to happen.  Roswell is in the middle of an area that includes
White Sands Missile Range, Los Alamos, and an airbase that then housed the
world's only operational nuclear-bomber force.

It's silly to invoke crashed UFOs when Earthly causes provide quite an
adequate explanation.
--
MS-DOS is the OS/360 of the 1980s.      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
              -Hal W. Hardenbergh (1985)|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 13 Oct 92 00:20:40 GMT
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telepresence
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Roberts) writes:
>>  The simulator displays a phantom
>>  image of the robot superimposed on the delayed "real" monitoring image of
>>  the robot.
>
> After successfully maneuvering the phantom image, the operator sits back
> and watches the delayed image of the rover slowly fall into a subsidence
> hidden from the scan. The screen image is replaced by the words "GAME
> OVER. INSERT $1 BILLION TO PLAY AGAIN"

Hmm, this reminds me of a prank that... certain individuals... used to
play at... a major accelerator facility I know of.

The victim's screen would clear and a message appeared:

    DUE TO BUDGET CONSTRAINTS, WE REGRET THAT THE CONTROL SYSTEM IS NO
                              LONGER FREE.
      INSERT 25 CENTS FOR 15 MORE MINUTES OF CONTROL SYSTEM USAGE.

In the Department of Energy's funding environment of the late
seventies, this was alarmingly plausible...

                      ______meson   Bill Higgins
                   _-~
     ____________-~______neutrino   Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
   -   -         ~-_
 /       \          ~----- proton   Bitnet: [e-mail]
 |       |
 \       /                          SPAN/Hepnet/Physnet: 43011::HIGGINS
   -   -
     ~                              Internet: [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 14:25:19 GMT
From: Gerald Simon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Toshiba vs. Chaparral
Newsgroups: rec.video.satellite,sci.space

I've had a Montery 90 for a couple weeks now and have no complaints with it.
I feel the remote is fine, the picture quality is GREAT, and have no problems
with it.  It's full of features (some of which I haven't played with - or
found - yet).  I don't understand why people complain about the remote
for the Montery......it's layed out well, labled and easy to understand.

The (mail order) price between the Toshiba and Chaparral (for the system)
were not that far apart.

Jerry Simon

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

Date: 12 Oct 92 21:08:24 GMT
From: Tom Hedges <[e-mail]>
Subject: Toshiba vs. Chaparral
Newsgroups: rec.video.satellite,sci.space

I originally owned a Toshiba 1800 and donated it to my uncles in Missouri
and replaced it with a Monterey 50.

For me the difference was like day and night!!!

The Toshiba had no numeric readout of the arm position,
it has no way of entering your own text for the favorites menu,
it has limited or no control of video bandwidth,
it has no per LNB global frequency offset (this is very important
on the Ku band as most LNB's are off by as much as 5 to 10MHz from
the nominal frequency block - not surprizing considering it is
down-converted from 12 GHz) which means all programming of Ku channels
must explicitly and visibly include the LNB offset error,
it has a poor set of formats for Ku band satellites,
it has a limit of 30 different audio formats for all channels, which
must be selected by number rather than having individual audio settings
per channel.

The Toshiba has no 70MHz (or 140MHz) loop in back, the Monterey does.

The Toshiba _does_ have a skip tuning option which the Monterey does
not.

The Toshiba auto-skew adjust works better than the Monterey, but
I seldom use that feature, the auto fine tuning position of the arm is
better on the Monterey which is something I do use fairly often.

The Monterey remote is a strange design and not very reliable (my
first one had a battery life of 12 hours?!?), but it works once you
get used to it.

I can strongly recommend the Monterey IRD, the only other choice that
I have heard very highly recommended is the Drake, it supposedly has
a lower threshold and is simpler to use, but lacks the some of the
programmability of the Monterey (like 4 video bandwidths) which is
especially important for Ku band. (I don't know if it has the global
frequency offset per LNB - for me an essential Ku feature).

The Monterey has full control over color and background of its on-screen
menus, it allows both categories and individual items in the favorites
menu to the user-entered text. It allows names of satellites (e.g.
Galaxy, Satcom) to be user entered text as well.

-------------------------------------
Tom Hedges
[e-mail] --or-- [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 16:55:22 GMT
From: Jeff Bytof <[e-mail]>
Subject: Transportation on the Moon.
Newsgroups: sci.space

>>My God, as far as we know the Moon's as dry as a bone, and we're talking
>>about mining ice on it!  Even if there IS ice, how do we know there's
>>going to be enough to support whatever operation is proposed?

>If you know there's no ice at the lunar poles, you are one up on the
>entire lunar-science community.  It's distinctly possible; see any good
>technical discussion of lunar resources.  Arguments have been advanced
>both pro and con, but the general consensus is that nothing short of a
>suitable remote-sensing mission will settle the question.

We should look for the ice, but to assume even for the sake of an
exercise that there's enough to sustain any productive use raises
false hopes.  Better to look at the engineering and economics of ice mining
on Mars and comets, where we at least know there are materials available in
some quantity.

---------------------
[e-mail]

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

Date: 12 Oct 92 16:12:40 GMT
From: Patrick Chester <[e-mail]>
Subject: WE ARE STILL HERE: THE 500 YEARS CELEBRATION
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Rich Winkel) writes:
>MOST DISGRACEFUL OF all is the self)congratulatory hoopla under
>way in most colonial and neocolonial states. In 1992, the
>governments of Spain, Italy, the United States, and 31 other
>countries are hosting the largest public celebration of this
>century to mark the 500th anniversary of the arrival of "Western
>civilization" in the hemisphere.
>        As planned, it will outstrip the bicentennials of the
>Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and the
>French Revolution in scale and cost, and in the callous rewriting
>of history. The multibillion)dollar official extravaganza
>includes a race to Mars between three solar)powered spaceships
          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>named after Columbus' Nina, Pinta, and Santa Maria; a "Tall
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
WHOA!! What the hell are you talking about here? I tend to follow the space
program very closely and I have not heard of this. In fact, then only craft
recently launched towards Mars was the Mars Observer, which is definitely not
powered by solar sails. This must be a mistake.
Anybody know otherwise?


--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Chester            |"The earth is too fragile a basket in which to keep
[e-mail] |  all your eggs." Robert A. Heinlein
Politically Incorrect      |"The meek shall inherit the earth. The rest of us
Future Lunar Colonist      |  are going to the stars." Anonymous
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 12 Oct 92 19:02:43 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: WE ARE STILL HERE: THE 500 YEARS CELEBRATION
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Patrick Chester) writes:
>>includes a race to Mars between three solar)powered spaceships
>          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>named after Columbus' Nina, Pinta, and Santa Maria; a "Tall
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>WHOA!! What the hell are you talking about here? I tend to follow the space
>program very closely and I have not heard of this...

It's not mistaken, just out of date.  The Columbus Cup solar-sail race was
originally going to launch this year.  Funding problems -- aggravated by
the untimely arrival of a recession -- scuttled that schedule, and perhaps
the entire race.  (Some of the would-be entrants are still interested, but
as far as I know, nothing much is happening lately.  Certainly the Canadian
Solar Sail Project [which started as a race entry] is on hold until the
money situation improves.)
--
MS-DOS is the OS/360 of the 1980s.      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
              -Hal W. Hardenbergh (1985)|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 21:43:34 GMT
From: "Simon E. Booth" <[e-mail]>
Subject: WE ARE STILL HERE: THE 500 YEARS CELEBRATION
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,sci.space

To all you politically correct people out there:

HAPPY COLUMBUS DAY.  Remember, this is the 500th aniversary of Columbus
DISCOVERING the new world.


Simon

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

Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 15:53:33 GMT
From: Frank Crary <[e-mail]>
Subject: What use is Freedom?
Newsgroups: sci.space

Lines: 35
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> Mark Goodman <[e-mail]> writes:
>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 size and available power reflect how many and what sort of
experiments can be conducted their, as well as how many scientists
could live and work there. Unfortunately, it also reflects
how much maintaince work is required. I'm not convinced there is a
net gain in astronaut time, over a smaller, simpler station. Last time
I checked, EVA maintaince would require at least a two-man EVA every
week. Counting preparations, etc..., this would be about 10%
of the available astronaut time. We're committed to providing the
Europeans and Japanese with two crewmen, who can spend their time
on science, not maintaince. Now that the PMC crew is down to four,
that means minimum EVA maintanice work and outside scientists will
account for 60% of the crew time. Being a pessimist (and looking at
how the Soviet and Russian crews on Mir spend their time) I think
there will be far more unplanned EVA repairs than planned ones, and
there will quite a bit of required in-station maintaince. It wouldn't
be impossible for the American crew to spend all their time on
maintaince, and little or no time on science.

>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.

The proponents of Freedom point out that it will teach us how
to live and work in space, regardless of how much science is done.
That's true, but in my opinion, there are quicker and cheaper ways
to learn such things...

                                             Frank Crary
                                             CU Boulder

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

Date: 12 Oct 92 18:47:06 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: what use is Freedom?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Aaron Wigley [Wigs]) writes:
>What about the Shuttle at the moment - can crew members take personal
>belongings up?

They each get a small amount of mass and volume for personal stuff.  There
are some restrictions, although I don't know details.
--
MS-DOS is the OS/360 of the 1980s.      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
              -Hal W. Hardenbergh (1985)|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 12 Oct 92 16:39:16 -0300
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Where can I find space files?
Newsgroups: sci.space

This is probably a FAQ, but where can I find graphic files and other files
concerning space? (e.g. animation files text files, etc)

*****************************************************************************
Lucas Dambergs
      AKA
The Supreme Cow

Absence makes the heart grow fungus.    -- The Barenaked Ladies
Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, North America, Sol III (Earth), Terran System
*****************************************************************************

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 311
------------------------------