Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_3/V16NO383.TXT

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

Date: Mon, 29 Mar 93 05:20:04
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #383
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Mon, 29 Mar 93       Volume 16 : Issue 383

Today's Topics:
             Alaska Pipeline and Space Station! (2 msgs)
                       Coral and Dyson Sphere..
                             Flame Derby
             Flight time comparison: Voyager vs. Gallileo
                       JPL's Public Access Site
           Modulated Directed Tachyons for Commo? (2 msgs)
                            NASA spinoffs?
                           SSF Redesign....
                           STS056 press Kit
                 TerraForming Venus/Cheap/Organisms..
            Terraforming Venus: can it be done "cheaply"?
       the call to space (was Re: Clueless Szaboisms ) (2 msgs)
            Timid Terraformers (was Re: How to cool Venus)
                         Why is Venus so bad?
                    Why is Venus so hot? (3 msgs)

    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: Mon, 29 Mar 1993 03:37:52 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Alaska Pipeline and Space Station!
Newsgroups: sci.space

Governments don't have to be the only ones who can put crafts into space and
such.. Private enterprise built the Alaska Pipeline, with little or no
government direct help.. So why not have a group of private corps build a space
station? why can't they the private corps do it, like they did with the Alaska
Pipeline...??

==
Michael Adams, [e-mail] -- I'm not high, just jacked

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

Date: 29 Mar 93 05:25:25 GMT
From: "Ray Swartz (Oh, that guy again" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Alaska Pipeline and Space Station!
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
>Governments don't have to be the only ones who can put crafts into space and
>such.. Private enterprise built the Alaska Pipeline, with little or no
>government direct help.. So why not have a group of private corps build a space
>station? why can't they the private corps do it, like they did with the Alaska
>Pipeline...??
>==
>Michael Adams, [e-mail] -- I'm not high, just jacked


    Sure, companies could do it.  As it is, companies WILL do it, iof it's
done.  The government (via NASA) will just hand out the contracts.

But what's in it for them?  Remember that a company is in business to make
money.  Where's the money in a space station?

Raymond L. Swartz Jr. ([e-mail])
================================================================================
I read the newspaper today and was amazed that, in 24 hours, five billion
people could accomplish so little.
================================================================================

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

Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1993 04:02:49 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Coral and Dyson Sphere..
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>So I am wierd..
>
> No argument. :-)
>
>>How to get the coral to build the "reef" in the shape wanted??
>
> More importantly, what are you going to *feed* the coral organisms?
> At a minimum they're going to need N,P,K,O,C, and Ca, all in a form
> they can organically process, plus plenty of H2O as a carrier.
>
> What are you going to use to *anchor* the first segments? Coral grows
> against a gravity gradient toward nutrient and energy rich sources.
>
> Gary
> --
> Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
> Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
> 534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
> Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     |

Hum, maybe provide the base material, maybe a space station? not sure.. I had
not thought of it so far. That is why I put the idea out.. Maybe Nanotech would
work better, but I was working on alternates to non-organic tech..
Maybe use a asteroid/meteor in the right place for an anchor?
I know there is alot asteroids with most of the necessary material for startup
and maybe completion, all you would have to do is find a way to get the
asteroids/meteors where you need them, maybe a link up of asteroids/meteors in
the design area (orbit and such)... and let the "coral" built/eat there way to
the next asteroid/metoer in the correct orbit/linkup/skyhook?

==
Michael Adams, [e-mail] -- I'm not high, just jacked

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

Date: Sun, 28 Mar 93 22:23:29 EST
From: Tom <[e-mail]>
Subject: Flame Derby

Bob> I want to apologize if I sounded resentful.

Mary> No, you can't--I get to apologize for not making it clear that I
meant the plural you here, or that I'm part of the group.  So there!

Geez, you two won't even be contenders :-)

-Tommy Mac
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom McWilliams | 517-355-2178 (work) \\     Inhale to the Chief!
[e-mail]  | 336-9591 (hm)\\  Zonker Harris in 1996!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1993 04:08:17 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Flight time comparison: Voyager vs. Gallileo
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <a![e-mail]> [e-mail] (Lowell O Specht Jr.) writes:
>The General Dynamics Centaur use by the Titan IV ELV weighs approximately
>55000 lbs when loaded with fuel. There is NO WAY that a Titan IV could lift
>TWO Centaurs much less a small solid kick motor and a probe on top of that.

Remember, it doesn't have to lift it into orbit, although I'm not sure
how the arithmetic would go on total lift capacity.  Bear in mind, also,
that you could use the older Atlas-diameter Centaur, which doesn't weigh
as much.

>In addition, The first centaur is already included in the shroud...

Oops.  Now *this* I had forgotten.
--
All work is one man's work.             | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
                    - Kipling           |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 28 Mar 1993 22:44 MST
From: BEEZER <[e-mail]>
Subject: JPL's Public Access Site
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ron Baalke) writes...
>From the "JPL Universe"
>March 26, 1993
>
>Public access computer site spurs worldwide interest in Lab activities

>     -- Those with a computer and a modem may call 354-1333,

Umm, forgot the area code, didn't we?  {grin}

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

Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1993 03:48:05 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Modulated Directed Tachyons for Commo?
Newsgroups: sci.space

Question wierd tho it might be... Is there a way to produce controlled
tachyons? and other faster than light particles..

Namely find a way to modulate the tachyons and figure out a way to recive
them/detect them so that the other end, namely Mars can then detect the
modulated tachyon message from earth..

Why not use modulated tachyon emissions for communications between earth and
mars and farther out... directed that is, can a tachyon be directed into a beam
like a laser (not in the same way, but a narrow beam?)..??



Michael Adams
NSMCA@ACAD@.ALASKA.EDU
I'm not high, just jacked

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

Date: 29 Mar 93 05:27:44 GMT
From: "Ray Swartz (Oh, that guy again" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Modulated Directed Tachyons for Commo?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
>Question wierd tho it might be... Is there a way to produce controlled
>tachyons? and other faster than light particles..
>
>Namely find a way to modulate the tachyons and figure out a way to recive
>them/detect them so that the other end, namely Mars can then detect the
>modulated tachyon message from earth..
>
>Why not use modulated tachyon emissions for communications between earth and
>mars and farther out... directed that is, can a tachyon be directed into a beam
>like a laser (not in the same way, but a narrow beam?)..??
>
>Michael Adams
>NSMCA@ACAD@.ALASKA.EDU


    You seem to skip one minor problem --  There's no evidence that tachyons
exist at all.  You might as well ask if a UFO could carry your message to Mars.
They both have equal scientific validity at this point.

Raymond L. Swartz Jr. ([e-mail])
================================================================================
Excel in everything -- specialization is for insects!! (paraphrase of R.H.)
Fantasy: Wave soaring over Olympus Mons on Mars
================================================================================

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

Date: Sun, 28 Mar 93 22:39:46 EST
From: Tom <[e-mail]>
Subject: NASA spinoffs?

Hey folks, I recieved this from one Otis Port, who hasn't figured out
how to post to USENET yet, so here it is.  WHAT'S NEW is published
by the American Physical Society and/or one Dr. Park, a physicist at U Md.

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

WHAT'S NEW (in my opinion), Friday, 22 Jan 93 Washington, DC

1. FLASH! WILL HAPPER TO STAY ON AS DIRECTOR OF ENERGY RESEARCH at
DOE. At NASA, Dan Goldin hasn't heard one way or the other.

2. WATKINS ADMITS THAT JAPAN HAS NO YEN FOR THE SUPERCOLLIDER! ....
          (doesn't really apply here, huh?)-tm

3. REPORT ACKNOWLEDGES THAT NASA SPINOFF CLAIMS WERE EXAGGERATED!
"To much of the public," a NASA report admits, "NASA's technology
transfer reputation is based on some famous examples, including
Velcro, Tang and Teflon. Contrary to popular belief, NASA created none
of these." NASA merely publicized them. The study concluded that
"there have not been very many technology transfer successes compared
to the potential." This rare outbreak of candor was applauded by NASA
Administrator Daniel Goldin, who called for the study. In 1991, during
a Senate debate on an amendment to slash funding for Space Station
Freedom, Sen. Heflin (D-AL) produced a NASA list of 74 "space
spinoffs"--everything from synthetic teats for piglets to portable ice
rinks. WHAT'S NEW challenged anyone to document that a single item on
the list actually owed its existence to the space program (7/19/91).
There were no takers.

4. NOT EVERYONE AT NASA HAS BEEN INFECTED WITH THE NEW CANDOR.
During the inaugural bell ringing on Monday, some of the networks
carried a transmission from Endeavor showing the crew ringing a
miniature replica of the Liberty Bell. The picture was marked "LIVE,"
but in fact the astronauts were in their sleep cycle. A spokesman at
NASA explained that "it was live when it was taped."

5. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA IN HOT WATER OVER WEAPONS LABS--AGAIN
            (also doesn't apply here)

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

Any comments?  Seems the spinoff angle of NASA's value is a little weak.

-Tommy Mac
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom McWilliams | 517-355-2178 (work) \\     Inhale to the Chief!
[e-mail]  | 336-9591 (hm)\\  Zonker Harris in 1996!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 28 Mar 1993 22:54:43 -0500
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: SSF Redesign....
Newsgroups: sci.space

Well the shea team will be included with a total management overhaul
of SSF's management infra-structure.   That should help a lot.

The problems of SSF were always management over technical.
The technical hurdles were small compared to the cultural void.

pat

    PS DOes anyone have a real solid justification for
the Alpha gimbbels as opposed to  going solar inertial?
and placing any earth sensors into a swing boom?

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

Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1993 04:16:46 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: STS056 press Kit
Newsgroups: sci.space

Is there a press kit for STS-56?
If it is available at a site somewhere I cannot use FTP.
Is there an 'archive-server' that I could use to get it?

-Tony Ryan, "Astronomy & Space", new International magazine, available from:
           Astronomy Ireland, P.O.Box 2888, Dublin 1, Ireland.
   (WORLD'S LARGEST ASTRO. SOC. per capita - unless you know better?)
6 issues (one year sub.): UK 10.00 pounds, US$20 surface (add US$8 airmail).
ACCESS/VISA/MASTERCARD accepted (give number, expiration date, name&address).
Newslines (48p/36p per min): 0891-88-1950 (UK/N.Ireland) 1550-111-442 (Eire).

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

Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1993 04:14:33 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: TerraForming Venus/Cheap/Organisms..
Newsgroups: sci.space

Nice thing about microorganisism developed by genetic engineering is that once
there assigned task is done they should be easy for them to die off..

Once one organisms tasks is done, another can be introduced. Nice thing is if
the first does something different than expected, you can change the
plans/course/nexct organism to account for the different results..

==
Michael Adams, [e-mail] -- I'm not high, just jacked

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

Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1993 03:52:42 GMT
From: Jeff Bytof <[e-mail]>
Subject: Terraforming Venus: can it be done "cheaply"?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jeff Bytof) writes:

>If a promising organism was finally developed, what would be the impact
>on the future of our efforts in space?  Once the clouds of Venus were
>seeded, there would be a definite interest in observing the effects.

Create a Spectacle, and They Will Come.

-rabjab

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

Date: 28 Mar 1993 22:44:27 -0500
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: the call to space (was Re: Clueless Szaboisms )
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Phil G. Fraering) writes:
>[e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>>Please document the ROI for Nuclear Power,  once all costs have been
>>allocated.
>
>Simple. The Japanese trade deficit wrt Saudi Arabia is much much
>larger than their trade surplus wrt the United States. If the latter
>causes problems in the United States, which wrt "cultural values"
>has much more in common with Japan than Japan has with Saudi Arabia,
>can you imagine the political pressure they are under to find something
>better? _Especially_ since they're not going around pretending the
>mid-70's oil crisis never happened...
>

Of COurse, the important thing is what is The Japanese trade deficit with
Saudi Arabia, as compared to their total trade surplus.

Running 5% negative to one country, which has the most substitutable
commodity in the world with a highly efficient pricing market is significantly
different then running a 50% deficit witha country that has  amajor
lock on the resource, i.e. Titanium.

Also, I thought the japanese exported Beaucoup stuff tot he Arabs.
so that they were more balanced there.

>Oh, you mean economics? Well, once you get rid of all the regulations
>that don't improve safety while increacing the cost and generally
>making the industry untenable (which may be their intended effect)
>nuclear is probably a pretty good deal...

I would have thought the safety rules would be higher for a country
where 85% of their population lives within 50 MIles of one plain,
and that also happens to be expecting a richter 8 earthquake,
and is one the most seismically active regions in the world.

They seriously don't have the room for a mistake.

Also, given that japan has no indigenous sources of radioactives,
what is the economic difference for japan to import oil,  versus
radioactives,  of which only a few countries produce.  I believe only
the US,  France and The soviets produce nuclear fuels.  Maybe india
does on a small scale.

pat

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

Date: 28 Mar 1993 22:48:25 -0500
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: the call to space (was Re: Clueless Szaboisms )
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
|>Please document the ROI for Nuclear Power,  once all costs have been
|>allocated.
|
|Take the cost of WWII to the Japanese, inflate it to current dollars,
|and you have the de minimus value of a domestically controlled energy
|source to the Japanese. Add to that the fact that the Japanese don't


Certainly the japanese have a better implementation plan then we did.
Storing waste in ponds, until the angel Gabriel comes to clean it up
is pathetic,  but I thought they fought WW2  for more then just oil.

FDR's embargo of Oil, Tin and Iron  i thought was a combined problem
for them.

I still think it'd be cheaper for them to just buy Texaco.

pat

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

Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1993 22:29:03 EST
From: Callec Dradja <[e-mail]>
Subject: Timid Terraformers (was Re: How to cool Venus)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail] (Ken Arromdee) says:
>
>In article <[e-mail]> Callec Dradja
><[e-mail]> writes:
>>Bill, I am afraid that you did not quote all of what I said. The reason
>>that I do not like the idea of using nuclear weapons to blast the
>>atmosphere into space is because I feel that this would be a waste of
>>Oxygen. At one time, the trees of Earth seemed limitless but today
>>we realize that we should use these resources carefully. Oxygen, as I
>>am sure you know, I an important resource that mankind will need as we
>>move out to the other planets and stars. We should use it carefully.
>
>Oxygen is an element.  You can't destroy it.  There is no way for mankind to
>"use up" the oxygen it already has; it just gets recycled and recycled.
>
>It is also one of the most common elements in the universe.
>--
I am afraid that I was not very clear when I talked about being
careful with the oxygen on Venus. You are correct when you say
that oxygen is an element and cannot be used up but my point is,
if you blow away the Venusian atmosphere where does it go? If
I am correct, the atmosphere will be swept away by the solar wind
and dispersed. Of course, every atom of oxygen will still exist
but it will be VERY VERY hard to get to if you want to use it for
something.

On the other hand, I guess that I overlooked the oxygen that is bound
up in the rocks on Earth. I do not think that other sources are all
that practical, the Oort cloud is rather disperse and far away even
if there were a really big comet out there it would still require
vast amounts of energy to bring the oxygen or water or whatever into
an orbit closer to the sun. I guess that the rocks of the moons of the
gas giants would be a good source of oxygen. To sum this up, I
completely overlooked the fact that there is oxygen bound up in the
crusts of most planets and moons.

Gregson Vaux


********************************************************************
* If all we do is live and die,           *  Gregson Vaux          *
* then tell me about the birds that fly.  *  Penn State University *
* If all we did was die and live,         *  Semitics & English    *
* would springtime be there to forgive?   *  [e-mail]  *
********************************************************************

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

Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1993 03:53:00 GMT
From: Francois Yergeau <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why is Venus so bad?
Newsgroups: sci.space,rec.scuba

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Del Cotter) writes:
>[e-mail] (Aaron Ray Clements) writes:
>>There's also a small problem in dealing with an atmosphere that has about
>>a hundred times more pressure at the surface than at Earth.  (Do you think
>>you could live in a 100atm environment?  :) )
>
>That reminds me.  Don't forget that when you've got rid of all the CO2,
>there are still 2 atms of nitrogen.  Can anyone confirm that this is
>dangerously close to narcosis levels?

Nowhere near.  Canadian scuba divers use Molson's law to predict
nitrogen narcosis:  each 33 feet of water (1 atm) is the equivalent of
ingesting one Molson (a brand of beer).  At 200 feet (7 atms total
pressure), you've had 6 beers so it's beginning to show, but at 33 feet
(2 atms total) nothing's wrong.

And it _may_ be possible to live at 100 atms ambient, provided the
atmosphere is very, very inert and contains only very small partial
pressures of anything reactive, like O2, N2 or CO2.  I wouldn't be
overly suprised if deep divers had been exposed to such pressures using
Heliox.  That would be about 3000 feet of seawater, hmmm...  Perhaps I
shouldn't have written that.  Anyone knows for sure?


--
Francois Yergeau ([e-mail]) |  Errare humanum est,
Centre d'Optique, Photonique et Laser    |  perseverare diabolicum
Departement de Physique                  |
Universite Laval, Ste-Foy, QC, Canada    |

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

Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1993 21:48:18 EST
From: Callec Dradja <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why is Venus so hot?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Aaron Ray
Clements) says:
>
>
>There's also a small problem in dealing with an atmosphere that has about
>a hundred times more pressure at the surface than at Earth.  (Do you think
>you could live in a 100atm environment?  :) )
>
>aaron
>[e-mail]

This is something that I don't understand. Why couldn't we live in a
100atm environment? I understand that too much oxygen is not good for
the human body, but let's say that we had a 100atm N2/O2 atmosphere
with just enough oxygen for normal respiration. Wouldn't humans do
just fine under these conditions?

How about a 100atm CO2/O2 atmosphere, does CO2 somehow interfere with
the uptake of oxygen by the lungs, or is CO2 basically inert much like
the N2 part or our atmosphere. If we were to increase the amount of
N2 in Earth's atmosphere would we also need to increase the ammount
of O2 in order for people to breath normally? I must admit that I know
very little about human respiration.

Getting back to Venus, what would happen if we left the CO2 in place
and merely increased the ammount of O2. Oh yes, and also remove the
nasty stuff like SO2. Would people be able to live in a CO2/O2
environment that has a high concentration of CO2?

with great curiousity,
Gregson Vaux


********************************************************************
* If all we do is live and die,           *  Gregson Vaux          *
* then tell me about the birds that fly.  *  Penn State University *
* If all we did was die and live,         *  Semitics & English    *
* would springtime be there to forgive?   *  [e-mail]  *
********************************************************************

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

Date: 28 Mar 93 03:09:27 GMT
From: "Robert M. Kenney" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why is Venus so hot?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Aaron Ray Clements) writes:
|> [e-mail] writes:
|>
|> There's also a small problem in dealing with an atmosphere that has about
|> a hundred times more pressure at the surface than at Earth.  (Do you think
|> you could live in a 100atm environment?  :) )
|>
|> aaron
|> [e-mail]

    Somebody previously mentioned that inserting dust into the Venusian
   atmosphere to cool it wouldn't work because it would actually decrease
   the albedo, rather than increasing it, thus heating rather than cooling
   Venus.

    Mightn't it actually be USEFUL to increase atmospheric temperature
   for a short(?) time?  I don't know jack about the escape velocity of CO2,
   but could it be possible to heat up Venus to the point where the solar wind
   starts blowing off CO2 at some kind of useful rate?  Or would this just
   end up taking all the lighter elements we want to keep, and leave behind
   the heavier stuff we don't want?

    I would imagine the dust idea, assuming it works as predicted, would
   also be self limiting to a certain degree.  The high atmos. density would
   tend to keep the dust in suspension for a longer period of time than
   would be seen in Earths atmosphere.  Once the greater proportion of CO2
   and other stuff had been blown off, and the density decreased, the
   dust would settle out(?).

    Just a (probably useless) thought.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Kenney                 Phone:   [phone]
MIS Service Center
Kingsbury Hall, UNH
Durham, NH, 03824

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

Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1993 04:56:30 GMT
From: Michael Moroney <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why is Venus so hot?
Newsgroups: sci.space

Callec Dradja <[e-mail]> writes:

>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Aaron Ray
>Clements) says:
>>
>>
>>There's also a small problem in dealing with an atmosphere that has about
>>a hundred times more pressure at the surface than at Earth.  (Do you think
>>you could live in a 100atm environment?  :) )

>This is something that I don't understand. Why couldn't we live in a
>100atm environment? I understand that too much oxygen is not good for
>the human body, but let's say that we had a 100atm N2/O2 atmosphere
>with just enough oxygen for normal respiration. Wouldn't humans do
>just fine under these conditions?

No, a few atmospheres of nitrogen partial pressure causes nitrogen
narcosis, kind of a drunken state (Hmmm, maybe humans _would_ do just
fine!)  Divers to very deep depths breathe a helium/oxygen mix for
this reason (and to reduce the risk of the bends, which would be a
problem for astronauts _leaving_ Venus), as a nitrogen/oxygen mix
would have several atmospheres of nitogen at depth.

>How about a 100atm CO2/O2 atmosphere, does CO2 somehow interfere with
>the uptake of oxygen by the lungs, or is CO2 basically inert much like
>the N2 part or our atmosphere. If we were to increase the amount of
>N2 in Earth's atmosphere would we also need to increase the ammount
>of O2 in order for people to breath normally? I must admit that I know
>very little about human respiration.

No, the body uses the abount of CO2 in the blood, not the amount of O2
in the blood to determine the need to breathe.  100 atm CO2 would really
confuse the body if not kill you outright (CO2 dissolves in water/blood,
100 atm would make your blood a real cola drink!)

Because the breathing reflex is driven by CO2 and not O2 a person placed in
pure nitrogen, argon etc. could suffocate without ever knowing anything
was wrong.

-Mike

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


          id aa28453; 28 Mar 93 22:23:53 EST
To: [e-mail]
Path: crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!ogicse!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!network.ucsd.edu!lutherlab.ucsd.edu!rabjab
From: Jeff Bytof <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Terraforming Venus: can it be done "cheaply"?
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: 29 Mar 93 03:06:18 GMT
Article-I.D.: golem.rabjab.4.733374378
Organization: sio
Lines: 46
Nntp-Posting-Host: lutherlab.ucsd.edu
Sender: [e-mail]
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]

This discussion of terraforming Venus has really begun to fascinate me.
What is especially intriguing is the possibility that the kickoff
in the process could be the simple injection of microorganisms into
the atmosphere of Venus.  In terms of available technology, getting
a small package to Venus would be reasonably simple.  The major problem, of
course, would be the technical advances to engineer organisms that
could survive the conditions on Venus as they change, and have
them perform useful activities, such as fixing the atmosphere in solid
form.  We are definitely looking at a long term project, but work
to construct a viable set of organisms could be done incrementally over
an extended period of time.  Testing the actual organisms might be
possible at a facility like NASA/Ames, in a simulator designed to
mimic Venus.

If a promising organism was finally developed, what would be the impact
on the future of our efforts in space?  Once the clouds of Venus were
seeded, there would be a definite interest in observing the effects.
The initial seeding might be followed within a decade by a probe that
would access the success or failure of the effort.  Regardless of
the contents of the progress report, work would continue on Earth to
improve on the design of follow-on organisms.  If the attempt is
seen as successful, I think this would greatly increase interest in
space activities, particularly in regards to Venus, but might have a
positive effect on other areas as well.

The ultimate reward, of course, would be the potential access to a
solid planetary surface with 4 times the Earth's land surface area.
The byproducts of the cloud seeding might be solid deposits of materials
that could be used in the Venusian ecology with modified plants and
perhaps animals, and as fuels and resources for manufacturing and
life support systems.

What I like about this concept is that it entails solving a highly specific
problem, one that can be pondered and attacked by many researchers
in many disciplines.  It should not involve the direct
expenditure of billions of dollars in a crash program, but be carried
out in tandem with the other interests.  What I guess I am proposing
is the formation of a "Venus Underground", one that networks to divide
the problem into many pieces that can each be solved in an economical
manner.  Insights into other extremely important areas of molecular
biology might result from some of the solutions devised to solve this
problem, and it might be predicted that such an effort (to terraform
Venus) might pay for itself long before biomaterial even reaches the
roiling clouds of the second planet from the Sun.

-rabjab

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 383
------------------------------